Is the earth a ball? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Is the earth a ball?
in Earth Science

By ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
If i told you i could fly, would you believe me? Of course not!  What if I told you I had a picture of me flying? What if I told you that you can't see me do it with your own eyes, but I had a video of me flying around over the trees? Of course this goes against any common senses and everyday observations we've ever made, so it would be impossible to prove to any competent thinking adult that I could fly.

We've never seen this with our own eyes.


What if I told you that this image is admittedly no more real than this image?




So, if you were to show me, using only our objective reality, how exactly you can conclude, as so many of us have, that the earth is a spinning ball, what would you do? We all know that water has always measured flat. We are told that the earth is mostly water. We see the flat horizon at the beach, and any surface moving at around 1,000 mph exhibits observable, equal and opposite reactions... 

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle




AmpersandEmeryPearsonLogicVaultEvidenceZombieguy1987
  1. Is the earth A spinning ball?

    15 votes
    1. Yes
      73.33%
    2. No
      26.67%
Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

Wayne Dyer
«134



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Haven't see me for a while eh? A little interesting how you are clinging to the same arguments long after they were refuted. Atleast I was willing to admit that I was wrong, rather than desperately cling on to reasons to keep believing in it.
    ErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • 100% fallacies.

    The "If i told you i could fly, would you believe me" like of argument actually hurts him because it's only in his view that humans possessing a superhuman the power of flight and the earth being spherical are both ridiculous claims. However for most of us we would say superhuman flight and a flat earth are both the ridiculous claims, not a spherical earth,. He assumes the conclusion of his argument is true to try and prove his argument, a clear example of the begging the question logical fallacy.

    He then provides a youtube video of a person making empty unsubstantiated claims which are themselves both fallacious e.g. it asks why there are no "real videos" of the earth is spinning, with that argument using circular reasoning (another logical fallacy) to automatically dismiss all videos of the earth spinning (like livestreams from the ISS https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html) as not real despite their being no evidence to support such a conclusion.

    Others are almost wilfully stupid; like not seeming to understand the spherical earth rotates and as objects edge our of view and are viewed at an angle they will appear smaller - or their seeming confusion over the fact that photographs can be taken at different levels of hue and saturation despite this being the norm for every single photo taken in the entirety of human existence.

    He finishes off with random unsupported claims and ramblings that don't really even have the depth to dispute.

    I'd rate it a 2/10. Rehashes old arguments which have already been rebutted without adding anything new to them, fails to add any new arguments. low effort and quickly becoming boring crazy rather than entertaining crazy.
    ErfisflatEmeryPearsonZombieguy1987
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    I'm being rated now, rofl. No arguments to convince, not even an attempt. Both posts...

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
    EmeryPearsonZombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    @Ampersand

    I'm surely not doing this for your entertainment. The flat earth, as I stated with several reasons, is blatantly more obvious for reasons that you might find ridiculous, but are just plain facts. Water is flat when unmanipulated. I actually NEVER said spherical earth was a ridiculous idea, i simply stated it doesn't match observable reality in any way, but you stated the flat earth was ridiculous, which makes your post an argumentum ad lapidem.
    EmeryPearsonZombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AmpersandAmpersand 433 Pts
    edited April 30
    Erfisflat said:
    I'm being rated now, rofl. No arguments to convince, not even an attempt. Both posts...

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
    Actually if you bothered to read my post you would see I point out the clear logical flaws in your argument, ergo not an ad hominem attack bur rather a reasoned explanation of why you're wrong.

    Erf can offer no rational defence of his claims.

    Erfisflat said:
    @Ampersand

    I'm surely not doing this for your entertainment. The flat earth, as I stated with several reasons, is blatantly more obvious for reasons that you might find ridiculous, but are just plain facts. Water is flat when unmanipulated.
    I previously asked you to provide even 1 example of a time water has been measured on a scale where we would expect there to be measurable curvature in the flat earth model. You couldn't provide anythign and instead provided an experiment which - because you hadn't actually read and understood it, showed how the earth was spherical.

    Erfisflat said:

    I actually NEVER said spherical earth was a ridiculous idea, i simply stated it doesn't match observable reality in any way, but you stated the flat earth was ridiculous, which makes your post an argumentum ad lapidem.

    Yes you did, it was the point of the very first paragraph you typed. You used an analogy where the proposition that the Earth was spherical was related to the idea that people had superhuman powers of flight and your entire point was that believing in the latter idea was ridiculous and therefore so was the former. 

    Also again if you bothered to reference my post rather than responding to a strawman, you'd have seen that I pointed out you offered no logical reason for your argument and were begging the question as you assume the conclusion to your argument to try and prove it. Offering a reasoned explanation of how someone makes a fallacy by definition cannot be an argumentum ad lapidem fallacy as that is dismissing an argument as absurd without explaining why. I gave the explanation - you were begging the question, ergo not argumentum ad lapidem.

    Have you ever actually managed to claim someone is using a logical fallacy and not just been making up excuses as a poor defence of your arguments?
    EmeryPearsonErfisflat
  • While @Ampersand pretty much hits the nail on the head.

    One of the most obvious reasons the Earth isn't flat, we don't observe the same stars from different locations on Earth.
    Erfisflat
  • SonofasonSonofason 96 Pts
    @Erfisflat
    Nope the earth is not a testicle.
    The earth is not a pitch that failed to pass through the strike zone.
    The earth is not a globe.
    The earth is not at all similar to those spherical or ovoid solid or hollow objects used in games and sports.  

    The earth is a planet.
    It is a celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star we call the Sun, which is a celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a galaxy we call the Milky Way Galaxy, which is quite possibly moving in an ever expanding elliptical orbit around the universe.  

    But I admire you for not accepting evidence that you've not been able to see for yourself.  Perhaps you should become an astronaut, and then you might see the earth for what it truly is.  Or, you could simply just believe that the astronauts who have been in space have no good reason to lie to you when they tell you that the earth is a magnificent and beautiful sphere.  Perhaps you could actually listen to the arguments and reasoning for how the earth was formed, and you would see that it is most logical for the earth to be in the shape of a sphere.  
    EmeryPearsonErfisflat
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 541 Pts
    Allow me to suggest an easy experiment you can perform at any more-or-less busy sea port.

    Take a large ship departing the bay and observe it. As it gets at a large enough distance away, provided the weather is clear enough, you will see that the ship will start slowly moving under the horizon, eventually disappearing completely.
    You can enhance this experiment if there is a tall hill nearby. When the ship's bottom starts disappearing under the horizon, quickly climb the hill and take a new look - you should be able to again see the ship as a whole.
    In case the ship isn't easily seen at that distance with a naked eyes, you can use binoculars or a spyglass.

    While there can be many interpretations of the results of this experiment, the most straightforward one is that the Earth surface is curved - this is what Ancient Greeks concluded by making similar observations and trying to find an explanation. Eventually they measured the curvature roughly by measuring the time difference between the sun rays disappearing in two different locations and solving a geometrical equation.

    If this experiment is not sufficient, then you can buy a decent amateur telescope and perform observations of the Lunar librations, that are similarly best explained by the model of roughly-spherical Moon. Observe also planets, such as Mars and Saturn - you will see that they have a rounded shape, and if you observe them periodically, you will see their rotation around their axes clearly.

    If you can find a better theory describing these observations than the currently accepted one, then there will be substantial debate to be had. Note however that the Flat Earth theory contradicts these observations on many levels, so if you are an intellectually honest person, you will reject that theory as erroneous.

    In my experience, however, appeals to observable data have never worked on people supporting the "Flat Earth" claim, so if this is the case with you as well, let me know what other types of arguments you would find acceptable.
    EmeryPearson
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    "Take a large ship departing the bay and observe it. As it gets at a large enough distance away, provided the weather is clear enough, you will see that the ship will start slowly moving under the horizon, eventually disappearing completely.
    You can enhance this experiment if there is a tall hill nearby. When the ship's bottom starts disappearing under the horizon, quickly climb the hill and take a new look - you should be able to again see the ship as a whole.
    In case the ship isn't easily seen at that distance with a naked eyes, you can use binoculars or a spyglass."

    This is a result of atmospheric refraction and perspective. The fact that we can observe, like the ancient Greeks did, a ship appear to disappear under the horizon, then use our binoculars (a luxury not available to the Greeks at the time) to bring that same ship fully back into view proves beyond doubt the this is a misunderstood phenomenon, disproved by the invention of telescopic lenses, and the discovery and understanding of atmospheric refraction.

    " Eventually they measured the curvature roughly by measuring the time difference between the sun rays disappearing in two different locations and solving a geometrical equation."

    ImIsure you'd be willing to share this geometrical equation, as well as any assumptions made in the equation.

    "If this experiment is not sufficient, then you can buy a decent amateur telescope and perform observations of the Lunar librations, that are similarly best explained by the model of roughly-spherical Moon. Observe also planets, such as Mars and Saturn - you will see that they have a rounded shape, and if you observe them periodically, you will see their rotation around their axes clearly."

    This is a non-sequitor, and is easily disproved. Please explain why anyone in their right mind would jump to the conclusion that objects in the sky are remotely relevant to the ground beneath our feet? Sounds like more assumptions and conjecture.


    "If you can find a better theory describing these observations than the currently accepted one, then there will be substantial debate to be had. Note however that the Flat Earth theory contradicts these observations on many levels, so if you are an intellectually honest person, you will reject that theory as erroneous."

    Not when these observations are totally irrelevant. An intellectually honest person evaluates both sides of an argument and makes an informed decision, unlike what you've done here.

    "In my experience, however, appeals to observable data have never worked on people supporting the "Flat Earth" claim, so if this is the case with you as well, let me know what other types of arguments you would find acceptable."

    How much experience do you have with "flat Earth people"? By observable data, do you mean like water always seeking a flat and level surface?

    @MayCaesar
    EmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • theo11theo11 29 Pts
    On any other debate topic, I'd make a longer and stronger claim, but on this one, I've only got one thing to say. The flat earth theory is a joke.
    ErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    edited May 18
    theo11 said:
    On any other debate topic, I'd make a longer and stronger claim, but on this one, I've only got one thing to say. The flat earth theory is a joke.
    Why say anything at all? Your comment is a joke, the flat Earth is a fact that went above your head it seems.
    https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-the-stone-fallacy/
    EmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • someone234someone234 606 Pts
    theo11 said:
    On any other debate topic, I'd make a longer and stronger claim, but on this one, I've only got one thing to say. The flat earth theory is a joke.
    Slapshot darling, it's been a long time hasn't it. :)

    Or do you prefer Hellno or maybe even Winklepicker? How about Nomenclature?

    CreateDebate drama aside, let's get to the nitty gritty. The Flat Earth theory is a joke to you because you laugh at it. That's a tautology and proves nothing.

    Care to explain why NASA and Roscosmos are never audited at the top level?
    EmeryPearson
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    In order for the earth to be a ball, and the sun to be 93,000,000 miles away as modern astronomy claims, the rays must be parallel as they enter the Earth's atmosphere. This is a must.

    http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/eoc/special_topics/teach/sp_climate_change/p_sunlight_parallel.html

    This would necessarily cause any object between the earth and sun to cause a shadow that is relatively the same size, since the rays are parallel, the edges of the shadow would subsequently be parallel, this is demonstrable and can be proved with simple experimentation.

    Why then, do eclipses cause pinpoint-like shadows? In sherical earth theory, the moon is roughly the size of a coffee bean if the earth were the size of a nickel, or less than 1/3 the size of earth.

    https://moon.nasa.gov/about/in-depth/

    This means that, if the suns rays are parallel, and the heliocentric model is correct, the eclipse should cover at least 1/4 of one side of the earth. This isn't the case, giving us a proof that the earth is not as were being told.
    EmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 122 Pts
    edited May 18
    "This would necessarily cause any object between the earth and sun to cause a shadow that is relatively the same size, since the rays are parallel, the edges of the shadow would subsequently be parallel, this is demonstrable and can be proved with simple experimentation."

    This is actually incorrect, the moon is 238,900 mi away from earth, resulting in a Umbra and Penumbra. You can demonstrate this on small scale as well, the moon's shadow should not be the same diameter as the moon if it's casting it on the Earth. This is high-school physics, and holds true with any experiment with shadowing you wish to do.





    If you'd like to disagree with the math, this should be a good overview: http://mathscinotes.com/2010/10/solar-eclipse-math/

    Under no observed circumstance do shadows behave the way you claim they do.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    "This would necessarily cause any object between the earth and sun to cause a shadow that is relatively the same size, since the rays are parallel, the edges of the shadow would subsequently be parallel, this is demonstrable and can be proved with simple experimentation."

    This is actually incorrect, the moon is 238,900 mi away from earth, resulting in a Umbra and Penumbra. You can demonstrate this on small scale as well, the moon's shadow should not be the same diameter as the moon if it's casting it on the Earth. This is high-school physics, and holds true with any experiment with shadowing you wish to do.





    If you'd like to disagree with the math, this should be a good overview: http://mathscinotes.com/2010/10/solar-eclipse-math/

    Under no observed circumstance do shadows behave the way you claim they do.

    You made the claim that we could demonstrate this on a smaller scale, but have given no examples. Youve only offered a diagram, which I might add do not show parallel sun rays, are WAY off scale, and show a notably smaller sun. Produce those results scaled down.
    EvidenceEmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • TheShaunTheShaun 52 Pts


    Looks pretty round to me. And that was an experiment done by school kids, not NASA or any other government based group that is potentially deceitful.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    @theshaun its not the students that are being deceitful, it's the type of camera they used. 

    https://www.veedyou.com/gopro-fisheye/

    Please, if you're going to debate the flat Earth, at least do a bit of research first.


    EvidenceEmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • TheShaunTheShaun 52 Pts
    edited May 24
    @Erfisflat
    That GoPro does not show curve to anything else, unless it's actually curved. Why would the GoPro show a curve to a flat planet but not a curve to anything else that's flat? And if you pay attention closely, you can see the somewhat flatness of the north and south pole along with the curve around the equator. If the GoPro is just curving everything, then why does it show how our planet bulges at the equator and kinda flat at the poles?

    Edit: We know you're just trolling. We can see it by every topic you post on. You always take the side of the conspiracy. You would argue that cats are actually dogs if it fit your fancy for that moment. You're just here to combat people, not reach a conclusion.
    EvidenceEmeryPearsonBaconToes
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    "That GoPro does not show curve to anything else, unless it's actually curved. Why would the GoPro show a curve to a flat planet but not a curve to anything else that's flat? "

    The camera curves the earth substantially, even at just a couple dozen feet, where it should appear flat, contradictory to your baseless claim. Surely you don't suggest that there should be this much curve at the height of just a 10 story building?!? It literally curves the earth at ground level in the beginning. NEXT.


    "And if you pay attention closely, you can see the somewhat flatness of the north and south pole along with the curve around the equator. If the GoPro is just curving everything, then why does it show how our planet bulges at the equator and kinda flat at the poles?"

    This doesn't make sense. Are you now suggesting that the video shows both poles? Please clarify.

    "We know you're just trolling. "

    Hardly. There are millions of flat earthers now, some even here that I've converted. I know the idea sounds ridiculous, but after 3 years of researching, it's very clear to me and others that the flat Earth is fact.

    "We can see it by every topic you post on. You always take the side of the conspiracy. "

    I posted the topics, I share truth. Its not my fault the truth is stranger than fiction.

    "You would argue that cats are actually dogs if it fit your fancy for that moment."

    Unsupported and asanine claim.

    "You're just here to combat people, not reach a conclusion."

    Oh, the conclusion has been reached, I'm just trying to get the slower ones to realize it. Here, tell me what you think of this one. 



    @theshaun
    EvidenceEmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    TheShaun said:

    Looks pretty round to me. And that was an experiment done by school kids, not NASA or any other government based group that is potentially deceitful.
    @TheShaun
    Time 0:02-0:03 must be witnessing the folding of Spacetime. the earth is folding up! Quick, send this video to Michio Kaku and Neil Degrassee so they can show proof for the possibility for time travel.



    And with the curvature at time 0:10, I doubt you could fit two small towns on that small globe, not alone an entire city like L.A.!? Or is that Dr. Strange doing his Satanic magic tricks again?


    ErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • TheShaunTheShaun 52 Pts
    @Erfisflat
    If you pay close attention during it's highest point, you can see that the north and south pole areas are nearly flat while the equator is much more curved. If the GoPro was adding a significant amount of curvature, then the north and south pole would not look nearly flat. Also, if the curvature was only due to the GoPro, then the north pole, south pole, and equator would appear to be curved by the same amount. Which you can clearly see they wasn't in the video.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    edited May 26
    TheShaun said:
    @Erfisflat
    If you pay close attention during it's highest point, you can see that the north and south pole areas are nearly flat while the equator is much more curved. If the GoPro was adding a significant amount of curvature, then the north and south pole would not look nearly flat. Also, if the curvature was only due to the GoPro, then the north pole, south pole, and equator would appear to be curved by the same amount. Which you can clearly see they wasn't in the video.
    First off, you've completely cherry picked my arguments, and are now only responding to: "please clarify".

     Lets put your argument into perspective.

    1. Your balloon footage, as do most weather balloons, reached a maximum of 105,000 feet, or 22 miles.

    https://stratostar.net/how-high-can-weather-balloons-go/

    2. The ISS is allegedly about 240 miles above the surface of the earth. The ISS can only see a small portion of the earth at one time, never both poles and the equator at one time. 


    For you to openly suggest, and defend the position that this weather balloon that went only a fraction of the distance the ISS is supposed to be, was able to see more than the ISS, with the same, or more, sometimes less amount of curvature, even occasionally going concave (1:36), is to go against all common sense and rationality.

    The fact that you can't, or won't provide even the first screenshot or timestamp of either alleged "pole" speaks for itself, but I'll disprove your asanine position with mathematics.

    https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=1&h0=105000&unit=imperial

    When we input the maximum alititude any weather balloon has gone (assuming it hasn't broken this record) we see that at 105,000 feet in the air, the horizon, in any direction, is only 397 miles away. Far shy of the 2,600 miles of the distance from the UK to the north pole, and twice that to the South Pole.

    https://www.freemaptools.com/how-far-is-it-between-north-pole-and-uk.htm

    Your position is a laughable one. You should probably stop embarrassing yourself now.

    @TheShaun

    Please respond to the other points, along with this one, if at all.




    EmeryPearsonEvidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    Evidence said:
    TheShaun said:

    Looks pretty round to me. And that was an experiment done by school kids, not NASA or any other government based group that is potentially deceitful.
    @TheShaun
    Time 0:02-0:03 must be witnessing the folding of Spacetime. the earth is folding up! Quick, send this video to Michio Kaku and Neil Degrassee so they can show proof for the possibility for time travel.



    And with the curvature at time 0:10, I doubt you could fit two small towns on that small globe, not alone an entire city like L.A.!? Or is that Dr. Strange doing his Satanic magic tricks again?


    It's so obvious that he is backpedaling and grasping at straws after his feeble position was defeated. I mean, I can't blame him for bringing up gopro weather balloon footage, as I did the same, but continuing to defend that position after you've seen the errors in the argument? Clearly a globetard in the making.
    EvidenceEmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    Which fallacy was that @EmeryPearson? Instead of just flagging everything you disagree with as fallacy or irrelevant, justify these flags.

    Thanks
    EmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    edited May 24
    EmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    edited May 25
    Most people have the same reaction to the flat earth. Something like idiot, how can anyone be so dumb to think that the earth is flat? Three words come to mind: We See Too Far!

    Evidence has recently come to light that absolutely buries the globe earth theory, 666 feet under. A .PDF found here:

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/SD/Pub200/Pub200bk.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi4lb380Z_bAhVEzlkKHdLvBm4QFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw2qfyTCKyrcECQJdRXRel7f

    Titled: Sailing Directions (Planning Guide & Enroute) published in 2017 by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 11th edition, states on page 54:

    "There is almost no dust or solid particles in the Antarctic air
    and the prevailing winds blowing off the continent have small
    moisture content. Consequently, the visibility is usually very
    good and often exceptional, a fact which, if not appreciated,
    may lead the observer into serious error when judging distanc-
    es. An object which may be thought to be but 5 miles distant
    could well be 30 miles away, and mountains have been sighted
    at 300 miles."

    I guess they didn't expect anyone to do the math, so let's pull up our earth curvature calculator. The tallest place in Antarctica is 16,066 (sic), so plugging in that number, an observer 16,066 feet altitude, seeing a mountain 300 miles away would have to be looking through a 13,968 foot high hump of earth.

    https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=300&h0=16066&unit=imperial

    Let's do some basic observation and observe the TITLE OF THE PAPER, once again: Sailing Directions... 

    This isn't a mountain climbing instructional PDF, so, taking the average height of the deck of a sailboat above sea level: 20 feet...

    https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=300&h0=20&unit=imperial

    An object 300 miles away would be hidden by an astounding 57,767 feet of the ball earth theoretical curvature. This creates a problem, over 40,000 feet of the "factual" Earth's curvature is missing. That's 7.5 miles. That's why we are sure the earth is NOT a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. 

    And yes, I know fully well that We see too far is not 3 words. So when someone asks you why anyone would think the earth is flat, just mention those 5 words.

    Thanks


    EvidenceEmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • TheShaunTheShaun 52 Pts
    @Erfisflat
    Well now I see you're just trolling. Saying three words come to mind, yet you say four. Then specifically using the number 666, which doesn't apply to any point of the topic. It doesn't even take someone familiar with psychology to spot that. You are too obvious when it comes to trolling. Pick a better course of action.
    EmeryPearson
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    TheShaun said:
    @Erfisflat
    Well now I see you're just trolling. Saying three words come to mind, yet you say four. Then specifically using the number 666, which doesn't apply to any point of the topic. It doesn't even take someone familiar with psychology to spot that. You are too obvious when it comes to trolling. Pick a better course of action.
    Well, the words thing was obviously a joke. I'm not serious about everything. Also, the 666 thing is entirely relevant. Who do you think is responsible for the "Great Deception"? Look at the numbers in the model. The earth is said to be on a 23.4 ° axis.



    90°-23.4°=66.6°

    It's traveling around the sun at 66,600 miles per hour.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/32294-how-fast-does-earth-move.html

    In one square mile, there is 666ft of curvature.

    Distance to the nearest Galaxy: 11.7 million light years. 11+7=16 (6+6+6=18)

    The solar system is travelling at 828,000 mph 8+2+8=18 (6+6+6=18)

    The sun was formed from the solar nebulae about 4.59 billion years ago. 4+5+9=18 (6+6+6=18)

    There is a simple formula for calculating exactly how much water should be curved over any given distance. M^2 X 8" where M=miles
     So in 10 miles 

    (10X10)8"=800"/12=66.6... feet drop in ten miles.



    You think im trolling because you have done no research. You've accepted the ball earth as gospel religion truth without an ounce of evidence outside cartoons and camera trickery. 

    Way to drop literally every one of  your points and arguments though.

    @TheShaun

    EvidenceEmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    Which fallacy was that @EmeryPearson? Instead of just flagging everything you disagree with as fallacy or irrelevant, justify these flags.

    Thanks

    .. lol habit I guess, or just insecurity? It's hard for people to defend lies, .. now NASA can do it with a six graders picture of a planet, and pass it off as one of the Hubble pictures. But wait, what am I saying, .. those are Hubble pictures, .. six grader depictions of planets.

    Hey buddy @Erfisflat , did you notice that the "School kid balloon experiment" video was also removed? Maybe it was scarring the children since it looked just like Dr. Strange magic!?
    EmeryPearson
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    Evidence said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Which fallacy was that @EmeryPearson? Instead of just flagging everything you disagree with as fallacy or irrelevant, justify these flags.

    Thanks

    .. lol habit I guess, or just insecurity? It's hard for people to defend lies, .. now NASA can do it with a six graders picture of a planet, and pass it off as one of the Hubble pictures. But wait, what am I saying, .. those are Hubble pictures, .. six grader depictions of planets.

    Hey buddy @Erfisflat , did you notice that the "School kid balloon experiment" video was also removed? Maybe it was scarring the children since it looked just like Dr. Strange magic!?
    I think you may have posted a dead link, i don't think it worked when you posted it, I could be wrong though. Not about the shape of the earth though.
    EvidenceEmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • TheShaunTheShaun 52 Pts
    @Erfisflat
    I haven't dropped anything. I stand by everything I've said. Including you being obvious at trolling. I've found you in other threads arguing against facts that people know to be true. You are obviously arguing just for the sake of arguing. I have no tolerance for people like you. Have a nice day.
    Evidence
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    edited May 25
    TheShaun said:
    @Erfisflat
    I haven't dropped anything. I stand by everything I've said. Including you being obvious at trolling. I've found you in other threads arguing against facts that people know to be true. You are obviously arguing just for the sake of arguing. I have no tolerance for people like you. Have a nice day.
    Maybe you aren't clear on how debating works. You made an argument, I refuted that argument, and you backed down. That is a dropped point. What I do in other threads is irrelevant, but you've also dropped those points too. Im obviously questioning every "fact" Ive been told. I've chosen to consider evidence and be open minded. You sir, have cognitive dissonance.


    EmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    EvidenceEmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • LogicVaultLogicVault 100 Pts
    Every planet we have observed have been observed to be round. It is not possible for our planet to defy the physics that cause every planet to be round.
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    Every planet we have observed have been observed to be round. It is not possible for our planet to defy the physics that cause every planet to be round.

    I think the problem here is communication:



    You said: "planet", which by definition is a celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star. These planets were invented, and today is kept alive by NASA, CERN and other science fiction writers and movie makers.
    We observe stars circling around our flat earth, round ones, flat ones, each slightly different than the other, lighting up our night sky, .. they are not planets.
    LogicVaultErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • LogicVaultLogicVault 100 Pts
    @Evidence
    You can see planets in our solar system even with a cheap telescope. A normal civilian with about $200 to spare can tell you there are other planets.
    Evidence
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    @Evidence

    That's a spot on observation man. @LogicVault has somehow confused the flat and stationary ground that he walks on with a curious light in the sky. That or he thinks we're a floating pizza in space...

    Please, share with us, any logical reason why we should compare the ground beneath our feet with lights in the sky?
    EvidenceEmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    @Evidence, will he take the rabbit hole?
    EmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • LogicVaultLogicVault 100 Pts
    @Erfisflat
    I'm not talking about stars, I'm talking about planets that you can easily see with even a cheap telescope. With one you personally can see some planets clearly enough to see they are not stars.

    This is Jupiter through a telescope that costs no more than $150. You can clearly see it's not a star.


    This is Saturn through the same telescope.


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    edited May 28
    @Erfisflat
    I'm not talking about stars, I'm talking about planets that you can easily see with even a cheap telescope. With one you personally can see some planets clearly enough to see they are not stars.

    This is Jupiter through a telescope that costs no more than $150. You can clearly see it's not a star.


    This is Saturn through the same telescope.


    well you clearly said planets, so I'm sure we're on the same level as far as words. It's the logic I'm talking about. What reason do you have to say that this light is physical Terra firma and not something else. Have you walked around on either of those lights as you do the physical plane you exist on, and will ever know?

    http://alexpeak.com/twr/hdykteir/
    EmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    To clarify what @Evidence was referring to, the word planet means "wandering star" meaning they differ only from stars by their motion in the sky, and their appearance. The earth was known as a motionless plane for a long time, when they started thinking we were on a spinning ball, flying around the sun, when the sun worshippers were in charge, the word plane was replaced by planet, and somehow associated with the wandering stars. They won't teach uou that in school by the way.
    EvidenceEmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • LogicVaultLogicVault 100 Pts
    @Erfisflat
    The problem is you keep calling them lights. They are not lights. They are physical objects that are reflecting light, just like any other physical object. You can clearly see they are not the source of the light coming from them, but simply reflecting light from our sun. Referring to an object as a light indicates the object is the source of the light. So no, we are not "on the same level as far as words". Also, not all planets are terra firma, because some planets are gas giants. Though, gas is still made from physical materials and will visibly reflect light if it is dense enough.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    edited May 28
    @Erfisflat
    The problem is you keep calling them lights. They are not lights. They are physical objects that are reflecting light, just like any other physical object. You can clearly see they are not the source of the light coming from them, but simply reflecting light from our sun. Referring to an object as a light indicates the object is the source of the light. So no, we are not "on the same level as far as words". Also, not all planets are terra firma, because some planets are gas giants. Though, gas is still made from physical materials and will visibly reflect light if it is dense enough.
    Well, it would be hard pressed to tell the difference between an object reflecting light and a object emitting light. When you go to a planetarium, and they start up the show, do you automatically assume that there are small objects on the ceiling reflecting light?

    The only supporting evidence for these claims comes from NASA and CGI drawings. Dont get us wrong, we attended the mandatory instidoctrination classes, just like you, but what physical evidence is there to link the two, even if Jupiter was a giant ball in the sky, always overhead and out of reach?



    (NASA issued "photographs" 2 years apart, same cloud formation in exactly the same position)

    You forgot Venus.



    EvidenceEmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • LogicVaultLogicVault 100 Pts
    @Erfisflat
    "Well, it would be hard pressed to tell the difference between an object reflecting light and a object emitting light." No, it wouldn't. You can tell the difference between objects with eye sight and logic.

    "When you go to a planetarium, and they start up the show, do you automatically assume that there are small objects on the ceiling reflecting light?" No, I assume it's done with a projector. Or at least the ones I have seen. It's basically the same thing as when you go to a movie theater. It's one large surface with specific light patterns being projected onto it and reflected back to our eyes.

    "The only supporting evidence for these claims comes from NASA and CGI drawings." And telescopes that you can buy and see planets for yourself.

    "NASA issued "photographs" 2 years apart, same cloud formation in exactly the same position" Repeating the same picture of the same object is not evidence that it doesn't exist. Especially when you can get a telescope and see the planet with your own eyes instead of pictures.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
     "No, it wouldn't. You can tell the difference between objects with eye sight and logic."

    No, you can't tell by sight alone, you would have to apply some sort of logic. So we're back to square one. With what logic can you suggest the lights in the sky, those "wandering stars", are physical Terra firma, or gas giant, etc. etc.

    "No, I assume it's done with a projector. Or at least the ones I have seen. It's basically the same thing as when you go to a movie theater. It's one large surface with specific light patterns being projected onto it and reflected back to our eyes."

    Of course you wouldn't assume the light are tiny balls on the ceiling, despite their appearance, so for what reason do you have to believe they are actual places, specifically for comparison with the ground you walk on? We're very impressed with your basic knowledge on how projectors work, by the way. 

    "And telescopes that you can buy and see planets for yourself."

    That's not your supporting evidence. That is the claim itself, this is circular reasoning, you assume that something is a sphere, based solely on it's appearance. This appears to be a tiger, when in reality, it is not, of course this was explained to the crowd, so they knew it was a hologram, so that logic was applied there, just as NASA tells us that Mars is a rock flying through space, so when we see it through a telescope, we assume it is as they describe. Is this the "logic" your applying? This is an appeal to authority.



    @LogicVault

    EvidenceEmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • LogicVaultLogicVault 100 Pts
    @Erfisflat
    "No, you can't tell by sight alone, you would have to apply some sort of logic." I said 'and logic'.

    "So we're back to square one." No, we're still where I left off.

    "With what logic can you suggest the lights in the sky, those "wandering stars", are physical Terra firma, or gas giant, etc. etc." Like I said before, look through a telescope. To the naked eye they would look like just lights, but with a telescope you can see details in their surface.

    "Of course you wouldn't assume the light are tiny balls on the ceiling, despite their appearance, so for what reason do you have to believe they are actual places, specifically for comparison with the ground you walk on?" Because our planet is not surrounded by a giant solid ceiling for images of stars and planets to be projected on. To suggest otherwise would imply someone has had a projector powerful enough to cover the entire sky since even before humans had technology. Though, we know that can't be true because then using a telescope to view stars and planets would make them appear vastly larger than they do in a telescope due to the surface they are being projected on being in such close proximity.

    "you assume that something is a sphere, based solely on it's appearance." There are many things that can be analyzed through just observation and logic. Not everything has to be touched in order to confirm certain variables.

    "This appears to be a tiger, when in reality, it is not" That was obvious at first glance.

    "of course this was explained to the crowd, so they knew it was a hologram, so that logic was applied there" They could tell even without being told. It didn't even look close to real.

    "just as NASA tells us that Mars is a rock flying through space, so when we see it through a telescope, we assume it is as they describe." Or you could simply compare it to other similar objects that you are familiar with and analyze it for yourself. It doesn't take a genius intellect to observe a sphere's lighting and shadow to confirm it's a sphere. Even you can do it.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    @Erfisflat
    "No, you can't tell by sight alone, you would have to apply some sort of logic." I said 'and logic'.

    "So we're back to square one." No, we're still where I left off.

    "With what logic can you suggest the lights in the sky, those "wandering stars", are physical Terra firma, or gas giant, etc. etc." Like I said before, look through a telescope. To the naked eye they would look like just lights, but with a telescope you can see details in their surface.

    "Of course you wouldn't assume the light are tiny balls on the ceiling, despite their appearance, so for what reason do you have to believe they are actual places, specifically for comparison with the ground you walk on?" Because our planet is not surrounded by a giant solid ceiling for images of stars and planets to be projected on. To suggest otherwise would imply someone has had a projector powerful enough to cover the entire sky since even before humans had technology. Though, we know that can't be true because then using a telescope to view stars and planets would make them appear vastly larger than they do in a telescope due to the surface they are being projected on being in such close proximity.

    "you assume that something is a sphere, based solely on it's appearance." There are many things that can be analyzed through just observation and logic. Not everything has to be touched in order to confirm certain variables.

    "This appears to be a tiger, when in reality, it is not" That was obvious at first glance.

    "of course this was explained to the crowd, so they knew it was a hologram, so that logic was applied there" They could tell even without being told. It didn't even look close to real.

    "just as NASA tells us that Mars is a rock flying through space, so when we see it through a telescope, we assume it is as they describe." Or you could simply compare it to other similar objects that you are familiar with and analyze it for yourself. It doesn't take a genius intellect to observe a sphere's lighting and shadow to confirm it's a sphere. Even you can do it.
    We're basically at two indifferences, if I drew a sphere on a wall, even added a bit of shading, you would be able to tell by looking at the "details and "shadows" whether or not it is an actual sphere or not. Youre very gifted I give you that, because I can't get half of these right.

    http://www.playbuzz.com/bigideasnetwork10/which-of-these-popsicles-is-just-a-drawing-can-you-pick-the-real-one

    Let's say that you have superhuman sight ability, and tell that difference. It still does nothing for the conclusion. You may see a pool table, and all those colored spheres along the top of it does not necessarily mean that the table is a sphere, does it. This is non-sequitor. It does not follow that, even if you were to make out spheres in the sky, it does not follow that the ground you walk on is a sphere.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non sequitur
    EvidenceEmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    @Erfisflat
    I'm not talking about stars, I'm talking about planets that you can easily see with even a cheap telescope. With one you personally can see some planets clearly enough to see they are not stars.

    This is Jupiter through a telescope that costs no more than $150. You can clearly see it's not a star.


    This is Saturn through the same telescope.



    @LogicVault Wow, if your $150 telescope can take pictures like that, I'll trade it in for my 10" Celestron.
    And yes, they are beautiful stars. Now all you have to do is show us a picture of earth to look like those stars, and you'll have evidence.
    And no, not the Blue Marble, or that fake moonshot of earth NASATAN gave us 60 years ago.

    I mean just like these stars, we want to see just one picture of earth lined up so we could see these other so called planets in the background!? Where is just ONE picture from a satellite, or the  ISS, or Hubble, or any of those Space-Telescopes that we paid billions of dollars for showing earth, the moon and even just a few of the planets in your solar system together in one shot? High resolution photo so we can zoom past earth, and in on these other planets! There should be tens of thousands of these by now!?
    Oh wait, I forgot about the Voyager, I'm sorry, it did take a picture of earth and our whole solar system, and here it is!

    Image result for picture of earth from the voyager

    I guess this proves earth is like the stars! It's right there in black and white!   LOL

    Only Religious Fanatics would confuse our flat earth with stars, and there are a lot of these fanatics. Like this one;



    Some confuse earth with stars, and this one confuses humans with monkeys.
    Erfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    @Erfisflat I also like these:

    Image result for awesome sidewalk art

    Related image
    Erfisflat
  • @Erfisflat
    "You made the claim that we could demonstrate this on a smaller scale, but have given no examples. Youve only offered a diagram, which I might add do not show parallel sun rays, are WAY off scale, and show a notably smaller sun. Produce those results scaled down."

    You have not provided any proof that shadows function the way you claim either. 

    Using your own logic, you should reject your own claims as well.

    Simple experiment you can do at home:

This Debate has been closed.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch