Is the Earth flat?

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

Pogue

You keep saying it will have no effect but no explanation for it. You keep cherry picking one piece of evidence when There are way more images that I have provided and videos. 

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

You keep saying it will have no effect but no explanation for it. You keep cherry picking one piece of evidence when There are way more images that I have provided and videos. 

With absolutely no tests or measurements. When an actual test is performed that refutes mine, let me know.

Erfisflat

And the experiment goes ignored.

Erfisflat

This is simply disgusting, shrink the picture down to where we can see nothing, provide no time stamp, ignore all other screenshots showing an empty horizon....

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

"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.

1.) As stated and as you blatantly ignored, the “boundary” is the demonstrable change in refractive index of air. I literally explained it right there.

I’m glad you pointed out the mathematics of snells law, as this literally refutes your entire point, by showing it doesn’t work as you claim it does:

2.) despite your wild assertions, your missing out some really basic observations: superior, inferior mirage, looming, stopping, Fata Morgana and terrestrial refraction all occur without a strict “change in medium”, so does your alleged refraction that makes the sun appear to set.

I find it funny that your attempted refutation of my position not only refutes your own position but implies observations we make of objective reality are no possible.


3.) despite your denials, I provided a neat little demonstration of exactly what you claim can’t possibly happen and isn’t supported by any evidence: refraction bending light downwards in a medium.

4.) pay attention to the cranes and buildings. Throughout the video (and the image you’ve provided), you clearly see the bottom of objects on land obscured by water in front of it. Not knowing for sure where the video was taken, nor what the conditions were; I can only say that the amount of visible curvature throughout the image is non 0.

when your argument is often that we see curvature, but not as much as we expect: your mostly refuting your own position that there is no curvature by default.

5.) The position of the laws of physics, is that light, when passing into a region of
higher refractive index, from a positive angle, bends downward.

I have presented a video that demonstrates this singular fact: and refutes your self refuting claim that you need a “change in medium”.

This video demonstrate the very principles I’m claiming perfectly; it shows the physics involved, I’ve explained how it is directly analogous to the observations I am claiming cause refraction 

But sure: stamp your feet and assert it is irrelevant with no justification or argument.

6.) viewing objects through a glass water is not analogous, I have stated the reasons why before, but will reiterate:

- it is a configuration with low high low refractive index, the atmosphere can produce different configurations. If the object being viewed is in the lower region, and an object in the higher region is being viewed: refraction is reversed. Of course this is ignored.

- it’s easily refuted by actual observations, including looming and super mirages: both were the objects appear higher with and without inversion: something you claim is not possible and has not yet been explained.

- curved glass, thick bases and other effects can often be produced by the glass, rather than the water.

This is not getting into the basic errors.


7.) “in a controlled experiment curve cannot be measured”

- I’ve pointed out that these experiments are not controlled, by definition: because they do not have two sight lines of comparable heights which you can use to mitigate refraction at lower levels

- I’ve pointed out that a controlled experiment with sight lines: such as fixed height power lines above water: ALWAYS show curvature

- I know you have no refutation for this: but please do not lie and say I have not answered this: a plurality of my replies here are addressing this very point.

8.) I don't think I need to go into great detail about how much of an ad hoc strawman this is.

yes: you do need to go into great detail: because saying it is “an ad hot straw man” without giving any reasons, is simply an idiotic assertion.

9.) you continue to appear to not understand what a straw man is.

how is providing an experiment a straw man?

In summary:

- you refuted your own refraction argument trying to refute mine.
- I produced a key experiment providing a detailed analogous example of what I have claimed is happening, and provided reasons why it is directly analogus: you dismissed it out of hand without any argument.
- you dismissed key refutations about how your measurements are fundamentally flawed because they do not correct for refractionzz
- you continue to ignore experimental methods that would account for refraction and when used: show curvature.

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

And the experiment goes ignored.

@Gooberry debunked it already. 

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

You keep saying it will have no effect but no explanation for it. You keep cherry picking one piece of evidence when There are way more images that I have provided and videos. 

With absolutely no tests or measurements. When an actual test is performed that refutes mine, let me know.

Here do this test at home but make sure you have a clear view. 

Experiment 3. Watch the sunset lying down
Things you’ll need: The ground and the horizon.

A sunset is seen on Naples beach in Naples, Florida on May 6, 2015. Photo by Ariel Min/PBS NewsHour

Perhaps B.o.B and his entourage don’t have the air miles for a trip between San Francisco and Seattle. No problem. All they need is a beach on the Pacific Coast (or an unobstructed view of the horizon).

As detailed by the folks at MinutePhysics, the horizon is one of the easiest ways to validate the Earth’s curvature. As the sun dips behind the horizon, it slips from your view in a bottom-up direction. If you watch the sunset while lying on your back, and then hop up as the last rays disappear, then you should be able to see the sunset again.

The same pattern applies to ships as they sail away — their hulls disappear from the bottom up. As MinutePhysics points out, if the Earth didn’t curve and the horizon didn’t exist, when you looked at Chicago from across Lake Michigan, you’d be able to see the Rocky Mountains.

This proves curvature:

1. Watch a lunar eclipse

Every once in a while, the Earth passes between the Moon and the Sun, creating a phenomenon known as the Lunar Eclipse.

The Earth casts a shadow on the Moon as it passes through so if you look closely enough (a decent telescope should do it), you might be able to see a shaded arc. It’s always an arc and never a square or a rectangle.

2. Send a camera into space

We may not be able to head into space but our cameras certainly can. Companies like Sent Into Space have special balloon kits that allow you to send whatever you like into space and back.

A basic kit will set you back £194 but those amazing photos of the Earth’s curvature will be so worth it. Plus, it makes great evidence to show the Flat Earther next door how our planet is shaped.

3. Watch a sunset lying on the ground

This is probably one of the simplest methods of dealing with how to determine the Earth’s curvature.

If you watch the sunset lying on your back, you’ll find it disappears in the horizon. But if you stand up, you should still be able to see the sun as it sets on the distant horizon.

And if you happen to be at the ocean looking at ships, they will appear to emerge from the ocean – in a bottom-up direction. This is possible only because the ocean follows the curvature of the Earth and gradually drops from our line of sight.

If the earth was flat the water would stay at the same level.

4. Look at the stars

This might require a bit of traveling but if you fancy journeying to a different part of the world, you’ll notice the constellations there are completely different.

A phenomenon first observed by Aristotle many, many years ago when he was returning from Egypt, the premise is the further you go away from the equator the further known constellations go towards the horizon.

This phenomenon can only be explained by a round surface.

Aristotle also concluded the Earth wasn’t very large because a small change in the distance makes a huge difference in terms of what we see in the night sky.

5. Observe the time zones

Our planet is divided into 24 time zones, taking into account the position of the Sun. The Sun isn’t visible to everyone at the same time.

But that wouldn’t be the case if the Earth was flat. If the Sun shone directionally on a flat Earth, we would be able to see at all times.

So basically, the only way these timezones can happen is if the world is spherical.

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. 

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

This is simply disgusting, shrink the picture down to where we can see nothing, provide no time stamp, ignore all other screenshots showing an empty horizon....

The argument is that you can zoom in and see it but when you zoom out you can not and this was in the video. Thos just shows that is false. Also, you are not trying to debunk the other parts. 

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

This is simply disgusting, shrink the picture down to where we can see nothing, provide no time stamp, ignore all other screenshots showing an empty horizon....

The argument is that you can zoom in and see it but when you zoom out you can not and this was in the video. Thos just shows that is false. Also, you are not trying to debunk the other parts. 

What is your refutation of the test? This test shows a boat which should have disappeared over the curvature. Since your argument claims that boats disappear over a horizon at 3 miles, we should continue this argument before we can proceed.

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

This is simply disgusting, shrink the picture down to where we can see nothing, provide no time stamp, ignore all other screenshots showing an empty horizon....

The argument is that you can zoom in and see it but when you zoom out you can not and this was in the video. Thos just shows that is false. Also, you are not trying to debunk the other parts. 

What is your refutation of the test? This test shows a boat which should have disappeared over the curvature. Since your argument claims that boats disappear over a horizon at 3 miles, we should continue this argument before we can proceed.

I never claimed that. The video I posted shows no distance and the boat is still visible.  
So, you gonna debunk this or not.
Here do this test at home but make sure you have a clear view. 

Experiment 3. Watch the sunset lying down
Things you’ll need: The ground and the horizon.

A sunset is seen on Naples beach in Naples, Florida on May 6, 2015. Photo by Ariel Min/PBS NewsHour

Perhaps B.o.B and his entourage don’t have the air miles for a trip between San Francisco and Seattle. No problem. All they need is a beach on the Pacific Coast (or an unobstructed view of the horizon).

As detailed by the folks at MinutePhysics, the horizon is one of the easiest ways to validate the Earth’s curvature. As the sun dips behind the horizon, it slips from your view in a bottom-up direction. If you watch the sunset while lying on your back, and then hop up as the last rays disappear, then you should be able to see the sunset again.

The same pattern applies to ships as they sail away — their hulls disappear from the bottom up. As MinutePhysics points out, if the Earth didn’t curve and the horizon didn’t exist, when you looked at Chicago from across Lake Michigan, you’d be able to see the Rocky Mountains.

This proves curvature:

1. Watch a lunar eclipse

Every once in a while, the Earth passes between the Moon and the Sun, creating a phenomenon known as the Lunar Eclipse.

The Earth casts a shadow on the Moon as it passes through so if you look closely enough (a decent telescope should do it), you might be able to see a shaded arc. It’s always an arc and never a square or a rectangle.

2. Send a camera into space

We may not be able to head into space but our cameras certainly can. Companies like Sent Into Space have special balloon kits that allow you to send whatever you like into space and back.

A basic kit will set you back £194 but those amazing photos of the Earth’s curvature will be so worth it. Plus, it makes great evidence to show the Flat Earther next door how our planet is shaped.

3. Watch a sunset lying on the ground

This is probably one of the simplest methods of dealing with how to determine the Earth’s curvature.

If you watch the sunset lying on your back, you’ll find it disappears in the horizon. But if you stand up, you should still be able to see the sun as it sets on the distant horizon.

And if you happen to be at the ocean looking at ships, they will appear to emerge from the ocean – in a bottom-up direction. This is possible only because the ocean follows the curvature of the Earth and gradually drops from our line of sight.

If the earth was flat the water would stay at the same level.

4. Look at the stars

This might require a bit of traveling but if you fancy journeying to a different part of the world, you’ll notice the constellations there are completely different.

A phenomenon first observed by Aristotle many, many years ago when he was returning from Egypt, the premise is the further you go away from the equator the further known constellations go towards the horizon.

This phenomenon can only be explained by a round surface.

Aristotle also concluded the Earth wasn’t very large because a small change in the distance makes a huge difference in terms of what we see in the night sky.

5. Observe the time zones

Our planet is divided into 24 time zones, taking into account the position of the Sun. The Sun isn’t visible to everyone at the same time.

But that wouldn’t be the case if the Earth was flat. If the Sun shone directionally on a flat Earth, we would be able to see at all times.

So basically, the only way these timezones can happen is if the world is spherical.

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, 

Gooberry

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

This is simply disgusting, shrink the picture down to where we can see nothing, provide no time stamp, ignore all other screenshots showing an empty horizon....

The argument is that you can zoom in and see it but when you zoom out you can not and this was in the video. Thos just shows that is false. Also, you are not trying to debunk the other parts. 

What is your refutation of the test? This test shows a boat which should have disappeared over the curvature. Since your argument claims that boats disappear over a horizon at 3 miles, we should continue this argument before we can proceed.

I never claimed that. The video I posted shows no distance and the boat is still visible.  
So, you gonna debunk this or not.
Here do this test at home but make sure you have a clear view. 

Experiment 3. Watch the sunset lying down
Things you’ll need: The ground and the horizon.

A sunset is seen on Naples beach in Naples, Florida on May 6, 2015. Photo by Ariel Min/PBS NewsHour

Perhaps B.o.B and his entourage don’t have the air miles for a trip between San Francisco and Seattle. No problem. All they need is a beach on the Pacific Coast (or an unobstructed view of the horizon).

As detailed by the folks at MinutePhysics, the horizon is one of the easiest ways to validate the Earth’s curvature. As the sun dips behind the horizon, it slips from your view in a bottom-up direction. If you watch the sunset while lying on your back, and then hop up as the last rays disappear, then you should be able to see the sunset again.

The same pattern applies to ships as they sail away — their hulls disappear from the bottom up. As MinutePhysics points out, if the Earth didn’t curve and the horizon didn’t exist, when you looked at Chicago from across Lake Michigan, you’d be able to see the Rocky Mountains.

This proves curvature:

1. Watch a lunar eclipse

Every once in a while, the Earth passes between the Moon and the Sun, creating a phenomenon known as the Lunar Eclipse.

The Earth casts a shadow on the Moon as it passes through so if you look closely enough (a decent telescope should do it), you might be able to see a shaded arc. It’s always an arc and never a square or a rectangle.

2. Send a camera into space

We may not be able to head into space but our cameras certainly can. Companies like Sent Into Space have special balloon kits that allow you to send whatever you like into space and back.

A basic kit will set you back £194 but those amazing photos of the Earth’s curvature will be so worth it. Plus, it makes great evidence to show the Flat Earther next door how our planet is shaped.

3. Watch a sunset lying on the ground

This is probably one of the simplest methods of dealing with how to determine the Earth’s curvature.

If you watch the sunset lying on your back, you’ll find it disappears in the horizon. But if you stand up, you should still be able to see the sun as it sets on the distant horizon.

And if you happen to be at the ocean looking at ships, they will appear to emerge from the ocean – in a bottom-up direction. This is possible only because the ocean follows the curvature of the Earth and gradually drops from our line of sight.

If the earth was flat the water would stay at the same level.

4. Look at the stars

This might require a bit of traveling but if you fancy journeying to a different part of the world, you’ll notice the constellations there are completely different.

A phenomenon first observed by Aristotle many, many years ago when he was returning from Egypt, the premise is the further you go away from the equator the further known constellations go towards the horizon.

This phenomenon can only be explained by a round surface.

Aristotle also concluded the Earth wasn’t very large because a small change in the distance makes a huge difference in terms of what we see in the night sky.

5. Observe the time zones

Our planet is divided into 24 time zones, taking into account the position of the Sun. The Sun isn’t visible to everyone at the same time.

But that wouldn’t be the case if the Earth was flat. If the Sun shone directionally on a flat Earth, we would be able to see at all times.

So basically, the only way these timezones can happen is if the world is spherical.

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, 

You should forget it. He’s not going to answer. It’s been like 40 posts now.

If you pay attention he’s really not defending anything he’s saying; this included.

someone234

@Pogue
But the test says flat.

Flatflat flatflat latest

Waaaaaa waaaaaaaa
  

Ampersand

I dunno, with SilverishGoldNova it seemed like he started avoiding answering points he knew he had no answer to shortly before his change of heart so maybe ErfIsFlat is entering the same phase. The cognitive dissonance of viewing yourself as being a genius who sees hidden truths about the world and an inability to answer simple questions about how the world can be viewed must be quite a problematic issue to reconcile internally.

Gooberry

Ampersand said:

I dunno, with SilverishGoldNova it seemed like he started avoiding answering points he knew he had no answer to shortly before his change of heart so maybe ErfIsFlat is entering the same phase. The cognitive dissonance of viewing yourself as being a genius who sees hidden truths about the world and an inability to answer simple questions about how the world can be viewed must be quite a problematic issue to reconcile internally.

Maybe, maybe not. Erf has shown the ability to compartmentalise much better than SGN.

Take his last reply to me: the primary reason he gave for discounting measurable refraction the way science says it works, also applies to his claims, and is refuted by looking at a mirage.

Theres also his other claim: that a botched video proves his point of view: another video that shows the complete opposite, and demonstrably shows what he claims isn’t true is “just a video” and for some reason “a straw man”, that he doesn’t have to explain.

When you refute your own position when trying to refute someone else’s and don’t realize, or the reasons for rejecting a peice of evidence is the same as the reasons you use for accepting your own, it takes a special type of compartmentalisatiom where your beliefs, and the ones you’re trying to disprove don’t exist in the same
reality.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

I dunno, with SilverishGoldNova it seemed like he started avoiding answering points he knew he had no answer to shortly before his change of heart so maybe ErfIsFlat is entering the same phase. The cognitive dissonance of viewing yourself as being a genius who sees hidden truths about the world and an inability to answer simple questions about how the world can be viewed must be quite a problematic issue to reconcile internally.

lol. Or, i have a job and a family, and instead of just copy pasting my arguments like @Pogue, i have to actually explain each of those strawmen with my own words, which take some time on my phone.

That and I'm waiting on him to give us a proper rebuttal to my argument.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Ampersand said:

I dunno, with SilverishGoldNova it seemed like he started avoiding answering points he knew he had no answer to shortly before his change of heart so maybe ErfIsFlat is entering the same phase. The cognitive dissonance of viewing yourself as being a genius who sees hidden truths about the world and an inability to answer simple questions about how the world can be viewed must be quite a problematic issue to reconcile internally.

Maybe, maybe not. Erf has shown the ability to compartmentalise much better than SGN.

Take his last reply to me: the primary reason he gave for discounting measurable refraction the way science says it works, also applies to his claims, and is refuted by looking at a mirage.

Theres also his other claim: that a botched video proves his point of view: another video that shows the complete opposite, and demonstrably shows what he claims isn’t true is “just a video” and for some reason “a straw man”, that he doesn’t have to explain.

When you refute your own position when trying to refute someone else’s and don’t realize, or the reasons for rejecting a peice of evidence is the same as the reasons you use for accepting your own, it takes a special type of compartmentalisatiom where your beliefs, and the ones you’re trying to disprove don’t exist in the same
reality.

Translation:

But, but, muh science book>practical experimentation and reality!

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Ampersand said:

I dunno, with SilverishGoldNova it seemed like he started avoiding answering points he knew he had no answer to shortly before his change of heart so maybe ErfIsFlat is entering the same phase. The cognitive dissonance of viewing yourself as being a genius who sees hidden truths about the world and an inability to answer simple questions about how the world can be viewed must be quite a problematic issue to reconcile internally.

Maybe, maybe not. Erf has shown the ability to compartmentalise much better than SGN.

Take his last reply to me: the primary reason he gave for discounting measurable refraction the way science says it works, also applies to his claims, and is refuted by looking at a mirage.

Theres also his other claim: that a botched video proves his point of view: another video that shows the complete opposite, and demonstrably shows what he claims isn’t true is “just a video” and for some reason “a straw man”, that he doesn’t have to explain.

When you refute your own position when trying to refute someone else’s and don’t realize, or the reasons for rejecting a peice of evidence is the same as the reasons you use for accepting your own, it takes a special type of compartmentalisatiom where your beliefs, and the ones you’re trying to disprove don’t exist in the same
reality.

Translation:

But, but, muh science book>practical experimentation and reality!

The science book based off of practical experimentation and reality!
And it seems my comment is ignored yet again.
Here do this test at home but make sure you have a clear view. 

Experiment 3. Watch the sunset lying down
Things you’ll need: The ground and the horizon.

A sunset is seen on Naples beach in Naples, Florida on May 6, 2015. Photo by Ariel Min/PBS NewsHour

Perhaps B.o.B and his entourage don’t have the air miles for a trip between San Francisco and Seattle. No problem. All they need is a beach on the Pacific Coast (or an unobstructed view of the horizon).

As detailed by the folks at MinutePhysics, the horizon is one of the easiest ways to validate the Earth’s curvature. As the sun dips behind the horizon, it slips from your view in a bottom-up direction. If you watch the sunset while lying on your back, and then hop up as the last rays disappear, then you should be able to see the sunset again.

The same pattern applies to ships as they sail away — their hulls disappear from the bottom up. As MinutePhysics points out, if the Earth didn’t curve and the horizon didn’t exist, when you looked at Chicago from across Lake Michigan, you’d be able to see the Rocky Mountains.

This proves curvature:

1. Watch a lunar eclipse

Every once in a while, the Earth passes between the Moon and the Sun, creating a phenomenon known as the Lunar Eclipse.

The Earth casts a shadow on the Moon as it passes through so if you look closely enough (a decent telescope should do it), you might be able to see a shaded arc. It’s always an arc and never a square or a rectangle.

2. Send a camera into space

We may not be able to head into space but our cameras certainly can. Companies like Sent Into Space have special balloon kits that allow you to send whatever you like into space and back.

A basic kit will set you back £194 but those amazing photos of the Earth’s curvature will be so worth it. Plus, it makes great evidence to show the Flat Earther next door how our planet is shaped.

3. Watch a sunset lying on the ground

This is probably one of the simplest methods of dealing with how to determine the Earth’s curvature.

If you watch the sunset lying on your back, you’ll find it disappears in the horizon. But if you stand up, you should still be able to see the sun as it sets on the distant horizon.

And if you happen to be at the ocean looking at ships, they will appear to emerge from the ocean – in a bottom-up direction. This is possible only because the ocean follows the curvature of the Earth and gradually drops from our line of sight.

If the earth was flat the water would stay at the same level.

4. Look at the stars

This might require a bit of traveling but if you fancy journeying to a different part of the world, you’ll notice the constellations there are completely different.

A phenomenon first observed by Aristotle many, many years ago when he was returning from Egypt, the premise is the further you go away from the equator the further known constellations go towards the horizon.

This phenomenon can only be explained by a round surface.

Aristotle also concluded the Earth wasn’t very large because a small change in the distance makes a huge difference in terms of what we see in the night sky.

5. Observe the time zones

Our planet is divided into 24 time zones, taking into account the position of the Sun. The Sun isn’t visible to everyone at the same time.

But that wouldn’t be the case if the Earth was flat. If the Sun shone directionally on a flat Earth, we would be able to see at all times.

So basically, the only way these timezones can happen is if the world is spherical.

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. 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Ampersand said:

I dunno, with SilverishGoldNova it seemed like he started avoiding answering points he knew he had no answer to shortly before his change of heart so maybe ErfIsFlat is entering the same phase. The cognitive dissonance of viewing yourself as being a genius who sees hidden truths about the world and an inability to answer simple questions about how the world can be viewed must be quite a problematic issue to reconcile internally.

Maybe, maybe not. Erf has shown the ability to compartmentalise much better than SGN.

Take his last reply to me: the primary reason he gave for discounting measurable refraction the way science says it works, also applies to his claims, and is refuted by looking at a mirage.

Theres also his other claim: that a botched video proves his point of view: another video that shows the complete opposite, and demonstrably shows what he claims isn’t true is “just a video” and for some reason “a straw man”, that he doesn’t have to explain.

When you refute your own position when trying to refute someone else’s and don’t realize, or the reasons for rejecting a peice of evidence is the same as the reasons you use for accepting your own, it takes a special type of compartmentalisatiom where your beliefs, and the ones you’re trying to disprove don’t exist in the same
reality.

Translation:

But, but, muh science book>practical experimentation and reality!

Wow, what a thorough and excellent rebuttal you have there. 

You must be a towering intellectual to refute multiple pages and detailed argument, including multiple experiments and detailed arguments with such a petulant and childish reply.


If at any point your either intellectually honest, or rational enough to actually have a discussion about evidence and experiment I’ll be here.

Right now, your irrational and petulant denials just make you look like a fool.

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

This is simply disgusting, shrink the picture down to where we can see nothing, provide no time stamp, ignore all other screenshots showing an empty horizon....

The argument is that you can zoom in and see it but when you zoom out you can not and this was in the video. Thos just shows that is false. Also, you are not trying to debunk the other parts. 

Are you not ZOOMING in? What time stamp was this? How far was the boat? What is the observer height?

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

I dunno, with SilverishGoldNova it seemed like he started avoiding answering points he knew he had no answer to shortly before his change of heart so maybe ErfIsFlat is entering the same phase. The cognitive dissonance of viewing yourself as being a genius who sees hidden truths about the world and an inability to answer simple questions about how the world can be viewed must be quite a problematic issue to reconcile internally.

lol. Or, i have a job and a family, and instead of just copy pasting my arguments like @Pogue, i have to actually explain each of those strawmen with my own words, which take some time on my phone.

That and I'm waiting on him to give us a proper rebuttal to my argument.

I’ve pointes out that you have accused people about a dozen times of committing a straw men, with no justification or argument: and you’ve never defended any of your accusations, when it’s pointed out that these arguments cannot be straw men because they don’t misrepresent your position?

Do you not understand what a straw man is? Or you just intentionally dishonest and are forced to hurl accusations because you have no other argument, and you’d otherwise be forced to admit his position is valid?

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

This is simply disgusting, shrink the picture down to where we can see nothing, provide no time stamp, ignore all other screenshots showing an empty horizon....

The argument is that you can zoom in and see it but when you zoom out you can not and this was in the video. Thos just shows that is false. Also, you are not trying to debunk the other parts. 

Are you not ZOOMING in? What time stamp was this? How far was the boat? What is the observer height?

But it is still visible when you are not zooming in. The video was about zooming in and you can see it but you can not if it is no zoomed in. That is false. The video I posted that I was debunking is a flat Earth video and you helped debunk it. What about my other arguments. Also, you said you do not beleive in the flat Earth model. So, how do you know a flat Earth explains everything needed? 

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

I dunno, with SilverishGoldNova it seemed like he started avoiding answering points he knew he had no answer to shortly before his change of heart so maybe ErfIsFlat is entering the same phase. The cognitive dissonance of viewing yourself as being a genius who sees hidden truths about the world and an inability to answer simple questions about how the world can be viewed must be quite a problematic issue to reconcile internally.

lol. Or, i have a job and a family, and instead of just copy pasting my arguments like @Pogue, i have to actually explain each of those strawmen with my own words, which take some time on my phone.

That and I'm waiting on him to give us a proper rebuttal to my argument.

I am copying and pasting my argument because you are not debunking it. You do not have to do it on your phone. Use a computer. You do not explain it though. @Gooberry explains why they are not, I do, and @Gooberry also explains why you committed fallicies. 

Erfisflat

I'm actually going to take your points one at a time, and I have decided to copy this one from Samuel Rowbotham. Since you've plagiarized yours, and my entire argument, which was on two days worth of type, was gone today when I tried to pull it up.@Pogue ;

1. Eclipses.

A SOLAR eclipse is the result simply of the moon passing between the sun and the observer on earth. But that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth, is a statement in every respect, because unproved, unsatisfactory. The earth has been proved to be without orbital or axial motion; and, therefore, it could never come between the sun and the moon. The earth is also proved to be a plane, always underneath the sun and moon; and, therefore, to speak of its intercepting the light of the sun, and thus casting its own shadow on the moon, is to say that which is physically impossible.

Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth belowthe sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a "shadow" of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line?

Gooberry

As pointed out:

• I provided a pretty detailed experiment that shows how you can measure curvature.
• I pointed out that none of the experiments made by flat earth account for typical refraction.
• I explained what the experiment shows, how it accounts for refraction, and gave examples of observations that have been made that show curvature exists when you use observations in line with the experiment.
• I gave an experiment using a laser in a single medium that demonstrates the principles of refraction at work.
• I have explained why your claims about sunset being caused by refraction are impossible.

You have some the following:

• claimed my refraction couldn’t work because there was no change of medium: despite apparently not realizing this also disproves your claimed refraction, and is also directly disproven by both my video and atmospheric observations.
• You dismissed the video of an experiment in water without any argument or justification. Because that’s exactly what “evidence based scientists” do
• You claimed that refraction always makes objects appear lower despite being refuted by the video I just posted.
• You continually ignore the fact that your videos all hide objects behind the bulge in water: so all show curvature. Less curvature than you think they should is still curvature, and more than the 0 curvature that should be present on a flat earth.

If you’re just going to throw your toys out of the pram, wave a white flag and simply not bother to present any form of argument, I will be quite happy to continue posting detailed evidence provided the earth is a sphere while you sit there and deny anything like a petulant child.

It’s far less effort me having you sit there and angrily make yourself look like a dishonest fool all by yourself.

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

I'm actually going to take your points one at a time, and I have decided to copy this one from Samuel Rowbotham. Since you've plagiarized yours, and my entire argument, which was on two days worth of type, was gone today when I tried to pull it up.@Pogue ;

1. Eclipses.

A SOLAR eclipse is the result simply of the moon passing between the sun and the observer on earth. But that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth, is a statement in every respect, because unproved, unsatisfactory. The earth has been proved to be without orbital or axial motion; and, therefore, it could never come between the sun and the moon. The earth is also proved to be a plane, always underneath the sun and moon; and, therefore, to speak of its intercepting the light of the sun, and thus casting its own shadow on the moon, is to say that which is physically impossible.

Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth belowthe sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a "shadow" of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line?

No, it has been proven to have no motion. In other debates, I have reworded the same arguments, but I did that this time because I was in school, I will have it changed next time. Um, no it has not been proven to be a plane/flat. We are debating if it is. It is circular reasoning to say that. The Earth does not have to be directly in line with the moon and the sun. There are partial eclipses. How do you explain these are on a flat Earth (lunar and solar)?

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

I'm actually going to take your points one at a time, and I have decided to copy this one from Samuel Rowbotham. Since you've plagiarized yours, and my entire argument, which was on two days worth of type, was gone today when I tried to pull it up.@Pogue ;

1. Eclipses.

A SOLAR eclipse is the result simply of the moon passing between the sun and the observer on earth. But that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth, is a statement in every respect, because unproved, unsatisfactory. The earth has been proved to be without orbital or axial motion; and, therefore, it could never come between the sun and the moon. The earth is also proved to be a plane, always underneath the sun and moon; and, therefore, to speak of its intercepting the light of the sun, and thus casting its own shadow on the moon, is to say that which is physically impossible.

Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth belowthe sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a "shadow" of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line?

1.) focaults pendulum and the Coriolis force show the earth is spinning; together with observations of the sun, moon and sky confirm this.

2.) observations of the earth from space, of objects passing over the horizon, amd
obaervatins of the position of the sun and moon for differenr observers demonstrate the earth is spherical.

3.) as a result of 1+2 your rebuttal that the shadow on the moon is not the earth is really you assuming your own conclusion - as you have presented no evidence to show this is true.

4.) changing refractive indexes bend light. Light entering a higher refractive index (air), from a lower refractive index (space), Bends light downward (see laser experiment above). The mechanism, maths, properties of air and  the science involved are all pretty irrefutable, and perfectly explain why you can occasionally lunar eclipses around sunrise/moonrise.

5.) 4 also explains why the moon turns red: refraction scattering longer wave lengths more.

6.) 4 also explains why you never see lunar eclipses with the moon and sun high in the sky.

7.) you are unable to provide any explanation backed up by science, mathematics or reality to show the observations we make of an solar or lunar eclipse are possible on a flat earth.


8.) All observations of the solar eclipse are fully consistent with the heliocentric model, combined with known refraction behaviour operating with known laws of physics.


As a result: you really have no argument. At best you are trying to pretend you have an argument by deliberately omitting key facts and information.

Gooberry

I think the important thing is that Erf doesn’t fully understand how to make A scientific experiment.


Take the case of curvature: in something like the measuring the earth’s curvature in the ground, there are so many variables and issues, you have to work very hard to construct a detailed experiment that isolates the variables in such a way that allows you to determine the results are down to curvature (or lack).

To do that with simple video or photograph evidence: you have to understand how refraction works, and to construct your experiment in such a way that removes refraction as a variable.

Its not a good experiment at all if your positive case could look identical to your negative case.

Thats mostly the issue with FE experiments using lasers, or images over water: we know it produces refraction, and if the earth is curved, taking a picture of rays of light that pass close to the surface of the water is very likely to make the earth look less curved.

You never see, say, a video on a salt lake of a series of sight poles 20m above the surface: because no Flat Earther is going to risk proving himself wrong!


This is the main area of scientific ignorance for people like Erf, not understanding how experiments need to work to establish the validity of their question. They are literally just looking for information that agrees with them, rather than proves them right.

Incidently, I suspect it’s why every Fe video is labelled “irrefutable proof the earth is flat”, it’s overcompensation. Same reason that Erf repeatedly says he has irrefutably proven the earth is flat: yet has a go fund me page begging for money to help him prove the earth is flat. 

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Ampersand said:

I dunno, with SilverishGoldNova it seemed like he started avoiding answering points he knew he had no answer to shortly before his change of heart so maybe ErfIsFlat is entering the same phase. The cognitive dissonance of viewing yourself as being a genius who sees hidden truths about the world and an inability to answer simple questions about how the world can be viewed must be quite a problematic issue to reconcile internally.

Maybe, maybe not. Erf has shown the ability to compartmentalise much better than SGN.

Take his last reply to me: the primary reason he gave for discounting measurable refraction the way science says it works, also applies to his claims, and is refuted by looking at a mirage.

Theres also his other claim: that a botched video proves his point of view: another video that shows the complete opposite, and demonstrably shows what he claims isn’t true is “just a video” and for some reason “a straw man”, that he doesn’t have to explain.

When you refute your own position when trying to refute someone else’s and don’t realize, or the reasons for rejecting a peice of evidence is the same as the reasons you use for accepting your own, it takes a special type of compartmentalisatiom where your beliefs, and the ones you’re trying to disprove don’t exist in the same
reality.

Translation:

But, but, muh science book>practical experimentation and reality!

Wow, what a thorough and excellent rebuttal you have there. 

You must be a towering intellectual to refute multiple pages and detailed argument, including multiple experiments and detailed arguments with such a petulant and childish reply.


If at any point your either intellectually honest, or rational enough to actually have a discussion about evidence and experiment I’ll be here.

Right now, your irrational and petulant denials just make you look like a fool.

like the laser through sugar water? please

Pogue

I will prove the Earth is rotating. Besides the Coriolis effect and the proof I posted, there is Foucault's pendulum

This doesn't rely on making sense of a massive table of astronomical results.
Hang a really long pendulum (a weight suspended from a pivot so that it can swing freely) over a tray of sand, or you can attach a pen to the pendulum and have it write on paper. Really anything that marks where the pendulum has swung.
Leave this going for several hours and it will start drawing spirals on the paper; this is due to some effect that causes the pendulum to rotate by a tiny amount over the time of each swing.
We can make a guess at what the effect is; for instance, it can be predicted (from applying Newton's laws in a rotating system) that, if the Earth is spinning, we get a tiny effect which we call the Coriolis force. Our pendulum should rotate by a certain amount every day. The rotation depends on your latitude. 

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

I'm actually going to take your points one at a time, and I have decided to copy this one from Samuel Rowbotham. Since you've plagiarized yours, and my entire argument, which was on two days worth of type, was gone today when I tried to pull it up.@Pogue ;

1. Eclipses.

A SOLAR eclipse is the result simply of the moon passing between the sun and the observer on earth. But that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth, is a statement in every respect, because unproved, unsatisfactory. The earth has been proved to be without orbital or axial motion; and, therefore, it could never come between the sun and the moon. The earth is also proved to be a plane, always underneath the sun and moon; and, therefore, to speak of its intercepting the light of the sun, and thus casting its own shadow on the moon, is to say that which is physically impossible.

Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth belowthe sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a "shadow" of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line?

No, it has been proven to have no motion. In other debates, I have reworded the same arguments, but I did that this time because I was in school, I will have it changed next time. Um, no it has not been proven to be a plane/flat. We are debating if it is. It is circular reasoning to say that. The Earth does not have to be directly in line with the moon and the sun. There are partial eclipses. How do you explain these are on a flat Earth (lunar and solar)?

Oh, it was a full eclipse. I explain them as irrelevant. You're pointing at the sky and assuming it proves anything about the earth. I could go into Vedic cosmology, but you'd likely ignore it, like you are the negative curvature test.

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

I'm actually going to take your points one at a time, and I have decided to copy this one from Samuel Rowbotham. Since you've plagiarized yours, and my entire argument, which was on two days worth of type, was gone today when I tried to pull it up.@Pogue ;

1. Eclipses.

A SOLAR eclipse is the result simply of the moon passing between the sun and the observer on earth. But that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth, is a statement in every respect, because unproved, unsatisfactory. The earth has been proved to be without orbital or axial motion; and, therefore, it could never come between the sun and the moon. The earth is also proved to be a plane, always underneath the sun and moon; and, therefore, to speak of its intercepting the light of the sun, and thus casting its own shadow on the moon, is to say that which is physically impossible.

Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth belowthe sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a "shadow" of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line?

No, it has been proven to have no motion. In other debates, I have reworded the same arguments, but I did that this time because I was in school, I will have it changed next time. Um, no it has not been proven to be a plane/flat. We are debating if it is. It is circular reasoning to say that. The Earth does not have to be directly in line with the moon and the sun. There are partial eclipses. How do you explain these are on a flat Earth (lunar and solar)?

Oh, it was a full eclipse. I explain them as irrelevant. You're pointing at the sky and assuming it proves anything about the earth. I could go into Vedic cosmology, but you'd likely ignore it, like you are the negative curvature test.

Vedic cosmology is irrelevant. @Gooberry debunked it already. You ignore that. You are ignoring tests that prove around Earth. Learning about other planets helps us learn about Earth. "studying Mars can teach us much about the Earth." https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-study-mars-to-better-understand-the-earth_us_580640ace4b0dd54ce354004. Why would Earth be different than all other planets? Others, https://www.tomsofmaine.com/good-matters/thinking-sustainably/solar-system-for-kids-how-learning-about-space-benefits-earth, studying Earth helps us with other planets https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2016/05/31/how-studying-atoms-on-earth-helps-us-learn-about-other-planets/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Ampersand said:

I dunno, with SilverishGoldNova it seemed like he started avoiding answering points he knew he had no answer to shortly before his change of heart so maybe ErfIsFlat is entering the same phase. The cognitive dissonance of viewing yourself as being a genius who sees hidden truths about the world and an inability to answer simple questions about how the world can be viewed must be quite a problematic issue to reconcile internally.

Maybe, maybe not. Erf has shown the ability to compartmentalise much better than SGN.

Take his last reply to me: the primary reason he gave for discounting measurable refraction the way science says it works, also applies to his claims, and is refuted by looking at a mirage.

Theres also his other claim: that a botched video proves his point of view: another video that shows the complete opposite, and demonstrably shows what he claims isn’t true is “just a video” and for some reason “a straw man”, that he doesn’t have to explain.

When you refute your own position when trying to refute someone else’s and don’t realize, or the reasons for rejecting a peice of evidence is the same as the reasons you use for accepting your own, it takes a special type of compartmentalisatiom where your beliefs, and the ones you’re trying to disprove don’t exist in the same
reality.

Translation:

But, but, muh science book>practical experimentation and reality!

Wow, what a thorough and excellent rebuttal you have there. 

You must be a towering intellectual to refute multiple pages and detailed argument, including multiple experiments and detailed arguments with such a petulant and childish reply.


If at any point your either intellectually honest, or rational enough to actually have a discussion about evidence and experiment I’ll be here.

Right now, your irrational and petulant denials just make you look like a fool.

like the laser through sugar water? please

Again, what an excellent and well thought out refutation yet again! The depth, completeness and quantity of your rebuttal is staggering.

How have you not been published in scientific journals yet??? Einstein, Newton and Gallileo would be proud of how thorough and complete your refutation is.

Gooberry

Pogue said:

I will prove the Earth is rotating. Besides the Coriolis effect and the proof I posted, there is Foucault's pendulum

This doesn't rely on making sense of a massive table of astronomical results.
Hang a really long pendulum (a weight suspended from a pivot so that it can swing freely) over a tray of sand, or you can attach a pen to the pendulum and have it write on paper. Really anything that marks where the pendulum has swung.
Leave this going for several hours and it will start drawing spirals on the paper; this is due to some effect that causes the pendulum to rotate by a tiny amount over the time of each swing.
We can make a guess at what the effect is; for instance, it can be predicted (from applying Newton's laws in a rotating system) that, if the Earth is spinning, we get a tiny effect which we call the Coriolis force. Our pendulum should rotate by a certain amount every day. The rotation depends on your latitude. 

That’s actually a pretty good experiment: Focaults Pendulum is essentially a great proof.

It also illustrates how multiple aspects of science have to tie up together:

The pendulum turns over over a day, and the calculated necessary force and conservation of angular momentum all match up with what the laws of motion say they should be on a spherical rotating earth.

This is often ignored by flat earthers, becaus it straight up refutes their position. It’s evidence of the rotation of the earth, and there is no other mechanism or configuration that could realistically produce the same effect, and certainly not one for which there is any evidence.


Bonus question for you, if you know:

Flat earthers never perform experiments that are sufficient enough to prove them wrong (intentionally), do you know what they do not account for and what experimental error that they always make when they perform their gyroscope measurements?

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

I'm actually going to take your points one at a time, and I have decided to copy this one from Samuel Rowbotham. Since you've plagiarized yours, and my entire argument, which was on two days worth of type, was gone today when I tried to pull it up.@Pogue ;

1. Eclipses.

A SOLAR eclipse is the result simply of the moon passing between the sun and the observer on earth. But that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth, is a statement in every respect, because unproved, unsatisfactory. The earth has been proved to be without orbital or axial motion; and, therefore, it could never come between the sun and the moon. The earth is also proved to be a plane, always underneath the sun and moon; and, therefore, to speak of its intercepting the light of the sun, and thus casting its own shadow on the moon, is to say that which is physically impossible.

Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth belowthe sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a "shadow" of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line?

No, it has been proven to have no motion. In other debates, I have reworded the same arguments, but I did that this time because I was in school, I will have it changed next time. Um, no it has not been proven to be a plane/flat. We are debating if it is. It is circular reasoning to say that. The Earth does not have to be directly in line with the moon and the sun. There are partial eclipses. How do you explain these are on a flat Earth (lunar and solar)?

Oh, it was a full eclipse. I explain them as irrelevant. You're pointing at the sky and assuming it proves anything about the earth. I could go into Vedic cosmology, but you'd likely ignore it, like you are the negative curvature test.

Three different people in different locations on a flat earth would view the sun differently than three people viewing the on a spherical earth:

Observing the sun gives you a definitive method of telling  whether the sun is observed as it should be on a flat or spherical earth.

Your unsupported argument, that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, is just an unscientific and desperate excuse to avoid the uncomfortable reality that such observations have the ability to refute the flat earth, and also actually do refute a flat earth.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

I'm actually going to take your points one at a time, and I have decided to copy this one from Samuel Rowbotham. Since you've plagiarized yours, and my entire argument, which was on two days worth of type, was gone today when I tried to pull it up.@Pogue ;

1. Eclipses.

A SOLAR eclipse is the result simply of the moon passing between the sun and the observer on earth. But that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth, is a statement in every respect, because unproved, unsatisfactory. The earth has been proved to be without orbital or axial motion; and, therefore, it could never come between the sun and the moon. The earth is also proved to be a plane, always underneath the sun and moon; and, therefore, to speak of its intercepting the light of the sun, and thus casting its own shadow on the moon, is to say that which is physically impossible.

Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth belowthe sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a "shadow" of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line?

Circular reasoning where your rationale for explaining why it is wrong is simply assuming you have already proven a load of nonsense like the earth being flat, not rotating etc.

You then move onto a strawman where you argue against a made up version of eclipses that has nothing to do with the actual science you are trying to dispute. You present seeing the sun and moon at the same time in an eclipse as proof that the normal model of the world is flawed. In fact this is something we specifically expect to be able to happen due to atmospheric refraction so you are in fact helping prove the spherical earth correct by proving that their predictions are accurate. After all, that's the scientific method - you make predictions and then test them to see if they're correct. They are proof for the spherical earth.

What's the excuse for lunar eclipses on a flat earth again? Isn't it a magical invisible object which sits between the sun and the moon which has never been detected or evidenced but is what you think causes the shadow?

someone234

@Erfisflat how dare you say cosmology supports your side?

Come right now and bring your cosmology points, you just dug your own grave bringing stars into this.

Pogue

I am just gonna post this here. 
A model must be able to predict all observations and everything works without interference. Solar and Lunar eclipses are predicted with the globe earth model. It perfectly explains everything. In the flat Earth model, you could not see the same constellations and stars in S.A. and Africa (or S.A. and Australia or Africa and Australia) (the two will both be night) because you would only be able to see the front. Also, the stars that are only able to see in the Northern Hemisphere would be visible in the South. 
Globe: 

Flat:

Also, if a building is really tall you can see it but the base disappears over the horizon. 

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Ampersand said:

I dunno, with SilverishGoldNova it seemed like he started avoiding answering points he knew he had no answer to shortly before his change of heart so maybe ErfIsFlat is entering the same phase. The cognitive dissonance of viewing yourself as being a genius who sees hidden truths about the world and an inability to answer simple questions about how the world can be viewed must be quite a problematic issue to reconcile internally.

Maybe, maybe not. Erf has shown the ability to compartmentalise much better than SGN.

Take his last reply to me: the primary reason he gave for discounting measurable refraction the way science says it works, also applies to his claims, and is refuted by looking at a mirage.

Theres also his other claim: that a botched video proves his point of view: another video that shows the complete opposite, and demonstrably shows what he claims isn’t true is “just a video” and for some reason “a straw man”, that he doesn’t have to explain.

When you refute your own position when trying to refute someone else’s and don’t realize, or the reasons for rejecting a peice of evidence is the same as the reasons you use for accepting your own, it takes a special type of compartmentalisatiom where your beliefs, and the ones you’re trying to disprove don’t exist in the same
reality.

Translation:

But, but, muh science book>practical experimentation and reality!

Wow, what a thorough and excellent rebuttal you have there. 

You must be a towering intellectual to refute multiple pages and detailed argument, including multiple experiments and detailed arguments with such a petulant and childish reply.


If at any point your either intellectually honest, or rational enough to actually have a discussion about evidence and experiment I’ll be here.

Right now, your irrational and petulant denials just make you look like a fool.

like the laser through sugar water? please

Again, what an excellent and well thought out refutation yet again! The depth, completeness and quantity of your rebuttal is staggering.

How have you not been published in scientific journals yet??? Einstein, Newton and Gallileo would be proud of how thorough and complete your refutation is.

sorry, don't have a lot of time, thought I'd just point out the irrelevance of that little experiment. If you feel that sugar water is a good representation of the atmosplane and a laser should represent line of sight, then you've misunderstood the scientific method altogether. It looks like you're grasping at straws with it, it may just be me though.

someone234

@Erfisflat Yes, it is just you 'though'.

Erfisflat

someone234 said:

@Erfisflat how dare you say cosmology supports your side?

Come right now and bring your cosmology points, you just dug your own grave bringing stars into this.

I really can't take you seriously, if you're trying to be...

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

I'm actually going to take your points one at a time, and I have decided to copy this one from Samuel Rowbotham. Since you've plagiarized yours, and my entire argument, which was on two days worth of type, was gone today when I tried to pull it up.@Pogue ;

1. Eclipses.

A SOLAR eclipse is the result simply of the moon passing between the sun and the observer on earth. But that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth, is a statement in every respect, because unproved, unsatisfactory. The earth has been proved to be without orbital or axial motion; and, therefore, it could never come between the sun and the moon. The earth is also proved to be a plane, always underneath the sun and moon; and, therefore, to speak of its intercepting the light of the sun, and thus casting its own shadow on the moon, is to say that which is physically impossible.

Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth belowthe sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a "shadow" of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line?

No, it has been proven to have no motion. In other debates, I have reworded the same arguments, but I did that this time because I was in school, I will have it changed next time. Um, no it has not been proven to be a plane/flat. We are debating if it is. It is circular reasoning to say that. The Earth does not have to be directly in line with the moon and the sun. There are partial eclipses. How do you explain these are on a flat Earth (lunar and solar)?

Oh, it was a full eclipse. I explain them as irrelevant. You're pointing at the sky and assuming it proves anything about the earth. I could go into Vedic cosmology, but you'd likely ignore it, like you are the negative curvature test.

Three different people in different locations on a flat earth would view the sun differently than three people viewing the on a spherical earth:

Observing the sun gives you a definitive method of telling  whether the sun is observed as it should be on a flat or spherical earth.

Your unsupported argument, that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, is just an unscientific and desperate excuse to avoid the uncomfortable reality that such observations have the ability to refute the flat earth, and also actually do refute a flat earth.

Of course this would be true if you make BOTH of the following assumptions.

1. The sun is a physical body and is not objective for each observer.
2. Refraction is not a thing.

Either way, you're looking at the sky and assuming something about the ground, which is nonsensical.

Erfisflat

Apolagies if it takes some time to get back with everyone, debating 3-4 people at a time is time consuming.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Ampersand said:

I dunno, with SilverishGoldNova it seemed like he started avoiding answering points he knew he had no answer to shortly before his change of heart so maybe ErfIsFlat is entering the same phase. The cognitive dissonance of viewing yourself as being a genius who sees hidden truths about the world and an inability to answer simple questions about how the world can be viewed must be quite a problematic issue to reconcile internally.

Maybe, maybe not. Erf has shown the ability to compartmentalise much better than SGN.

Take his last reply to me: the primary reason he gave for discounting measurable refraction the way science says it works, also applies to his claims, and is refuted by looking at a mirage.

Theres also his other claim: that a botched video proves his point of view: another video that shows the complete opposite, and demonstrably shows what he claims isn’t true is “just a video” and for some reason “a straw man”, that he doesn’t have to explain.

When you refute your own position when trying to refute someone else’s and don’t realize, or the reasons for rejecting a peice of evidence is the same as the reasons you use for accepting your own, it takes a special type of compartmentalisatiom where your beliefs, and the ones you’re trying to disprove don’t exist in the same
reality.

Translation:

But, but, muh science book>practical experimentation and reality!

Wow, what a thorough and excellent rebuttal you have there. 

You must be a towering intellectual to refute multiple pages and detailed argument, including multiple experiments and detailed arguments with such a petulant and childish reply.


If at any point your either intellectually honest, or rational enough to actually have a discussion about evidence and experiment I’ll be here.

Right now, your irrational and petulant denials just make you look like a fool.

like the laser through sugar water? please

Again, what an excellent and well thought out refutation yet again! The depth, completeness and quantity of your rebuttal is staggering.

How have you not been published in scientific journals yet??? Einstein, Newton and Gallileo would be proud of how thorough and complete your refutation is.

sorry, don't have a lot of time, thought I'd just point out the irrelevance of that little experiment. If you feel that sugar water is a good representation of the atmosplane and a laser should represent line of sight, then you've misunderstood the scientific method altogether. It looks like you're grasping at straws with it, it may just be me though.

Oh my! What an excellent argument! 

Your justification and reasons for claiming that I’ve misunderstood the scientific method are lengthy and excellent! Your explanation for what I have missed is simply staggeringly impressive.

My favourite part was your lengthy explanation of why an experiment showing how light acts when passing through layers of differing refractive index is a terrible way to explain how light acts when passing through layers of differing refractive index in the atmosphere.

It doesn’t at all sound like you’re trying to shout your way through an argument with baseless accusations and unsupported assertions because you have no argument to offer against a simple experiment refutes everything you’ve claimed about how refraction works thus far.

You also don’t at all appear to be engaging in horrible hypocrisy, double standards and asserted pseudoscientific scizophrenia after making multiple repeated posts about how your simple experiment of looking through water is totally equivalent of the atmosphere, and totally proves everything you’re saying; and yet another experiment that refutes you doesn’t count and isn’t equivalent because it’s a laser shining through water.

Erfisflat

“First, when a pendulum, constructed according to the plan of M. Foucault, is allowed to vibrate, its plane of vibration is often variable – not always. The variation when it does occur, is not uniform – is not always the same in the same place; nor always the same either in its rate or velocity, or in its direction. It cannot therefore be taken as evidence; for that which is inconstant cannot be used in favor of or against any given proposition. It therefore is not evidence and proves nothing! Secondly, if the plane of vibration is observed to change, where is the connection between such change and the supposed motion of the Earth? What principle of reasoning guides the experimenter to the conclusion that it is the Earth which moves underneath the pendulum, and not the pendulum which moves over the Earth? What logical right or necessity forces one conclusion in preference to the other? Thirdly, why was not the peculiar arrangement of the point of suspension of the pendulum specially considered, in regard to its possible influence upon the plane of oscillation? Was it not known, or was it overlooked, or was it, in the climax of theoretical revelry, ignored that a ‘ball-and-socket’ joint is one which facilitates circular motion more readily than any other?” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition”

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

I'm actually going to take your points one at a time, and I have decided to copy this one from Samuel Rowbotham. Since you've plagiarized yours, and my entire argument, which was on two days worth of type, was gone today when I tried to pull it up.@Pogue ;

1. Eclipses.

A SOLAR eclipse is the result simply of the moon passing between the sun and the observer on earth. But that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth, is a statement in every respect, because unproved, unsatisfactory. The earth has been proved to be without orbital or axial motion; and, therefore, it could never come between the sun and the moon. The earth is also proved to be a plane, always underneath the sun and moon; and, therefore, to speak of its intercepting the light of the sun, and thus casting its own shadow on the moon, is to say that which is physically impossible.

Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth belowthe sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a "shadow" of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line?

No, it has been proven to have no motion. In other debates, I have reworded the same arguments, but I did that this time because I was in school, I will have it changed next time. Um, no it has not been proven to be a plane/flat. We are debating if it is. It is circular reasoning to say that. The Earth does not have to be directly in line with the moon and the sun. There are partial eclipses. How do you explain these are on a flat Earth (lunar and solar)?

Oh, it was a full eclipse. I explain them as irrelevant. You're pointing at the sky and assuming it proves anything about the earth. I could go into Vedic cosmology, but you'd likely ignore it, like you are the negative curvature test.

Three different people in different locations on a flat earth would view the sun differently than three people viewing the on a spherical earth:

Observing the sun gives you a definitive method of telling  whether the sun is observed as it should be on a flat or spherical earth.

Your unsupported argument, that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, is just an unscientific and desperate excuse to avoid the uncomfortable reality that such observations have the ability to refute the flat earth, and also actually do refute a flat earth.

Of course this would be true if you make BOTH of the following assumptions.

1. The sun is a physical body and is not objective for each observer.
2. Refraction is not a thing.

Either way, you're looking at the sky and assuming something about the ground, which is nonsensical.

1.) Assuming the sun is not a physical body and is different for each observer would be pseudoscientific and unsupported nonsense, so the first assumption is scientifically reasonable.

2.) This is not a required assumption at all; this is simply you inventing a reason to dismiss an argument that comprehensively refutes you.

Erfisflat

Dr. Schoepffer, an eye-witness of the experiment, says: “In an introductory speech Dr. Menzzer at Quedlinburg showed that until then there had been no proof for the Copernican hypothesis, the so-called proofs being, after close investigation, just as many confutations, until the Foucault pendulum showed the rotation of the earth uncontrovertibly. The pendulum was tied, the string was burnt, the swingings began, but the pendulum deviated to the left, instead of to the right. It was hastily brought to rest. New burning of the string. This time the deviation was the one desired, and we were invited again to be present in the church the next morning at eight o’clock, to be convinced that the deviation agrees with the theory. On the following morning, however, we saw that the pendulum during the night had changed its mind, and had from the deviation to the right again returned to the left. To me this new proof did not seem to be quite in order. My belief in the Copernican doctrine was shaken by the speech of Dr. Menzzer, and I concluded to go to Berlin for an explanation.

After seeing the pendulum-experiment here also and, strangely, again with a deviation to the left, I went to Alexander v. Humboldt, who was indeed ever the first refuge of those seeking information. He received me very friendly and spoke the memorable words: I have known, too, for a long time, that as yet we have no proof for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don’t rush into the wasps’ nest. You will but bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude.”

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Ampersand said:

I dunno, with SilverishGoldNova it seemed like he started avoiding answering points he knew he had no answer to shortly before his change of heart so maybe ErfIsFlat is entering the same phase. The cognitive dissonance of viewing yourself as being a genius who sees hidden truths about the world and an inability to answer simple questions about how the world can be viewed must be quite a problematic issue to reconcile internally.

Maybe, maybe not. Erf has shown the ability to compartmentalise much better than SGN.

Take his last reply to me: the primary reason he gave for discounting measurable refraction the way science says it works, also applies to his claims, and is refuted by looking at a mirage.

Theres also his other claim: that a botched video proves his point of view: another video that shows the complete opposite, and demonstrably shows what he claims isn’t true is “just a video” and for some reason “a straw man”, that he doesn’t have to explain.

When you refute your own position when trying to refute someone else’s and don’t realize, or the reasons for rejecting a peice of evidence is the same as the reasons you use for accepting your own, it takes a special type of compartmentalisatiom where your beliefs, and the ones you’re trying to disprove don’t exist in the same
reality.

Translation:

But, but, muh science book>practical experimentation and reality!

Wow, what a thorough and excellent rebuttal you have there. 

You must be a towering intellectual to refute multiple pages and detailed argument, including multiple experiments and detailed arguments with such a petulant and childish reply.


If at any point your either intellectually honest, or rational enough to actually have a discussion about evidence and experiment I’ll be here.

Right now, your irrational and petulant denials just make you look like a fool.

like the laser through sugar water? please

Again, what an excellent and well thought out refutation yet again! The depth, completeness and quantity of your rebuttal is staggering.

How have you not been published in scientific journals yet??? Einstein, Newton and Gallileo would be proud of how thorough and complete your refutation is.

sorry, don't have a lot of time, thought I'd just point out the irrelevance of that little experiment. If you feel that sugar water is a good representation of the atmosplane and a laser should represent line of sight, then you've misunderstood the scientific method altogether. It looks like you're grasping at straws with it, it may just be me though.

Just so you’re aware; when you go multiple posts saying that someone is wrong without offering any form of argument as to why: readers draw the conclusion that you don’t have an argument.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Ampersand said:

I dunno, with SilverishGoldNova it seemed like he started avoiding answering points he knew he had no answer to shortly before his change of heart so maybe ErfIsFlat is entering the same phase. The cognitive dissonance of viewing yourself as being a genius who sees hidden truths about the world and an inability to answer simple questions about how the world can be viewed must be quite a problematic issue to reconcile internally.

Maybe, maybe not. Erf has shown the ability to compartmentalise much better than SGN.

Take his last reply to me: the primary reason he gave for discounting measurable refraction the way science says it works, also applies to his claims, and is refuted by looking at a mirage.

Theres also his other claim: that a botched video proves his point of view: another video that shows the complete opposite, and demonstrably shows what he claims isn’t true is “just a video” and for some reason “a straw man”, that he doesn’t have to explain.

When you refute your own position when trying to refute someone else’s and don’t realize, or the reasons for rejecting a peice of evidence is the same as the reasons you use for accepting your own, it takes a special type of compartmentalisatiom where your beliefs, and the ones you’re trying to disprove don’t exist in the same
reality.

Translation:

But, but, muh science book>practical experimentation and reality!

Wow, what a thorough and excellent rebuttal you have there. 

You must be a towering intellectual to refute multiple pages and detailed argument, including multiple experiments and detailed arguments with such a petulant and childish reply.


If at any point your either intellectually honest, or rational enough to actually have a discussion about evidence and experiment I’ll be here.

Right now, your irrational and petulant denials just make you look like a fool.

like the laser through sugar water? please

Again, what an excellent and well thought out refutation yet again! The depth, completeness and quantity of your rebuttal is staggering.

How have you not been published in scientific journals yet??? Einstein, Newton and Gallileo would be proud of how thorough and complete your refutation is.

sorry, don't have a lot of time, thought I'd just point out the irrelevance of that little experiment. If you feel that sugar water is a good representation of the atmosplane and a laser should represent line of sight, then you've misunderstood the scientific method altogether. It looks like you're grasping at straws with it, it may just be me though.

Oh my! What an excellent argument! 

Your justification and reasons for claiming that I’ve misunderstood the scientific method are lengthy and excellent! Your explanation for what I have missed is simply staggeringly impressive.

My favourite part was your lengthy explanation of why an experiment showing how light acts when passing through layers of differing refractive index is a terrible way to explain how light acts when passing through layers of differing refractive index in the atmosphere.

It doesn’t at all sound like you’re trying to shout your way through an argument with baseless accusations and unsupported assertions because you have no argument to offer against a simple experiment refutes everything you’ve claimed about how refraction works thus far.

You also don’t at all appear to be engaging in horrible hypocrisy, double standards and asserted pseudoscientific scizophrenia after making multiple repeated posts about how your simple experiment of looking through water is totally equivalent of the atmosphere, and totally proves everything you’re saying; and yet another experiment that refutes you doesn’t count and isn’t equivalent because it’s a laser shining through water.

You're aware that sugar water will have a different refraction index than just water, and more importantly, air? I can understand that a very great amount of distance should account for some refraction, but you're dishonestly saying to yourself that 60 feet of curvature disappeared because of refraction, and shining a laser through sugar water proves it.

Erfisflat

And let's just continue to ignore the more relevant experiments that I offered early on that refutes your claim.

Erfisflat

I know your thing is to do a little rhetorical dance around everything, so I'm not really concerned of your opinion of my arguments. That's what they are, unsubstantiated opinions.