Is the Earth flat?

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

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.

you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down. I’m using this science and experiment to completely refute your nonsense section that refraction makes objects appear lower; (which it does), and to illustrate light behaves like I say it does, and how science says it does.

so yes: this provides experimental evidence of the mechanism that makes the earth look a little flatter than it is.

Given that you rush to claim that looking through a glass of water is totally the same as hundreds of miles of air; youe objection is blatantly hypocritical given you’ve provided no reasons or explanation as to why the experiment doesnt show what i said it does.

It refutes your arguments that light has to change mediums to refract, and refutes your claim that objects must appear lower, and provides proof that the process I’m using exists, works the way I say it does and can explain the observations with known science.

So us, it pretty much confirms everything I’ve said, and refutes everything you’ve said for reasons I’ve provided.

As you’re providing no justification or argument other than claiming the experiment doesnt count, and hurling multiple arguments that refute your own position out of apparent desperation, it seems you appreciate how good this experiment is!

someone234

@Erfisflat Come debate me next tournament and I will show you 'serious' little cowardly flat earth preaching fool.

You are so filthy a debater that you use mod powers to threaten others and delete superior arguments. Sit there and laugh at me while I put you in the dirt with your utter nonsense.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

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.

you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down. I’m using this science and experiment to completely refute your nonsense section that refraction makes objects appear lower; (which it does), and to illustrate light behaves like I say it does, and how science says it does.

so yes: this provides experimental evidence of the mechanism that makes the earth look a little flatter than it is.

Given that you rush to claim that looking through a glass of water is totally the same as hundreds of miles of air; youe objection is blatantly hypocritical given you’ve provided no reasons or explanation as to why the experiment doesnt show what i said it does.

It refutes your arguments that light has to change mediums to refract, and refutes your claim that objects must appear lower, and provides proof that the process I’m using exists, works the way I say it does and can explain the observations with known science.

So us, it pretty much confirms everything I’ve said, and refutes everything you’ve said for reasons I’ve provided.

As you’re providing no justification or argument other than claiming the experiment doesnt count, and hurling multiple arguments that refute your own position out of apparent desperation, it seems you appreciate how good this experiment is!

What made you foolishly conclude that the beam was travelling from a lower index to a higher index? Common sense tells me that the entire tank was of one consistency, ie. all sugar water.

Erfisflat

someone234 said:

@Erfisflat Come debate me next tournament and I will show you 'serious' little cowardly flat earth preaching fool.

You are so filthy a debater that you use mod powers to threaten others and delete superior arguments. Sit there and laugh at me while I put you in the dirt with your utter nonsense.

someone sounds as if they're on their period.

someone234

Erfisflat said:

someone234 said:

@Erfisflat Come debate me next tournament and I will show you 'serious' little cowardly flat earth preaching fool.

You are so filthy a debater that you use mod powers to threaten others and delete superior arguments. Sit there and laugh at me while I put you in the dirt with your utter nonsense.

someone sounds as if they're on their period.

If a truth-telling woman is on her period then what?

Your point?

Pogue

Hmmm, no debunk. 
Here do this test at home but make sure you have a clear view. 

Best o, experiment 3. Watch the sunset lying down

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.

These prove Earth's curvature:

1. Look at eclipses

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

Companies like Sent Into Space have special balloon kits that allow you to send whatever you like into space and back. 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/.

3. Watch the sun go over the horizon while lying down, then quickly stand up

If you watch the sunset lying down, 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. The stars

If you go 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.

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:

5. Time zones

Our planet is divided into 24 time zones, this is taking into account the position of the Sun and the Earth's rotation. 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.

We have time zones because when the Sun is illuminating one side of the spherical Earth, the other side is dark.

This can only be explained if the world is round, and rotating around its own axis. At a certain point when the sun is shining on one part of the Earth, the opposite side is dark, and vice versa. That allows for time differences and time zones, specifically ones that are larger than 12 hours.

Another point concerning time zones, the sun, and Earth: If the sun was a “spotlight” (very directionally located so that light only shines on a specific location) and the world was flat, we would see the sun even if it didn’t shine on top of us (as you can see in the drawing below). Similarly, you can see the light coming out of a spotlight on a stage in the theater, even though you—the crowd—are sitting in the dark. The only way to create two distinctly separate time zones, where there is complete darkness in one while there’s light in the other as 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

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

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.

you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down. I’m using this science and experiment to completely refute your nonsense section that refraction makes objects appear lower; (which it does), and to illustrate light behaves like I say it does, and how science says it does.

so yes: this provides experimental evidence of the mechanism that makes the earth look a little flatter than it is.

Given that you rush to claim that looking through a glass of water is totally the same as hundreds of miles of air; youe objection is blatantly hypocritical given you’ve provided no reasons or explanation as to why the experiment doesnt show what i said it does.

It refutes your arguments that light has to change mediums to refract, and refutes your claim that objects must appear lower, and provides proof that the process I’m using exists, works the way I say it does and can explain the observations with known science.

So us, it pretty much confirms everything I’ve said, and refutes everything you’ve said for reasons I’ve provided.

As you’re providing no justification or argument other than claiming the experiment doesnt count, and hurling multiple arguments that refute your own position out of apparent desperation, it seems you appreciate how good this experiment is!

What made you foolishly conclude that the beam was travelling from a lower index to a higher index? Common sense tells me that the entire tank was of one consistency, ie. all sugar water.

You’re just making stuff up now, it seems. You have no argument so are just throwing whatever nonsense you decide.

- if it’s all the same refractive index, why does the light bend weirdly: for no reason? Magic? Chuck Norris? This makes no sense.
- Even if you’re right: it still refutes your claims that refraction makes objects appear lower.
- Even if you’re right; it still demonstrates that light can be bent downwards, and could produce the effects I’m explaining.

You’re basically denying the laws of physics in order to construct an argument against this experiment showing you’re wrong.

When your are forced to deny the laws of physics without any evidence; it’s probably a good indication you don’t have a valid position.
 

Pogue

I want to make an official correction to all my arguments. I said to send a camera to space. However, the balloons that common people use do not reach that high since "an imaginary line about 68 miles (110 kilometers) from the surface, called the Karman line, is usually where scientists say Earth's atmosphere meets outer space." 

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

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.

you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down. I’m using this science and experiment to completely refute your nonsense section that refraction makes objects appear lower; (which it does), and to illustrate light behaves like I say it does, and how science says it does.

so yes: this provides experimental evidence of the mechanism that makes the earth look a little flatter than it is.

Given that you rush to claim that looking through a glass of water is totally the same as hundreds of miles of air; youe objection is blatantly hypocritical given you’ve provided no reasons or explanation as to why the experiment doesnt show what i said it does.

It refutes your arguments that light has to change mediums to refract, and refutes your claim that objects must appear lower, and provides proof that the process I’m using exists, works the way I say it does and can explain the observations with known science.

So us, it pretty much confirms everything I’ve said, and refutes everything you’ve said for reasons I’ve provided.

As you’re providing no justification or argument other than claiming the experiment doesnt count, and hurling multiple arguments that refute your own position out of apparent desperation, it seems you appreciate how good this experiment is!

What made you foolishly conclude that the beam was travelling from a lower index to a higher index? Common sense tells me that the entire tank was of one consistency, ie. all sugar water.

You’re just making stuff up now, it seems. You have no argument so are just throwing whatever nonsense you decide.

- if it’s all the same refractive index, why does the light bend weirdly: for no reason? Magic? Chuck Norris? This makes no sense.
- Even if you’re right: it still refutes your claims that refraction makes objects appear lower.
- Even if you’re right; it still demonstrates that light can be bent downwards, and could produce the effects I’m explaining.

You’re basically denying the laws of physics in order to construct an argument against this experiment showing you’re wrong.

When your are forced to deny the laws of physics without any evidence; it’s probably a good indication you don’t have a valid position.
 

Your statement:
"you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down."

Is not demonstrated by shining a laser through a constant refractive index, like a tank of sugar water. This is why I asked the question: "What made you conclude that the beam was travelling from a lower index to a higher index? Please explain exactly why your experiment, shining a laser through sugar water, is more indicative of looking through the earth's atmosphere than looking through a container of water? 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

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.

you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down. I’m using this science and experiment to completely refute your nonsense section that refraction makes objects appear lower; (which it does), and to illustrate light behaves like I say it does, and how science says it does.

so yes: this provides experimental evidence of the mechanism that makes the earth look a little flatter than it is.

Given that you rush to claim that looking through a glass of water is totally the same as hundreds of miles of air; youe objection is blatantly hypocritical given you’ve provided no reasons or explanation as to why the experiment doesnt show what i said it does.

It refutes your arguments that light has to change mediums to refract, and refutes your claim that objects must appear lower, and provides proof that the process I’m using exists, works the way I say it does and can explain the observations with known science.

So us, it pretty much confirms everything I’ve said, and refutes everything you’ve said for reasons I’ve provided.

As you’re providing no justification or argument other than claiming the experiment doesnt count, and hurling multiple arguments that refute your own position out of apparent desperation, it seems you appreciate how good this experiment is!

What made you foolishly conclude that the beam was travelling from a lower index to a higher index? Common sense tells me that the entire tank was of one consistency, ie. all sugar water.

You’re just making stuff up now, it seems. You have no argument so are just throwing whatever nonsense you decide.

- if it’s all the same refractive index, why does the light bend weirdly: for no reason? Magic? Chuck Norris? This makes no sense.
- Even if you’re right: it still refutes your claims that refraction makes objects appear lower.
- Even if you’re right; it still demonstrates that light can be bent downwards, and could produce the effects I’m explaining.

You’re basically denying the laws of physics in order to construct an argument against this experiment showing you’re wrong.

When your are forced to deny the laws of physics without any evidence; it’s probably a good indication you don’t have a valid position.
 

Your statement:
"you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down."

Is not demonstrated by shining a laser through a constant refractive index, like a tank of sugar water. This is why I asked the question: "What made you conclude that the beam was travelling from a lower index to a higher index? Please explain exactly why your experiment, shining a laser through sugar water, is more indicative of looking through the earth's atmosphere than looking through a container of water? 

What you said is not demonstrated by the experiment is exactly what is demonstrated by the experiment. It odd that you won’t to deny the very thing the experiment shows.

It physically demonstrates how the light is refracted by changes in a medium it is travelling through.

You’ve claimed that refraction can’t do why I said it can: that light can be bent downwards in the atmosphere. And it directly refutes your claims that objects would always appear lower.

This literally refutes everything you’ve claimed thus far.

Thats before we even consider your claims.

The experiment illustrates snells law. It shows, that it works in the way I claim.


Now: if you want to claim that the medium is the same without a change of refractive index: you’re basically asserting that the laws of physics for work the way they are always shown to work. Like I said.

if you want to claim that refraction in the atmosphere doesn’t work the way I’ve said, and shown: then you’re again asserting that the laws of physics do not work the way they are always shown to work: again like I said.


If you want to assert that I’m wrong because you believe the laws of physics work differently then they have been shown to work, you can do that; but that I nonsensical pseudoscience that you need to proove; not angrily assert and then demand I disprove.

 

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

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.

you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down. I’m using this science and experiment to completely refute your nonsense section that refraction makes objects appear lower; (which it does), and to illustrate light behaves like I say it does, and how science says it does.

so yes: this provides experimental evidence of the mechanism that makes the earth look a little flatter than it is.

Given that you rush to claim that looking through a glass of water is totally the same as hundreds of miles of air; youe objection is blatantly hypocritical given you’ve provided no reasons or explanation as to why the experiment doesnt show what i said it does.

It refutes your arguments that light has to change mediums to refract, and refutes your claim that objects must appear lower, and provides proof that the process I’m using exists, works the way I say it does and can explain the observations with known science.

So us, it pretty much confirms everything I’ve said, and refutes everything you’ve said for reasons I’ve provided.

As you’re providing no justification or argument other than claiming the experiment doesnt count, and hurling multiple arguments that refute your own position out of apparent desperation, it seems you appreciate how good this experiment is!

What made you foolishly conclude that the beam was travelling from a lower index to a higher index? Common sense tells me that the entire tank was of one consistency, ie. all sugar water.

You’re just making stuff up now, it seems. You have no argument so are just throwing whatever nonsense you decide.

- if it’s all the same refractive index, why does the light bend weirdly: for no reason? Magic? Chuck Norris? This makes no sense.
- Even if you’re right: it still refutes your claims that refraction makes objects appear lower.
- Even if you’re right; it still demonstrates that light can be bent downwards, and could produce the effects I’m explaining.

You’re basically denying the laws of physics in order to construct an argument against this experiment showing you’re wrong.

When your are forced to deny the laws of physics without any evidence; it’s probably a good indication you don’t have a valid position.
 

Your statement:
"you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down."

Is not demonstrated by shining a laser through a constant refractive index, like a tank of sugar water. This is why I asked the question: "What made you conclude that the beam was travelling from a lower index to a higher index? Please explain exactly why your experiment, shining a laser through sugar water, is more indicative of looking through the earth's atmosphere than looking through a container of water? 

What you said is not demonstrated by the experiment is exactly what is demonstrated by the experiment. It odd that you won’t to deny the very thing the experiment shows.

It physically demonstrates how the light is refracted by changes in a medium it is travelling through.

You’ve claimed that refraction can’t do why I said it can: that light can be bent downwards in the atmosphere. And it directly refutes your claims that objects would always appear lower.

This literally refutes everything you’ve claimed thus far.

Thats before we even consider your claims.

The experiment illustrates snells law. It shows, that it works in the way I claim.


Now: if you want to claim that the medium is the same without a change of refractive index: you’re basically asserting that the laws of physics for work the way they are always shown to work. Like I said.

if you want to claim that refraction in the atmosphere doesn’t work the way I’ve said, and shown: then you’re again asserting that the laws of physics do not work the way they are always shown to work: again like I said.


If you want to assert that I’m wrong because you believe the laws of physics work differently then they have been shown to work, you can do that; but that I nonsensical pseudoscience that you need to proove; not angrily assert and then demand I disprove.

 

You mean like with the 3 experiments that I gave early on in this debate? I'm curious, why do you keep asserting that I'm "angry" or "shouting"? Also, why is it that whenever a test is performed to try and accurately measure the curvature of the earth, none is ever found, or at least not that is required for the earth to be a ball that is roughly 25,000 miles in circumference? Why do you continue to ignore the experiments that refute your claims and continue with rhetorical fallacies?

Pogue

@Erfisflat
Why do you continue you to ignore this? 

These prove Earth's curvature:

1. Look at eclipses

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

Companies like Sent Into Space have special balloon kits that allow you to send whatever you like into space and back. 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/.

I want to make an official correction to all my arguments. I said to send a camera to space. However, the balloons that common people use do not reach that high since "an imaginary line about 68 miles (110 kilometers) from the surface, called the Karman line, is usually where scientists say Earth's atmosphere meets outer space." 

3. Watch the sun go over the horizon while lying down, then quickly stand up

If you watch the sunset lying down, 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. The stars

If you go 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.

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:

5. Time zones

Our planet is divided into 24 time zones, this is taking into account the position of the Sun and the Earth's rotation. 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.

We have time zones because when the Sun is illuminating one side of the spherical Earth, the other side is dark.

This can only be explained if the world is round, and rotating around its own axis. At a certain point when the sun is shining on one part of the Earth, the opposite side is dark, and vice versa. That allows for time differences and time zones, specifically ones that are larger than 12 hours.

Another point concerning time zones, the sun, and Earth: If the sun was a “spotlight” (very directionally located so that light only shines on a specific location) and the world was flat, we would see the sun even if it didn’t shine on top of us (as you can see in the drawing below). Similarly, you can see the light coming out of a spotlight on a stage in the theater, even though you—the crowd—are sitting in the dark. The only way to create two distinctly separate time zones, where there is complete darkness in one while there’s light in the other as 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, 

The Earth's circumference was first measured by Eratosthenes. "He is best known for being the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth, which he did by comparing altitudes of the mid-day sun at two places a known North-South distance apart. His calculation was remarkably accurate. He was also the first to calculate the tilt of the Earth's axis (again with remarkable accuracy). Additionally, he may have accurately calculated the distance from the Earth to the Sun and invented the leap day.[4] He created the first map of the world, incorporating parallels and meridians based on the available geographic knowledge of his era."

"

Illustration showing a portion of the globe showing a part of the African continent. The sunbeams showed as two rays hitting the ground at Syene and Alexandria. The angle of sunbeam and the gnomons (a vertical pole) is shown at Alexandria, which allowed Eratosthenes' estimates of radius and circumference of Earth.

Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth without leaving Egypt. He knew that at local noon on the summer solstice in Syene (modern Aswan, Egypt), the Sun was directly overhead. (Syene is at latitude 24°05′ North, near to the Tropic of Cancer, which was 23°42′ North in 100 BC[16]) He knew this because the shadow of someone looking down a deep well at that time in Syene blocked the reflection of the Sun on the water. He measured the Sun's angle of elevation at noon in Alexandria by using a vertical rod, known as a gnomon, and measuring the length of its shadow on the ground.[17] Using the length of the rod, and the length of the shadow, as the legs of a triangle, he calculated the angle of the sun's rays. This turned out to be about 7°, or 1/50th the circumference of a circle. Taking the Earth as spherical, and knowing both the distance and direction of Syene, he concluded that the Earth's circumference was fifty times that distance.

His knowledge of the size of Egypt was founded on the work of many generations of surveying trips. Pharaonic bookkeepers gave a distance between Syene and Alexandria of 5,000 stadia (a figure that was checked yearly).[18] Some[who?] say that the distance was corroborated by inquiring about the time that it took to travel from Syene to Alexandria by camel. Some claim Eratosthenes used the Olympic stade of 176.4 m, which would imply a circumference of 44,100 km, an error of 10%,[18] but the 184.8 m Italian stade became (300 years later) the most commonly accepted value for the length of the stade,[18] which implies a circumference of 46,100 km, an error of 15%.[18] It was unlikely, even accounting for his extremely primitive measuring tools, that Eratosthenes could have calculated an accurate measurement of the circumference of the Earth. He made five important assumptions (none of which is perfectly accurate):[18][19]

1. That the distance between Alexandria and Syene was 5000 stadia,
2. That Alexandria is due north of Syene
3. That Syene is on the Tropic of Cancer
4. That the Earth is a perfect sphere.
5. That light rays emanating from the Sun are parallel.

Eratosthenes later rounded the result to a final value of 700 stadia per degree, which implies a circumference of 252,000 stadia, likely for reasons of calculation simplicity as the larger number is evenly divisible by 60.[18] In 2012, Anthony Abreu Mora repeated Eratosthenes's calculation with more accurate data; the result was 40,074 km, which is 66 km different (0.16%) from the currently accepted polar circumference of the Earth.[19]"

You say you do not believe in a model, so you can not explain this. If you suddenly do, the spotlight sun has been debunked so the model does not work out. I will not repost the spotlight sun debunk yet. If you want me to, I will. 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

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.

you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down. I’m using this science and experiment to completely refute your nonsense section that refraction makes objects appear lower; (which it does), and to illustrate light behaves like I say it does, and how science says it does.

so yes: this provides experimental evidence of the mechanism that makes the earth look a little flatter than it is.

Given that you rush to claim that looking through a glass of water is totally the same as hundreds of miles of air; youe objection is blatantly hypocritical given you’ve provided no reasons or explanation as to why the experiment doesnt show what i said it does.

It refutes your arguments that light has to change mediums to refract, and refutes your claim that objects must appear lower, and provides proof that the process I’m using exists, works the way I say it does and can explain the observations with known science.

So us, it pretty much confirms everything I’ve said, and refutes everything you’ve said for reasons I’ve provided.

As you’re providing no justification or argument other than claiming the experiment doesnt count, and hurling multiple arguments that refute your own position out of apparent desperation, it seems you appreciate how good this experiment is!

What made you foolishly conclude that the beam was travelling from a lower index to a higher index? Common sense tells me that the entire tank was of one consistency, ie. all sugar water.

You’re just making stuff up now, it seems. You have no argument so are just throwing whatever nonsense you decide.

- if it’s all the same refractive index, why does the light bend weirdly: for no reason? Magic? Chuck Norris? This makes no sense.
- Even if you’re right: it still refutes your claims that refraction makes objects appear lower.
- Even if you’re right; it still demonstrates that light can be bent downwards, and could produce the effects I’m explaining.

You’re basically denying the laws of physics in order to construct an argument against this experiment showing you’re wrong.

When your are forced to deny the laws of physics without any evidence; it’s probably a good indication you don’t have a valid position.
 

Your statement:
"you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down."

Is not demonstrated by shining a laser through a constant refractive index, like a tank of sugar water. This is why I asked the question: "What made you conclude that the beam was travelling from a lower index to a higher index? Please explain exactly why your experiment, shining a laser through sugar water, is more indicative of looking through the earth's atmosphere than looking through a container of water? 

What you said is not demonstrated by the experiment is exactly what is demonstrated by the experiment. It odd that you won’t to deny the very thing the experiment shows.

It physically demonstrates how the light is refracted by changes in a medium it is travelling through.

You’ve claimed that refraction can’t do why I said it can: that light can be bent downwards in the atmosphere. And it directly refutes your claims that objects would always appear lower.

This literally refutes everything you’ve claimed thus far.

Thats before we even consider your claims.

The experiment illustrates snells law. It shows, that it works in the way I claim.


Now: if you want to claim that the medium is the same without a change of refractive index: you’re basically asserting that the laws of physics for work the way they are always shown to work. Like I said.

if you want to claim that refraction in the atmosphere doesn’t work the way I’ve said, and shown: then you’re again asserting that the laws of physics do not work the way they are always shown to work: again like I said.


If you want to assert that I’m wrong because you believe the laws of physics work differently then they have been shown to work, you can do that; but that I nonsensical pseudoscience that you need to proove; not angrily assert and then demand I disprove.

 

You mean like with the 3 experiments that I gave early on in this debate? I'm curious, why do you keep asserting that I'm "angry" or "shouting"? Also, why is it that whenever a test is performed to try and accurately measure the curvature of the earth, none is ever found, or at least not that is required for the earth to be a ball that is roughly 25,000 miles in circumference? Why do you continue to ignore the experiments that refute your claims and continue with rhetorical fallacies?

No. I mean 3 experiments that prove what you’re claiming: that refraction works in a way utterly contrary to snells law of refraction. What you’ve posted so far, and I am not aware of anything you’ve posted on this specific debate: is a video of something happen, which without argument, justification, evidence, support, mathematics or any systematic analysis: you then assert proves something.

Unfortunately, that’s not the way science works. You have to establish and validate the nonsense you assert when you’re arguing the entire laws of physics are wrong, that takes a little bit more than a couple of sloppy YouTube videos of botched experiments.

And quite frankly you’re ignoring that the video I posted flat out refute the claims you made by demonstrating that what you claimed always happens doesn’t always happened.

If you want through outrageous and unsupported claims, and then use circular reasoning against any disproof, you can do that; but don’t insult our intelligence by claiming you’re making a scientific argument.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

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.

you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down. I’m using this science and experiment to completely refute your nonsense section that refraction makes objects appear lower; (which it does), and to illustrate light behaves like I say it does, and how science says it does.

so yes: this provides experimental evidence of the mechanism that makes the earth look a little flatter than it is.

Given that you rush to claim that looking through a glass of water is totally the same as hundreds of miles of air; youe objection is blatantly hypocritical given you’ve provided no reasons or explanation as to why the experiment doesnt show what i said it does.

It refutes your arguments that light has to change mediums to refract, and refutes your claim that objects must appear lower, and provides proof that the process I’m using exists, works the way I say it does and can explain the observations with known science.

So us, it pretty much confirms everything I’ve said, and refutes everything you’ve said for reasons I’ve provided.

As you’re providing no justification or argument other than claiming the experiment doesnt count, and hurling multiple arguments that refute your own position out of apparent desperation, it seems you appreciate how good this experiment is!

What made you foolishly conclude that the beam was travelling from a lower index to a higher index? Common sense tells me that the entire tank was of one consistency, ie. all sugar water.

You’re just making stuff up now, it seems. You have no argument so are just throwing whatever nonsense you decide.

- if it’s all the same refractive index, why does the light bend weirdly: for no reason? Magic? Chuck Norris? This makes no sense.
- Even if you’re right: it still refutes your claims that refraction makes objects appear lower.
- Even if you’re right; it still demonstrates that light can be bent downwards, and could produce the effects I’m explaining.

You’re basically denying the laws of physics in order to construct an argument against this experiment showing you’re wrong.

When your are forced to deny the laws of physics without any evidence; it’s probably a good indication you don’t have a valid position.
 

Your statement:
"you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down."

Is not demonstrated by shining a laser through a constant refractive index, like a tank of sugar water. This is why I asked the question: "What made you conclude that the beam was travelling from a lower index to a higher index? Please explain exactly why your experiment, shining a laser through sugar water, is more indicative of looking through the earth's atmosphere than looking through a container of water? 

What you said is not demonstrated by the experiment is exactly what is demonstrated by the experiment. It odd that you won’t to deny the very thing the experiment shows.

It physically demonstrates how the light is refracted by changes in a medium it is travelling through.

You’ve claimed that refraction can’t do why I said it can: that light can be bent downwards in the atmosphere. And it directly refutes your claims that objects would always appear lower.

This literally refutes everything you’ve claimed thus far.

Thats before we even consider your claims.

The experiment illustrates snells law. It shows, that it works in the way I claim.


Now: if you want to claim that the medium is the same without a change of refractive index: you’re basically asserting that the laws of physics for work the way they are always shown to work. Like I said.

if you want to claim that refraction in the atmosphere doesn’t work the way I’ve said, and shown: then you’re again asserting that the laws of physics do not work the way they are always shown to work: again like I said.


If you want to assert that I’m wrong because you believe the laws of physics work differently then they have been shown to work, you can do that; but that I nonsensical pseudoscience that you need to proove; not angrily assert and then demand I disprove.

 

You mean like with the 3 experiments that I gave early on in this debate? I'm curious, why do you keep asserting that I'm "angry" or "shouting"? Also, why is it that whenever a test is performed to try and accurately measure the curvature of the earth, none is ever found, or at least not that is required for the earth to be a ball that is roughly 25,000 miles in circumference? Why do you continue to ignore the experiments that refute your claims and continue with rhetorical fallacies?

1.) we’ve continually pointed out experiments that show curvature. You ignore them.

2.) we’ve continually pointed out specific experimental errors in your experiments; which you’ve ignored and simply asserted are accurate.

3.) you keep accusing us of fallacies but never explain why they are fallacies, I’m still waiting for you to explain why the three arguments you’ve claimed are straw men, are actually straw men; and why any of the arguments I’ve made are red herrings.

4.) I have constantly repeatedly addressed your experiments: the measurements and experiments of refraction are specifically part of my comprehensive rebuttal of your position; which you have mostly ignored.

you appear to be in denial? Would you like me go back and repost the rebuttals that you appear to have ignored?

Erfisflat

Ampersand 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?

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?

Are you ignoring the fact that the shadow has come from the wrong direction? Doesn't it seem like yet another ad hoc excuse that the three alleged bodies now don't necessarily have to be in a line to cause an eclipse? So, just to recap, I've shown an experiment that tests and measures the supposed curvature of the earth, and none is found, this is met with "refraction", with absolutely no practical evidence of such, aside from goober shining a laser through sugar water, and eclipses have been shown that are NOT predicted to happen as the current model shows, which is also met with the unsupported ad hoc excuse, "refraction".

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

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.

you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down. I’m using this science and experiment to completely refute your nonsense section that refraction makes objects appear lower; (which it does), and to illustrate light behaves like I say it does, and how science says it does.

so yes: this provides experimental evidence of the mechanism that makes the earth look a little flatter than it is.

Given that you rush to claim that looking through a glass of water is totally the same as hundreds of miles of air; youe objection is blatantly hypocritical given you’ve provided no reasons or explanation as to why the experiment doesnt show what i said it does.

It refutes your arguments that light has to change mediums to refract, and refutes your claim that objects must appear lower, and provides proof that the process I’m using exists, works the way I say it does and can explain the observations with known science.

So us, it pretty much confirms everything I’ve said, and refutes everything you’ve said for reasons I’ve provided.

As you’re providing no justification or argument other than claiming the experiment doesnt count, and hurling multiple arguments that refute your own position out of apparent desperation, it seems you appreciate how good this experiment is!

What made you foolishly conclude that the beam was travelling from a lower index to a higher index? Common sense tells me that the entire tank was of one consistency, ie. all sugar water.

You’re just making stuff up now, it seems. You have no argument so are just throwing whatever nonsense you decide.

- if it’s all the same refractive index, why does the light bend weirdly: for no reason? Magic? Chuck Norris? This makes no sense.
- Even if you’re right: it still refutes your claims that refraction makes objects appear lower.
- Even if you’re right; it still demonstrates that light can be bent downwards, and could produce the effects I’m explaining.

You’re basically denying the laws of physics in order to construct an argument against this experiment showing you’re wrong.

When your are forced to deny the laws of physics without any evidence; it’s probably a good indication you don’t have a valid position.
 

Your statement:
"you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down."

Is not demonstrated by shining a laser through a constant refractive index, like a tank of sugar water. This is why I asked the question: "What made you conclude that the beam was travelling from a lower index to a higher index? Please explain exactly why your experiment, shining a laser through sugar water, is more indicative of looking through the earth's atmosphere than looking through a container of water? 

What you said is not demonstrated by the experiment is exactly what is demonstrated by the experiment. It odd that you won’t to deny the very thing the experiment shows.

It physically demonstrates how the light is refracted by changes in a medium it is travelling through.

You’ve claimed that refraction can’t do why I said it can: that light can be bent downwards in the atmosphere. And it directly refutes your claims that objects would always appear lower.

This literally refutes everything you’ve claimed thus far.

Thats before we even consider your claims.

The experiment illustrates snells law. It shows, that it works in the way I claim.


Now: if you want to claim that the medium is the same without a change of refractive index: you’re basically asserting that the laws of physics for work the way they are always shown to work. Like I said.

if you want to claim that refraction in the atmosphere doesn’t work the way I’ve said, and shown: then you’re again asserting that the laws of physics do not work the way they are always shown to work: again like I said.


If you want to assert that I’m wrong because you believe the laws of physics work differently then they have been shown to work, you can do that; but that I nonsensical pseudoscience that you need to proove; not angrily assert and then demand I disprove.

 

You mean like with the 3 experiments that I gave early on in this debate? I'm curious, why do you keep asserting that I'm "angry" or "shouting"? Also, why is it that whenever a test is performed to try and accurately measure the curvature of the earth, none is ever found, or at least not that is required for the earth to be a ball that is roughly 25,000 miles in circumference? Why do you continue to ignore the experiments that refute your claims and continue with rhetorical fallacies?

1.) we’ve continually pointed out experiments that show curvature. You ignore them.

2.) we’ve continually pointed out specific experimental errors in your experiments; which you’ve ignored and simply asserted are accurate.

3.) you keep accusing us of fallacies but never explain why they are fallacies, I’m still waiting for you to explain why the three arguments you’ve claimed are straw men, are actually straw men; and why any of the arguments I’ve made are red herrings.

4.) I have constantly repeatedly addressed your experiments: the measurements and experiments of refraction are specifically part of my comprehensive rebuttal of your position; which you have mostly ignored.

you appear to be in denial? Would you like me go back and repost the rebuttals that you appear to have ignored?

If you would like, of course you realize that just asserting an experiment is "botched" isn't an actual rebuttal, right?

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand 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?

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?

Are you ignoring the fact that the shadow has come from the wrong direction? Doesn't it seem like yet another ad hoc excuse that the three alleged bodies now don't necessarily have to be in a line to cause an eclipse? So, just to recap, I've shown an experiment that tests and measures the supposed curvature of the earth, and none is found, this is met with "refraction", with absolutely no practical evidence of such, aside from goober shining a laser through sugar water, and eclipses have been shown that are NOT predicted to happen as the current model shows, which is also met with the unsupported ad hoc excuse, "refraction".

You are trying to prove the Earth is flat. So saying that I am wrong because it is while providing no evidence is circular reasoning. 

Description: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.  This fallacy is often quite humorous.

Logical Form:

X is true because of Y.

Y is true because of X.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/66/Circular-Reasoning

Your video (one video and one that he just puts with no summary) that has been debunked. That is nothing compared to my 10, in which 7 you can do yourself. What about the infinite amount of pictures that the Earth is round? You have shown no evidence that eclipses are not predicted the way they happen. I have debunked your spotlight sun so many time! 

Guess I have to repost this because this is getting no response and it is annoying!

Why do you continue you to ignore this? 

These prove Earth's curvature:

1. Look at eclipses

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

Companies like Sent Into Space have special balloon kits that allow you to send whatever you like into space and back. 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/.

I want to make an official correction to all my arguments. I said to send a camera to space. However, the balloons that common people use do not reach that high since "an imaginary line about 68 miles (110 kilometers) from the surface, called the Karman line, is usually where scientists say Earth's atmosphere meets outer space." 

3. Watch the sun go over the horizon while lying down, then quickly stand up

If you watch the sunset lying down, 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. The stars

If you go 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.

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:

5. Time zones

Our planet is divided into 24 time zones, this is taking into account the position of the Sun and the Earth's rotation. 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.

We have time zones because when the Sun is illuminating one side of the spherical Earth, the other side is dark.

This can only be explained if the world is round, and rotating around its own axis. At a certain point when the sun is shining on one part of the Earth, the opposite side is dark, and vice versa. That allows for time differences and time zones, specifically ones that are larger than 12 hours.

Another point concerning time zones, the sun, and Earth: If the sun was a “spotlight” (very directionally located so that light only shines on a specific location) and the world was flat, we would see the sun even if it didn’t shine on top of us (as you can see in the drawing below). Similarly, you can see the light coming out of a spotlight on a stage in the theater, even though you—the crowd—are sitting in the dark. The only way to create two distinctly separate time zones, where there is complete darkness in one while there’s light in the other as 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, 

The Earth's circumference was first measured by Eratosthenes. "He is best known for being the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth, which he did by comparing altitudes of the mid-day sun at two places a known North-South distance apart. His calculation was remarkably accurate. He was also the first to calculate the tilt of the Earth's axis (again with remarkable accuracy). Additionally, he may have accurately calculated the distance from the Earth to the Sun and invented the leap day.[4] He created the first map of the world, incorporating parallels and meridians based on the available geographic knowledge of his era."

"

Illustration showing a portion of the globe showing a part of the African continent. The sunbeams showed as two rays hitting the ground at Syene and Alexandria. The angle of sunbeam and the gnomons (a vertical pole) is shown at Alexandria, which allowed Eratosthenes' estimates of radius and circumference of Earth.

Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth without leaving Egypt. He knew that at local noon on the summer solstice in Syene (modern Aswan, Egypt), the Sun was directly overhead. (Syene is at latitude 24°05′ North, near to the Tropic of Cancer, which was 23°42′ North in 100 BC[16]) He knew this because the shadow of someone looking down a deep well at that time in Syene blocked the reflection of the Sun on the water. He measured the Sun's angle of elevation at noon in Alexandria by using a vertical rod, known as a gnomon, and measuring the length of its shadow on the ground.[17] Using the length of the rod, and the length of the shadow, as the legs of a triangle, he calculated the angle of the sun's rays. This turned out to be about 7°, or 1/50th the circumference of a circle. Taking the Earth as spherical, and knowing both the distance and direction of Syene, he concluded that the Earth's circumference was fifty times that distance.

His knowledge of the size of Egypt was founded on the work of many generations of surveying trips. Pharaonic bookkeepers gave a distance between Syene and Alexandria of 5,000 stadia (a figure that was checked yearly).[18] Some[who?] say that the distance was corroborated by inquiring about the time that it took to travel from Syene to Alexandria by camel. Some claim Eratosthenes used the Olympic stade of 176.4 m, which would imply a circumference of 44,100 km, an error of 10%,[18] but the 184.8 m Italian stade became (300 years later) the most commonly accepted value for the length of the stade,[18] which implies a circumference of 46,100 km, an error of 15%.[18] It was unlikely, even accounting for his extremely primitive measuring tools, that Eratosthenes could have calculated an accurate measurement of the circumference of the Earth. He made five important assumptions (none of which is perfectly accurate):[18][19]

1. That the distance between Alexandria and Syene was 5000 stadia,
2. That Alexandria is due north of Syene
3. That Syene is on the Tropic of Cancer
4. That the Earth is a perfect sphere.
5. That light rays emanating from the Sun are parallel.

Eratosthenes later rounded the result to a final value of 700 stadia per degree, which implies a circumference of 252,000 stadia, likely for reasons of calculation simplicity as the larger number is evenly divisible by 60.[18] In 2012, Anthony Abreu Mora repeated Eratosthenes's calculation with more accurate data; the result was 40,074 km, which is 66 km different (0.16%) from the currently accepted polar circumference of the Earth.[19]"

You say you do not believe in a model, so you can not explain this. If you suddenly do, the spotlight sun has been debunked so the model does not work out. I will not repost the spotlight sun debunk yet. If you want me to, I will. 

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

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.

you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down. I’m using this science and experiment to completely refute your nonsense section that refraction makes objects appear lower; (which it does), and to illustrate light behaves like I say it does, and how science says it does.

so yes: this provides experimental evidence of the mechanism that makes the earth look a little flatter than it is.

Given that you rush to claim that looking through a glass of water is totally the same as hundreds of miles of air; youe objection is blatantly hypocritical given you’ve provided no reasons or explanation as to why the experiment doesnt show what i said it does.

It refutes your arguments that light has to change mediums to refract, and refutes your claim that objects must appear lower, and provides proof that the process I’m using exists, works the way I say it does and can explain the observations with known science.

So us, it pretty much confirms everything I’ve said, and refutes everything you’ve said for reasons I’ve provided.

As you’re providing no justification or argument other than claiming the experiment doesnt count, and hurling multiple arguments that refute your own position out of apparent desperation, it seems you appreciate how good this experiment is!

What made you foolishly conclude that the beam was travelling from a lower index to a higher index? Common sense tells me that the entire tank was of one consistency, ie. all sugar water.

You’re just making stuff up now, it seems. You have no argument so are just throwing whatever nonsense you decide.

- if it’s all the same refractive index, why does the light bend weirdly: for no reason? Magic? Chuck Norris? This makes no sense.
- Even if you’re right: it still refutes your claims that refraction makes objects appear lower.
- Even if you’re right; it still demonstrates that light can be bent downwards, and could produce the effects I’m explaining.

You’re basically denying the laws of physics in order to construct an argument against this experiment showing you’re wrong.

When your are forced to deny the laws of physics without any evidence; it’s probably a good indication you don’t have a valid position.
 

Your statement:
"you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down."

Is not demonstrated by shining a laser through a constant refractive index, like a tank of sugar water. This is why I asked the question: "What made you conclude that the beam was travelling from a lower index to a higher index? Please explain exactly why your experiment, shining a laser through sugar water, is more indicative of looking through the earth's atmosphere than looking through a container of water? 

What you said is not demonstrated by the experiment is exactly what is demonstrated by the experiment. It odd that you won’t to deny the very thing the experiment shows.

It physically demonstrates how the light is refracted by changes in a medium it is travelling through.

You’ve claimed that refraction can’t do why I said it can: that light can be bent downwards in the atmosphere. And it directly refutes your claims that objects would always appear lower.

This literally refutes everything you’ve claimed thus far.

Thats before we even consider your claims.

The experiment illustrates snells law. It shows, that it works in the way I claim.


Now: if you want to claim that the medium is the same without a change of refractive index: you’re basically asserting that the laws of physics for work the way they are always shown to work. Like I said.

if you want to claim that refraction in the atmosphere doesn’t work the way I’ve said, and shown: then you’re again asserting that the laws of physics do not work the way they are always shown to work: again like I said.


If you want to assert that I’m wrong because you believe the laws of physics work differently then they have been shown to work, you can do that; but that I nonsensical pseudoscience that you need to proove; not angrily assert and then demand I disprove.

 

You mean like with the 3 experiments that I gave early on in this debate? I'm curious, why do you keep asserting that I'm "angry" or "shouting"? Also, why is it that whenever a test is performed to try and accurately measure the curvature of the earth, none is ever found, or at least not that is required for the earth to be a ball that is roughly 25,000 miles in circumference? Why do you continue to ignore the experiments that refute your claims and continue with rhetorical fallacies?

No. I mean 3 experiments that prove what you’re claiming: that refraction works in a way utterly contrary to snells law of refraction. What you’ve posted so far, and I am not aware of anything you’ve posted on this specific debate: is a video of something happen, which without argument, justification, evidence, support, mathematics or any systematic analysis: you then assert proves something.

Unfortunately, that’s not the way science works. You have to establish and validate the nonsense you assert when you’re arguing the entire laws of physics are wrong, that takes a little bit more than a couple of sloppy YouTube videos of botched experiments.

And quite frankly you’re ignoring that the video I posted flat out refute the claims you made by demonstrating that what you claimed always happens doesn’t always happened.

If you want through outrageous and unsupported claims, and then use circular reasoning against any disproof, you can do that; but don’t insult our intelligence by claiming you’re making a scientific argument.

In order for anything you've said here to be even considered a valid argument, you should at least show that "refraction works in a way utterly contrary to snells law of refraction". I've actually quoted the law and pointed out that I've not contradicted any physical laws. 

Erfisflat

Yet another comprehensive test that shows absolutely zero curvature over 9 miles.

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

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.

you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down. I’m using this science and experiment to completely refute your nonsense section that refraction makes objects appear lower; (which it does), and to illustrate light behaves like I say it does, and how science says it does.

so yes: this provides experimental evidence of the mechanism that makes the earth look a little flatter than it is.

Given that you rush to claim that looking through a glass of water is totally the same as hundreds of miles of air; youe objection is blatantly hypocritical given you’ve provided no reasons or explanation as to why the experiment doesnt show what i said it does.

It refutes your arguments that light has to change mediums to refract, and refutes your claim that objects must appear lower, and provides proof that the process I’m using exists, works the way I say it does and can explain the observations with known science.

So us, it pretty much confirms everything I’ve said, and refutes everything you’ve said for reasons I’ve provided.

As you’re providing no justification or argument other than claiming the experiment doesnt count, and hurling multiple arguments that refute your own position out of apparent desperation, it seems you appreciate how good this experiment is!

What made you foolishly conclude that the beam was travelling from a lower index to a higher index? Common sense tells me that the entire tank was of one consistency, ie. all sugar water.

You’re just making stuff up now, it seems. You have no argument so are just throwing whatever nonsense you decide.

- if it’s all the same refractive index, why does the light bend weirdly: for no reason? Magic? Chuck Norris? This makes no sense.
- Even if you’re right: it still refutes your claims that refraction makes objects appear lower.
- Even if you’re right; it still demonstrates that light can be bent downwards, and could produce the effects I’m explaining.

You’re basically denying the laws of physics in order to construct an argument against this experiment showing you’re wrong.

When your are forced to deny the laws of physics without any evidence; it’s probably a good indication you don’t have a valid position.
 

Your statement:
"you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down."

Is not demonstrated by shining a laser through a constant refractive index, like a tank of sugar water. This is why I asked the question: "What made you conclude that the beam was travelling from a lower index to a higher index? Please explain exactly why your experiment, shining a laser through sugar water, is more indicative of looking through the earth's atmosphere than looking through a container of water? 

What you said is not demonstrated by the experiment is exactly what is demonstrated by the experiment. It odd that you won’t to deny the very thing the experiment shows.

It physically demonstrates how the light is refracted by changes in a medium it is travelling through.

You’ve claimed that refraction can’t do why I said it can: that light can be bent downwards in the atmosphere. And it directly refutes your claims that objects would always appear lower.

This literally refutes everything you’ve claimed thus far.

Thats before we even consider your claims.

The experiment illustrates snells law. It shows, that it works in the way I claim.


Now: if you want to claim that the medium is the same without a change of refractive index: you’re basically asserting that the laws of physics for work the way they are always shown to work. Like I said.

if you want to claim that refraction in the atmosphere doesn’t work the way I’ve said, and shown: then you’re again asserting that the laws of physics do not work the way they are always shown to work: again like I said.


If you want to assert that I’m wrong because you believe the laws of physics work differently then they have been shown to work, you can do that; but that I nonsensical pseudoscience that you need to proove; not angrily assert and then demand I disprove.

 

You mean like with the 3 experiments that I gave early on in this debate? I'm curious, why do you keep asserting that I'm "angry" or "shouting"? Also, why is it that whenever a test is performed to try and accurately measure the curvature of the earth, none is ever found, or at least not that is required for the earth to be a ball that is roughly 25,000 miles in circumference? Why do you continue to ignore the experiments that refute your claims and continue with rhetorical fallacies?

1.) we’ve continually pointed out experiments that show curvature. You ignore them.

2.) we’ve continually pointed out specific experimental errors in your experiments; which you’ve ignored and simply asserted are accurate.

3.) you keep accusing us of fallacies but never explain why they are fallacies, I’m still waiting for you to explain why the three arguments you’ve claimed are straw men, are actually straw men; and why any of the arguments I’ve made are red herrings.

4.) I have constantly repeatedly addressed your experiments: the measurements and experiments of refraction are specifically part of my comprehensive rebuttal of your position; which you have mostly ignored.

you appear to be in denial? Would you like me go back and repost the rebuttals that you appear to have ignored?

If you would like, of course you realize that just asserting an experiment is "botched" isn't an actual rebuttal, right?

He already proved they were botched in previous pages, in which you ignored. You also ignore 4/5 of his argument and all of this. 
Why do you continue you to ignore this? 

These prove Earth's curvature:

1. Look at eclipses

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

Companies like Sent Into Space have special balloon kits that allow you to send whatever you like into space and back. 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/.

I want to make an official correction to all my arguments. I said to send a camera to space. However, the balloons that common people use do not reach that high since "an imaginary line about 68 miles (110 kilometers) from the surface, called the Karman line, is usually where scientists say Earth's atmosphere meets outer space." 

3. Watch the sun go over the horizon while lying down, then quickly stand up

If you watch the sunset lying down, 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. The stars

If you go 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.

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:

5. Time zones

Our planet is divided into 24 time zones, this is taking into account the position of the Sun and the Earth's rotation. 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.

We have time zones because when the Sun is illuminating one side of the spherical Earth, the other side is dark.

This can only be explained if the world is round, and rotating around its own axis. At a certain point when the sun is shining on one part of the Earth, the opposite side is dark, and vice versa. That allows for time differences and time zones, specifically ones that are larger than 12 hours.

Another point concerning time zones, the sun, and Earth: If the sun was a “spotlight” (very directionally located so that light only shines on a specific location) and the world was flat, we would see the sun even if it didn’t shine on top of us (as you can see in the drawing below). Similarly, you can see the light coming out of a spotlight on a stage in the theater, even though you—the crowd—are sitting in the dark. The only way to create two distinctly separate time zones, where there is complete darkness in one while there’s light in the other as 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, 

The Earth's circumference was first measured by Eratosthenes. "He is best known for being the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth, which he did by comparing altitudes of the mid-day sun at two places a known North-South distance apart. His calculation was remarkably accurate. He was also the first to calculate the tilt of the Earth's axis (again with remarkable accuracy). Additionally, he may have accurately calculated the distance from the Earth to the Sun and invented the leap day.[4] He created the first map of the world, incorporating parallels and meridians based on the available geographic knowledge of his era."

"

Illustration showing a portion of the globe showing a part of the African continent. The sunbeams showed two rays hitting the ground at Syene and Alexandria. The angle of sunbeam and the gnomons (a vertical pole) is shown at Alexandria, which allowed Eratosthenes' estimates of radius and circumference of Earth.

Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth without leaving Egypt. He knew that at local noon on the summer solstice in Syene (modern Aswan, Egypt), the Sun was directly overhead. (Syene is at latitude 24°05′ North, near to the Tropic of Cancer, which was 23°42′ North in 100 BC[16]) He knew this because the shadow of someone looking down a deep well at that time in Syene blocked the reflection of the Sun on the water. He measured the Sun's angle of elevation at noon in Alexandria by using a vertical rod, known as a gnomon, and measuring the length of its shadow on the ground.[17] Using the length of the rod, and the length of the shadow, as the legs of a triangle, he calculated the angle of the sun's rays. This turned out to be about 7°, or 1/50th the circumference of a circle. Taking the Earth as spherical, and knowing both the distance and direction of Syene, he concluded that the Earth's circumference was fifty times that distance.

His knowledge of the size of Egypt was founded on the work of many generations of surveying trips. Pharaonic bookkeepers gave a distance between Syene and Alexandria of 5,000 stadia (a figure that was checked yearly).[18] Some[who?] say that the distance was corroborated by inquiring about the time that it took to travel from Syene to Alexandria by camel. Some claim Eratosthenes used the Olympic stade of 176.4 m, which would imply a circumference of 44,100 km, an error of 10%,[18] but the 184.8 m Italian stade became (300 years later) the most commonly accepted value for the length of the stade,[18] which implies a circumference of 46,100 km, an error of 15%.[18] It was unlikely, even accounting for his extremely primitive measuring tools, that Eratosthenes could have calculated an accurate measurement of the circumference of the Earth. He made five important assumptions (none of which is perfectly accurate):[18][19]

1. That the distance between Alexandria and Syene was 5000 stadia,
2. That Alexandria is due north of Syene
3. That Syene is on the Tropic of Cancer
4. That the Earth is a perfect sphere.
5. That light rays emanating from the Sun are parallel.

Eratosthenes later rounded the result to a final value of 700 stadia per degree, which implies a circumference of 252,000 stadia, likely for reasons of calculation simplicity as the larger number is evenly divisible by 60.[18] In 2012, Anthony Abreu Mora repeated Eratosthenes's calculation with more accurate data; the result was 40,074 km, which is 66 km different (0.16%) from the currently accepted polar circumference of the Earth.[19]"

You say you do not believe in a model, so you can not explain this. If you suddenly do, the spotlight sun has been debunked so the model does not work out. I will not repost the spotlight sun debunk yet. If you want me to, I will. 

Know what I will post the spotlight sun debunk (a bigger one at least since time zones debunked it). 

We know the angular velocity of the sun because it must complete one circuit of the flat Earth in 1 day. At the equinoxes, when overhead the equator, approximately 10,000km (6,213.7mi) from the center of this planet. When here it must travel at 2,618km/h (1,626.75mi) factoring in distance at the equator and how long it must be. However, during the June solstice, it is on the Tropic of Cancer. On the flat Earth, it is 2,604km (1,618mi) closer to the center. Here it covers a smaller distance but at the same time so it must move slower. At about 1,936km/h (1203mi/h). On the December solstice, it is on the Tropic of Capricorn. This is 2,604km (1,618mi) south of the equator. The sun has to cover a larger distance in the same amount of time and so moves faster. This means it is about 3,300km/h (2050.5mi/h). 

A question I have is what is moving the sun. What force is doing it? Back it up with evidence when you answer/respond. Also, the speed difference would be easy to detect. In one hour it should change position much differently. 

This video explains everything in more depth and it also has more arguments to debunk a spotlight sun. 

Erfisflat

@Pogue

Is That all you're going to do? I'm still waiting on an actual rebuttal of selenelions. This would require you to do more than just copy and paste someone else's arguments.

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

@Pogue

Is That all you're going to do? I'm still waiting on an actual rebuttal of selenelions. This would require you to do more than just copy and paste someone else's arguments.

They are not someone else's arguments. 

Erfisflat

@Pogue
interested In a 1v1 debate?

Erfisflat

@pogue, so you'll deny plagiarism.
https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/science/2017/09/29/news/5-simple-experiments-to-prove-to-flat-earthers-our-planet-is-round-1149295/

Erfisflat

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?

Erfisflat

2. Send a camera into space

@pogue
This is an inconclusive test, since camera lenses, especially the one from your gif, feature curved glass. This demonstrably curves straight lines. Your gif is humorously from a fisheye lens and shows varying amounts of curvature, depending on the angle which the horizon is viewed.

Erfisflat

3. The Earth's circumference was first measured by Eratosthenes.
@pogue
Errortosthenes made this test under the assumption that the sun was 93,000,000 miles away, and it's rays all hit the earth at the same angle, or perpendicular.


Of course, the same results could be yielded from a close and small sun on a flat earth.


Anyone with eyes can see that the sun's rays do not hit the earth at perpendicular angles.


So the evidence clearly suggests that errortoathenes made a false assumption in his test, and the earth is yet again proved to be flat.


This argument was plagiarized from WikiPedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

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.

you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down. I’m using this science and experiment to completely refute your nonsense section that refraction makes objects appear lower; (which it does), and to illustrate light behaves like I say it does, and how science says it does.

so yes: this provides experimental evidence of the mechanism that makes the earth look a little flatter than it is.

Given that you rush to claim that looking through a glass of water is totally the same as hundreds of miles of air; youe objection is blatantly hypocritical given you’ve provided no reasons or explanation as to why the experiment doesnt show what i said it does.

It refutes your arguments that light has to change mediums to refract, and refutes your claim that objects must appear lower, and provides proof that the process I’m using exists, works the way I say it does and can explain the observations with known science.

So us, it pretty much confirms everything I’ve said, and refutes everything you’ve said for reasons I’ve provided.

As you’re providing no justification or argument other than claiming the experiment doesnt count, and hurling multiple arguments that refute your own position out of apparent desperation, it seems you appreciate how good this experiment is!

What made you foolishly conclude that the beam was travelling from a lower index to a higher index? Common sense tells me that the entire tank was of one consistency, ie. all sugar water.

You’re just making stuff up now, it seems. You have no argument so are just throwing whatever nonsense you decide.

- if it’s all the same refractive index, why does the light bend weirdly: for no reason? Magic? Chuck Norris? This makes no sense.
- Even if you’re right: it still refutes your claims that refraction makes objects appear lower.
- Even if you’re right; it still demonstrates that light can be bent downwards, and could produce the effects I’m explaining.

You’re basically denying the laws of physics in order to construct an argument against this experiment showing you’re wrong.

When your are forced to deny the laws of physics without any evidence; it’s probably a good indication you don’t have a valid position.
 

Your statement:
"you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down."

Is not demonstrated by shining a laser through a constant refractive index, like a tank of sugar water. This is why I asked the question: "What made you conclude that the beam was travelling from a lower index to a higher index? Please explain exactly why your experiment, shining a laser through sugar water, is more indicative of looking through the earth's atmosphere than looking through a container of water? 

What you said is not demonstrated by the experiment is exactly what is demonstrated by the experiment. It odd that you won’t to deny the very thing the experiment shows.

It physically demonstrates how the light is refracted by changes in a medium it is travelling through.

You’ve claimed that refraction can’t do why I said it can: that light can be bent downwards in the atmosphere. And it directly refutes your claims that objects would always appear lower.

This literally refutes everything you’ve claimed thus far.

Thats before we even consider your claims.

The experiment illustrates snells law. It shows, that it works in the way I claim.


Now: if you want to claim that the medium is the same without a change of refractive index: you’re basically asserting that the laws of physics for work the way they are always shown to work. Like I said.

if you want to claim that refraction in the atmosphere doesn’t work the way I’ve said, and shown: then you’re again asserting that the laws of physics do not work the way they are always shown to work: again like I said.


If you want to assert that I’m wrong because you believe the laws of physics work differently then they have been shown to work, you can do that; but that I nonsensical pseudoscience that you need to proove; not angrily assert and then demand I disprove.

 

You mean like with the 3 experiments that I gave early on in this debate? I'm curious, why do you keep asserting that I'm "angry" or "shouting"? Also, why is it that whenever a test is performed to try and accurately measure the curvature of the earth, none is ever found, or at least not that is required for the earth to be a ball that is roughly 25,000 miles in circumference? Why do you continue to ignore the experiments that refute your claims and continue with rhetorical fallacies?

1.) we’ve continually pointed out experiments that show curvature. You ignore them.

2.) we’ve continually pointed out specific experimental errors in your experiments; which you’ve ignored and simply asserted are accurate.

3.) you keep accusing us of fallacies but never explain why they are fallacies, I’m still waiting for you to explain why the three arguments you’ve claimed are straw men, are actually straw men; and why any of the arguments I’ve made are red herrings.

4.) I have constantly repeatedly addressed your experiments: the measurements and experiments of refraction are specifically part of my comprehensive rebuttal of your position; which you have mostly ignored.

you appear to be in denial? Would you like me go back and repost the rebuttals that you appear to have ignored?

If you would like, of course you realize that just asserting an experiment is "botched" isn't an actual rebuttal, right?

1.) I have explained why it is botched

2.) I have explained what it shows, and why it doesnt show what you claimed it does

3.) I have explained why your experiments could not be applied to the atmosphere, and could not simply be asserted to be proof.

4.) at no point did you provide more than assertions and emphatic claims that it did what you said, or provided no evidence to support the applicability: you went through and repeatedly lied about the experiment, then blocked me because i wouldnt let you get away with providing no support for the most important supporting argument you’ve provided.

5.) you’ve already refuted your own experiment earlier in this thread: you objected to my experiment in thegrounds that there is no change in medium: there is one change in the atmosphere either, so if you’re previous argument you’ve provided against me, you’re already admitting that the experiment cannot a representation of the atmosphere.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

“In order for anything you've said here to be even considered a valid argument, you should at least show that "refraction works in a way utterly contrary to snells law of refraction". I've actually quoted the law and pointed out that I've not contradicted any physical laws. ”

You quoted the law: and at no point have you made any attempt to use this law, or the maths to show that what you claim is true, or use the law to explicitly demonstrate what you propose can happen scientifically. 

Because of this, when you say you “pointed out that I’ve not contradicted any physical law”, is largely meaningless as you haven’t made any attempt to show what you’re pointing out at any point. Worse, at every attempt I’ve made to get you to show how snells law can produce the effects you claim, how the maths works to produce your effect, or to produce a diagram that allows you to visualize the process that is going on, and compare it against the laws of physics: you have been angry and incredulous: as if asking you to be scientific and provide a demonstration that you’re not just blurting our assertions is somehow an unconscionable violation of the scientific method.


Now; you’re right, you posted snells law.

But you then went on to assert that refraction cant happen without a change of medium. 

Your arguments rely on refraction occurring without a change of medium: so this claim refutes your own position. I demonstrably showed light refracting without a change of medium, and snells law is about changes in refractive index not medium.

So; the first thing that happened after you quoted snells law: is that you made a basic error in the science, you asserted something contrary to the laws of physics that was trivially refutable.

I’ve pointed this out about a half dozen times so far, and you haven’t even acknowledged that there’s been an argument made, and so we’re forced to drag you kicking and screaming into an actual debate where you make claims, and defend them.


So: you started off claiming (falsely) that refraction can’t happen without a change of medium, and in the process of trying to refute a simple experiment that proves you wrong, you refuted yourself again.

You claimed that the water was one single medium, and doesn’t have a change in refractive index. You literally went from claiming that refraction cant occur without a change of medium, to claiming refraction can happen inside a single continuous and unchanging medium.

You have literally claimed two completely opposite and mutually exclusive things in the space of a couppe of posts.

Most importantly: both of these claims are completely contrary to snells law (both because snells doesn’t require a change of medium, but does require a change of refractive index: and refraction can’t happen without it).

So when you claim that you’re not contrary to the laws of physics, I have no idea what on earth you’re talking about: because you made two claims that were contrary to the laws of physics, both refuted your own position, both refuted each other: and the only post you have made thus far that made any attempt to defend your own claims is an asserted statement, with no argument or justification that said: 

“[I've] pointed out that I've not contradicted any physical laws.”

This is such a vacuous non argument that makes no attempt to defend anything you’ve said in the face of such withering criticism, that I think you’re avoiding the argument on purpose.

Gooberry

Erfisflat 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?

I don’t know why you’re reposting this:

Pogue refuted on page 7, I provided a comprehensive refutation on page 8, and amphersand shortly after.

Shall we repost these refutations? To point out that you have ignored them, or do you want
to go back and defend your claims?

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

@pogue, so you'll deny plagiarism.
https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/science/2017/09/29/news/5-simple-experiments-to-prove-to-flat-earthers-our-planet-is-round-1149295/

Using he same expirments (in which other debates I posted the majority of them is not plagiarism.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

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.

you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down. I’m using this science and experiment to completely refute your nonsense section that refraction makes objects appear lower; (which it does), and to illustrate light behaves like I say it does, and how science says it does.

so yes: this provides experimental evidence of the mechanism that makes the earth look a little flatter than it is.

Given that you rush to claim that looking through a glass of water is totally the same as hundreds of miles of air; youe objection is blatantly hypocritical given you’ve provided no reasons or explanation as to why the experiment doesnt show what i said it does.

It refutes your arguments that light has to change mediums to refract, and refutes your claim that objects must appear lower, and provides proof that the process I’m using exists, works the way I say it does and can explain the observations with known science.

So us, it pretty much confirms everything I’ve said, and refutes everything you’ve said for reasons I’ve provided.

As you’re providing no justification or argument other than claiming the experiment doesnt count, and hurling multiple arguments that refute your own position out of apparent desperation, it seems you appreciate how good this experiment is!

What made you foolishly conclude that the beam was travelling from a lower index to a higher index? Common sense tells me that the entire tank was of one consistency, ie. all sugar water.

You’re just making stuff up now, it seems. You have no argument so are just throwing whatever nonsense you decide.

- if it’s all the same refractive index, why does the light bend weirdly: for no reason? Magic? Chuck Norris? This makes no sense.
- Even if you’re right: it still refutes your claims that refraction makes objects appear lower.
- Even if you’re right; it still demonstrates that light can be bent downwards, and could produce the effects I’m explaining.

You’re basically denying the laws of physics in order to construct an argument against this experiment showing you’re wrong.

When your are forced to deny the laws of physics without any evidence; it’s probably a good indication you don’t have a valid position.
 

Your statement:
"you are aware that the experiment demonstrates the proven science that when light moves from a lower to higher refractive index it bends down."

Is not demonstrated by shining a laser through a constant refractive index, like a tank of sugar water. This is why I asked the question: "What made you conclude that the beam was travelling from a lower index to a higher index? Please explain exactly why your experiment, shining a laser through sugar water, is more indicative of looking through the earth's atmosphere than looking through a container of water? 

What you said is not demonstrated by the experiment is exactly what is demonstrated by the experiment. It odd that you won’t to deny the very thing the experiment shows.

It physically demonstrates how the light is refracted by changes in a medium it is travelling through.

You’ve claimed that refraction can’t do why I said it can: that light can be bent downwards in the atmosphere. And it directly refutes your claims that objects would always appear lower.

This literally refutes everything you’ve claimed thus far.

Thats before we even consider your claims.

The experiment illustrates snells law. It shows, that it works in the way I claim.


Now: if you want to claim that the medium is the same without a change of refractive index: you’re basically asserting that the laws of physics for work the way they are always shown to work. Like I said.

if you want to claim that refraction in the atmosphere doesn’t work the way I’ve said, and shown: then you’re again asserting that the laws of physics do not work the way they are always shown to work: again like I said.


If you want to assert that I’m wrong because you believe the laws of physics work differently then they have been shown to work, you can do that; but that I nonsensical pseudoscience that you need to proove; not angrily assert and then demand I disprove.

 

You mean like with the 3 experiments that I gave early on in this debate? I'm curious, why do you keep asserting that I'm "angry" or "shouting"? Also, why is it that whenever a test is performed to try and accurately measure the curvature of the earth, none is ever found, or at least not that is required for the earth to be a ball that is roughly 25,000 miles in circumference? Why do you continue to ignore the experiments that refute your claims and continue with rhetorical fallacies?

1.) we’ve continually pointed out experiments that show curvature. You ignore them.

2.) we’ve continually pointed out specific experimental errors in your experiments; which you’ve ignored and simply asserted are accurate.

3.) you keep accusing us of fallacies but never explain why they are fallacies, I’m still waiting for you to explain why the three arguments you’ve claimed are straw men, are actually straw men; and why any of the arguments I’ve made are red herrings.

4.) I have constantly repeatedly addressed your experiments: the measurements and experiments of refraction are specifically part of my comprehensive rebuttal of your position; which you have mostly ignored.

you appear to be in denial? Would you like me go back and repost the rebuttals that you appear to have ignored?

If you would like, of course you realize that just asserting an experiment is "botched" isn't an actual rebuttal, right?

1.) I have explained why it is botched

2.) I have explained what it shows, and why it doesnt show what you claimed it does

3.) I have explained why your experiments could not be applied to the atmosphere, and could not simply be asserted to be proof.

4.) at no point did you provide more than assertions and emphatic claims that it did what you said, or provided no evidence to support the applicability: you went through and repeatedly lied about the experiment, then blocked me because i wouldnt let you get away with providing no support for the most important supporting argument you’ve provided.

5.) you’ve already refuted your own experiment earlier in this thread: you objected to my experiment in thegrounds that there is no change in medium: there is one change in the atmosphere either, so if you’re previous argument you’ve provided against me, you’re already admitting that the experiment cannot a representation of the atmosphere.

So this is yet another fruitless conversation reminiscent of any other post, you've offered to repost your refutation, and when I point out that just claiming that the experiments were "botched" is not a valid rebuttal, your reply is just another I've already done this, that or the other, followed by a lie, that i haven't provided a reason that we should use line of sight in water, while claiming that shining a laser through laser water refutes every position I've put forth so far, which is itself hasty generalization, ad hoc, and irrelevant. 

someone234

@Erfisflat the cloud limited the sun rays to specific directions. You are a funny guy.

Erfisflat

someone234 said:

@Erfisflat the cloud limited the sun rays to specific directions. You are a funny guy.

Says the guy in contact with aliens from another dimension. 

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

2. Send a camera into space

@pogue
This is an inconclusive test, since camera lenses, especially the one from your gif, feature curved glass. This demonstrably curves straight lines. Your gif is humorously from a fisheye lens and shows varying amounts of curvature, depending on the angle which the horizon is viewed.

I am just going quote Amp. 
"1) With a lense, it will curve lines of perspective away from the center, e.g.:



2) The earth in that image does not reach the center of the picture.

Ergo the distortion in that picture is making the earth less curved than it is in reality, not more, and therefore it is approximately proof number one billion of the spherical nature of the earth. Thanks for your assista@Pogue
It would obviously depend on your viewing angle. 

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat 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?

I don’t know why you’re reposting this:

Pogue refuted on page 7, I provided a comprehensive refutation on page 8, and amphersand shortly after.

Shall we repost these refutations? To point out that you have ignored them, or do you want
to go back and defend your claims?

For you to say "I've already explained why..." For pogue to say @goober already refuted this, and I have already refuted @ampersand rebuttal, waiting on him.

someone234

@Erfisflat the aliens are able to move along other dimensions of reality yes.
The 3D monster alien of movies is lowest on their food-chain. They are extremely civilised people.

Erfisflat

someone234 said:

@Erfisflat the aliens are able to move along other dimensions of reality yes.
The 3D monster alien of movies is lowest on their food-chain. They are extremely civilised people.

What makes you assume that there are aliens at all? Do you know of the fallen angels?

someone234

@Erfisflat fallen angels are not fallen this is a lie, the sinister beings were sinister from origin. Bible teaches many lies.

Demons are ranked above even the most powerful aliens and can curse aliens.

Erfisflat

someone234 said:

@Erfisflat fallen angels are not fallen this is a lie, the sinister beings were sinister from origin. Bible teaches many lies.

Demons are ranked above even the most powerful aliens and can curse aliens.

and you know this because...

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

2. Send a camera into space

@pogue
This is an inconclusive test, since camera lenses, especially the one from your gif, feature curved glass. This demonstrably curves straight lines. Your gif is humorously from a fisheye lens and shows varying amounts of curvature, depending on the angle which the horizon is viewed.

I am just going quote Amp. 
"1) With a lense, it will curve lines of perspective away from the center, e.g.:



2) The earth in that image does not reach the center of the picture.

Ergo the distortion in that picture is making the earth less curved than it is in reality, not more, and therefore it is approximately proof number one billion of the spherical nature of the earth. Thanks for your assista@Pogue
It would obviously depend on your viewing angle. 

Another copy and paste job,  you seem incapable of relaying any original thought. Why would you knowingly post evidence that fakes the conclusion, then post ad hoc to support it?

someone234

@Erfisflat the highest ranking beings that are below god level are angels (servants of God) and demons (balancing agents of God's will), the demons serve fate (we all serve fate) but only the angels serve God.

Angels have more power than demons but less freedom to use their power because they must ask the will of God first.

God answers to fate who has coded his destiny start to finish.

Fate is not coded, fate is randomised but everything beneath Fate is already predestined based on the random formulation of destiny that has ended up occurring.

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

3. The Earth's circumference was first measured by Eratosthenes.
@pogue
Errortosthenes made this test under the assumption that the sun was 93,000,000 miles away, and it's rays all hit the earth at the same angle, or perpendicular.


Of course, the same results could be yielded from a close and small sun on a flat earth.


Anyone with eyes can see that the sun's rays do not hit the earth at perpendicular angles.


So the evidence clearly suggests that errortoathenes made a false assumption in his test, and the earth is yet again proved to be flat.


This argument was plagiarized from WikiPedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

1. That is not my #3 argument it is the last one I posted. 
2. I put it in quotes
3. Guess I have to repost the spotlight sun debunk We know the angular velocity of the sun because it must complete one circuit of the flat Earth in 1 day. At the equinoxes, when overhead the equator, approximately 10,000km (6,213.7mi) from the center of this planet. When here it must travel at 2,618km/h (1,626.75mi) factoring in distance at the equator and how long it must be. However, during the June solstice, it is on the Tropic of Cancer. On the flat Earth, it is 2,604km (1,618mi) closer to the center. Here it covers a smaller distance but at the same time so it must move slower. At about 1,936km/h (1203mi/h). On the December solstice, it is on the Tropic of Capricorn. This is 2,604km (1,618mi) south of the equator. The sun has to cover a larger distance in the same amount of time and so moves faster. This means it is about 3,300km/h (2050.5mi/h). 

A question I have is what is moving the sun. What force is doing it? Back it up with evidence when you answer/respond. Also, the speed difference would be easy to detect. In one hour it should change position much differently. 

This video explains everything in more depth and it also has more arguments to debunk a spotlight sun. 
 

4. I already debunked this but I will repost it. Since I do not have any editor I am using pictures from a video and so the image I am posting is not the one that you did. However, it still applies, just changes the orientation. They are actually parallel. Anything at a far distance will configure, just like train tracks. The convergence of rays is usually unable to be seen on a clear day/partially cloudy day. However, as I already have said, clouds make this illusion visible. This is because they only let a bit of sunlight through. In this picture, the sun is simply right here. Taking the clouds out of the picture helps. 

You are assuming that they are in 2d when they are in 3d. 
Note, switch z with y.  

The sun has a very high z-axis value (z is where y is). So it is very far away. 
These are the rays on a clear day from above the clouds. 


Oh my gosh. I just remembered I could have used google drawing and so the next time I will do that.

You have not even touched Coriolis effect and hurricanes and the majority of my post. 

someone234

@Pogue actually even if they are in 2D that can be explained by the clouds limiting the sunlight to specific gaps in the dark cloud patching.

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

2. Send a camera into space

@pogue
This is an inconclusive test, since camera lenses, especially the one from your gif, feature curved glass. This demonstrably curves straight lines. Your gif is humorously from a fisheye lens and shows varying amounts of curvature, depending on the angle which the horizon is viewed.

I am just going quote Amp. 
"1) With a lense, it will curve lines of perspective away from the center, e.g.:



2) The earth in that image does not reach the center of the picture.

Ergo the distortion in that picture is making the earth less curved than it is in reality, not more, and therefore it is approximately proof number one billion of the spherical nature of the earth. Thanks for your assista@Pogue
It would obviously depend on your viewing angle. 

Another copy and paste job,  you seem incapable of relaying any original thought. Why would you knowingly post evidence that fakes the conclusion, then post ad hoc to support it?

But it does not fake the conclusion. I am capable fo my own thought. Does this guy fake it then?  https://www.geek.com/geek-cetera/homemade-spacecraft-reaches-100000-ft-films-the-whole-way-1287792/.

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

3. The Earth's circumference was first measured by Eratosthenes.
@pogue
Errortosthenes made this test under the assumption that the sun was 93,000,000 miles away, and it's rays all hit the earth at the same angle, or perpendicular.


Of course, the same results could be yielded from a close and small sun on a flat earth.


Anyone with eyes can see that the sun's rays do not hit the earth at perpendicular angles.


So the evidence clearly suggests that errortoathenes made a false assumption in his test, and the earth is yet again proved to be flat.


This argument was plagiarized from WikiPedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

1. That is not my #3 argument it is the last one I posted. 
2. I put it in quotes
3. Guess I have to repost the spotlight sun debunk We know the angular velocity of the sun because it must complete one circuit of the flat Earth in 1 day. At the equinoxes, when overhead the equator, approximately 10,000km (6,213.7mi) from the center of this planet. When here it must travel at 2,618km/h (1,626.75mi) factoring in distance at the equator and how long it must be. However, during the June solstice, it is on the Tropic of Cancer. On the flat Earth, it is 2,604km (1,618mi) closer to the center. Here it covers a smaller distance but at the same time so it must move slower. At about 1,936km/h (1203mi/h). On the December solstice, it is on the Tropic of Capricorn. This is 2,604km (1,618mi) south of the equator. The sun has to cover a larger distance in the same amount of time and so moves faster. This means it is about 3,300km/h (2050.5mi/h). 

A question I have is what is moving the sun. What force is doing it? Back it up with evidence when you answer/respond. Also, the speed difference would be easy to detect. In one hour it should change position much differently. 

This video explains everything in more depth and it also has more arguments to debunk a spotlight sun. 
 

4. I already debunked this but I will repost it. Since I do not have any editor I am using pictures from a video and so the image I am posting is not the one that you did. However, it still applies, just changes the orientation. They are actually parallel. Anything at a far distance will configure, just like train tracks. The convergence of rays is usually unable to be seen on a clear day/partially cloudy day. However, as I already have said, clouds make this illusion visible. This is because they only let a bit of sunlight through. In this picture, the sun is simply right here. Taking the clouds out of the picture helps. 

You are assuming that they are in 2d when they are in 3d. 
Note, switch z with y.  

The sun has a very high z-axis value (z is where y is). So it is very far away. 
These are the rays on a clear day from above the clouds. 


Oh my gosh. I just remembered I could have used google drawing and so the next time I will do that.

You have not even touched Coriolis effect and hurricanes and the majority of my post. 

I'm not entirely sure where you got the idea that the sun is a spotlight, it's an asinine strawman as I've never stated this. The rays in my image are very clearly NOT parallel, which disproves the errortosthenes experiment, which assumes they are. Try to stay on topic.

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

3. The Earth's circumference was first measured by Eratosthenes.
@pogue
Errortosthenes made this test under the assumption that the sun was 93,000,000 miles away, and it's rays all hit the earth at the same angle, or perpendicular.


Of course, the same results could be yielded from a close and small sun on a flat earth.


Anyone with eyes can see that the sun's rays do not hit the earth at perpendicular angles.


So the evidence clearly suggests that errortoathenes made a false assumption in his test, and the earth is yet again proved to be flat.


This argument was plagiarized from WikiPedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

1. That is not my #3 argument it is the last one I posted. 
2. I put it in quotes
3. Guess I have to repost the spotlight sun debunk We know the angular velocity of the sun because it must complete one circuit of the flat Earth in 1 day. At the equinoxes, when overhead the equator, approximately 10,000km (6,213.7mi) from the center of this planet. When here it must travel at 2,618km/h (1,626.75mi) factoring in distance at the equator and how long it must be. However, during the June solstice, it is on the Tropic of Cancer. On the flat Earth, it is 2,604km (1,618mi) closer to the center. Here it covers a smaller distance but at the same time so it must move slower. At about 1,936km/h (1203mi/h). On the December solstice, it is on the Tropic of Capricorn. This is 2,604km (1,618mi) south of the equator. The sun has to cover a larger distance in the same amount of time and so moves faster. This means it is about 3,300km/h (2050.5mi/h). 

A question I have is what is moving the sun. What force is doing it? Back it up with evidence when you answer/respond. Also, the speed difference would be easy to detect. In one hour it should change position much differently. 

This video explains everything in more depth and it also has more arguments to debunk a spotlight sun. 
 

4. I already debunked this but I will repost it. Since I do not have any editor I am using pictures from a video and so the image I am posting is not the one that you did. However, it still applies, just changes the orientation. They are actually parallel. Anything at a far distance will configure, just like train tracks. The convergence of rays is usually unable to be seen on a clear day/partially cloudy day. However, as I already have said, clouds make this illusion visible. This is because they only let a bit of sunlight through. In this picture, the sun is simply right here. Taking the clouds out of the picture helps. 

You are assuming that they are in 2d when they are in 3d. 
Note, switch z with y.  

The sun has a very high z-axis value (z is where y is). So it is very far away. 
These are the rays on a clear day from above the clouds. 


Oh my gosh. I just remembered I could have used google drawing and so the next time I will do that.

You have not even touched Coriolis effect and hurricanes and the majority of my post. 

I'm not entirely sure where you got the idea that the sun is a spotlight, it's an asinine strawman as I've never stated this. The rays in my image are very clearly NOT parallel, which disproves the errortosthenes experiment, which assumes they are. Try to stay on topic.

No, it is not. The only way for anything on a flat Earth is a spotlight. If you do have a model, how do you know it predicts everything needed. I debunked it right there. You ignored it just like everyth@Pogue
 I already debunked this but I will repost it. Since I do not have any editor I am using pictures from a video and so the image I am posting is not the one that you did. However, it still applies, just changes the orientation. They are actually parallel. Anything at a far distance will configure, just like train tracks. The convergence of rays is usually unable to be seen on a clear day/partially cloudy day. However, as I already have said, clouds make this illusion visible. This is because they only let a bit of sunlight through. In this picture, the sun is simply right here. Taking the clouds out of the picture helps. 

You are assuming that they are in 2d when they are in 3d. 
Note, switch z with y.  

The sun has a very high z-axis value (z is where y is). So it is very far away. 
These are the rays on a clear day from above the clouds. 

someone234

@Erfisflat show an image where the cloud isn't blocking sunlight.

Erfisflat

"You have not even touched Coriolis effect and hurricanes and the majority of my post."

This is a lie. I specifically refuted the coriolis effect, and hurricanes, which are one in the same I might add.


Remember now?

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

"You have not even touched Coriolis effect and hurricanes and the majority of my post."

This is a lie. I specifically refuted the coriolis effect, and hurricanes, which are one in the same I might add.


Remember now?

You just lied.  debunked what you said in the other debate. Rember now.