Is the Earth flat?

Erfisflat

"The only way for anything on a flat Earth is a spotlight."

What is the reason for this moronic statement. 

"If you do have a model, how do you know it predicts everything needed."

It predicts that water is flat, and any valid measurement of it proves this. I make no assumptions about the sun.

Erfisflat

someone234 said:

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

Why? you wouldn't be able to see the rays...

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

"The only way for anything on a flat Earth is a spotlight."

What is the reason for this moronic statement. 

"If you do have a model, how do you know it predicts everything needed."

It predicts that water is flat, and any valid measurement of it proves this. I make no assumptions about the sun.

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

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

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. 

So, your statement, that I haven't touched the coriolis effect, now shown to be a lie, is adressed with another "I already debunked this" 

Nice.

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

someone234 said:

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

Why? you wouldn't be able to see the rays...

Do you just ignore my argument? I explained why. That is the point. You can only see the illusion when there are a lot of clouds!

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

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. 

So, your statement, that I haven't touched the coriolis effect, now shown to be a lie, is adressed with another "I already debunked this" 

Nice.

Ths was my counter to your debunk.

I will admit that I probably should have provided more evidence for those claims and I will do so.

Erfisflat said:

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.


This is a result of perspective. You are jumping to conclusions and assuming that if you get high enough to see over any of the very many obstructions in the real world, that the earth must be a ball. This is an asinine argument that ignore even the very many basics of human vision and it's limits.

Bare assertion. You can see it. How am I jumping to conclusions? I do not. Please explain. Also, I do not get why you only accept some science. 

Erfisflat said:

 "Long suspension bridges’ towers slope slightly away from one another to account for the curvature of the Earth. "

Is there any evidence for this claim? If not, it is a bare assertion.

"Every other planet is a spinning sphere."

Another bare assertion, also a strawman that assumes the conclusion, and heliocentrism.

Evidence for that: http://www.wowreally.blog/2006/10/high-and-wide.html, http://mathscinotes.com/2017/01/effect-of-earths-curvature-on-suspension-bridge-dimensions/, I also linked this in a previous debate to prove it 

Erfisflat said:

"Every other planet is a spinning sphere."

Another bare assertion, also a strawman that assumes the conclusion, and heliocentrism.

" Satellites exist (as proven by the existence of your iPhone),"

This is a non-sequitor. It is common knowledge that there exist what is commonly known as cell phone towers, as i am not close to any at the moment, i have a shoddy service. if your argument held any truth, this would not be the case. Your argument is similar to the familiar argument for theism: "God is real because we exist."

 "and obey rules that only work if they’re orbiting around Earth. "

Bare assertion. what "rules" do satellites have to follow, aside from rarely if ever tearing up? I have to manually reset my router and modem a few times per month!

No, not an assertion, we see other planets as spheres. If we saw a flat one, it would be more believable for the Earth to be flat. Not a straw man because there were no previous arguments to misrepresent. A straw man is exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman. You manually reset your router is irrelevant and a false comparison fallacy. Here, it obeys Kepler's laws of motion. I actually did a school science fair project on things in orbit. http://howthingsfly.si.edu/flight-dynamics/kepler’s-laws-orbital-motion. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/mdyar/ast223/orbits/orb_lect.html.

Erfisflat said:

"We’ve taken many, many pictures of Earth. Buy a weather balloon and strap a camera to it."

Lmao, and @silverishgoldnova ; lies and says these arguments convinces him! You guys sure know how to debate! You've just proved that the earth is shaped like a Pringles chip! These were taken from what appears to be a modest 40,000 feet!

Convex earth.

Concave earth.


"Satellites have to exist for the internet to work."

Another bare assertion or assumption. 99% of the world's information is run through fiber optics, under the seas.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/undersea-cables-transport-99-percent-international-communications-319072?amp=1

So your statement is false altogether. As it turns out, humorously, the internet wouldn't exist if it weren't for them! Where are the satellites?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/14/russia-could-cut-off-internet-to-nato-countries-british-military-chief-warns

https://www.wired.com/story/russia-undersea-internet-cables/

So, you show a picture of the round Earth, deny it, and then cherry pick data. Nice! Ok, only a part of the internet is with satellites. However, sometimes it does use satellites. The part that describes it in this video:  from 2:10 to 2:25. So no, not an assertion. The rest is meaningless since I debunked what you said. 

Erfisflat said:

" The TV would not be here without relativity which involves gravity. "

Ok, now that one is just nonsense. An assumption, based off another, based off of conjecture. This is at the point, an unevidenced argument.

"The ISS exists because you can clearly see it if it goes above your location."

Something is up there, but we can barely see a plane go overhead at just 7 miles away, and you think we can see something a bit larger from 250 miles away? Illogical, and denies even common sense laws of human vision.

" You can easily watch the youtube live stream from the ISS. "



You aren't one of those that bbelieves everything he see on Tv?

Relativity has been proved over and over again. Here are the tests of proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity, https://www.space.com/37018-solar-eclipse-proved-einstein-relativity-right.html, and https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a6175/5-recent-tests-that-prove-einstein-right/. You can see the ISS, https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/, and https://spotthestation.nasa.gov. Oh wait, you do not trust NASA so here have a different source https://www.space.com/34650-track-astronauts-space-new-interactive-map.html. That picture does not prove your point because the live stream is from the ISS. Straw man fallacy. I do not believe everything I see on TV. It needs to be tested first. 

Erfisflat said:

"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. "

This argument also make a bountiful amount of assumptions. Specifically that the earth is a spinning ball (imagine that) this effect is just a natural property of moving water, and the correlation between that water and a close sun and moon.

No argument again. Just say "full of assumptions". Does not mention what they are. I just said that this is explained by the heliocentric model. You did not even try and counter what I said. 

Erfisflat said:

"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."

Sorry, you thought experiment doesn't explain the coriolis effect. 

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, 

Fail. Don't try to explain something you haven't researched properly. The earth isn't moving.

Please explain why it does not instead of just saying it does not. The second part, you came in and said the Earth is flat so this is wrong. Again, a fallacy. I did do research. Bare assertion. 

Erfisflat said:

"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."

... because you haven't explored any alternatives to the conjecture you parrot.

"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/.

Please try and counter the first part. I have explored alternatives and they do not work. Ad-hominem fallacy for calling me a parrot. Ha, you did not counter the link and the video.

Erfisflat said:

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. At 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. 

But this so called effect is totally ignored by the other various things that travel in the air over this alleged spinning surface like planes?

Again you did not counter! Wait, a hurricane travels in the air? The experiment proved it. 

Erfisflat said:

Perhaps goober can shut his hole long enough for you to have a debate, instead of butting in this time. I'm sure you can handle yourself, right?

Fallacy. Ad-hominem to be precise. Yes, I could but do not want to. It is fun when it is with multiple people.  

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

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. 

So, your statement, that I haven't touched the coriolis effect, now shown to be a lie, is adressed with another "I already debunked this" 

Nice.

This was to your second.
There bumps we know that. How does that support your point? I will quote @WilliamSchulz because I really like his argument. 
If we had elevation on a flat Earth, we would be able to see everything from a greater height. However, this is untrue, from a lower elevation, we can not see as much as a person at a higher elevation. On a flat Earth, we should be able to see everything regardless of height, but on around Earth, perspective makes more sense. 





Not a dead link. How is it? It provides evidence. 

We have sent satellites into space to see the shapes of the planets and we can see different parts as they rotate. http://ganymede.nmsu.edu/holtz/a110/a110notes/node2.html

See above.

That statement is irrelevant. Does not prove anything. 

No, can you explain in greater detail? 

Straw man. Never said that at all. I am saying that a man-made satellite is very different than your router. Thank you but it is not sci-fi. You ignore the rest of the argument. 

The internet is impossible is false. I admit that. But they do provide internet. They exist! 

What about older technology? They can be faked today but not in the 60s or 70s. 

No, you did not. You did not explain anything really. Just copied my argument. 

Erfisflat said:

"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. "

This argument also make a bountiful amount of assumptions. Specifically that the earth is a spinning ball (imagine that) this effect is just a natural property of moving water, and the correlation between that water and a close sun and moon.

See. 

You did not explain at all. Saying it is common sense and providing no evidence is hypocritical. Why should it be illegal?

What you said does not make sense?

Explain why it is pluasable. You have not done it and are just claiming you have. 

Well, what I guess you see is wrong. Your apology is accepted. 

@Ampersand created a great argument, in my opinion, to counter that so I will repost it. 
"1) With a lense, it will curve lines of perspective away from the centre, e.g.:



2) The earth in that image does not reach the centre 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 assistance."

Your argument did not make sense. Can you rephrase it? Planes move with the Earth. 

Hurricanes are on the surface of the ocean. Not traveling through the air like a plane. 

Explain your video. No, this experiment. 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: 

You seem to have ignored some of my arguments and when countering some made false assumtions and commited a lot of fallacies. 
Note: every time I skip a line I am countering his next argument

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

someone234 said:

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

Why? you wouldn't be able to see the rays...

Do you just ignore my argument? I explained why. That is the point. You can only see the illusion when there are a lot of clouds!

So, yet again, when shown blatantly obvious proof of a flat earth or anything contradictory to the model you were indoctrinated into, you make up another excuse, illusion, refraction, mirage, all pseudoscientific nonsense to prop up a broken model. I accept your concession.

Erfisflat

You did not explain at all. Saying it is common sense and providing no evidence is hypocritical. Why should it be illegal?

What you said does not make sense?

Explain why it is pluasable. You have not done it and are just claiming you have. 


You literally just posted my rebuttal and said there is not one...

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

someone234 said:

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

Why? you wouldn't be able to see the rays...

Do you just ignore my argument? I explained why. That is the point. You can only see the illusion when there are a lot of clouds!

So, yet again, when shown blatantly obvious proof of a flat earth or anything contradictory to the model you were indoctrinated into, you make up another excuse, illusion, refraction, mirage, all pseudoscientific nonsense to prop up a broken model. I accept your concession.

What concession? If you do not like evidence and facts, please do not debate. Wait, so what about the pictures and videos that I sent. You always say refraction or lens but this contradicts your recent argument. I guess I have to repost I the debunk. 
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.

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

You did not explain at all. Saying it is common sense and providing no evidence is hypocritical. Why should it be illegal?

What you said does not make sense?

Explain why it is pluasable. You have not done it and are just claiming you have. 


You literally just posted my rebuttal and said there is not one...

What? I did not repost your rebuttal. I posted my counters to it. 

Erfisflat

"If you do not like evidence and facts, please do not debate."

I am literally posting evidence and facts, accurate measurements of the earth and it's waters, this is you continuing to ignore evidence and facts that directly refute your position, that the earth is a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. 

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

"If you do not like evidence and facts, please do not debate."

I am literally posting evidence and facts, accurate measurements of the earth and it's waters, this is you continuing to ignore evidence and facts that directly refute your position, that the earth is a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. 

What? Are you joking? We post debunks. We post evidence. You ignore. When we debunk it you say it is pseudoscience. We debunk your rays. I posted my counters to your counters in other debates. We posted experiments you can do and it was met with circular reasoning. 

Erfisflat

What? Are you joking? We post debunks. We post evidence.

Your idea of "evidence" is dismissing my arguments with "this is an illusion" with zero supporting evidence. "Refraction" with zero supporting evidence. You completely dismiss and ignore my facts and evidence and copy/paste the same refuted arguments. Actually, you fail to refute anything, instead, you paste other people's arguments, which is why you are ignoring my requests for a 1v1 debate.

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

What? Are you joking? We post debunks. We post evidence.

Your idea of "evidence" is dismissing my arguments with "this is an illusion" with zero supporting evidence. "Refraction" with zero supporting evidence. You completely dismiss and ignore my facts and evidence and copy/paste the same refuted arguments. Actually, you fail to refute anything, instead, you paste other people's arguments, which is why you are ignoring my requests for a 1v1 debate.

I ignore it because you are a dishonest debater. I also do not really like 1 versus 1 debates. That is not the argument. Straw man after straw man. I do not post others arguments. 

someone234

The cloud blocks the sun

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

What? Are you joking? We post debunks. We post evidence.

Your idea of "evidence" is dismissing my arguments with "this is an illusion" with zero supporting evidence. "Refraction" with zero supporting evidence. You completely dismiss and ignore my facts and evidence and copy/paste the same refuted arguments. Actually, you fail to refute anything, instead, you paste other people's arguments, which is why you are ignoring my requests for a 1v1 debate.

I ignore it because you are a dishonest debater. I also do not really like 1 versus 1 debates. That is not the argument. Straw man after straw man. I do not post others arguments. 

So, instead of asserting that I am a dishonest debater, you could first show how I am dishonest, or, better yet, put it in a 1v1!

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

What? Are you joking? We post debunks. We post evidence.

Your idea of "evidence" is dismissing my arguments with "this is an illusion" with zero supporting evidence. "Refraction" with zero supporting evidence. You completely dismiss and ignore my facts and evidence and copy/paste the same refuted arguments. Actually, you fail to refute anything, instead, you paste other people's arguments, which is why you are ignoring my requests for a 1v1 debate.

I ignore it because you are a dishonest debater. I also do not really like 1 versus 1 debates. That is not the argument. Straw man after straw man. I do not post others arguments. 

So, instead of asserting that I am a dishonest debater, you could first show how I am dishonest, or, better yet, put it in a 1v1!

Ok. Dishonest-behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy or fraudulent way. You have deleted posts and entire debate threads when nothing was wrong with them. So, it is dishonest. So, you are a dishonest debater.

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

What? Are you joking? We post debunks. We post evidence.

Your idea of "evidence" is dismissing my arguments with "this is an illusion" with zero supporting evidence. "Refraction" with zero supporting evidence. You completely dismiss and ignore my facts and evidence and copy/paste the same refuted arguments. Actually, you fail to refute anything, instead, you paste other people's arguments, which is why you are ignoring my requests for a 1v1 debate.

I ignore it because you are a dishonest debater. I also do not really like 1 versus 1 debates. That is not the argument. Straw man after straw man. I do not post others arguments. 

So, instead of asserting that I am a dishonest debater, you could first show how I am dishonest, or, better yet, put it in a 1v1!

Ok. Dishonest-behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy or fraudulent way. You have deleted posts and entire debate threads when nothing was wrong with them. So, it is dishonest. So, you are a dishonest debater.

We can do it in a neutral community unless you're scared.

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

What? Are you joking? We post debunks. We post evidence.

Your idea of "evidence" is dismissing my arguments with "this is an illusion" with zero supporting evidence. "Refraction" with zero supporting evidence. You completely dismiss and ignore my facts and evidence and copy/paste the same refuted arguments. Actually, you fail to refute anything, instead, you paste other people's arguments, which is why you are ignoring my requests for a 1v1 debate.

I ignore it because you are a dishonest debater. I also do not really like 1 versus 1 debates. That is not the argument. Straw man after straw man. I do not post others arguments. 

So, instead of asserting that I am a dishonest debater, you could first show how I am dishonest, or, better yet, put it in a 1v1!

Ok. Dishonest-behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy or fraudulent way. You have deleted posts and entire debate threads when nothing was wrong with them. So, it is dishonest. So, you are a dishonest debater.

We can do it in a neutral community unless you're scared.

I am not scared. I just do not want to do it. I am not a big fan of 1 vs 1.

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

What? Are you joking? We post debunks. We post evidence.

Your idea of "evidence" is dismissing my arguments with "this is an illusion" with zero supporting evidence. "Refraction" with zero supporting evidence. You completely dismiss and ignore my facts and evidence and copy/paste the same refuted arguments. Actually, you fail to refute anything, instead, you paste other people's arguments, which is why you are ignoring my requests for a 1v1 debate.

I ignore it because you are a dishonest debater. I also do not really like 1 versus 1 debates. That is not the argument. Straw man after straw man. I do not post others arguments. 

So, instead of asserting that I am a dishonest debater, you could first show how I am dishonest, or, better yet, put it in a 1v1!

Ok. Dishonest-behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy or fraudulent way. You have deleted posts and entire debate threads when nothing was wrong with them. So, it is dishonest. So, you are a dishonest debater.

We can do it in a neutral community unless you're scared.

I am not scared. I just do not want to do it. I am not a big fan of 1 vs 1.

So, when given the opportunity to honestly defend your position, you're going to run away? Hell, you know you'll get a vote from @goober and friends, what is there to lose? You know You can't just say someone else already refuted it and copy and paste your arguments in a structured 1v1 debate...

Pogue

@Erfisflat
We can defend it here. Your sunrays argument has been debunked. You have not debunked my long argument. I know I can't say that someone already debunked it in a 1 vs 1 debate. In this, there is no point in just saying the same exact thing. Who is @goober? I think you mean @Gooberry. 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

What? Are you joking? We post debunks. We post evidence.

Your idea of "evidence" is dismissing my arguments with "this is an illusion" with zero supporting evidence. "Refraction" with zero supporting evidence. You completely dismiss and ignore my facts and evidence and copy/paste the same refuted arguments. Actually, you fail to refute anything, instead, you paste other people's arguments, which is why you are ignoring my requests for a 1v1 debate.

I ignore it because you are a dishonest debater. I also do not really like 1 versus 1 debates. That is not the argument. Straw man after straw man. I do not post others arguments. 

So, instead of asserting that I am a dishonest debater, you could first show how I am dishonest, or, better yet, put it in a 1v1!

Ok. Dishonest-behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy or fraudulent way. You have deleted posts and entire debate threads when nothing was wrong with them. So, it is dishonest. So, you are a dishonest debater.

We can do it in a neutral community unless you're scared.

I am not scared. I just do not want to do it. I am not a big fan of 1 vs 1.

So, when given the opportunity to honestly defend your position, you're going to run away? Hell, you know you'll get a vote from @goober and friends, what is there to lose? You know You can't just say someone else already refuted it and copy and paste your arguments in a structured 1v1 debate...

Why don’t you start with actually defending your position here.

for example, I pointed out you refuted your own argument, and have contradicted yourself multiple times: you’ve accused plus ofstraw men, and red herring despite giving no reasons or justificafions multiple times.

Why don’t start producing examples, arguments and justifications for the unsupported claims you’ve ready made before challenging someone to a debate where you won’t defend your claims either, whilst preemptively complaining that you won’t respect the result of voters who understand the incoherence
of your defence and vote against you accordingly?

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

@Erfisflat
We can defend it here. Your sunrays argument has been debunked. You have not debunked my long argument. I know I can't say that someone already debunked it in a 1 vs 1 debate. In this, there is no point in just saying the same exact thing. Who is @goober? I think you mean @Gooberry. 

You're going to continue to assert that the sun's rays are parallel now? Maybe we should be consulting Mr. Webster...





Those rays clearly intersect at a point above the clouds, and are not always the same distance apart, whether or not you will admit it.

someone234

Cloud blocks the sun. The flat Earth has edges but real world no edge just you preacher of lies I am sick of it.

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

@Erfisflat
We can defend it here. Your sunrays argument has been debunked. You have not debunked my long argument. I know I can't say that someone already debunked it in a 1 vs 1 debate. In this, there is no point in just saying the same exact thing. Who is @goober? I think you mean @Gooberry. 

You're going to continue to assert that the sun's rays are parallel now? Maybe we should be consulting mr. Webster...





Those rays clearly intersect at a point above the clouds, whether or not you will admit it.

So do train tracks intersect? This is revlevent I just need an answer from you. 

Pogue

@Erfisflat
Only clouds show this. They block out the majority of the light and show small portions. I posted a picture of parellel ones on a clear day (you need a clear day). 

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

@Erfisflat
We can defend it here. Your sunrays argument has been debunked. You have not debunked my long argument. I know I can't say that someone already debunked it in a 1 vs 1 debate. In this, there is no point in just saying the same exact thing. Who is @goober? I think you mean @Gooberry. 

You're going to continue to assert that the sun's rays are parallel now? Maybe we should be consulting mr. Webster...





Those rays clearly intersect at a point above the clouds, whether or not you will admit it.

So do train tracks intersect? This is revlevent I just need an answer from you. 

Obviously not. This would prove difficult for any train to navigate on. They are also provably parallel lines that recede away from the observer. This is not the case for the image I presented as evidence. The train tracks would go all the way to the feet of the observer, in the image above, the rays go in all manner of direction.

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

@Erfisflat
Only clouds show this. They block out the majority of the light and show small portions. I posted a picture of parellel ones on a clear day (you need a clear day). 

In that image, we cannot see where the sun is relative to the clouds. Stop constructing strawmen.

someone234

@Erfisflat I think that's ice not clouds.

Erfisflat

someone234 said:

@Erfisflat I think that's ice not clouds.

where

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:

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. 

This is actually a very fruitful conversation.

and again, he hurls accusations, with no evidence. You really needn’t to start providing actual evidence and argument at some point.

everyone sees you systematically avoiding every single argument against you. And systematically failing to defend your position:

- This whole conversation started because I provided demonstrable scientific reasons why your measurements do not take into consideration refraction. You haven’t bothered to defend your measurement at all: few to explain how your experiment accounts for refraction: you’ve said it Jason multiple times, but never explained how!
- I’ve explained how to take into account refraction, and shown why you have to do it on the way I suggest. I provided experimental explanations of why you’re position I unreliable, and given examples of how, when you account for refraction you see curvature. Feel free to explain where: but you haven’t provided anything other than denials that this is the case, no explanation like you’re doing here.
- I’ve pointed out that your videos and images actually do show curvature, even your own position is not that there’s is no curvature, but there isn’t as much as there should be. There’s not much I can say to someone who doesn’t appreciate the irony!

I had to drag you kicking and screaming into defending your position: boy was the result awesome!

You basically told me how measuremenrs of objects in water can’t be used as examples of how the atmosphere works, refuting your own arguments and videos you’ve provided where you claim objects viewed through water are analogous.

you said that snells law and refraction requires a change in medium, which refutes your own position about how light refracts in the atmosphere.

you then change your mind and say refraction doesnt require a change in medium, refuting what you just said a few posys before, and makes your argument about how water works irrelevant to.

you claimed that everything you had just said was in line wIth the laws of physics, despite everything you having said thus far being completely at odds with the established laws of refraction, including but not limited to the above, AND claims that longer distances refract more than shorter ones.

Even through all of this, even through you being forced to contradict yourself three  times, refute your own argument twice; and say thugs that are so self evidently false: you still have not addressed any of the major problem the experiment highlights: specifically that what you said about how objects Always appear lower is a factually false supported by logic that is clearly refuted by this one simple video.


so, this is a very fruitful conversation. It has been You hurling out claims, and accusations: then going multiple posts attempting to dismiss without justification an experiment. When I dragged you, against your will, into actually having Rochier provide an argument: this magical post where you refute and contradict yourself with an incoherent and ever changing argument that simply appears like a desperate attempt to say ANYTHING to try and avoid the real subject.

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

@Erfisflat
We can defend it here. Your sunrays argument has been debunked. You have not debunked my long argument. I know I can't say that someone already debunked it in a 1 vs 1 debate. In this, there is no point in just saying the same exact thing. Who is @goober? I think you mean @Gooberry. 

You're going to continue to assert that the sun's rays are parallel now? Maybe we should be consulting mr. Webster...





Those rays clearly intersect at a point above the clouds, whether or not you will admit it.

So do train tracks intersect? This is revlevent I just need an answer from you. 

Obviously not. This would prove difficult for any train to navigate on. They are also provably parallel lines that recede away from the observer. This is not the case for the image I presented as evidence. The train tracks would go all the way to the feet of the observer, in the image above, the rays go in all manner of direction.

So again, I will repost this. The sun rays are just like train tracks. Too far away and they will configure or intersect. 
Wait, so what about the pictures and videos that I sent. You always say refraction or lens but this contradicts your recent argument. I guess I have to repost I the debunk. 
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. 

Gooberry

@erfisflat Oh I forgot to add:

You decided to change the laws of physics to try and argue I was wrong.

Obviously, you kinda need a basis of evidence and fact to overturn the laws of physics.


When I pointed this out; you referenced the 3 experiments as a reason to believe that the laws of physics were different, then in the next post, you claimed you were adhering the laws of physics.

It’s yet another schizophrenic claim where you contradict yourself over the space of a post or two. 

This is likely why you don’t like to engage in debate!

oh, and I’m still waiting for why you claimed looking at planets, stars or the sun is a “straw man”, why any of my arguments are “red herrings”, why any of the stuff I said in any of my replies here are a “hasty generalization”, or why the arguments I provided as to why you are wrong are “ad hoc” is “irrelevant”.

I suspect you don’t know what any of those things mean, and are just throwing out claims you can’t prove to try and sound smarter.

SilverishGoldNova

Just catching up on this debate. So Erfisflat seems like he knows he's secretly wrong, just doesn't wanna admit it. Anyway, this isn't a topic that interests me anymore, so have fun @Gooberry and @Pouge.

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:

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. 

This is actually a very fruitful conversation.

and again, he hurls accusations, with no evidence. You really needn’t to start providing actual evidence and argument at some point.

everyone sees you systematically avoiding every single argument against you. And systematically failing to defend your position:

- This whole conversation started because I provided demonstrable scientific reasons why your measurements do not take into consideration refraction. You haven’t bothered to defend your measurement at all: few to explain how your experiment accounts for refraction: you’ve said it Jason multiple times, but never explained how!
- I’ve explained how to take into account refraction, and shown why you have to do it on the way I suggest. I provided experimental explanations of why you’re position I unreliable, and given examples of how, when you account for refraction you see curvature. Feel free to explain where: but you haven’t provided anything other than denials that this is the case, no explanation like you’re doing here.
- I’ve pointed out that your videos and images actually do show curvature, even your own position is not that there’s is no curvature, but there isn’t as much as there should be. There’s not much I can say to someone who doesn’t appreciate the irony!

I had to drag you kicking and screaming into defending your position: boy was the result awesome!

You basically told me how measuremenrs of objects in water can’t be used as examples of how the atmosphere works, refuting your own arguments and videos you’ve provided where you claim objects viewed through water are analogous.

you said that snells law and refraction requires a change in medium, which refutes your own position about how light refracts in the atmosphere.

you then change your mind and say refraction doesnt require a change in medium, refuting what you just said a few posys before, and makes your argument about how water works irrelevant to.

you claimed that everything you had just said was in line wIth the laws of physics, despite everything you having said thus far being completely at odds with the established laws of refraction, including but not limited to the above, AND claims that longer distances refract more than shorter ones.

Even through all of this, even through you being forced to contradict yourself three  times, refute your own argument twice; and say thugs that are so self evidently false: you still have not addressed any of the major problem the experiment highlights: specifically that what you said about how objects Always appear lower is a factually false supported by logic that is clearly refuted by this one simple video.


so, this is a very fruitful conversation. It has been You hurling out claims, and accusations: then going multiple posts attempting to dismiss without justification an experiment. When I dragged you, against your will, into actually having Rochier provide an argument: this magical post where you refute and contradict yourself with an incoherent and ever changing argument that simply appears like a desperate attempt to say ANYTHING to try and avoid the real subject.

Translation: long, rhetorical nonsense about what you claimed to have done, without actually doing or addressing anything in particular. Anytime you start a post with "I have done..." or events you claimed happened in the past, you are basically dodging any requests, ignoring any responses to those assertions.

Again, over the course of 60 miles, it is reasonable to assume that there would be enough water in the air to cause some refraction, though you have yet to counter which direction the light is demonstrably bent. Nonetheless, at a distance of just 9 or 12 miles, it is illogical to say that refraction causes over 40 feet of curvature to magically disappear, and anything that is supposed to be hidden will be raised back into view, and the earth appearing to be flat is just an illusion. This is ad hoc, and is not aupported by any facts or evidence. 

So, once again you veer far away from the request for you to clarify why looking at a skyline through water, which refracts the light from it is botched, but looking at a side view of someone shining a laser through sugar water is a more accurate representation of looking at a skyline through a body of water than looking at a skyline through a body of water. 

I expect nothing but more rhetorical nonsense as a reply.

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

@Erfisflat
We can defend it here. Your sunrays argument has been debunked. You have not debunked my long argument. I know I can't say that someone already debunked it in a 1 vs 1 debate. In this, there is no point in just saying the same exact thing. Who is @goober? I think you mean @Gooberry. 

You're going to continue to assert that the sun's rays are parallel now? Maybe we should be consulting mr. Webster...





Those rays clearly intersect at a point above the clouds, whether or not you will admit it.

So do train tracks intersect? This is revlevent I just need an answer from you. 

Obviously not. This would prove difficult for any train to navigate on. They are also provably parallel lines that recede away from the observer. This is not the case for the image I presented as evidence. The train tracks would go all the way to the feet of the observer, in the image above, the rays go in all manner of direction.

So again, I will repost this. The sun rays are just like train tracks. Too far away and they will configure or intersect. 
Wait, so what about the pictures and videos that I sent. You always say refraction or lens but this contradicts your recent argument. I guess I have to repost I the debunk. 
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. 

Once again, you prove to everyone here that you are incapable of any rational debate, especially when met with a logical and factual refutation of your nonsense, and always revert back to copying and pasting the original, refuted claims without addressing the original picture I posted. Noted. You cower away from any requests to put your arguments and "evidence" into any structural debate where copy and pasting would be useless reasserting your fallacious and false claims and arguments.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

@Erfisflat
We can defend it here. Your sunrays argument has been debunked. You have not debunked my long argument. I know I can't say that someone already debunked it in a 1 vs 1 debate. In this, there is no point in just saying the same exact thing. Who is @goober? I think you mean @Gooberry. 

You're going to continue to assert that the sun's rays are parallel now? Maybe we should be consulting mr. Webster...





Those rays clearly intersect at a point above the clouds, whether or not you will admit it.

So do train tracks intersect? This is revlevent I just need an answer from you. 

Obviously not. This would prove difficult for any train to navigate on. They are also provably parallel lines that recede away from the observer. This is not the case for the image I presented as evidence. The train tracks would go all the way to the feet of the observer, in the image above, the rays go in all manner of direction.

So again, I will repost this. The sun rays are just like train tracks. Too far away and they will configure or intersect. 
Wait, so what about the pictures and videos that I sent. You always say refraction or lens but this contradicts your recent argument. I guess I have to repost I the debunk. 
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. 

Once again, you prove to everyone here that you are incapable of any rational debate, especially when met with a logical and factual refutation of your nonsense, and always revert back to copying and pasting the original, refuted claims without addressing the original picture I posted. Noted. You cower away from any requests to put your arguments and "evidence" into any structural debate where copy and pasting would be useless reasserting your fallacious and false claims and arguments.

His response literally addressed the original picture. As yet, I don't recall you having ever provided a rebuttal of this argument. 

Feel free to repost it, so we can assess it.

Otherwise it just looks like you’re trying to ignore his argument.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

@Erfisflat
We can defend it here. Your sunrays argument has been debunked. You have not debunked my long argument. I know I can't say that someone already debunked it in a 1 vs 1 debate. In this, there is no point in just saying the same exact thing. Who is @goober? I think you mean @Gooberry. 

You're going to continue to assert that the sun's rays are parallel now? Maybe we should be consulting mr. Webster...





Those rays clearly intersect at a point above the clouds, whether or not you will admit it.

So do train tracks intersect? This is revlevent I just need an answer from you. 

Obviously not. This would prove difficult for any train to navigate on. They are also provably parallel lines that recede away from the observer. This is not the case for the image I presented as evidence. The train tracks would go all the way to the feet of the observer, in the image above, the rays go in all manner of direction.

So again, I will repost this. The sun rays are just like train tracks. Too far away and they will configure or intersect. 
Wait, so what about the pictures and videos that I sent. You always say refraction or lens but this contradicts your recent argument. I guess I have to repost I the debunk. 
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. 

Once again, you prove to everyone here that you are incapable of any rational debate, especially when met with a logical and factual refutation of your nonsense, and always revert back to copying and pasting the original, refuted claims without addressing the original picture I posted. Noted. You cower away from any requests to put your arguments and "evidence" into any structural debate where copy and pasting would be useless reasserting your fallacious and false claims and arguments.

His response literally addressed the original picture. As yet, I don't recall you having ever provided a rebuttal of this argument. 

Feel free to repost it, so we can assess it.

Otherwise it just looks like you’re trying to ignore his argument.

Obviously not. This would prove difficult for any train to navigate on. They are also provably parallel lines that recede away from the observer. This is not the case for the image I presented as evidence. The train tracks would go all the way to the feet of the observer, in the image above, the rays go in all manner of direction.

Erfisflat

The response would be valid had I posted an image similar to this
where the sun's rays do come to the observer from the sun, but I didn't. The rays go in all manner of direction, once again...

Erfisflat

Anyone refusing to acknowledge the blatantly obvious differences are denying observable facts of reality.

Erfisflat

In a 3d model, these rays do go in generally the same direction, and provably so.

But notice how in my image the rays enter the clouds and even go away from the observer, in the back.

someone234

Erfisflat said:

The response would be valid had I posted an image similar to this
where the sun's rays do come to the observer from the sun, but I didn't. The rays go in all manner of direction, once again...

Thus is actually identical in how skewed the sun Rays are. The tree is the cloud, same role.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

@Erfisflat
We can defend it here. Your sunrays argument has been debunked. You have not debunked my long argument. I know I can't say that someone already debunked it in a 1 vs 1 debate. In this, there is no point in just saying the same exact thing. Who is @goober? I think you mean @Gooberry. 

You're going to continue to assert that the sun's rays are parallel now? Maybe we should be consulting mr. Webster...





Those rays clearly intersect at a point above the clouds, whether or not you will admit it.

So do train tracks intersect? This is revlevent I just need an answer from you. 

Obviously not. This would prove difficult for any train to navigate on. They are also provably parallel lines that recede away from the observer. This is not the case for the image I presented as evidence. The train tracks would go all the way to the feet of the observer, in the image above, the rays go in all manner of direction.

So again, I will repost this. The sun rays are just like train tracks. Too far away and they will configure or intersect. 
Wait, so what about the pictures and videos that I sent. You always say refraction or lens but this contradicts your recent argument. I guess I have to repost I the debunk. 
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. 

Once again, you prove to everyone here that you are incapable of any rational debate, especially when met with a logical and factual refutation of your nonsense, and always revert back to copying and pasting the original, refuted claims without addressing the original picture I posted. Noted. You cower away from any requests to put your arguments and "evidence" into any structural debate where copy and pasting would be useless reasserting your fallacious and false claims and arguments.

His response literally addressed the original picture. As yet, I don't recall you having ever provided a rebuttal of this argument. 

Feel free to repost it, so we can assess it.

Otherwise it just looks like you’re trying to ignore his argument.

Obviously not. This would prove difficult for any train to navigate on. They are also provably parallel lines that recede away from the observer. This is not the case for the image I presented as evidence. The train tracks would go all the way to the feet of the observer, in the image above, the rays go in all manner of direction.

That’s not a rebuttal to his argument:

I was looking for a rebuttal of, you know, his explanation of 2D vs 3D perspective and why it can’t work. At best your reply here is a series of partially related statements that you don’t pull together in the context of the argument.

For example, Pogue referenced train tracks, which appear in perspective shots not to be parallel; and used his image to explain that same principle at work in 3D: that if parallel lines appear to converge due to perspective, that in 3 dimensions, this may explain why the lines are parrallel but do not appear to be.

What  you’ve done, is simply listed the things you think are different about train tracks, and sun rays: then implied without argument that because they have some subtle differences, that they can’t be the same thing.

That  is not a rebuttal, and is like saying one apple is small and red, the other is large and green: they can’t both be apples.

It’s a neat rhetorical ploy; but it’s up to you to provide a demonstration or explanation as to why those differences you cite are relevent, and why they can’t be the product of what Pogue explained is different in the examples in his post, then quite frankly your point is largely irrelevant me certainly not any form of rebuttal: it’s more the case you’re just hurling claims, and deciding not to defend them still.

Erfisflat

someone234 said:

Erfisflat said:

The response would be valid had I posted an image similar to this
where the sun's rays do come to the observer from the sun, but I didn't. The rays go in all manner of direction, once again...

Thus is actually identical in how skewed the sun Rays are. The tree is the cloud, same role.

Except we do not see rays coming from the sun, hitting the tree and going away from the observer in the top image.

Pogue

Erfisflat said:

The response would be valid had I posted an image similar to this
where the sun's rays do come to the observer from the sun, but I didn't. The rays go in all manner of direction, once again...

There is still obstruction from the trees. Both have an obstruction. Look at these. 

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

@Erfisflat
We can defend it here. Your sunrays argument has been debunked. You have not debunked my long argument. I know I can't say that someone already debunked it in a 1 vs 1 debate. In this, there is no point in just saying the same exact thing. Who is @goober? I think you mean @Gooberry. 

You're going to continue to assert that the sun's rays are parallel now? Maybe we should be consulting mr. Webster...





Those rays clearly intersect at a point above the clouds, whether or not you will admit it.

So do train tracks intersect? This is revlevent I just need an answer from you. 

Obviously not. This would prove difficult for any train to navigate on. They are also provably parallel lines that recede away from the observer. This is not the case for the image I presented as evidence. The train tracks would go all the way to the feet of the observer, in the image above, the rays go in all manner of direction.

So again, I will repost this. The sun rays are just like train tracks. Too far away and they will configure or intersect. 
Wait, so what about the pictures and videos that I sent. You always say refraction or lens but this contradicts your recent argument. I guess I have to repost I the debunk. 
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. 

Once again, you prove to everyone here that you are incapable of any rational debate, especially when met with a logical and factual refutation of your nonsense, and always revert back to copying and pasting the original, refuted claims without addressing the original picture I posted. Noted. You cower away from any requests to put your arguments and "evidence" into any structural debate where copy and pasting would be useless reasserting your fallacious and false claims and arguments.

His response literally addressed the original picture. As yet, I don't recall you having ever provided a rebuttal of this argument. 

Feel free to repost it, so we can assess it.

Otherwise it just looks like you’re trying to ignore his argument.

Obviously not. This would prove difficult for any train to navigate on. They are also provably parallel lines that recede away from the observer. This is not the case for the image I presented as evidence. The train tracks would go all the way to the feet of the observer, in the image above, the rays go in all manner of direction.

That’s not a rebuttal to his argument:

I was looking for a rebuttal of, you know, his explanation of 2D vs 3D perspective and why it can’t work. At best your reply here is a series of partially related statements that you don’t pull together in the context of the argument.

For example, Pogue referenced train tracks, which appear in perspective shots not to be parallel; and used his image to explain that same principle at work in 3D: that if parallel lines appear to converge due to perspective, that in 3 dimensions, this may explain why the lines are parrallel but do not appear to be.

What  you’ve done, is simply listed the things you think are different about train tracks, and sun rays: then implied without argument that because they have some subtle differences, that they can’t be the same thing.

That  is not a rebuttal, and is like saying one apple is small and red, the other is large and green: they can’t both be apples.

It’s a neat rhetorical ploy; but it’s up to you to provide a demonstration or explanation as to why those differences you cite are relevent, and why they can’t be the product of what Pogue explained is different in the examples in his post, then quite frankly your point is largely irrelevant me certainly not any form of rebuttal: it’s more the case you’re just hurling claims, and deciding not to defend them still.

So now we're just going to deny observable facts and differences. I am not claiming that they are not sun's rays as your false analogy seems to suggest, I am claiming that they are not parallel, as they go even away from the observer, unlike receding train tracks. Way to dodge that though.

Erfisflat

In your analogy, he would be claiming that both the red apple and green were both granny Smith apples, showing obvious differences, and you are supporting his ignorant claims.

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

Erfisflat said:

The response would be valid had I posted an image similar to this
where the sun's rays do come to the observer from the sun, but I didn't. The rays go in all manner of direction, once again...

There is still obstruction from the trees. Both have an obstruction. Look at these. 

Again, you point to other pictures, none showing lines going away from the observer(strawmen), and ignore the original post.

someone234

The cloud blocked the sun