Is the Earth flat?

Erfisflat

Images.

SilverishGoldNova

@Erfisflat The reason I didn't for example link any NASA photos in the debate is because it's generally best to avoid imagery that is unverifiable. With that in mind, how exactly do we know this image is not photoshopped? 

For all we know someone might have just taken a video close to the city and then Mr. Flat Earther lied about it claiming it proved their model. This has been done many times by flat Earthers, so if most flat Earth claims are based on false evidence, is there much reason to keep believing in it? Also are we aware of the viewer height and if there is refraction? At a good enough height, and with the right amount of refraction, the video can actually make perfect sense on the globe.

Inb4 HUR DUR GLOBETARDS GO BACK TO THE GLOBE FACTORY

Erfisflat

6 feet above sea level. and yes, I personally verified this is true, i was there and looked through both the telescope and the camera. It's verifiable, meaning you could go yourself if you wanted... If you need a couch to sleep on when you come down out of the ice, mine is open.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

So, boats have been claimed, repeatedly, to go over a curve. This is supposed to happen at just 3 miles on the globe, and every globetard agrees this is the case without the first test to prove it. When a test (with actual measurements) is performed to falsify the claim, and a boat's bottom is seen nearly 4 times that distance and everyone ignores it

Boats go over the horizon. This is an objective and observable fact.

We see it in your videos, images and almost every “disproof” of a flat earth.

This is literally THE EVIDENCE FOR A BULGE YOU HAVE ASKED FOR.

Even Goober won't touch it.

Now given that this is measurably and probably down to refraction, something accounted for my surveyors forever, and now that I’ve repeated the experiment that allows you to prove it; and no flat earther ever repeats....

Can you please explain why you are waving an observation that can’t happen on a flat earth, and must happen on a spherical earth as evidence that the earth isn’t a sphere?

even worse, despite this being pointed out, and despite it being explained on the first page: can you explain why you are accusing us of ignoring it?

like i said: you are literally going through and accusing us of all the problems, fallacies and errors you are making.

its so metronomic, you must know that you are wrong.

"but, but, "refraction" How did I know that was coming? 

What an excellent and well thought out reply and rebuttal to my post. I particularly liked the way you explained how I was wrong, the mistake I am making; and corrected my scientific understanding by referencing the laws of physics.

Please, tell me more about how we all “assert” our position.
 

as if it weren't obvious, as I have stated it several times now, so that everyone here can plainly see your blatant denial. The claim:"boats go over the horizon, and this proves the earth is a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference" is an assertion. For a boat to disappear over the curve of a ball that size, it MUST do so in just 3 short miles. This claim has been proved false, and your assertions and presumably unfalsifiable position crumbles under even the slightest scrutiny, and all you have is muh refraction...

Refraction is understood and has been for over 200 years as a source of measurement error. I’ve explained a very basic way to overcome it in experiment. 

Now, ignoring the continued gaslighting when you pretend me offering examples and experimentation is “assertion” and “presumably unfalsifible”, because of course you can’t go three sentences without lying, your reply here is hilarious.

stuff falls over the horizon on a spherical earth. That’s how spheres work. If you object because objects fall over the horizon at 3 miles, sometimes a little more, and
somwtimes further still: then if you’re being intellectually honest you have to reject a flat  earth too because stuff shouldn’t fall over the horizon at all. The sun also shouldn’t appear to set, buildings shouldn’t appear below the horizon, powerlines shouldn’t curve... etc etc.

now, while I’m using demonstrable laws of physics, known process; you have no explanation for why no observation is consistent with a flat earth, and all are consistent with the earth being a sphere.

how do you explain that? Given your intense need to gaslight and pretend black is white: I expect that as you’ve vocally objected to “muh refraction”, which I have provided you detail, and how to experimentally verify (though no flat earther ever does, for some odd reason!), and previously explained in detail, that you’ll resort to asserting refraction is responsible with no explanation of how, why, no measurable experiment of how to account for it, etc etc.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

So I’m back from skating. Watching the STars game Tied 1-1. Let’s not lose to god damn Ottawa 

So Erf is back to his ritual of denying.

Welcome back! We were just discussing a curvature test. You remember those? Evidence for flat water?

Yes. Water appears flat.

Except for all the experiments where it doesn’t.

if objects on the water fall below it; that water doesn’t appear flat. If the sun sets behind the water; that water doesn’t appear flat. If a city on the shore appears below the water line, the water doappears flat.

you can account for refraction by using sight lines at a higher than ground level at known heights and comparing the ground with the sight lines. This also helps make the curve visible, as
a bulge in the water is indistinguishable from the water. The light on the ground refracts more than the top: so you can demonstrate the curvature by seeing the curve in your sight lines.

A valid, fair experiment that accounts for refraction.

Also a valid, fair experiment that always shows a body of water is curved; and also a valid, fair experiment that (for some reason that I do not know, and can not fathom for the life of me), is an experiment that is never ever conducted or even referenced by any flat earthers ever making “curvature tests”.

Erfisflat

Goober is in denial. Hey Goober, none of that stuff should be visible. At all. You can continue with the "we know how refraction works" speeches all you want. This experiment is specifically chosen because there would be minimal refraction over 12 miles. But since we're on the subject now, how do we know? And again with the gaslight claims. I don't think pointing out evidence is gaslighting in any way. Are you questioning your sanity? SUN said he wasn't...

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

Goober is in denial. Hey Goober, none of that stuff should be visible. At all. You can continue with the "we know how refraction works" speeches all you want. This experiment is specifically chosen because there would be minimal refraction over 12 miles. But since we're on the subject now, how do we know? And again with the gaslight claims. I don't think pointing out evidence is gaslighting in any way. Are you questioning your sanity? SUN said he wasn't...

What about these then, 
The critical point here is disappearing OVER the horizon, not disappearing simply because they are small boats that are too small to see. Also, what about the majority of observations? This video claims it is not visible,  but 
.
Shows curve because you can the wake of the boat. 
Also, look at this, 
That is what you say when pictures show you are wrong. You still have not debunked this. Before I get into it, I want to say two things, on the top of the Burj Kalfa the sun sets 2 minutes later than the bottom. Also, if you do not have a model, you can not know if the flat Earth explains what happens. 

I guess I will start and since you guys did not debunk these yet I will repost them.
There are so many more ways you can prove to yourself the Earth is round. You can see more things the higher up you are. Long suspension bridges’ towers slope slightly away from one another to account for the curvature of the Earth. Every other planet is a spinning sphere. Satellites exist (as proven by the existence of your iPhone), and obey rules that only work if they’re orbiting around Earth. We’ve taken many, many pictures of Earth. Buy a weather balloon and strap a camera to it.

Satellites have to exist for the internet to work. The TV would not be here without relativity which involves gravity. The ISS exists because you can clearly see it if it goes above your location. You can easily watch the youtube live stream from the ISS. 

Hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons are all the same thing: Spinning masses of air sucking moisture from the ocean, dumping it back on us and destroying things in their path. A hurricane is just a giant wind drain—a low-pressure center with winds flushing into it. The wind always blows counter-clockwise inwards in Northern Hemisphere hurricanes—check out this picture of Hurricane Katrina and the United States. Notice the direction the wind is traveling with a compass, depending on where the Hurricane is.

However, in the Southern Hemisphere, the wind travels the opposite direction. Here’s a picture of Hurricane Catarina, a very rare Southern Hemisphere Atlantic Hurricane:

Notice that Catarina is very clearly spinning in the opposite direction. That’s because of the Coriolis effect—the wind changes direction as the planet spins. If the Earth wasn’t spinning, the wind should blow straight into the middle of the hurricane from all directions. But the Earth spins faster at the equator than at the poles, because our planet’s midsection has the furthest distance to travel with each rotation. Winds traveling northwards or southwards curve as they travel from slower spinning to faster spinning regions of the planet. The wind carves the opposite direction based on whether you are above or below the equator since the Earth’s rotation gets slower on alternate sides. 

You can recreate this by spinning a basketball on your finger, and moving a marker from the bottom up or the top down—notice what the line looks like above and below the middle of the ball.

Okay, let’s try to explain all that with a flat Earth. If Earth was a giant spinning plate with the North Pole at its center, all hurricanes should spin in the same direction and should have a much more spiral shape the further south (i.e., away from the center) you head. You could maybe slow down the spins further from the center of the spinning plate, but then you should see the continents ripping apart from the different speeds. It just doesn’t make any sense.

Look at this, a guy sent a camera to space and the Earth is round:  https://www.geek.com/geek-cetera/homemade-spacecraft-reaches-100000-ft-films-the-whole-way-1287792/.

The video proves why the Coriolis effect is real and is dictated by hemisphere.  The important parts are from 1:44-5:35. It has a controlled experiment. In the end, it explains why there is a difference between hemispheres. It works because it does. To understand this, think of a pool at the geographic poles. It is stationary relative to Earth, but every sidereal day, it is actually completing one full rotation. The part further away from the pole and closer to the equator move faster because it has to complete a larger movement in the same amount of time (that is why rockets are launched closer to the equator. When the plug is pulled (part of the experiment) everything is moving toward the drain in the middle. The far side is faster so it gets ahead while the slower part is too slow so it lags behind. 

Edit: The video was a picture by accident because I copied and pasted my arguments. Here is the video:

Gooberry

“Goober is in denial. Hey Goober, none of that stuff should be visible.”

Except for the reasons it can: based on snells law of refraction.

As is par for the course, the only scenario where “none of that stuff should be visible. At all”, is if the earth was flat. 

You are literally presenting observations that cannot happen on a flat earth and have to happen on a sphere as evidence the earth is flat. 

This argument is insanez

“You can continue with the "we know how refraction works" speeches all you want. This experiment is specifically chosen because there would be minimal refraction over 12 miles.”

Firstly, we do actually know how refraction works: we know how to calculate how much refraction will occur, and how the properties of air work to produce refraction.

Accusations that I am the one in denial: and yet you simply ignore every inconvenient fact is once again the same sort of black-is-white gaslighting that typifies your response.

You continue to assert that the measurement was chosen minimize refraction.

How? By politely asking water not to produce a layer of humidity above it? By looking sternly at the air at ground level and asking it not to be slightly more dense than the air above? Are you using your powers of telekinesis to change snells law so that if light passes through a layer of refractive index, say, a layer of humid air right above water, or denser air in the ground, it will not behave as per snells law and bend downwards.

No: the experiment deliberately avoided any calibration for refraction:
which involves placing sight line objects at higher than surface level that can be used to trace changes in level without the same levels of refraction.

I know you won’t perform these experiments, nor will any other die hard flat earther: as these are measurements that actually genuinely account for refraction and all show curvature exists.


“But since we're on the subject now, how do we know? And again with the gaslight claims. I don't think pointing out evidence is gaslighting in any way. Are you questioning your sanity? SUN said he wasn't...”

You’re not pointing out evidence.

What you’re doing, is committing fallacies: then accusing us of committing fallacies: you are denying all evidence, then claiming we are denying evidence. You are asserting that the measurement account should for refraction then claim we are asserting.  you are accusing me of using “refraction”, as an excuse (despite my explaining, how, why, demonstrating experiments that account for it, etc): while you literally rely on refraction to explain every observation that doesn’t work on a flat earth.

You've claimed that me explaining, and justifying an observation is “ignoring” the observation: yet you haven’t acknowledged once in this thread despite it being pointed out multiple times, that the observation you claim we are ignoring is fundamentally impossible on a flat earth.


Your posts here literally argue black is white and white is black: your claims are converse to objective reality. 

You are deliberately presenting your argument as if reality is turned on its head; you are arguing objectively false things are true, and true things are false.

You are either doing it, because you are pathologically delusional: or because you are deliberately attempt to bamboozle, obfuscate, and disrupt regular conversation: which fits the definition of gaslighting. Please, take your pick.

Erfisflat

Where are all these experiments you speak of? All I see are useless words, and I really am bored reading your words goober.

Erfisflat

"What about these then" 

Have you conceded the Mobile test then? I mean before I explain in detail about perspective, swells, things of that nature... Not to mention the necessity of accurate measurements what distance is this ship? If I'm in my backyard, which is fairly flat, with various obstacles, and I lay down, if certainly be able to see less than if I were standing up.

"The critical point here is disappearing OVER the horizon, not disappearing simply because they are small boats that are too small to see. Also, what about the majority of observations? This video claims it is not visible, "



I'm not sure where you got that screen from, mine is from :24. I really don't see a boat.

Erfisflat

"Except for the reasons it can: based on snells law of refraction."

Experiment?

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Where are all these experiments you speak of? All I see are useless words, and I really am bored reading your words goober.

I’m sorry, I forget that explanations, words, justification and arguments are all irrelevant to you.

If you paid attention, I have repeatedly explained what the experiment is:

- Use sight lines or objects at a higher level than the path you’re observing.

I have explained why it’s important:

- Refraction close to the surface of the water due to slight increases density of air and humidity effects measurements, so you have to have a higher up point of reference to use as a comparison.

I have referenced examples:

- Power lines over like Pontecharin
- long straight bridges that you can clearly see maintain their height above the water and are also curved.


I’m figuring that you’re capable of using google to find examples, rather than simply pretending that if I don’t go, google an image, copy a link, post it here that the images that are widely available don’t exist.

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

"What about these then" 

Have you conceded the Mobile test then? I mean before I explain in detail about perspective, swells, things of that nature... Not to mention the necessity of accurate measurements what distance is this ship? If I'm in my backyard, which is fairly flat, with various obstacles, and I lay down, if certainly be able to see less than if I were standing up.

"The critical point here is disappearing OVER the horizon, not disappearing simply because they are small boats that are too small to see. Also, what about the majority of observations? This video claims it is not visible, "



I'm not sure where you got that screen from, mine is from :24. I really don't see a boat.

So, straw man. You need my entire argument and taking only parts misrepresents my argument. You also seem to ignore this again!
That is what you say when pictures show you are wrong. You still have not debunked this. Before I get into it, I want to say two things, on the top of the Burj Kalfa the sun sets 2 minutes later than the bottom. Also, if you do not have a model, you can not know if the flat Earth explains what happens. 

I guess I will start and since you guys did not debunk these yet I will repost them.
There are so many more ways you can prove to yourself the Earth is round. You can see more things the higher up you are. Long suspension bridges’ towers slope slightly away from one another to account for the curvature of the Earth. Every other planet is a spinning sphere. Satellites exist (as proven by the existence of your iPhone), and obey rules that only work if they’re orbiting around Earth. We’ve taken many, many pictures of Earth. Buy a weather balloon and strap a camera to it.

Satellites have to exist for the internet to work. The TV would not be here without relativity which involves gravity. The ISS exists because you can clearly see it if it goes above your location. You can easily watch the youtube live stream from the ISS. 

Hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons are all the same thing: Spinning masses of air sucking moisture from the ocean, dumping it back on us and destroying things in their path. A hurricane is just a giant wind drain—a low-pressure center with winds flushing into it. The wind always blows counter-clockwise inwards in Northern Hemisphere hurricanes—check out this picture of Hurricane Katrina and the United States. Notice the direction the wind is traveling with a compass, depending on where the Hurricane is.

However, in the Southern Hemisphere, the wind travels the opposite direction. Here’s a picture of Hurricane Catarina, a very rare Southern Hemisphere Atlantic Hurricane:

Notice that Catarina is very clearly spinning in the opposite direction. That’s because of the Coriolis effect—the wind changes direction as the planet spins. If the Earth wasn’t spinning, the wind should blow straight into the middle of the hurricane from all directions. But the Earth spins faster at the equator than at the poles, because our planet’s midsection has the furthest distance to travel with each rotation. Winds traveling northwards or southwards curve as they travel from slower spinning to faster spinning regions of the planet. The wind carves the opposite direction based on whether you are above or below the equator since the Earth’s rotation gets slower on alternate sides. 

You can recreate this by spinning a basketball on your finger, and moving a marker from the bottom up or the top down—notice what the line looks like above and below the middle of the ball.

Okay, let’s try to explain all that with a flat Earth. If Earth was a giant spinning plate with the North Pole at its center, all hurricanes should spin in the same direction and should have a much more spiral shape the further south (i.e., away from the center) you head. You could maybe slow down the spins further from the center of the spinning plate, but then you should see the continents ripping apart from the different speeds. It just doesn’t make any sense.

Look at this, a guy sent a camera to space and the Earth is round:  https://www.geek.com/geek-cetera/homemade-spacecraft-reaches-100000-ft-films-the-whole-way-1287792/.

The video proves why the Coriolis effect is real and is dictated by hemisphere.  The important parts are from 1:44-5:35. It has a controlled experiment. In the end, it explains why there is a difference between hemispheres. It works because it does. To understand this, think of a pool at the geographic poles. It is stationary relative to Earth, but every sidereal day, it is actually completing one full rotation. The part further away from the pole and closer to the equator move faster because it has to complete a larger movement in the same amount of time (that is why rockets are launched closer to the equator. When the plug is pulled (part of the experiment) everything is moving toward the drain in the middle. The far side is faster so it gets ahead while the slower part is too slow so it lags behind. 

Edit: The video was a picture by accident because I copied and pasted my arguments. Here is the video:

Gooberry

Let’s go back for a moment.

Erf has made multiple claims and accusations.

He’s accused us of asserting things: which we have pointed out is untrue

He has accused us of committing straw men; with no justification. This was pointed out.

He’s claimed he “didn’t accuse people of cognitive dissonance” when he did; this was pointed out.

He’s ignored key pieces of evidence, despite them being pointed out repeatedly .

I can point out at least a dozen accusations or statements that Erf made, that are untrue: were pointed out and justified as untrue, that he has not defended.

If you look back in this thread: it appears that Erf cannot back up or defend any of his accusations.

This gives the appearance that he is using the rhetorical technique of “throwing s*** at the wall and seeing what sticks” rather than attempting to engage in honest discussion.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Let’s go back for a moment.

Erf has made multiple claims and accusations.

He’s accused us of asserting things: which we have pointed out is untrue

He has accused us of committing straw men; with no justification. This was pointed out.

He’s claimed he “didn’t accuse people of cognitive dissonance” when he did; this was pointed out.

He’s ignored key pieces of evidence, despite them being pointed out repeatedly .

I can point out at least a dozen accusations or statements that Erf made, that are untrue: were pointed out and justified as untrue, that he has not defended.

If you look back in this thread: it appears that Erf cannot back up or defend any of his accusations.

This gives the appearance that he is using the rhetorical technique of “throwing s*** at the wall and seeing what sticks” rather than attempting to engage in honest discussion.

You'll notice that goober here will never quote me or point out where I specifically did any of that nonsense, and will do literally anything to change the subject from the important topic.

Erfisflat

And the experiment continues to be ignored 

Erfisflat

"So, straw man. You need my entire argument and taking only parts misrepresents my argument. You also seem to ignore this again!"

I'm willing to address these strawmen about the sky when you can address the curvature test.

Erfisflat

Translation

Let's go back (let's run away) for a moment, and hope we can drop the test for a while while I make false accusations and call people who disagree with me a .

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

"So, straw man. You need my entire argument and taking only parts misrepresents my argument. You also seem to ignore this again!"

I'm willing to address these strawmen about the sky when you can address the curvature test.

I committed no straw man. I did not misrepresent an argument. @Gooberry already did a good job and what about the rest of the argument. All the proofs of curvature I listed. You just ignore and ignore. That is what you say when pictures show you are wrong. You still have not debunked this. Before I get into it, I want to say two things, on the top of the Burj Kalfa the sun sets 2 minutes later than the bottom. Also, if you do not have a model, you can not know if the flat Earth explains what happens. 

I guess I will start and since you guys did not debunk these yet I will repost them.
There are so many more ways you can prove to yourself the Earth is round. You can see more things the higher up you are. Long suspension bridges’ towers slope slightly away from one another to account for the curvature of the Earth. Every other planet is a spinning sphere. Satellites exist (as proven by the existence of your iPhone), and obey rules that only work if they’re orbiting around Earth. We’ve taken many, many pictures of Earth. Buy a weather balloon and strap a camera to it.

Satellites have to exist for the internet to work. The TV would not be here without relativity which involves gravity. The ISS exists because you can clearly see it if it goes above your location. You can easily watch the youtube live stream from the ISS. 

Hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons are all the same thing: Spinning masses of air sucking moisture from the ocean, dumping it back on us and destroying things in their path. A hurricane is just a giant wind drain—a low-pressure center with winds flushing into it. The wind always blows counter-clockwise inwards in Northern Hemisphere hurricanes—check out this picture of Hurricane Katrina and the United States. Notice the direction the wind is traveling with a compass, depending on where the Hurricane is.

However, in the Southern Hemisphere, the wind travels the opposite direction. Here’s a picture of Hurricane Catarina, a very rare Southern Hemisphere Atlantic Hurricane:

Notice that Catarina is very clearly spinning in the opposite direction. That’s because of the Coriolis effect—the wind changes direction as the planet spins. If the Earth wasn’t spinning, the wind should blow straight into the middle of the hurricane from all directions. But the Earth spins faster at the equator than at the poles, because our planet’s midsection has the furthest distance to travel with each rotation. Winds traveling northwards or southwards curve as they travel from slower spinning to faster spinning regions of the planet. The wind carves the opposite direction based on whether you are above or below the equator since the Earth’s rotation gets slower on alternate sides. 

You can recreate this by spinning a basketball on your finger, and moving a marker from the bottom up or the top down—notice what the line looks like above and below the middle of the ball.

Okay, let’s try to explain all that with a flat Earth. If Earth was a giant spinning plate with the North Pole at its center, all hurricanes should spin in the same direction and should have a much more spiral shape the further south (i.e., away from the center) you head. You could maybe slow down the spins further from the center of the spinning plate, but then you should see the continents ripping apart from the different speeds. It just doesn’t make any sense.

Look at this, a guy sent a camera to space and the Earth is round:  https://www.geek.com/geek-cetera/homemade-spacecraft-reaches-100000-ft-films-the-whole-way-1287792/.

The video proves why the Coriolis effect is real and is dictated by hemisphere.  The important parts are from 1:44-5:35. It has a controlled experiment. In the end, it explains why there is a difference between hemispheres. It works because it does. To understand this, think of a pool at the geographic poles. It is stationary relative to Earth, but every sidereal day, it is actually completing one full rotation. The part further away from the pole and closer to the equator move faster because it has to complete a larger movement in the same amount of time (that is why rockets are launched closer to the equator. When the plug is pulled (part of the experiment) everything is moving toward the drain in the middle. The far side is faster so it gets ahead while the slower part is too slow so it lags behind. 

Edit: The video was a picture by accident because I copied and pasted my arguments. Here is the video:

What about these then, 
The critical point here is disappearing OVER the horizon, not disappearing simply because they are small boats that are too small to see. Also, what about the majority of observations? This video claims it is not visible,  but 
.
Shows curve because you can the wake of the boat. 
Also, look at this, 

Erfisflat

I committed no straw man. I did not misrepresent an argument.

Yes, my argument is that large bodies of water will find and maintain a level surface, not that hurricanes or a drain spin in a certain direction.

 @Gooberryalready did a good job and what about the rest of the argument. All the proofs of curvature I listed.

You're joking, right. Where are the measurements and calculations? You can point to what you think appears to be curvature, but there is no attempt at falsification. 

Erfisflat

If you're going to add these pictures and statements to the copy and paste, and continue to try and draw attention away from the experiment that makes precise calculations and measurements, amd proves that there is no curve, at least fix the grammatical nonsense:

"Shows curve because you can the wake of the boat."

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

And the experiment continues to be ignored 

Except for the part in the last dozen or so replies where I have directly acknowledged the experiment, the problems with it, and how to account for these errors.

Why do you continue to lie so brazenly?

Seriously: this is such a bald faced lie, I dont understand why you wrote those
words.

This is why I am claiming you are gaslighting: because things you say like this are so blatantly untrue, and so comprehensively shown to be untrue just by reading the last 6 replies I’ve made, that you have to be doing it intentionally to bamboozle.

Seriously: why do you make such insane claims when the clear proof your accusations are absolutely and objectively wrong refutation is just a single post above?

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Let’s go back for a moment.

Erf has made multiple claims and accusations.

He’s accused us of asserting things: which we have pointed out is untrue

He has accused us of committing straw men; with no justification. This was pointed out.

He’s claimed he “didn’t accuse people of cognitive dissonance” when he did; this was pointed out.

He’s ignored key pieces of evidence, despite them being pointed out repeatedly .

I can point out at least a dozen accusations or statements that Erf made, that are untrue: were pointed out and justified as untrue, that he has not defended.

If you look back in this thread: it appears that Erf cannot back up or defend any of his accusations.

This gives the appearance that he is using the rhetorical technique of “throwing s*** at the wall and seeing what sticks” rather than attempting to engage in honest discussion.

You'll notice that goober here will never quote me or point out where I specifically did any of that nonsense, and will do literally anything to change the subject from the important topic.

“You’ll notice goober here will never quote me or point out where I specifically did any of that nonsense”.....


This is one (of many) posts in the past where I went through, quoted you in detail and pointed out where you specifically did all of that nonsense:

“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)

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

I committed no straw man. I did not misrepresent an argument.

Yes, my argument is that large bodies of water will find and maintain a level surface, not that hurricanes or a drain spin in a certain direction.

 @Gooberryalready did a good job and what about the rest of the argument. All the proofs of curvature I listed.

You're joking, right. Where are the measurements and calculations? You can point to what you think appears to be curvature, but there is no attempt at falsification. 

It is funny how you provide no calculations at all and say "no attempt at falsifying it" when he did. Water does not find and maintain its level. On small scales, water doesn't maintain its level due to surface tension. That's why falling water drops form spheres. Over long distances, water never is consistently level on earth. Example: Tides. Also, if you overlooked a perfectly level lake from a 50m elevation in perfect conditions, you could see ~50km far, with the horizon appearing 0.225° lower than eye level. There is no way for your eyes to perceive anything near a curve. This is perfectly consistent with water leveling perpendicular to the center of the earth. 
 

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

And the experiment continues to be ignored 

Except for the part in the last dozen or so replies where I have directly acknowledged the experiment, the problems with it, and how to account for these errors.

Why do you continue to lie so brazenly?

Seriously: this is such a bald faced lie, I dont understand why you wrote those
words.

This is why I am claiming you are gaslighting: because things you say like this are so blatantly untrue, and so comprehensively shown to be untrue just by reading the last 6 replies I’ve made, that you have to be doing it intentionally to bamboozle.

Seriously: why do you make such insane claims when the clear proof your accusations are absolutely and objectively wrong refutation is just a single post above?

I'm sure you're referring to the very many assertions you've made in the last 6 posts. You again call me a , and it's getting all too obvious that you can't address the experiment, nor can you defend any of your claims, and for some reason, you think calling me a is going to do anything. Evidence, not assertion. The controlled experiment was valid, very easily accounts for and almost eliminates any "refraction" (still waiting for you to defend THAT claim) and conclusively proves that the water over 12 miles in Mobile AL is flat.

Gooberry

There are also about 10 posts in this thread alone, where I directly quote you, and explain exactly what nonsense it is you are engaging in, with explanation and justification.

Why are you making such outrageous and easily refutable claims.

seriously: I just need to go back a few posts to demonstrate your outrageous accusations are inane nonnese. 

For example: 

“You’ll notice goober here will never quote me or point out where I specifically did any of that nonsense”.....”


look one post back:

“I’m sorry, I forget that explanations, words, justification and arguments are all irrelevant to you.

If you paid attention, I have repeatedly explained what the experiment is:

- Use sight lines or objects at a higher level than the path you’re observing.

I have explained why it’s important:

- Refraction close to the surface of the water due to slight increases density of air and humidity effects measurements, so you have to have a higher up point of reference to use as a comparison.

I have referenced examples:

- Power lines over like Pontecharin
- long straight bridges that you can clearly see maintain their height above the water and are also curved.


I’m figuring that you’re capable of using google to find examples, rather than simply pretending that if I don’t go, google an image, copy a link, post it here that the images that are widely available don’t exist.”

this is pointing out some of your nonsense. And almost all of my replies are doing just that.

Pogue

Before I get into it, I want to say two things, on the top of the Burj Kalfa the sun sets 2 minutes later than the bottom. Also, if you do not have a model, you can not know if the flat Earth explains what happens. 

I guess I will start and since you guys did not debunk these yet I will repost them.
There are so many more ways you can prove to yourself the Earth is round. You can see more things the higher up you are. Long suspension bridges’ towers slope slightly away from one another to account for the curvature of the Earth. Every other planet is a spinning sphere. Satellites exist (as proven by the existence of your iPhone), and obey rules that only work if they’re orbiting around Earth. We’ve taken many, many pictures of Earth. Buy a weather balloon and strap a camera to it.

Satellites have to exist for the internet to work. The TV would not be here without relativity which involves gravity. The ISS exists because you can clearly see it if it goes above your location. You can easily watch the youtube live stream from the ISS. 

Hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons are all the same thing: Spinning masses of air sucking moisture from the ocean, dumping it back on us and destroying things in their path. A hurricane is just a giant wind drain—a low-pressure center with winds flushing into it. The wind always blows counter-clockwise inwards in Northern Hemisphere hurricanes—check out this picture of Hurricane Katrina and the United States. Notice the direction the wind is traveling with a compass, depending on where the Hurricane is.

However, in the Southern Hemisphere, the wind travels the opposite direction. Here’s a picture of Hurricane Catarina, a very rare Southern Hemisphere Atlantic Hurricane:

Notice that Catarina is very clearly spinning in the opposite direction. That’s because of the Coriolis effect—the wind changes direction as the planet spins. If the Earth wasn’t spinning, the wind should blow straight into the middle of the hurricane from all directions. But the Earth spins faster at the equator than at the poles, because our planet’s midsection has the furthest distance to travel with each rotation. Winds traveling northwards or southwards curve as they travel from slower spinning to faster spinning regions of the planet. The wind carves the opposite direction based on whether you are above or below the equator since the Earth’s rotation gets slower on alternate sides. 

You can recreate this by spinning a basketball on your finger, and moving a marker from the bottom up or the top down—notice what the line looks like above and below the middle of the ball.

Okay, let’s try to explain all that with a flat Earth. If Earth was a giant spinning plate with the North Pole at its center, all hurricanes should spin in the same direction and should have a much more spiral shape the further south (i.e., away from the center) you head. You could maybe slow down the spins further from the center of the spinning plate, but then you should see the continents ripping apart from the different speeds. It just doesn’t make any sense.

Look at this, a guy sent a camera to space and the Earth is round:  https://www.geek.com/geek-cetera/homemade-spacecraft-reaches-100000-ft-films-the-whole-way-1287792/.

The video proves why the Coriolis effect is real and is dictated by hemisphere.  The important parts are from 1:44-5:35. It has a controlled experiment. In the end, it explains why there is a difference between hemispheres. It works because it does. To understand this, think of a pool at the geographic poles. It is stationary relative to Earth, but every sidereal day, it is actually completing one full rotation. The part further away from the pole and closer to the equator move faster because it has to complete a larger movement in the same amount of time (that is why rockets are launched closer to the equator. When the plug is pulled (part of the experiment) everything is moving toward the drain in the middle. The far side is faster so it gets ahead while the slower part is too slow so it lags behind. 

Edit: The video was a picture by accident because I copied and pasted my arguments. Here is the video:

What about these then, 
The critical point here is disappearing OVER the horizon, not disappearing simply because they are small boats that are too small to see. Also, what about the majority of observations? This video claims it is not visible,  but 
.
Shows curve because you can the wake of the boat. 
Also, look at this, 

Still no debunk

Erfisflat

I keep getting pointed to picture of apparent curvature, Yet not a single measurement is included, nor a single test is performed to falsify these images. 

I repeatedly am told to "account for refraction" with no justification. Only the pure assumption that refraction makes curvature disappear.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

And the experiment continues to be ignored 

Except for the part in the last dozen or so replies where I have directly acknowledged the experiment, the problems with it, and how to account for these errors.

Why do you continue to lie so brazenly?

Seriously: this is such a bald faced lie, I dont understand why you wrote those
words.

This is why I am claiming you are gaslighting: because things you say like this are so blatantly untrue, and so comprehensively shown to be untrue just by reading the last 6 replies I’ve made, that you have to be doing it intentionally to bamboozle.

Seriously: why do you make such insane claims when the clear proof your accusations are absolutely and objectively wrong refutation is just a single post above?

I'm sure you're referring to the very many assertions you've made in the last 6 posts. You again call me a , and it's getting all too obvious that you can't address the experiment, nor can you defend any of your claims, and for some reason, you think calling me a is going to do anything. Evidence, not assertion. The controlled experiment was valid, very easily accounts for and almost eliminates any "refraction" (still waiting for you to defend THAT claim) and conclusively proves that the water over 12 miles in Mobile AL is flat.

I’m sorry, I forget that explanations, words, justification and arguments are all irrelevant to you.

If you paid attention, I have repeatedly explained what the experiment is:

- Use sight lines or objects at a higher level than the path you’re observing.

I have explained why it’s important:

- Refraction close to the surface of the water due to slight increases density of air and humidity effects measurements, so you have to have a higher up point of reference to use as a comparison.

I have referenced examples:

- Power lines over like Pontecharin
- long straight bridges that you can clearly see maintain their height above the water and are also curved.


I’m figuring that you’re capable of using google to find examples, rather than simply pretending that if I don’t go, google an image, copy a link, post it here that the images that are widely available don’t exist.”

Your experiment has been repeatedly addressed. Please stop so brazenly lying: and address the rebuttal.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Let’s go back for a moment.

Erf has made multiple claims and accusations.

He’s accused us of asserting things: which we have pointed out is untrue

He has accused us of committing straw men; with no justification. This was pointed out.

He’s claimed he “didn’t accuse people of cognitive dissonance” when he did; this was pointed out.

He’s ignored key pieces of evidence, despite them being pointed out repeatedly .

I can point out at least a dozen accusations or statements that Erf made, that are untrue: were pointed out and justified as untrue, that he has not defended.

If you look back in this thread: it appears that Erf cannot back up or defend any of his accusations.

This gives the appearance that he is using the rhetorical technique of “throwing s*** at the wall and seeing what sticks” rather than attempting to engage in honest discussion.

You'll notice that goober here will never quote me or point out where I specifically did any of that nonsense, and will do literally anything to change the subject from the important topic.

“You’ll notice goober here will never quote me or point out where I specifically did any of that nonsense”.....


This is one (of many) posts in the past where I went through, quoted you in detail and pointed out where you specifically did all of that nonsense:

“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)

And the experiment continues to be ignored. You're going to start spamming again now? Anything to dodge the argument, huh. We can't handle a conversation getting out of hand, so it's time to pull out all the stops to derail the conversation, eh?

Troll : a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content. Internet trolls.

Gooberry

And no. Your experiment doesn’t account for refraction.

You haven’t explained how it does; the video doesn’t include any systematic accounting of refraction, of the earth is curved, and air refracted light downward close
to the waters edge, there is nothing about the experiment that appears to look as if it would show it.

Please stop asserting this nonsense, and provide an explanation of how this experiment counteracts refraction that we know occurs.

Erfisflat

yes, literally EVERY one.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Your posts are quite literally 90% bullsh!t, and I'm not going to spend half my day pointing out the countless red herrings in that. You've used literally every rhetorical fallacy there is in any of those posts.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://sites.duke.edu/writing20_12_f2011/files/2011/09/RhetoricalFallacies.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjuy76i89fZAhVJba0KHYz_ACMQwaICCD8wDA&usg=AOvVaw0z5mpBQ7kI1PciP-xfzAE1

Name one red herring I’ve committed, and explain why.


Asserting that arguments are red herrings is a lazy non argument that serves a no rebuttal to anythinfZ

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

And no. Your experiment doesn’t account for refraction.

You haven’t explained how it does; the video doesn’t include any systematic accounting of refraction, of the earth is curved, and air refracted light downward close
to the waters edge, there is nothing about the experiment that appears to look as if it would show it.

Please stop asserting this nonsense, and provide an explanation of how this experiment counteracts refraction that we know occurs.

Why would we be changing mediums over 12 miles? For refraction to be even the slightest bit responsible for over 60 feet of missing curvature, which hopefully, we are moving back towards in conversation, we would need to be changing mediums for one, this is in and of itself ignored, not to mention the proven fact that refraction has ever done this action in any controlled and practical experiment, only the exact opposite is duplicated in every experiment. Refraction has been openly pointed out to cause an object to appear lower, if not inverted. I can site the experiments again.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Your posts are quite literally 90% bullsh!t, and I'm not going to spend half my day pointing out the countless red herrings in that. You've used literally every rhetorical fallacy there is in any of those posts.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://sites.duke.edu/writing20_12_f2011/files/2011/09/RhetoricalFallacies.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjuy76i89fZAhVJba0KHYz_ACMQwaICCD8wDA&usg=AOvVaw0z5mpBQ7kI1PciP-xfzAE1

Name one red herring I’ve committed, and explain why.


Asserting that arguments are red herrings is a lazy non argument that serves a no rebuttal to anythinfZ

Oh yes, you'd like that wouldn't you, and the experiment goes ignored...

Gooberry

Pogue 

Erfisflat said:

yes, literally EVERY one.

And yet, not a single post you have made does something like this:

“ERF: They, curiously enough, give us only 2 drops, fairly close to each other, implying that each droplet produces it's own rainbow, like the prism, as you can see the red line reaches the eye from a different angle. The purple line dos not reach the eye from the top droplet for, reasons...”

Erf is taking a crudely drawn example image as intended to be 100% accurate in all ways, the image is obviously showing the refraction and splitting of light from all rain drops, and asserting that it’s wrong because it only shows two drops and the purple lines from one drop don’t reach they eye is an incredibly ridiculous misrepresentation.

Let me explain something to you about basic debate and discussion:

Saying stuff is true doesn’t make it true: saying everyone is committing fallacies, and that everything I say is a fallacy without any justification is just a made up assertion and doesn’t make it true.

At some point, you have to justify the outrageous lies, assertions and objectively false statements you make.

I will give you an example: you made some claims about my arguments: that I had never acknowledged an experiment, and never attempted to show you are wrong.

I didn’t simply angrily shout at you at how much you lie; but provided evidence: I referenced multiple examples in this post that contained examples of me doing things you claim I wasn’t doing.

That’s how you construct an argument.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Pogue 

Erfisflat said:

yes, literally EVERY one.

And yet, not a single post you have made does something like this:

“ERF: They, curiously enough, give us only 2 drops, fairly close to each other, implying that each droplet produces it's own rainbow, like the prism, as you can see the red line reaches the eye from a different angle. The purple line dos not reach the eye from the top droplet for, reasons...”

Erf is taking a crudely drawn example image as intended to be 100% accurate in all ways, the image is obviously showing the refraction and splitting of light from all rain drops, and asserting that it’s wrong because it only shows two drops and the purple lines from one drop don’t reach they eye is an incredibly ridiculous misrepresentation.

Let me explain something to you about basic debate and discussion:

Saying stuff is true doesn’t make it true: saying everyone is committing fallacies, and that everything I say is a fallacy without any justification is just a made up assertion and doesn’t make it true.

At some point, you have to justify the outrageous lies, assertions and objectively false statements you make.

I will give you an example: you made some claims about my arguments: that I had never acknowledged an experiment, and never attempted to show you are wrong.

I didn’t simply angrily shout at you at how much you lie; but provided evidence: I referenced multiple examples in this post that contained examples of me doing things you claim I wasn’t doing.

That’s how you construct an argument.

Ok, Mr looking at "other planets" in the sky is not a strawman... You're wasting my time.

Medic

gotta say this is some A* 10/10 mega banana good hella narsh trolling @erfisflat keep it up fam

Erfisflat

Medic said:

gotta say this is some A* 10/10 mega banana good hella narsh trolling @erfisflat keep it up fam

What was that, Starman?

Erfisflat

I don't understand incompetent jibberish.

Erfisflat

This is the definition of troll.Please explain in detail how I am "trolling". Unless you have a different definition?

Troll:  2 : a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content. Internet trolls.

Erfisflat

And the experiment goes ignored.

Erfisflat

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

And no. Your experiment doesn’t account for refraction.

You haven’t explained how it does; the video doesn’t include any systematic accounting of refraction, of the earth is curved, and air refracted light downward close
to the waters edge, there is nothing about the experiment that appears to look as if it would show it.

Please stop asserting this nonsense, and provide an explanation of how this experiment counteracts refraction that we know occurs.

Why would we be changing mediums over 12 miles? For refraction to be even the slightest bit responsible for over 60 feet of missing curvature, which hopefully we are moving back towards in conversation, we would need to be changing mediums for one. This is in and of itself ignored, not to mention the proven fact that refraction has never done this action in any controlled and practical experiment, only the exact opposite is duplicated in every one. Refraction has been openly pointed out to cause an object to appear lower, if not inverted. I can site the experiments again if you've lost them.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Pogue 

Erfisflat said:

yes, literally EVERY one.

And yet, not a single post you have made does something like this:

“ERF: They, curiously enough, give us only 2 drops, fairly close to each other, implying that each droplet produces it's own rainbow, like the prism, as you can see the red line reaches the eye from a different angle. The purple line dos not reach the eye from the top droplet for, reasons...”

Erf is taking a crudely drawn example image as intended to be 100% accurate in all ways, the image is obviously showing the refraction and splitting of light from all rain drops, and asserting that it’s wrong because it only shows two drops and the purple lines from one drop don’t reach they eye is an incredibly ridiculous misrepresentation.

Let me explain something to you about basic debate and discussion:

Saying stuff is true doesn’t make it true: saying everyone is committing fallacies, and that everything I say is a fallacy without any justification is just a made up assertion and doesn’t make it true.

At some point, you have to justify the outrageous lies, assertions and objectively false statements you make.

I will give you an example: you made some claims about my arguments: that I had never acknowledged an experiment, and never attempted to show you are wrong.

I didn’t simply angrily shout at you at how much you lie; but provided evidence: I referenced multiple examples in this post that contained examples of me doing things you claim I wasn’t doing.

That’s how you construct an argument.

Ok, Mr looking at "other planets" in the sky is not a strawman... You're wasting my time.

A straw man requires me to misrepresent your position.

How is looking at “other planets” misrepresenting your position?

of course you won’t reply; the same way you haven’t responded to any other example where it’s poijted out you don’t know what a straw man is.

Erfisflat

Erfisflat said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

And no. Your experiment doesn’t account for refraction.

You haven’t explained how it does; the video doesn’t include any systematic accounting of refraction, of the earth is curved, and air refracted light downward close
to the waters edge, there is nothing about the experiment that appears to look as if it would show it.

Please stop asserting this nonsense, and provide an explanation of how this experiment counteracts refraction that we know occurs.

Why would we be changing mediums over 12 miles? For refraction to be even the slightest bit responsible for over 60 feet of missing curvature, which hopefully we are moving back towards in conversation, we would need to be changing mediums for one. This is in and of itself ignored, not to mention the proven fact that refraction has never done this action in any controlled and practical experiment, only the exact opposite is duplicated in every one. Refraction has been openly pointed out to cause an object to appear lower, if not inverted. I can site the experiments again if you've lost them.

Erfisflat

Once again, you're pointing at the sky, and ignoring the experiment that measures the earth.

Erfisflat

As you will notice, goober will continue his mindless, rhetorical fallaciousness and will either cherry pick my last argument, or continue to ignore it. or start spamming again...

Erfisflat

Take your time, give us some sort of evidence in your response, goober. I've only got work if it stops raining soon...

Erfisflat said:

Erfisflat said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

And no. Your experiment doesn’t account for refraction.

You haven’t explained how it does; the video doesn’t include any systematic accounting of refraction, of the earth is curved, and air refracted light downward close
to the waters edge, there is nothing about the experiment that appears to look as if it would show it.

Please stop asserting this nonsense, and provide an explanation of how this experiment counteracts refraction that we know occurs.

Why would we be changing mediums over 12 miles? For refraction to be even the slightest bit responsible for over 60 feet of missing curvature, which hopefully we are moving back towards in conversation, we would need to be changing mediums for one. This is in and of itself ignored, not to mention the proven fact that refraction has never done this action in any controlled and practical experiment, only the exact opposite is duplicated in every one. Refraction has been openly pointed out to cause an object to appear lower, if not inverted. I can site the experiments again if you've lost them.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

And no. Your experiment doesn’t account for refraction.

You haven’t explained how it does; the video doesn’t include any systematic accounting of refraction, of the earth is curved, and air refracted light downward close
to the waters edge, there is nothing about the experiment that appears to look as if it would show it.

Please stop asserting this nonsense, and provide an explanation of how this experiment counteracts refraction that we know occurs.

Why would we be changing mediums over 12 miles? For refraction to be even the slightest bit responsible for over 60 feet of missing curvature, which hopefully, we are moving back towards in conversation, we would need to be changing mediums for one, this is in and of itself ignored, not to mention the proven fact that refraction has ever done this action in any controlled and practical experiment, only the exact opposite is duplicated in every experiment. Refraction has been openly pointed out to cause an object to appear lower, if not inverted. I can site the experiments again.

1.) it’s not changing mediums. air at the surface of water is fractional denser and more humid than air higher up. This means light that from a higher location and gets closer to the water, enters air with a higher refractive index, which according to snells law refracts it downward. But feel free to ignore this

2.) “over 60 feet of mission curvature” watch the video again: there is curvature here, objects are indeed obscured by the water (something that is impossible on a flat earth and always ignored), so saying there is “60 feet of missing curvature” is a lie.

3.) Looming makes the top of objects appear higher than they are, with no inversion. The laws of physics here, is pretty clear. If you pass into an area of higher refactive index from that of a lower refractive index, objects appear higher because light refracts downwards:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PAK_1C-Zqo0

What you’re doing is called called cherry picking: you find one experiment that shows objects appearing lower: then you assert that because one set of experiments show this, ALL objects no matter the configuration appear lower. You make no attempt to explain why, how, to reference known laws of physics; and you dismiss any examples where the opposite happens.

4.) I have explained how to account for refraction  with experiment: do you not agree this experiment would account for any refraction? If not, why not? Don’t you think that if such an experiment showed a relatively flat water, but curved sight lines: it would show the water is indeed curved? If not, why on earth do you think objects curving over the horizon isn’t indicative of a curved surface?

5.) the irony of your responses here is not lost. In all your cited observations: the water appears curved: your objection is not that the water does not appear curved, it’s that it doesn’t appear as curved as it could.

6.) if the earth is a sphere, and refraction works exactly as snells law describes: please explain which of the observations would be inconsistent with a spherical earth.

Erfisflat

"1.) it’s not changing mediums. air at the surface of water is fractional denser and more humid than air higher up. This means light that from a higher location and gets closer to the water, enters air with a higher refractive index, which according to snells law refracts it downward. But feel free to ignore this"

And feel free to ignore that this has never been demonstrated.

Snell' s law is defined as:

Snell's law (also known as Snell–Descartes law and the law of refraction) is a formula used to describe the relationship between the angles of incidence and refraction, when referring to light or other waves passing through a boundary between two different isotropic media, such as water, glass, or air.

What "boundary" are we passing through, and where does it specifically say it is refracted downward? 


2.) “over 60 feet of mission curvature” watch the video again: there is curvature here, objects are indeed obscured by the water (something that is impossible on a flat earth and always ignored), so saying there is “60 feet of missing curvature” is a lie.

We all clearly see the boats hull in the water. How much curvature do you see, and how can you tell? Instead of just asserting things, demonstrate it, this would lend a bit more credibility to your counter argument.

3.) Looming makes the top of objects appear higher than they are, with no inversion. The laws of physics here, is pretty clear. If you pass into an area of higher refactive index from that of a lower refractive index, objects appear higher because light refracts downwards:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PAK_1C-Zqo0

Now you're suggesting we're looking through sugar water with a laser. I don't think I need to go into great detail about how much of an ad hoc strawman this is.


What you’re doing is called called cherry picking: you find one experiment that shows objects appearing lower: then you assert that because one set of experiments show this, ALL objects no matter the configuration appear lower. You make no attempt to explain why, how, to reference known laws of physics; and you dismiss any examples where the opposite happens.


I have explained multiple times that using (plain water) and viewing an object through it is a relatively more valid representation of our atmosphere, and the results are all conclusive. Shining a laser through sugar water is completely irrelevant.

4.) I have explained how to account for refraction  with experiment: do you not agree this experiment would account for any refraction? If not, why not? Don’t you think that if such an experiment showed a relatively flat water, but curved sight lines: it would show the water is indeed curved? If not, why on earth do you think objects curving over the horizon isn’t indicative of a curved surface?

Which experiment was that? The irrelevant one above?

5.) the irony of your responses here is not lost. In all your cited observations: the water appears curved: your objection is not that the water does not appear curved, it’s that it doesn’t appear as curved as it could.

My objection is that in a controlled experiment, that curve cannot be measured. You've yet to address this. 

6.) if the earth is a sphere, and refraction works exactly as snells law describes: please explain which of the observations would be inconsistent with a spherical earth.