Is the earth a ball?

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
"Youre very gifted I give you that, because I can't get half of these right." Got all of them except the butterfinger and tootsie roll.

"even if you were to make out spheres in the sky, it does not follow that the ground you walk on is a sphere." How would our planet be the only flat one in the solar system? I can tell you why it's a sphere just like the rest, because gravity.

Erfisflat

"How would our planet be the only flat one in the solar system? I can tell you why it's a sphere just like the rest, because gravity."

Why would you make the assumption that we are part of a solar system? You are assuming my position is that we live on a giant floating pizza! You are also assuming gravity is more than just a theory.

Erfisflat

EmeryPearson said:

@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:

In the words of your own video. The shadow does get bigger... This experiment is showing how light acts as a wave. What medium has the sun's light travelled through if it is acting as a wave?

EmeryPearson

"Why would you make the assumption that we are part of a solar system?"

This is observed, not an assumption.

"You are assuming my position is that we live on a giant floating pizza! "

Yes. Your debate point is that the Earth is flat. Not that your alternate cosmological model is true. 

"You are also assuming gravity is more than just a theory."

This is not an assumption, gravity is a theory. The Theory of Relativity incompasses gravity.  Theories do not also 'graduate' into facts. This is a misconception on your part. 
https://ncse.com/library-resource/theory-fact

LogicVault

@Evidence
"Wow, if your $150 telescope can take pictures like that, I'll trade it in for my 10" Celestron." Not if your Celestron can't obtain an image that clearly.

"And yes, they are beautiful stars." Since when do stars have multiple colored stripes or rings?

"Now all you have to do is show us a picture of earth to look like those stars, and you'll have evidence." There is evidence other than pictures. If you refuse to accept any evidence other than pictures, then you are doomed to remain ignorant.

"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?" Planets are millions of miles apart. Show me a single camera in the world that can focus on multiple objects that are millions of miles apart.

"High resolution photo so we can zoom past earth, and in on these other planets!" If you zoomed past Earth, you wouldn't be able to see Earth.

"Only Religious Fanatics would confuse our flat earth with stars" Religious people are the ones who believe the Earth is flat. You even said yourself that you believe God created a flat Earth in another thread. You are one of the religious fanatics that believe Earth is flat. Or so you pretended to be in the other thread. You exhibited trollish behavior in the other thread and now here you are exhibiting more. I suspect your entire point in being on this site is simply to argue just to be arguing and troll.

EmeryPearson

"In the words of your own video. The shadow does get bigger... This experiment is showing how light acts as a wave. What medium has the sun's light travelled through if it is acting as a wave?"

This irrelevant. Shadows do not function as you describe, and this is a practical example you may do yourself which disproves your claim.

Erfisflat

"This irrelevant."

This is just a lie, as this IS the conclusion. I can pull up quotes to prove that my entire point was that the shadow of the moon, in your model, is allegedly projecting a fraction of its size. Would you like me to pull up the quotes?

 "Shadows do not function as you describe, "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

"and this is a practical example you may do yourself which proves your claim."

There, I fixed it for you. Your experimenter actually showed and admitted it. You have literally refuted your own refutation, and reasserting your original position doesnt change that.

Erfisflat

"Wow, if your $150 telescope can take pictures like that, I'll trade it in for my 10" Celestron." Not if your Celestron can't obtain an image that clearly."

@Evidence, I did a backwards search on the image and found it was taken with a $1,300 telescope. Either he's lying or clueless about what he's talking about.

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
Actually, the more expensive telescopes would see the image more clearly and larger. Like this

And this

Erfisflat

@LogicVault

Star or planet?

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
Neither.

Erfisflat

@LogicVault, since your professional opinion has suddenly gone somewhat silent, Im going to assume that you would call this a "light in the sky", similar to stars and planets?

Erfisflat

@LogicVault ;

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
My profession observation has not gone silent. I responded to you. Also, I looked up the original video of "Golden Bubble Star" and anyone that understands the movie making process can easily see the video was cut many times. It presented completely different objects with each cut. None of them even appeared similar. The one they recorded the most looks more like a golden colored nugget of some kind while using a light filer and constantly moving the camera and changing focus. It definitely wasn't a star, because a star's brightest points would constantly shift. The image they showed us kept the brightest points in the exact same place. A star's surface would constantly shift, as ours does. Observe our sun (with a light filter so you do not destroy your retinas) and you will see it behaves as a huge ball of fire. It's surface constantly shifts. 

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
Your second video obviously has water involved. It appears to be a light source that can produce multiple colors withing a small area reflected from moving water with a light filter once again. Or possibly the light source was above or below the water's surface while the camera was the opposite.

Erfisflat

LogicVault said:

@Erfisflat
My profession observation has not gone silent. I responded to you. Also, I looked up the original video of "Golden Bubble Star" and anyone that understands the movie making process can easily see the video was cut many times. It presented completely different objects with each cut. None of them even appeared similar. The one they recorded the most looks more like a golden colored nugget of some kind while using a light filer and constantly moving the camera and changing focus. It definitely wasn't a star, because a star's brightest points would constantly shift. The image they showed us kept the brightest points in the exact same place. A star's surface would constantly shift, as ours does. Observe our sun (with a light filter so you do not destroy your retinas) and you will see it behaves as a huge ball of fire. It's surface constantly shifts. 

So your explanation is that someone is filming (and faking?) a "golden colored nugget of some kind" that is suspended in the air? 

Ive observed the sun through solar filters, and at sunset and sunrise through telescopic lenses. Nothing like you describe. There are visible sunspots that slowly make their way across the surfact, but no constant shifting, as you claim. This instead describes my video. Let's compare the two, to see which is constantly shifting the most, and you can point out ANY likenesses between the two.

The sun



A "star"



Clearly one cannot be the other, aside from my original description, a light in the sky.

But you are onto something when you point out that water is involved. Are you familiar with the book of Genesis?

http://biblehub.com/kjv/genesis/1.htm

These "water" videos are numerous and for just $50 and a dark cloudless night, anyone can observe the water lights in the sky.

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence ;

Evidence - "Wow, if your $150 telescope can take pictures like that, I'll trade it in for my 10" Celestron."
LogicVault - Not if your Celestron can't obtain an image that clearly.

Erfisflat already answered that it was no $150 telescope. I've seen Mars with my 10" Celestron back when my dear atheist friend owned it. I remember him introducing me to astronomy, and also remember his answer to my questions, like "Why are the planets so different? Why is that one there look all wobbly, nothing like those other planets, yet very clear?" and he said "it was because of the disturbance in the atmosphere". When we looked at Venus, (a minute later) there was no disturbance. I asked him about it, and he got really frustrated, I just thought he got tired of my questions, but that was not like him. He could talk about astronomy, or just about any subject all night.
Well now I KNOW why he was frustrated, he was an atheist, .. "planets and suns" is all he knew, and is all he wanted to know. Now I have his telescope, his wife gave it to me, but he is dead. Killed by radiation treatment. 

Evidence - "And yes, they are beautiful stars."
Since when do stars have multiple colored stripes or rings?

You too ay? Planets and stars/suns is all you know, and that's all you want to know, just like my friend. They are all stars, each specifically and wonderfully created by God, and named them too. Only I doubt He named them after pagan gods.

"Now all you have to do is show us a picture of earth to look like those stars, and you'll have evidence."
There is evidence other than pictures. If you refuse to accept any evidence other than pictures, then you are doomed to remain ignorant.

I guess to you, that's my name here: "Ignorant".
Evidence = Ignorant
Science = science fiction
stars = planets
our sun = star
science fair = Darth Wader showing up at the science fiction fair.
Doppler effect = stars moving away from you
density and buoyancy = gravity
God and His son Word = George Lemaitre and Darwin

Yes, I can understand now.

You live in a science fiction universe with planets and aliens. There is no reasoning with deluded people. Like some friends of mine many years ago invited me to a huge science fair in Tucson, 2 1/2 hours drive, and found out they wanted to go mostly because of all the Star Wars characters that would be there. Almost everything there was about science fiction, and all their conversations were of Sci-fi movies. This was like 37 years ago, so I understand how you could not even consider stars as being just stars, .. you think you live on one of those science fiction planets that you see NASA post weekly, there is no turning for you is there?

Evidence aka Ignorant in sci-fi terms - "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?"
LogicVault - Planets are millions of miles apart. Show me a single camera in the world that can focus on multiple objects that are millions of miles apart.

You mean you never seen more than one star that you call "planet", along with our moon, and even the sun all together with a telescope right here from earth??
NASA sent multi-billion dollar telescopes and the Voyager into space, I've shown you the picture the Voyager sent back with the earth as a speck. It could have positioned itself away from the earth to capture the earth, our moon, and a bunch of your other planets (if not the whole solar system) in one shot. Then just wait, .. or move to another position and take photos of the rest of the planets! 

Imagine the PROOF you would have back in 1977!? That was 40 years ago, a trillion dollars later, you still depend on NASA artist paintings to prove you live on a planet. Aren't you even a little frustrated by this? Billions and billions of dollars and now even the moon landing photos are missing, tens of thousands of them?
You can thank your gods you have the Blue Marble still in a safe place, right? I mean it IS in a safe place, right? Because I'm sure they would not want any of us F.E. realists who demand evidence for science to get a hold of that cheap-composite baby!?

Evidence - "High resolution photo so we can zoom past earth, and in on these other planets!"
If you zoomed past Earth, you wouldn't be able to see Earth.

Your not much of a photographer are you? Did NASA tell you that, .. that "there is just no way to capture the earth along with other planets in your solar system no matter how far we travel from earth!" If you look at the photos that the Voyager sent back, it looks like it went far enough to capture half your galaxy, not just your solar system!? Where are all the photos of your solar system?
Let me guess, they are lost, .. darn it! Right there was irrefutable proof, and like of the moon landings, they too are lost. And guess what, all the billions spent on security at NASA, like cameras videoing the coming in and out of personnel, .. yep, all them security tapes are lost too, double darn it!! Oh well, they do let us have them fisheye lens videos of their rockets taking off, to show us the curvature.

Have you ever wondered why they don't put multiple cameras on these rockets, especially the Apollo rockets, so they could show them leaving earth, and closing in on the moon at the same time!? Maybe another camera pointing perpendicular to the rocket to show other planets and stars so we could get a better perspective to where they are?
But nope, not even after 50 years, and after 6 landings on the moon, not one multi camera film of a landing, .. and this doesn't include all the Mars landings either.
You'd think after spending few trillion dollars over all this time that they would spend a few thousand dollars on some extra cameras, right?
Its, .. it's as if they were trying to hide something, .. right?
Naaw, .. I guess I just have this suspicious mind, just because after spending trillions of dollars they only have one photo of earth, the Blue Marble, I right away think "CONCPIRACY!"

Like the John F. Kennedy incident, .. here is the President riding in a an open convertible, waving to people, then suddenly he grabs his throat! Now what do conspiracy theorists like us think? Were not like normal people who say: "Oh look, the President just swallowed a June bug!" and laugh it off. Oh no, we right away accuse: "Oh look, ..  it looks like the President been shot!"
No wonder they had to hide all the videos/films from us for 50 years, only the Lord knows what other conspiracy theories we would of come up with if they were to release all of them!?

Evidence - "Only Religious Fanatics would confuse our flat earth with stars"
Religious people are the ones who believe the Earth is flat. You even said yourself that you believe God created a flat Earth in another thread. You are one of the religious fanatics that believe Earth is flat. Or so you pretended to be in the other thread. You exhibited trollish behavior in the other thread and now here you are exhibiting more. I suspect your entire point in being on this site is simply to argue just to be arguing and troll.

Wait, so the way you actually understand all this is that the only gods that exist is in what Organized Religion gives you? Did you even know that it was the biggest organized Religion, called the Christian Religion, that gave you the Big-Bang story?
They are the same ones that changed our Infinite Creator God to some deified sun-god. Did you know that both NASATAN and 666CERN worship Lucifer, and asks visitors to direct their prayers towards their god Lord Shiva on certain days, to hopefully open the portal to the supernatural realm and let Satan/NASATAN come into the world in the flesh since he can no longer turn into flesh like he used to? Now he can only possess the minds of Christian Mediums and talk, that is divine through them divinations.

Me a troll? Then;
What do you call people on these threads who propagate lies like that people are not really humans, but are actually animals, apes, and that our cousins are rats! And tell us that stars are planets, that only Religion created gods exist as planets like Mars, Jupiter, Venus, and that we should pray to the god of science-fiction; Lord Shiva to promote science fiction over real science? Tell me that? That we should pray for NASA to build big ships to take us all to Mars because earth can no longer sustain us! That we could all live in plastic domes on Mars and grow our own food using our own feces as fertilizer!
Or that we absolutely must chemtrail the hell out of our skies, poison our waters, our plants and our children, or else we're all going to die!? Or that we should buy silicon made realistic babies and young children which we could fondle, and just abort our real babies, and send their  ripped apart remains for stem cell research which we are told; is purely there to do research to save babies and children, .. huh, what do you call them?

Erfisflat

@Evidence Hoping these will help him decide to retract his statement:  "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'd think that after seeing the firmament with your own eyes, you'd be a bit more open minded, curious even?

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
"There are visible sunspots that slowly make their way across the surfact, but no constant shifting, as you claim." The first part contradicts the second. Making their way across the surface is movement, movement is a shifting of position.

"This instead describes my video." The surface of the object in your video did not move. The camera moved and changed focus.

Your next 2 videos were of very horrible quality. The first one was not able to zoom in far enough and the second was not able to focus.

"Are you familiar with the book of Genesis?" I'm not reading something irrelevant to the discussion. Until a god can be proven, religion is simply hearsay.

"These "water" videos are numerous and for just $50 and a dark cloudless night, anyone can observe the water lights in the sky." Neither the light or water was in the sky in that video. Also, the light was from a man made device.

"you'd think that after seeing the firmament with your own eyes, you'd be a bit more open minded" The only 2 videos you showed that even involved the sky were of horrible quality, as I mentioned before. The other 2 were not even of stars.

LogicVault

@Evidence
"Erfisflat already answered that it was no $150 telescope." Technically, the image was taken with a more expensive telescope, but the picture was taken while it was only zoomed in as far as a cheap telescope can. It was an example of the view a less powerful telescope can obtain.

The story you proceed to tell is obviously fictional.

"They are all stars, each specifically and wonderfully created by God" No, planets exist too. And once again, if you can't prove a god exists, leave it out of the discussion.

"I guess to you, that's my name here: "Ignorant".
Evidence = Ignorant
Science = science fiction
stars = planets
our sun = star
science fair = Darth Wader showing up at the science fiction fair.
Doppler effect = stars moving away from you
density and buoyancy = gravity
God and His son Word = George Lemaitre and Darwin" The only one you got right is that our sun is a star. Stars are suns in other solar systems.

"You live in a science fiction universe with planets and aliens." First, I never claimed to believe in aliens. Second, real science isn't fiction. Third, you can see planets clearly with strong enough telescopes.

"There is no reasoning with deluded people." Pot meet kettle.

"some friends of mine many years ago invited me to a huge science fair in Tucson, 2 1/2 hours drive, and found out they wanted to go mostly because of all the Star Wars characters that would be there. Almost everything there was about science fiction, and all their conversations were of Sci-fi movies." Sound more like you went to a sci-fi convention.

"there is no turning for you is there?" I would ask you the same thing, but I know what your intentions actually are.

"You mean you never seen more than one star that you call "planet", along with our moon, and even the sun all together with a telescope right here from earth??" You asked for an image of multiple planets in 1 shot. They are millions of miles apart. Even if they were lined up enough to be in the same shot, you couldn't focus the lens very well on more than one at a time due to the distance between them.

I'm going to skip past the few troll comments that followed that question.

"Your not much of a photographer are you?" Was going to ask you the same thing.

More troll comments.

"Have you ever wondered why they don't put multiple cameras on these rockets, especially the Apollo rockets, so they could show them leaving earth, and closing in on the moon at the same time!?" I'm not convinced they ever went to the moon. So, the entire paragraph that followed is pointless.

""Oh look, ..  it looks like the President been shot!"" It was fairly obvious that he was being shot once his brains were on the outside.

"Did you even know that it was the biggest organized Religion, called the Christian Religion, that gave you the Big-Bang story?" Actually, it was scientists that developed the Big Bang theory. Christians believe a god created everything in 7 days.

"They are the same ones that changed our Infinite Creator God to some deified sun-god." No, they still believe in the same god that they always have.

"Did you know that both NASATAN and 666CERN worship Lucifer" I looked it up and I don't see a single video or article stating or showing that any NASA employee worships Satan. And I don't even know who you're referring to when you say "666CERN" I'm not hip to your flat Earth slang.

"and asks visitors to direct their prayers towards their god Lord Shiva on certain days" Well that was a complete mixture of separate topics and a warping of information. The NASA that asked for prayers is the National Super Alliance in Kenya and it was in regards to an election going on. The SHIVA associated with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is an acronym for Spaceflight Holography in a Virtual Apparatus. Making statements like that is exactly why it's obvious that you're trolling.

"What do you call people on these threads who propagate lies like that people are not really humans, but are actually animals, apes, and that our cousins are rats" Humans technically are animals and do share a common ancestor with apes and rats. Though, the ancestor with rats is a lot farther back. So, I would call these people informed.

"And tell us that stars are planets" Actually, they're referring to planets as planets and stars as stars. You are the one mixing the names.

"that only Religion created gods exist as planets like Mars, Jupiter, Venus" Actually, the planets were named after Roman gods.

"that we should pray to the god of science-fiction" I haven't seen anyone suggesting that. I have seen people try to explain actual science to you though.

"Lord Shiva to promote science fiction over real science?" See response earlier about SHIVA.

"That we should pray for NASA to build big ships to take us all to Mars because earth can no longer sustain us!" No one has asked you to pray for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. And people's desire to visit Mars has nothing to do with our planet's ability to sustain us. They just want to explore.

"That we could all live in plastic domes on Mars and grow our own food using our own feces as fertilizer!" Doubt that will ever happen.

"Or that we absolutely must chemtrail the hell out of our skies, poison our waters, our plants and our children, or else we're all going to die!?" First of all, the chemtrail thing is a conspiracy. Second, who suggested that you poison water, plants, or children? No one has ever asked me to do that. Nor have I seen anyone ask people to do that.

"Or that we should buy silicon made realistic babies and young children which we could fondle, and just abort our real babies" Who is asking you to do all these things? Please point them out. I'd like to ask them a few questions.

"send their  ripped apart remains for stem cell research which we are told; is purely there to do research to save babies and children" The fetuses used for stem cell research were aborted by the parents for their own reasons, not for research.

If you're going to continue trolling, at least make it sound realistic or I'm going to get bored with you.

Erfisflat

"The first part contradicts the second. Making their way across the surface is movement, movement is a shifting of position."

Yes, I suppose, by definition, this is a "constant shifting"... Although a gradual one. I think you were probably referring to the CGI videos that NASaa shows us...


"The surface of the object in your video did not move. The camera moved and changed focus."

What exactly made you say "Your second video obviously has water involved." then? Was it the constantly shifting waves between this light in the sky and the observer?




"Your next 2 videos were of very horrible quality. The first one was not able to zoom in far enough and the second was not able to focus."

This is a lie, the zooms and focuses were well enough to pick out individual waves. I could do a screenshot, but your dismissal of everything you've been shown makes me feel like it would be a waste of time and bandwith to be honest. For you to assert that these very many amateur videos were all somehow faked, is denial and you are welcome to rent a p900 and zoom into any star to see for yourself. Until then your cognitive dissonance is overbearing, and your replies have become robotic, closed minded and rehearsed.

"I'm not reading something irrelevant to the discussion. Until a god can be proven, religion is simply hearsay."

With a flat Earth and firmament of water, The Creator is more than just heresay. You are being shown evidence for God and the great deception, but are denying it. We can lead a horse to water as they say. 

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
"Yes, I suppose, by definition, this is a "constant shifting"... Although a gradual one." Still shifting.

"I think you were probably referring to the CGI videos that NASaa shows us." No.

"What exactly made you say "Your second video obviously has water involved." then? Was it the constantly shifting waves between this light in the sky and the observer?" The video that involved water was not a video of anything in the sky. The light was produced by a man made device.

"This is a lie, the zooms and focuses were well enough to pick out individual waves." The video after the one with the sun was out of focus. The image was extremely blurry.

"I could do a screenshot, but your dismissal of everything you've been shown makes me feel like it would be a waste of time and bandwith to be honest." They are dismissed because they are not what you claim they are.

"For you to assert that these very many amateur videos were all somehow faked, is denial and you are welcome to rent a p900 and zoom into any star to see for yourself." I have looked at planets through a telescope and they didn't look like that.

"Until then your cognitive dissonance is overbearing, and your replies have become robotic, closed minded and rehearsed." False claims simply because I do not accept your poor evidence.

"With a flat Earth and firmament of water, The Creator is more than just heresay." The Earth isn't flat and you can't prove heaven exists. Religion remains hearsay.

"You are being shown evidence for God and the great deception, but are denying it." Poor evidence is not proof.

"We can lead a horse to water as they say." You're leading horses to poison, not water.

Evidence

Erfisflat said:

"The first part contradicts the second. Making their way across the surface is movement, movement is a shifting of position."

Yes, I suppose, by definition, this is a "constant shifting"... Although a gradual one. I think you were probably referring to the CGI videos that NASaa shows us...


"The surface of the object in your video did not move. The camera moved and changed focus."

What exactly made you say "Your second video obviously has water involved." then? Was it the constantly shifting waves between this light in the sky and the observer?




"Your next 2 videos were of very horrible quality. The first one was not able to zoom in far enough and the second was not able to focus."

This is a lie, the zooms and focuses were well enough to pick out individual waves. I could do a screenshot, but your dismissal of everything you've been shown makes me feel like it would be a waste of time and bandwith to be honest. For you to assert that these very many amateur videos were all somehow faked, is denial and you are welcome to rent a p900 and zoom into any star to see for yourself. Until then your cognitive dissonance is overbearing, and your replies have become robotic, closed minded and rehearsed.

"I'm not reading something irrelevant to the discussion. Until a god can be proven, religion is simply hearsay."

With a flat Earth and firmament of water, The Creator is more than just heresay. You are being shown evidence for God and the great deception, but are denying it. We can lead a horse to water as they say. 

@Erfisflat check out my new post in "science".

Like you said, you can lead a horse to water, .. 

We both have debated trolls like him, remember DDO? They sit there and repeat the same Religious Indoctrination day after day, week after week, month after month and yes, year after year, never allowing themselves to deviate from their Religious views and rules:
1. God does not exist
"But look, we can show you in so many ways, scientifically, philosophically, and logically that obviously He does!" And what's their response?
Error-error-god-does-not-exist-BB-Evolution-is-god-Darwin-created-man-from- umm, .. from, .. from, ..common ancestors!

.. oh well, I have learned a great deal in debating, so only God knows who may read our posts and turn?

You know what's scary though? What the Lord said: "Like in the Days of Noah, only eight were saved, .. like in the Days of Sodom and Gomorrah, only three, .. ouch!

God bless you my friend.

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence
"Erfisflat already answered that it was no $150 telescope." Technically, the image was taken with a more expensive telescope, but the picture was taken while it was only zoomed in as far as a cheap telescope can. It was an example of the view a less powerful telescope can obtain.

The story you proceed to tell is obviously fictional.

"They are all stars, each specifically and wonderfully created by God" No, planets exist too. And once again, if you can't prove a god exists, leave it out of the discussion.

"I guess to you, that's my name here: "Ignorant".
Evidence = Ignorant
Science = science fiction
stars = planets
our sun = star
science fair = Darth Wader showing up at the science fiction fair.
Doppler effect = stars moving away from you
density and buoyancy = gravity
God and His son Word = George Lemaitre and Darwin" The only one you got right is that our sun is a star. Stars are suns in other solar systems.

"You live in a science fiction universe with planets and aliens." First, I never claimed to believe in aliens. Second, real science isn't fiction. Third, you can see planets clearly with strong enough telescopes.

"There is no reasoning with deluded people." Pot meet kettle.

"some friends of mine many years ago invited me to a huge science fair in Tucson, 2 1/2 hours drive, and found out they wanted to go mostly because of all the Star Wars characters that would be there. Almost everything there was about science fiction, and all their conversations were of Sci-fi movies." Sound more like you went to a sci-fi convention.

"there is no turning for you is there?" I would ask you the same thing, but I know what your intentions actually are.

"You mean you never seen more than one star that you call "planet", along with our moon, and even the sun all together with a telescope right here from earth??" You asked for an image of multiple planets in 1 shot. They are millions of miles apart. Even if they were lined up enough to be in the same shot, you couldn't focus the lens very well on more than one at a time due to the distance between them.

I'm going to skip past the few troll comments that followed that question.

"Your not much of a photographer are you?" Was going to ask you the same thing.

More troll comments.

"Have you ever wondered why they don't put multiple cameras on these rockets, especially the Apollo rockets, so they could show them leaving earth, and closing in on the moon at the same time!?" I'm not convinced they ever went to the moon. So, the entire paragraph that followed is pointless.

""Oh look, ..  it looks like the President been shot!"" It was fairly obvious that he was being shot once his brains were on the outside.

"Did you even know that it was the biggest organized Religion, called the Christian Religion, that gave you the Big-Bang story?" Actually, it was scientists that developed the Big Bang theory. Christians believe a god created everything in 7 days.

"They are the same ones that changed our Infinite Creator God to some deified sun-god." No, they still believe in the same god that they always have.

"Did you know that both NASATAN and 666CERN worship Lucifer" I looked it up and I don't see a single video or article stating or showing that any NASA employee worships Satan. And I don't even know who you're referring to when you say "666CERN" I'm not hip to your flat Earth slang.

"and asks visitors to direct their prayers towards their god Lord Shiva on certain days" Well that was a complete mixture of separate topics and a warping of information. The NASA that asked for prayers is the National Super Alliance in Kenya and it was in regards to an election going on. The SHIVA associated with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is an acronym for Spaceflight Holography in a Virtual Apparatus. Making statements like that is exactly why it's obvious that you're trolling.

"What do you call people on these threads who propagate lies like that people are not really humans, but are actually animals, apes, and that our cousins are rats" Humans technically are animals and do share a common ancestor with apes and rats. Though, the ancestor with rats is a lot farther back. So, I would call these people informed.

"And tell us that stars are planets" Actually, they're referring to planets as planets and stars as stars. You are the one mixing the names.

"that only Religion created gods exist as planets like Mars, Jupiter, Venus" Actually, the planets were named after Roman gods.

"that we should pray to the god of science-fiction" I haven't seen anyone suggesting that. I have seen people try to explain actual science to you though.

"Lord Shiva to promote science fiction over real science?" See response earlier about SHIVA.

"That we should pray for NASA to build big ships to take us all to Mars because earth can no longer sustain us!" No one has asked you to pray for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. And people's desire to visit Mars has nothing to do with our planet's ability to sustain us. They just want to explore.

"That we could all live in plastic domes on Mars and grow our own food using our own feces as fertilizer!" Doubt that will ever happen.

"Or that we absolutely must chemtrail the hell out of our skies, poison our waters, our plants and our children, or else we're all going to die!?" First of all, the chemtrail thing is a conspiracy. Second, who suggested that you poison water, plants, or children? No one has ever asked me to do that. Nor have I seen anyone ask people to do that.

"Or that we should buy silicon made realistic babies and young children which we could fondle, and just abort our real babies" Who is asking you to do all these things? Please point them out. I'd like to ask them a few questions.

"send their  ripped apart remains for stem cell research which we are told; is purely there to do research to save babies and children" The fetuses used for stem cell research were aborted by the parents for their own reasons, not for research.

If you're going to continue trolling, at least make it sound realistic or I'm going to get bored with you.

@LogicVault ;

Evidence said: "You live in a science fiction universe with planets and aliens."
First, I never claimed to believe in aliens.

You didn't listen to your indoctrination, the possibilities are endless, so many abductions, , how could you say that?



Second, real science isn't fiction.

That's what we've been trying to get across to you LogicVault! And you keep on reverting back to science fiction

Third, you can see planets clearly with strong enough telescopes.

those are stars, once again you revert back to sci-fi .. Look friend: If you're going to continue trolling, at least make it sound realistic or I'm going to get bored with you.

LogicVault

@Evidence
"We both have debated trolls like him" With that statement you are simply projecting in order to maintain an illusion of honesty in your fake position. You know very well that you are taking the flat Earth argument just to argue with people because it's an easy target. You have zero intention of being truthful. You ARE one of the trolls. Why you pretend to be sincere after I have already revealed that I am aware of your ploy, I can only assume is to uphold the image to others that read this thread. If you were smart, you'd realize that anyone of average or above intelligence can no longer be fooled by your guise once it was pointed out. It's especially foolish to accuse me of being a troll in the manner you are, as well as only after I pointed out how you are trolling. You are essentially pulling a Peewee Herman "I know you are but what am I" or "I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you".

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence
"We both have debated trolls like him" With that statement you are simply projecting in order to maintain an illusion of honesty in your fake position. You know very well that you are taking the flat Earth argument just to argue with people because it's an easy target. You have zero intention of being truthful. You ARE one of the trolls. Why you pretend to be sincere after I have already revealed that I am aware of your ploy, I can only assume is to uphold the image to others that read this thread. If you were smart, you'd realize that anyone of average or above intelligence can no longer be fooled by your guise once it was pointed out. It's especially foolish to accuse me of being a troll in the manner you are, as well as only after I pointed out how you are trolling. You are essentially pulling a Peewee Herman "I know you are but what am I" or "I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you".

@LogicVault after all the evidence that both @Erfisflat and I provided regarding the lies, the fakeness, the 60 years of deception that we endured and paid dearly for which slung half the world into starvation by both NASA and CERN, all the ridiculing all the degrading, dehumanizing, all the insulting labeling from the leaders of Evolution, the mocking of our intelligence from Big-Bang Evolutionists, .. doing a Peewee Herman fits you perfectly.
Troll on brother, and keep on trolling.

LogicVault

@Evidence
Well that was just a response. You provided no proof, just that trolls created to troll normal people. Then you made unproven accusations that just sound ridiculous to any intelligent person. Then you just did another Peewee Herman by repeating the Peewee Herman thing back to me. Can't be original, huh? Oh and the closest I am to trolling is messing with you actual trolls. So yeah, I guess I technically am trolling, I'm trolling you trolls.

EmeryPearson

Erfisflat said:

"This irrelevant."

This is just a lie, as this IS the conclusion. I can pull up quotes to prove that my entire point was that the shadow of the moon, in your model, is allegedly projecting a fraction of its size. Would you like me to pull up the quotes?

 "Shadows do not function as you describe, "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

"and this is a practical example you may do yourself which proves your claim."

There, I fixed it for you. Your experimenter actually showed and admitted it. You have literally refuted your own refutation, and reasserting your original position doesnt change that.

"This is just a lie, as this IS the conclusion. I can pull up quotes to prove that my entire point was that the shadow of the moon, in your model, is allegedly projecting a fraction of its size. Would you like me to pull up the quotes?"

Which part of the shadow is smaller, which part is larger? The model states that both should occur. Are you perhaps Cherry Picking to sound more reasonable?

Also, this isn't proof by assertion. You claimed the shadow should be nearly 1:1. This isn't the case. It's an easily demonstrable falsehood.

"
There, I fixed it for you. Your experimenter actually showed and admitted it. You have literally refuted your own refutation, and reasserting your original position doesnt change that."

This is only true if your possessed by self-delusion. This was not was concluded, or displayed within the video. Believing reality is different than it is, doesn't make it so.


Now that we have established that you're being dishonest about shadows, we can move on to whatever self-contrived theory you come up with.

Ampersand

Right, time to debunk the Flat Earthers again.

First of all we'll ignore everything which is unsubstantiated baseless claims, which comprises about 90% of the posts. Simply claiming something is true does not make it true.

Now let's turn to the funny stuff, where they try to actually use evidence to back up their claims.

Erfisflat said:

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

ErfisFlat makes an argument about how the Earth can't be spherical because the moon's shadow is smaller than the moon, he states this must be the case and provides the above link for evidence of the central point of his argument - that the suns rays are parralel as they enter the earth's atmosphere. . 

As anyone who's had to deal with him before will know ErfIsFlat's reading comprehension is very poor and this is demonstrated here. Despite there only being 3 sentences in his source, ErfIsFlat apparently only read the first one, not noticing the ones which explain that the earth's rays aren't parallel and can merely be treated as such for many purposes. To make the point clear it even has a picture of the sun and the earth and completely non-parallel lines showing the sun's light but obviously even that wasn't enough.

Erfisflat said:

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

ErfIsFlat then goes into biblical conspiracy theories, fudging numbers as he goes. For instance the obliquity of the earth is actually 23.44 degrees which if you randomly take away from 90 degrees leaves 65.6 degrees. 

Similarly the speed of the earth from the perspective of the sun (which is what he's referring to) varies between 30.29 and 29.29 per second as shown in my link above meaning as it accelerates and decellerates based on the effect of the Sun's gravity its speed will vary between 65519.843724 mph and 67756.779324 mph.

He then goes completely off the rails and starts just making claims, even contradicting his own sources. For instance his link of https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/32294-how-fast-does-earth-move.html states the solar system is travelling at 560,000 mph while erfisFlat claims(with no evidence) that "The solar system is travelling at 828,000 mph" and then tries to link this to 666 because that's the sum of 828.

Of course the funniest thing is that 666 being the number of the beast is a mistranslation and the earliest versions of the book of revelations that have been found show it to be 616.

Erfisflat said:

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

He tries to claim NASA is faking images because images used two years apart were the same (aside from the editing on the second to show off an effect that NASA was making a press release about).

Of course if you actually check the 2016 press release and click on "Release Images" on the right, you'll see  that NASA clearly states this is an image from 2014. No-one is saying the image was taken in 2014 except ErfIsFlat who is simply making it up. Does he expect that every time the NASA media deparment wants to issue a press, rather than using one of their stock photos they'll interrupt the scientific research being done with the hubble telescope and take a new photo of Jupiter for no reason other than to keep him happy?

Apparently so.

Not only that but this has already been explained to ErfIsFlat previously; he's conceded the point and now he's repeating points he knows are lies. If you follow that link, please also note that the post ID for ErfIsFlat's first comment is 6666. HE'S OBVIOUSLY A SATANIC AGENT!!!!

I'd rate the highlights a 8/10 for comedy, it's always funny when he disproves his own arguments and doesn't even realise it and moaning about 666 numbers when he's the one whose made a post with all the 6's is just a heap of extra irony. Of course probably only a 3/10 as a whole as these highlights are picked out of lots of very boring posts where he just makes baseless claims.

LogicVault

@Ampersand
That's because he's only arguing the flat Earth to troll people. He knows it's false. This is fun to him.

Erfisflat

LogicVault said:

@Erfisflat
"Yes, I suppose, by definition, this is a "constant shifting"... Although a gradual one." Still shifting.

"I think you were probably referring to the CGI videos that NASaa shows us." No.

"What exactly made you say "Your second video obviously has water involved." then? Was it the constantly shifting waves between this light in the sky and the observer?" The video that involved water was not a video of anything in the sky. The light was produced by a man made device.

"This is a lie, the zooms and focuses were well enough to pick out individual waves." The video after the one with the sun was out of focus. The image was extremely blurry.

"I could do a screenshot, but your dismissal of everything you've been shown makes me feel like it would be a waste of time and bandwith to be honest." They are dismissed because they are not what you claim they are.

"For you to assert that these very many amateur videos were all somehow faked, is denial and you are welcome to rent a p900 and zoom into any star to see for yourself." I have looked at planets through a telescope and they didn't look like that.

"Until then your cognitive dissonance is overbearing, and your replies have become robotic, closed minded and rehearsed." False claims simply because I do not accept your poor evidence.

"With a flat Earth and firmament of water, The Creator is more than just heresay." The Earth isn't flat and you can't prove heaven exists. Religion remains hearsay.

"You are being shown evidence for God and the great deception, but are denying it." Poor evidence is not proof.

"We can lead a horse to water as they say." You're leading horses to poison, not water.

"The video that involved water was not a video of anything in the sky. The light was produced by a man made device."

This is a fallacious assertion. I've posted several videos, all similar, with water effects in them, and like I said, and you ignore, there are several dozen available on YouTube,

Mix - Nikon p900 stars:

 if you don't want to see it yourself.... Some of these videos show zooming in and out, aiming UP. You know, at the sky? Denying basic observations is a sign of cognitive dissonance.

"No."

Ok... We believe you(sarc) , so, back to my question, which is more constantly shifting, because the sun spots don't move very noticeably... Meaning the surface of the sun doesn't even appear to be constantly shifting.



And you still haven't explained any other similarities between them. This is cherry picking.


 "I have looked at planets through a telescope and they didn't look like that."

I don't believe you.

brontoraptor

@Erfisflat

Is the Earth a ball? No. It's a planet. 

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
"Some of these videos show zooming in and out, aiming UP. You know, at the sky?" I didn't see a single one of your videos show that it was the sky it was looking at. Just a light and a black background, which could be a number of things. As for the one you just used, it does not show it either and is even obvious that it was distorting the image of whatever light it was trying to zoom in on. The same image can be created with a flashlight from far away.

"Denying basic observations is a sign of cognitive dissonance." But denying the legitimacy of evidence that is obviously not legitimate is not cognitive dissonance.

"the surface of the sun doesn't even appear to be constantly shifting." Not in that horrible quality video.

"I don't believe you." I don't care what you believe.

Erfisflat

brontoraptor said:

@Erfisflat

Is the Earth a ball? No. It's a planet. 

It is a plane. The word planet has been made synonymous with ball. It is allegedly a geometrical ball, 25,000 miles in circumference, however when the math is done, and the measurements are made, there is no way that water (which much conform to the shape of the earth) curves this much. Accounts of distances of up to 300 miles have been cited, all utterly impossible if this were the case. To sum it up, we see too far for the earth to be a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference.

Erfisflat

LogicVault said:

@Erfisflat
"Some of these videos show zooming in and out, aiming UP. You know, at the sky?" I didn't see a single one of your videos show that it was the sky it was looking at. Just a light and a black background, which could be a number of things. As for the one you just used, it does not show it either and is even obvious that it was distorting the image of whatever light it was trying to zoom in on. The same image can be created with a flashlight from far away.

"Denying basic observations is a sign of cognitive dissonance." But denying the legitimacy of evidence that is obviously not legitimate is not cognitive dissonance.

"the surface of the sun doesn't even appear to be constantly shifting." Not in that horrible quality video.

"I don't believe you." I don't care what you believe.

The childish tactic of "nuh-uh" from you is boring. Ive supplied ample evidence, you've done nothing but deny, deny, deny. Please, present some evidence of a "constantly shifting" sun surfaces. Or how about amatuer footage of a star, since you claim all these amatuer photographers have made these "with a flashlight from far away". Your arguments are weak and fallacious.

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
"The childish tactic of "nuh-uh" from you is boring." That's the pot calling the kettle black. 

"Ive supplied ample evidence" No, you haven't. What you call evidence, we call . I've pointed out how your "evidence" is manufactured. Choose better evidence.

"you've done nothing but deny, deny, deny." Well, when you use obviously faked videos, I have no choice but to call it what it is. Stop using fake videos and I'll stop calling them fake. Duh.

"Please, present some evidence of a "constantly shifting" sun surfaces." Kid, I sold that telescope years ago. Probably before you was born. Go get real photos yourself. And don't bother with that troll "eh you don't provide it for me so it can't be true" .

"Or how about amatuer footage of a star" "Amatuer"? Really? Amatuer? That's one of your mistakes. Try professional.

"Your arguments are weak and fallacious." Erfisflat meet mirror.

Erfisflat

LogicVault said:

@Erfisflat
"The childish tactic of "nuh-uh" from you is boring." That's the pot calling the kettle black. 

"Ive supplied ample evidence" No, you haven't. What you call evidence, we call . I've pointed out how your "evidence" is manufactured. Choose better evidence.

"you've done nothing but deny, deny, deny." Well, when you use obviously faked videos, I have no choice but to call it what it is. Stop using fake videos and I'll stop calling them fake. Duh.

"Please, present some evidence of a "constantly shifting" sun surfaces." Kid, I sold that telescope years ago. Probably before you was born. Go get real photos yourself. And don't bother with that troll "eh you don't provide it for me so it can't be true" .

"Or how about amatuer footage of a star" "Amatuer"? Really? Amatuer? That's one of your mistakes. Try professional.

"Your arguments are weak and fallacious." Erfisflat meet mirror.

First reply:



"No, you haven't. What you call evidence, we call . I've pointed out how your "evidence" is manufactured. Choose better evidence."

You can't just claim that something is . This is an assertion. Firstly, there's no possible way to reproduce those results with a "flashlight far away". Where does the water elements come in? Secondly, even if you could, there's no possible way literally every unbiased person sharing these videos on Youtube would do such a ridiculous thing, just to FOOL YOU. This is verifiable, I've done this myself. You're welcome to rent this camera and perform the test yourself, I've said this repeatedly. Unless you can prove that these multiple videos are faked with a flashlight far away, you're just kicking the stone, and your incompetence can be ignored. When asked to adequately provide ANY evidence, your claim is that you've now sold your telescope, (before I was born, as if somehow you knew my age, since I'm 40 now, this would put you well into your 50's, and it would appear that senility is setting in)and no evidence for your counterclaim is at all available. Not surprising. 


Accept the debate.

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
"You can't just claim that something is . This is an assertion." It's no more of an assertion than you claiming it's true.

"Firstly, there's no possible way to reproduce those results with a "flashlight far away"." Yes, there is. You would be surprised at the advancements in trick photography.

"Where does the water elements come in?" Water, of course.

"Secondly, even if you could, there's no possible way literally every unbiased person sharing these videos on Youtube would do such a ridiculous thing, just to FOOL YOU." People on YouTube making fake videos just to mess with viewers? You're right, that's impossible. No one in the world would do such a thing. Especially not just a few hundred or thousand out of billions of people. It's official, clickbait is a myth.

"This is verifiable, I've done this myself." With trick photography, yeah. I can do it too.

"You're welcome to rent this camera and perform the test yourself, I've said this repeatedly." Yeah, I just said I can recreate the trick photography too. Anyone can. You can even google how to do it.

"Unless you can prove that these multiple videos are faked with a flashlight far away, you're just kicking the stone, and your incompetence can be ignored." The same thing in reverse can be said to you. Unless you can prove the videos aren't fake, your claims can be ignored. You constantly accuse NASA and others of faking their evidence yet you do not prove it. Uphold your own standards.

"When asked to adequately provide ANY evidence, your claim is that you've now sold your telescope, and no evidence for your counterclaim is at all available." You haven't provided 'adequate' evidence either. Pot calling the kettle black.

"(before I was born, as if somehow you knew my age, since I'm 40 now, this would put you well into your 50's, and it would appear that senility is setting in)" That was actually a good troll insult. Fairly clever.

"Accept the debate." How would that serve my purpose? I do not need to convince you of anything because you already know the things you claim aren't true. The time I put into a 1 on 1 debate wouldn't be worth the very few people that read it. A lot of people wouldn't read it due to not being allowed equal participation. Without an audience to save from your misinformation, it's fruitless. I can't protect enough people from your trolling in a 1 on 1.

Erfisflat

"It's no more of an assertion than you claiming it's true."

Another tu quoque fallacy. 

"Yes, there is. You would be surprised at the advancements in trick photography."

Except this is not just a photo, video editing software, at least the affordable kind, would be detectable by even amatuer analysts. There is no "trick" here. What you're doing here is like the ostrich effect and a reactive devaluation from a status quo bias.

"You can even google how to do it."

Oh yeah? How would you word this specific search and produce these results? How would you zoom "far away" at an immersed flashlight (that randomly changes colors very quickly) down into a body of water and produce these results? Worth the trouble? 



Again, for anyone paying attention, the camera pans out all the way, showing a small window, and it is clear the camera is pointed at the sky. Why would he fake this? How would he fake this?

" It's official, clickbait is a myth."



"You constantly accuse NASA and others of faking their evidence yet you do not prove it."

That is a lie. In our debate, I showed conclusively how NASA has faked pictures, compare the two: $20,000,000,000 a year company with average Joe with a $400 camera. I proved yours fake, you ran with tail tucked.

"How would that serve my purpose?"

For truth of course! For you and anyone paying attention now or in the future! Is there any more noble cause than ultimate truth?

"I do not need to convince you of anything because you already know the things you claim aren't true."

What makes you think I'm deliberately being deceptive? The conclusion? That is circular reasoning. Of course, you don't care how fallacious you are, you're just here for the attention. Riding my coattails?

" The time I put into a 1 on 1 debate wouldn't be worth the very few people that read it."

So you're lazy. The time would be no more than what you've spent in this forum. You're wrong, you know it, and you're making excuses. A few posts ago, you stated that you were here not to feed the alleged "troll" for the people reading this. Now, they aren't an issue. 

"A lot of people wouldn't read it due to not being allowed equal participation."

There is equal participation, one negative, and one positive. You do realize that 1=1 right? The logic behind your excuse is dwindling.

 "Without an audience to save from your misinformation, it's fruitless. I can't protect enough people from your trolling in a 1 on 1."

So your intentions are to troll me then. You should just stop debating altogether in reality.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/troll?q=troll#troll-2

Still waiting on your arguments.

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/2196/shape-of-the-earth-debate-with-logicvault

@logicvault

Erfisflat

At the beginning, the cameraman is clearly on the ground, turns his camera up and zooms into the light, not even visible at first, miles away. @logicvault, can you show me how you can fake these results?

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
"Another tu quoque fallacy." I didn't point out your hypocrisy as evidence against the main argument. The point was to clue you in that you shouldn't accuse people of things you're guilty of. I was correcting your behavior, not the point you was making with that single statement.

"Except this is not just a photo, video editing software, at least the affordable kind, would be detectable by even amatuer analysts. " Things as simple as changing focus along with a clear container with water held directly against the lens could easily create the illusion. And it would not be easily detectable due to the state of being so horribly out of focus.

"How would you word this specific search and produce these results?" It would have to at least include 'trick photography'. Then you might have to add some terms to narrow the search around exactly what you're looking for.

"How would you zoom "far away" at an immersed flashlight (that randomly changes colors very quickly) down into a body of water and produce these results?" Actually, I said a light source far away and to zoom in close with the camera out of focus. Also, there are small handheld lights designed to change colors as well as produce other visual effects (typically used at raves). Though, upon further research, I have discovered that similar images can also be made by actual stars due to atmospheric interference. Especially in a humid location. So, it can be done either way.

"Again, for anyone paying attention, the camera pans out all the way, showing a small window, and it is clear the camera is pointed at the sky. Why would he fake this? How would he fake this?" In that particular case, it might just be distortion.

"That is a lie. In our debate, I showed conclusively how NASA has faked pictures, compare the two: $20,000,000,000 a year company with average Joe with a $400 camera." Which picture from NASA have you shown that they claim is completely unedited?

"For truth of course!" You're not looking for truth.

"For you and anyone paying attention now or in the future!" How many people do you predict would bother reading a debate that they can not take part in? Especially on a website like this where most people joined specifically to take part in debates themselves.

"What makes you think I'm deliberately being deceptive?" Psychology, sociology, and experience.

"Of course, you don't care how fallacious you are, you're just here for the attention" Pot meet kettle.

"The time would be no more than what you've spent in this forum." More people read this thread.

"you stated that you were here not to feed the alleged "troll" for the people reading this." Whether you feel fed or not, it's not my purpose. My purpose is to help the people reading. You being fed is simply a side effect.

"There is equal participation, one negative, and one positive." Not for the people who want to participate in the debate themselves yet can't due to not being allowed.

"So your intentions are to troll me then." Not what I said. Not even close.

Erfisflat

Wow, @Evidence look at all the symbolism! Love the very end.

Ampersand

@Erfisflat

Unless I'm missing something your argument seems to have devolved further into "Hey, I personally think these look weird!" which isn't a legitimate argument. Would you like to try stating what you think these videos show, how you can prove your belief is correct and how that in turn contradicts the normal understanding of physics which would include a spherical earth, stars being distant gaseous orbs, etc?

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

@Erfisflat

Unless I'm missing something your argument seems to have devolved further into "Hey, I personally think these look weird!" which isn't a legitimate argument. Would you like to try stating what you think these videos show, how you can prove your belief is correct and how that in turn contradicts the normal understanding of physics which would include a spherical earth, stars being distant gaseous orbs, etc?

"....that isn't a legitimate argument."

At this point, it's a far more valid argument than "Stars are astronomical objects consisting of a luminous spheroid of plasma held together by its own gravity. The nearest star to Earth is the Sun."



Just because we can't properly identify something, doesn't mean it isn't true. Or in this case, something we thought it was. My original point (which is being eluded) is that these look nothing like the sun, in any way, and the two should not be confused.

Of course I could quote some ancient texts, and try to speculate, but that would be useless, since you think humans are evolving, and not devolving. At this point, I like to think that we are not intended to know everything right away. You or I will not get close enough for any close empirical observations and measurements, sampling etc. to find out any time soon. One thing
 is clear, a liquid element is there somewhere.

What do you think it is?

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
"At this point, it's a far more valid argument than "Stars are astronomical objects consisting of a luminous spheroid of plasma held together by its own gravity. The nearest star to Earth is the Sun."" No it isn't.

"My original point (which is being eluded) is that these look nothing like the sun, in any way, and the two should not be confused." Probably because they aren't being observed the same way as the sun. The sun isn't a tiny speck from our point of view with the naked eye.

"At this point, I like to think that we are not intended to know everything right away." Intended? Who says we are specifically intended for anything? And a god is not an acceptable answer because no one knows for a fact if one even exists. It's pure speculation.

"One thing is clear, a liquid element is there somewhere." Yeah, in our atmosphere. Humidity causing atmospheric interference.

Erfisflat

The troll has been muted, I don't feed them. @Ampersand, more evidence of liquid in the sky.

http://lmgtfy.com/?t=v&q=Lunar+wave

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
Now you're just projecting.

Erfisflat

@MayCaesar,  care to share why you marked my post as a fallacy? Want to add to the conversation? Or are you just lurking?

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
Probably because your accusation against me is a fallacy. Just because I chose to troll you in return in our 1 on 1 for trolling everyone else in other threads, it doesn't mean I'm doing it here or anywhere else. On a side note, I even admitted I was going to use the 1 on 1 as a form of entertainment before I even began. You still chose to take part in it, then ran away as soon as you saw you could not be the troll in that particular thread. So, that means I admitted beforehand that I was going to troll you there, you still took part, and still eventually ran away. You sir, was out-trolled.

Evidence

Erfisflat said:

Wow, @Evidence look at all the symbolism! Love the very end.

@Erfisflat Yeah, didn't even need to put my glasses on.
I once was lost too, but now I'm found, .. know where I am
was blind, but now I see!