Is the earth a ball?

Erfisflat

We do love those unsupported assertions, don't we @logicvault

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
"We do love those unsupported assertions" It's not only supported, it's proven.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

@mr_bombastic said

"I'be spent several years in the Navy. The Earth is not flat, and I can prove it. There is a little something called the horizon. It is caused by the curvature of the Earth. I have personally witnessed ships coming and going. They appear from below the horizon or disappear over it. The Earth is round. Anyone who believes otherwise does not live in the same reality as the rest of us."

Hi! Welcome to debateisland! I appreciate your service to the country and hope all is well with you and yours.

You bring up a valid point that most globe proponents cite as proof positive that we live on a spinning pear-ball. You are absolutely correct! Ships do appear and disappear over the horizon, but as is commonly accepted, appearances can be deceiving. Aristotle first cited this observation as proof of a spherical earth in ancient Greece. Of course this is before any telescopic lenses were even thought about. When the ship disappears over the horizon, all one needs to do, which I'm sure most Navy ships are equipped with one, in this reality anyway, is pull out some binoculars to magically drag the ship backwards over the horizon! This can be demonstrated dozens of times on Youtube.



What's happening could be a combination of things:

 The laws of perspective including angular sizes could cause a small wave, just a few miles away, could appear larger than a larger than a boat, several miles away. This is just how our eyes work. Or..



Atmospheric refraction, which is just another word for a lot of water in the air in the gaseous state, due to evaporation, etc. is bending the light from the ship, similar to how a mirage works, and has lowered the apparent position of the ship below the horizon out of sight. It's all very simple optics, and can be demonstrated here:



This also explains how sunsets can work on a flat earth.



In this reality, we can test the claims put forth. Are you saying that I'm in another dimension? I agree that my reality is much different than it was when i still thought we were on a spinning pearoid, but I've got some good company.

Just to check are you staying that you fully believe in convexearth's arguments, you believe they are evidence based and not pseudo-science and you concede that your previous arguments you have made that disagreed with convexearth's 'evidence' were incorrect and the people pointing out you were being illogical and making up evidence were correct?

They may have different viewpoints on an overall model, but the general fact is agreed upon. Water is flat, and therefore the earth couldn't be a ball.

Fallacious, specifically kettle logic.

If you are accused of borrowing a neighbour's kettle, breaking the kettle and returning it you cannot defend yourself by simultaneously claiming that you never borrowed the kettle AND that you did borrow the kettle but it was already broken when you borrowed it. The two excuses are contradictory and mutually exclusive, not complementary.

Similarly if you believe the earth is not spherical, you cannot claim it is not spherical because it is flat AND that it is not spherical because it is convex. The two arguments are contradictory and mutually exclusive.

This also applies to other specific claims like you claiming satellites are a hoax and actually planes while they claim satellites are real but orbiting based on by magnetic fields rather than gravity.

You have managed to singlehandedly dismantle your entire argument and you have absolutely nothing until you clarify which one of the two mutually exclusive positions you support as true.

Are you correct and are Convex Earth so that an uneducated random internet person (you) can make arguments that show their 'evidence' and 'findings' are incorrect or is it a case that they're right and the arguments are actually a load of rubbish and everyone was right when they told you how illogical and silly they were? Those are your two options, besides of course conceding that neither is right, both are a load of and the earth is spherical.

sear

"We've never seen this with our own eyes." Ef

Buzz Aldrin has. Each of the ISS residents have.

"The Church says that the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church." Ferdinand Magellan

Erfisflat

"Similarly if you believe the earth is not spherical, you cannot claim it is not spherical because it is flat AND that it is not spherical because it is convex. The two arguments are contradictory and mutually exclusive."

Who says (aside from yourself) the earth was convex? You either don't know what convex means, or have thought very little about what the documentary proves and is about. The tests showed conclusively, that the earth wasn't convex. My guess is that they named the documentary that you make asanine assumptions about after the main query of the topic: is the earth, or more specifically, water(ignoring the GPS test), convex? To that question, a resounding no was found. Nowhere in your response do I see any direct responses to the tests or interpretations of the results to those tests specifically, but I haven't read it all. We'll see.

"This also applies to other specific claims like you claiming satellites are a hoax and actually planes while they claim satellites are real but orbiting based on by magnetic fields rather than gravity."

As I plainly stated in my last response, details about an overall model are still in question, as they have tested all axioms of the model that they assume. They humorously think at this point, as do all flat earthers in the early stages because of the intense indoctrination, that were a floating pizza in space, orbiting the sun. It's great that you've cherry picked some irrelevant data to question, but that is another debate altogether. They have however tested large bodies of water's convexity, which supports the conclusion,  and so far, you've altogether ignored.

"You have managed to singlehandedly dismantle your entire argument and you have absolutely nothing until you clarify which one of the two mutually exclusive positions you support as true."

And your incompetence shows, as I explained. Water has a flat and level surface. This is my argument, to which the tests show conclusively being true. Facts are facts.

"Are you correct and are Convex Earth so that an uneducated random internet person (you) can make arguments that show their 'evidence' and 'findings' are incorrect or is it a case that they're right and the arguments are actually a load of rubbish and everyone was right when they told you how illogical and silly they were?"

Where has a random person shown the relevant findings are incorrect? I agree with the resolution that the scientists have proved, and, if they are able to show conclusively that satellites are held in an orbit or whatever, then I will change my hypothesis accordingly. This is how the scientific method works.

"Those are your two options, besides of course conceding that neither is right, both are a load of and the earth is spherical."

Or i can just explain how your logic is in error like I just did,  and you can either explain how the tests are incorrect, or concede that the earth isn't spherical.

@ampersand

Erfisflat

"Buzz Aldrin has. Each of the ISS residents have."

Humans lie. If you have time, I can prove that they are being dishonest, that is, unless you have proof that the earth is a sphere aside from "but buzz and the astronots said so". My statement was " we have not seen the earth as a ball with our own eyes", and the point stands. You're welcome to believe what some strangers tell you, but i prefer to test the empty claims of science.

Is this a proof? Another guy says the earth somehow causes a shadow on the moon? 


@sear

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Who says (aside from yourself) the earth was convex? You either don't know what convex means, or have thought very little about what the documentary proves and is about. The tests showed conclusively, that the earth wasn't convex. My guess is that they named the documentary that you make asanine assumptions about after the main query of the topic: is the earth, or more specifically, water(ignoring the GPS test), convex? To that question, a resounding no was found.

They say the Earth is convex. It's literally the name and purpose of the documentary. They show a 3d model of it being convex, like a bowl, with water and some jutting bits of land filling the inside. They literally state on their website "Experiments indicate that the Earth is convex in land areas"

Do you even bother to look at your own evidence? This isn't the first time you've made these claims which fly in the face of your own evidence. Do you remember when you claimed that lense distortion in a camera couldn't make a line curve the opposite way from the way it was curving already... immediately after you had JUST posted a video which showed exactly that happening? Or how the world expert on mirages said atmospheric refraction didn't happen like normal science says, only for his website you had just linked to be plastered with explanations of how atmospheric refraction works exactly as science predicts and contrary to your claims?

Erfisflat said:
Nowhere in your response do I see any direct responses to the tests or interpretations of the results to those tests specifically, but I haven't read it all. We'll see.

You don't have an argument currently. You have made two mutually exclusive arguments and now must decide which you actually support. Until you do you have contradicted yourself and there is nothing for me to add besides pointing it out.

Erfisflat said:

As I plainly stated in my last response, details about an overall model are still in question, as they have tested all axioms of the model that they assume. They humorously think at this point, as do all flat earthers in the early stages because of the intense indoctrination, that were a floating pizza in space, orbiting the sun. It's great that you've cherry picked some irrelevant data to question, but that is another debate altogether. They have however tested large bodies of water's convexity, which supports the conclusion,  and so far, you've altogether ignored.

Thank you for confirming you are sticking to your beliefs and that these people are in the wrong. So these people that you were lauding as experts just a couple of posts ago are now actually making amateurish incorrect mistakes and assumptions that you - an uneducated nobody who had been incorrect countless times - managed to spot and make the correct guesses on. Assuming you want to stick to this and don't want to 180 onto a different opinion can you please clarify:

a) Which of their specific experiments and claims you support so I know which ones to rebutt.

b) Why we should trust them based on their ineptitude that you claim they are guilty of.

Once you can confirm that I can get into actually showing how incredibly it is to trust what these people are saying. Spoiler alert: They have no qualifications, are run by a convicted fraudster and believe the earth is convex because an alien in a bush called Bilu told them it was and that they could test it that way (because who needs understanding or knowledge or sanity to understand how to perform accurate tests!)

Erfisflat said:

And your incompetence shows, as I explained. Water has a flat and level surface. This is my argument, to which the tests show conclusively being true. Facts are facts.

The tests run by people whose knowledge is - according to you -  less than an amateur as you are an amateur and you say you know more than them? Whose overall conclusions of the earth being convex you have admitted above are false? Ha! Well tell me which tests then. They perform different experiments - state specifically which experiments you believe in.Throughout thsi post you go back and forth over whether you agree with them or not and are unable to make a coherent position. You try and position them as expert people with evidence - because otherwise it makes you look for posting them - but when they directly contradict you as they do numerous times you are forced to say they are in the wrong to try and stop yourself looking from being corrected by your own source. You can't have it both ways - they're logically incompatible. It shouldn't be difficult for you to simply say "I believe in Experiments A and B but believe they are wrong about experiments X, Y and Z" so that I know which ones you believe in - it seems like you can't say this though because your ego is too precious.

Erfisflat said:

Where has a random person shown the relevant findings are incorrect? I agree with the resolution that the scientists have proved, and, if they are able to show conclusively that satellites are held in an orbit or whatever, then I will change my hypothesis accordingly. This is how the scientific method works.

In your entire posting history is where - I even gave you an example in my last post and you haven't even attempted to refute my explanation of how you are engaging in the fallacy of kettle logic.

Feel free to say that you "agree with the resolution that the scientists have proved", it just shows that you have no argument for me to respond to as earlier in this very post you say they are mistaken AND their resolution is mutually exclusive with your own claims.

Erfisflat said:

Or i can just explain how your logic is in error like I just did,  and you can either explain how the tests are incorrect, or concede that the earth isn't spherical.

@ampersand

Why don't you try doing it then? in this post you skipped the first part of my post where I go into detail of the fallacious nature of your post and use a source to back that up. You instead make a load of baseless claims without a single iota of evidence or reasoning.

Erfisflat

@ampersand
"They say the Earth is convex. It's literally the name and purpose of the documentary. They show a 3d model of it being convex, like a bowl, with water and some jutting bits of land filling the inside. They literally state on their website "Experiments indicate that the Earth is convex in land areas""

That is a quote mining fallacy and pure ignorance. Convex is defined as:
Having an outline or surface curved like a circle or sphere. You have confused convexity with concavity, and the rest of your quote reads: "...and flat in watery areas." This is a poor display of deception on your part, and shows what lengths you will go through to protect your imaginary pear-ball. My guess is that you hoped the reader would be too lazy to click the link YOU provided and read the rest of the quote that you mined. You then focus more on red herrings and quote mines from various other debates, further drawing attention away from your deception. Of course the earth, in some land areas can have degrees of convexity, like the hill by my house, and concavity, like the bottom of the pond next to it. This does nothing for the resolution here, as land only covers around 30% and even if the surface of all 30% of the land tested convex to any degree, the surface of water, which makes up the other 70% was proved to be flat in all measurable circumstances. 

LogicVault

@Ampersand
Unless you're willing to tolerate trolling, don't bother with Erfisflat. Trolling is their entire purpose for this site. They've been caught and outed as a troll in multiple threads.

Erfisflat

@LogicVault Before you enter in the conversation like a down syndrome turtle, there was a somewhat productive conversation. You butt in with an inflammatory, off topic assertion. This is by definition, trolling. Let me learn you something, by sharing the wikipedia definition of internet trolling.

In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotionalresponses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
Whether or not it's inflammatory, it's still true. You have been caught multiple times by more than one person contradicting yourself in a manner than indicates that you are aware of how false the information you attempt to spread is. You also use common (and childish) troll tactics, such as mimicking your opponent as a form of mockery.

Erfisflat

@LogicVault
Just because you think it's a contradiction, doesn't mean it's true. There also may be instances where I have modified my theory, as per the scientific method. And please link two instances of me "mimicking my opponent." I may sometimes mock my opponents, but this is not trolling. What you do is called trolling, as you now admit.

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
"Just because you think it's a contradiction, doesn't mean it's true." Let's look at one of the definitions of contradict: be in conflict with. You make statements that conflict with previous statements you have made. Therefore, contradiction.

"And please link two instances of me "mimicking my opponent."" It only takes once to be guilty and I'm not taking the time to search every thread, so you will have to settle for just one right now. In the thread https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/2020/if-the-christian-god-is-good-why-did-he-kill-so-many-people-does-this-make-him-evil/p2 you mimicked the same thing I said about you yesterday in this thread you are currently reading.

"I may sometimes mock my opponents, but this is not trolling." You do it to distract from sincere discord for your own amusement. This is covered by the definition of internet troll.

"What you do is called trolling, as you now admit." First, I'm not admitting anything right now, I'm accusing you. Admitting and accusing are two different things. Second, the only time I trolled you was in our private debate in which I gave you fair warning ahead of time that I was going to since you've been doing it the entire time in every other thread. In every thread other than the private one, I sincerely meant everything I stated.

Erfisflat

@logicvault aka Dan

"It only takes once to be guilty and I'm not taking the time to search every thread, so you will have to settle for just one right now."

This wouldn't be habitual then, meaning that by chance it could be unintentional. I think it was one of those things that someone said to me that stuck, and reminded me of exactly what you were doing. 

"You do it to distract from sincere discord for your own amusement. This is covered by the definition of internet troll."

Did I? Let's look at the only example. Two creationists @with_all_humility @Evidence
were in casual, sincere discord with each other, mainly. You appear to have butt in with the usual "there is no god because muh science book", with little to no logical critical thinking or evidence. At or around the same time, an atheist,  @ampersand and creationist @erfisflat are in sincere discord when you but in with the don't talk to that guy, he's a troll. I respond by responding to you doing exactly what you accuse me of doing, and at least the two people involved in the sincere discord recognized this and more or less agreed, whereas not one person has responded to your argument in agreement, it would seem as if most people recognize a troll, and generally ignore them.

Your next two statements are contradictory. "First, I'm not admitting anything right now, " and "the only time I trolled you was in our private debate..."    This reminds me of this statement directed at me from you, just in your last post! ("You have been caught multiple times by more than one person contradicting yourself") This in turn reminds me of this statement "Not only did you only start calling me a troll after I already pointed out how you in fact are one (essentially you're saying "I'm rubber, you're glue"), or this one "You ARE the troll " and finally back full circle to "You also use common (and childish) troll tactics, such as mimicking your opponent as a form of mockery". All of which I have just pointed out in just 3 or 4 posts. Your posts consist of nothing more than bare assertions and denials and everyone involved in sincere discourse here agrees. You are trolling everyone here.

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
Anyone can read this entire thread and see everything you just said is a lie or a warping of the context.

Erfisflat

There's that good old assert and deny debate tactic again. Classic troll Dan. Back on mute you go.

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
"This wouldn't be habitual then, meaning that by chance it could be unintentional." You're not fooling anyone. You've been copying me recently and that was just an example of where you took it so far that you repeated exactly what I said. It doesn't have to be the exact same phrase to meet the requirements of the definition of mimic. And it's definitely not unintentional when you type the exact sentences that I did, word for word.

"I think it was one of those things that someone said to me that stuck, and reminded me of exactly what you were doing." We both know that's .

"You appear to have butt in with the usual "there is no god because muh science book", with little to no logical critical thinking or evidence." You have zero physical evidence of a god.

"At or around the same time, an atheist,  @ampersand and creationist @erfisflat are in sincere discord when you but in with the don't talk to that guy, he's a troll." First, you are not sincere. Anyone that studies human behavior can see that. Second, I said "Unless you're willing to tolerate trolling, don't bother with Erfisflat." It's a warning and advice, not a command.

"I respond by responding to you doing exactly what you accuse me of doing" We both know what you're really doing.

"and at least the two people involved in the sincere discord recognized this and more or less agreed, whereas not one person has responded to your argument in agreement, it would seem as if most people recognize a troll, and generally ignore them." You and Evidence are the only ones attempting it and only because I already outed both of you. It's a common troll tactic to accuse your accuser of the exact same thing in order to draw attention away from what you're trying to do.

"Your next two statements are contradictory. "First, I'm not admitting anything right now, " and "the only time I trolled you was in our private debate..."" The words "right now" applied to the post of mine you were responding to, not any sentences following that statement. So perhaps I should have worded it more specifically, like "I wasn't admitting anything just then". You're attempting to warp the context of the statement. That won't work on me.

"Your posts consist of nothing more than bare assertions and denials and everyone involved in sincere discourse here agrees." First, anyone can go back and see what I accuse you of is true. It's more than an assertion, it's a fact that anyone who can read can go back and see you doing it. Second, you and Evidence are the only two attempting to accuse me of it and only after I already outed you both. No one else in this thread is taking your side. That's a bold lie you just tried when people can read the entire thread and see it's a lie.

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
It makes you a hypocrite to assert that I'm asserting and to say I'm denying when you're denying. Also, it's childish to continue calling me by a name that isn't mine. And I'd rather you mute me so you won't bother speaking to me anymore since it's a waste of time. I'll just stick to correcting the false information you attempt to spread to others.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

@ampersand
"They say the Earth is convex. It's literally the name and purpose of the documentary. They show a 3d model of it being convex, like a bowl, with water and some jutting bits of land filling the inside. They literally state on their website "Experiments indicate that the Earth is convex in land areas""

That is a quote mining fallacy and pure ignorance. Convex is defined as:
Having an outline or surface curved like a circle or sphere. You have confused convexity with concavity, and the rest of your quote reads: "...and flat in watery areas." This is a poor display of deception on your part, and shows what lengths you will go through to protect your imaginary pear-ball. My guess is that you hoped the reader would be too lazy to click the link YOU provided and read the rest of the quote that you mined. You then focus more on red herrings and quote mines from various other debates, further drawing attention away from your deception. Of course the earth, in some land areas can have degrees of convexity, like the hill by my house, and concavity, like the bottom of the pond next to it. This does nothing for the resolution here, as land only covers around 30% and even if the surface of all 30% of the land tested convex to any degree, the surface of water, which makes up the other 70% was proved to be flat in all measurable circumstances. 

By your own metrics you appear you have conceded pretty much the entire argument as you have not responded to the majority of my post and you have treated not responding as a concession previously. 

f


Is the above image Concave or Convex. the answer is both, it just depends on which way you look at it. However in no possible circumstances is it flat, just like in no possible circumstances do the experiments whioch show a concave (or convex depending on how you look at it) earth with satellites floating in the sky due to electromagnetism prove your claim that the earth is flat and satellites are a Disney/NASA hoax.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

@ampersand
"They say the Earth is convex. It's literally the name and purpose of the documentary. They show a 3d model of it being convex, like a bowl, with water and some jutting bits of land filling the inside. They literally state on their website "Experiments indicate that the Earth is convex in land areas""

That is a quote mining fallacy and pure ignorance. Convex is defined as:
Having an outline or surface curved like a circle or sphere. You have confused convexity with concavity, and the rest of your quote reads: "...and flat in watery areas." This is a poor display of deception on your part, and shows what lengths you will go through to protect your imaginary pear-ball. My guess is that you hoped the reader would be too lazy to click the link YOU provided and read the rest of the quote that you mined. You then focus more on red herrings and quote mines from various other debates, further drawing attention away from your deception. Of course the earth, in some land areas can have degrees of convexity, like the hill by my house, and concavity, like the bottom of the pond next to it. This does nothing for the resolution here, as land only covers around 30% and even if the surface of all 30% of the land tested convex to any degree, the surface of water, which makes up the other 70% was proved to be flat in all measurable circumstances. 

By your own metrics you appear you have conceded pretty much the entire argument as you have not responded to the majority of my post and you have treated not responding as a concession previously. 

f


Is the above image Concave or Convex. the answer is both, it just depends on which way you look at it. However in no possible circumstances is it flat, just like in no possible circumstances do the experiments whioch show a concave (or convex depending on how you look at it) earth with satellites floating in the sky due to electromagnetism prove your claim that the earth is flat and satellites are a Disney/NASA hoax.

So, when someone points out your ignorance as to what the definition of convex is, or your deliberate deception on the matter, it's still unclear which, you choose to make up your own definitions, which directly contradict mr. Webster's,  because "it depends on how you look at it"? It's quite a pathetic display of grasping at straws, and it only took you what, a week to come up with? I can see your point if i were standing on my head looking at your irrelevant line and squinted my eyes...The curved line you posted could never be convex or concave because it doesn't represent a solid object. Maybe you were high on something when you made that ridiculous post,  I dont know or care. Aside from that, you completely ignored the whole "water was conclusively measured flat in every experiment" thing, so there's that, and I did point out that the rest of your post, just like the rest of this one, was "red herrings and quote mines from various other debates, further drawing attention away from your deception." and the point of my post.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

@ampersand
"They say the Earth is convex. It's literally the name and purpose of the documentary. They show a 3d model of it being convex, like a bowl, with water and some jutting bits of land filling the inside. They literally state on their website "Experiments indicate that the Earth is convex in land areas""

That is a quote mining fallacy and pure ignorance. Convex is defined as:
Having an outline or surface curved like a circle or sphere. You have confused convexity with concavity, and the rest of your quote reads: "...and flat in watery areas." This is a poor display of deception on your part, and shows what lengths you will go through to protect your imaginary pear-ball. My guess is that you hoped the reader would be too lazy to click the link YOU provided and read the rest of the quote that you mined. You then focus more on red herrings and quote mines from various other debates, further drawing attention away from your deception. Of course the earth, in some land areas can have degrees of convexity, like the hill by my house, and concavity, like the bottom of the pond next to it. This does nothing for the resolution here, as land only covers around 30% and even if the surface of all 30% of the land tested convex to any degree, the surface of water, which makes up the other 70% was proved to be flat in all measurable circumstances. 

By your own metrics you appear you have conceded pretty much the entire argument as you have not responded to the majority of my post and you have treated not responding as a concession previously. 

f


Is the above image Concave or Convex. the answer is both, it just depends on which way you look at it. However in no possible circumstances is it flat, just like in no possible circumstances do the experiments whioch show a concave (or convex depending on how you look at it) earth with satellites floating in the sky due to electromagnetism prove your claim that the earth is flat and satellites are a Disney/NASA hoax.

So, when someone points out your ignorance as to what the definition of convex is, or your deliberate deception on the matter, it's still unclear which, you choose to make up your own definitions, which directly contradict mr. Webster's,  because "it depends on how you look at it"? It's quite a pathetic display of grasping at straws, and it only took you what, a week to come up with? I can see your point if i were standing on my head looking at your irrelevant line and squinted my eyes...The curved line you posted could never be convex or concave because it doesn't represent a solid object. Maybe you were high on something when you made that ridiculous post,  I dont know or care. Aside from that, you completely ignored the whole "water was conclusively measured flat in every experiment" thing, so there's that, and I did point out that the rest of your post, just like the rest of this one, was "red herrings and quote mines from various other debates, further drawing attention away from your deception." and the point of my post.

I rate you an A+ for hypocritical idiocy and F for logical evidence based arguments.

Let's look at what Webster's dictionary says for the definition of concave

"hollowed or rounded inward like the inside of a bowl"

and for Convex

"curved or rounded outward like the exterior of a sphere or circle"

Seems like my examples meets the Websters definition and your excuses are based on imaginary definitions you've just invented in your head.

Even when you concede pretty much your entire argument to try and win a single semantic point of whether I used the right name for something you still get it completely wrong!

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

@ampersand
"They say the Earth is convex. It's literally the name and purpose of the documentary. They show a 3d model of it being convex, like a bowl, with water and some jutting bits of land filling the inside. They literally state on their website "Experiments indicate that the Earth is convex in land areas""

That is a quote mining fallacy and pure ignorance. Convex is defined as:
Having an outline or surface curved like a circle or sphere. You have confused convexity with concavity, and the rest of your quote reads: "...and flat in watery areas." This is a poor display of deception on your part, and shows what lengths you will go through to protect your imaginary pear-ball. My guess is that you hoped the reader would be too lazy to click the link YOU provided and read the rest of the quote that you mined. You then focus more on red herrings and quote mines from various other debates, further drawing attention away from your deception. Of course the earth, in some land areas can have degrees of convexity, like the hill by my house, and concavity, like the bottom of the pond next to it. This does nothing for the resolution here, as land only covers around 30% and even if the surface of all 30% of the land tested convex to any degree, the surface of water, which makes up the other 70% was proved to be flat in all measurable circumstances. 

By your own metrics you appear you have conceded pretty much the entire argument as you have not responded to the majority of my post and you have treated not responding as a concession previously. 

f


Is the above image Concave or Convex. the answer is both, it just depends on which way you look at it. However in no possible circumstances is it flat, just like in no possible circumstances do the experiments whioch show a concave (or convex depending on how you look at it) earth with satellites floating in the sky due to electromagnetism prove your claim that the earth is flat and satellites are a Disney/NASA hoax.

So, when someone points out your ignorance as to what the definition of convex is, or your deliberate deception on the matter, it's still unclear which, you choose to make up your own definitions, which directly contradict mr. Webster's,  because "it depends on how you look at it"? It's quite a pathetic display of grasping at straws, and it only took you what, a week to come up with? I can see your point if i were standing on my head looking at your irrelevant line and squinted my eyes...The curved line you posted could never be convex or concave because it doesn't represent a solid object. Maybe you were high on something when you made that ridiculous post,  I dont know or care. Aside from that, you completely ignored the whole "water was conclusively measured flat in every experiment" thing, so there's that, and I did point out that the rest of your post, just like the rest of this one, was "red herrings and quote mines from various other debates, further drawing attention away from your deception." and the point of my post.

I rate you an A+ for hypocritical idiocy and F for logical evidence based arguments.

Let's look at what Webster's dictionary says for the definition of concave

"hollowed or rounded inward like the inside of a bowl"

and for Convex

"curved or rounded outward like the exterior of a sphere or circle"

Seems like my examples meets the Websters definition and your excuses are based on imaginary definitions you've just invented in your head.

Even when you concede pretty much your entire argument to try and win a single semantic point of whether I used the right name for something you still get it completely wrong!

Your asanine position has now gone past pathetic, and is now inching toward total delusion. You are displaying narcissistic personality disorder traits, and so I think it best we discontinue this and any other discussions due to your lack of accountability, and  I recommend you see a psychiatrist. 

http://m.selfgrowth.com/?url=http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/narcissistic-personality-disorder-traits-no-accountability-0&utm_referrer=#2769