frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Earth is a ball

1121315171823



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:


    Gotta love the haters

    Your argument is pasting an arrow on to a picture and then posting how this proves the earth is flat with limited, if any other argument.

    If your rebuttal to this pretty clear proof that you have neither evidence or an argument to show your opinions are correct is name calling an memes; you are falling well short of the standards you demand of the other people in this thread.



    And again: there are reproducible experiments that show water is no flat, and the earth is a sphere: observations of boats and sunsets: if boats or pylons fall behind a body water: that body of water cannot Ben flat. If the sun sets at every location on earth, and rises at other locations at the same time, the earth cannot be flat.


    You only rebuttal to this: are assertions that refraction can cause this.

    Can you prove that refraction can make the sun appear to rise? Have you experimentally recreated the effect with water?

    Can you prove that the atmosphere bends light in the way you claim it does? Have you any experimental validation that the atmosphere does indeed behave in the way you claim?

    I am fairly certain that the answer to both of those are “no”. Which means despite your continual profession to follow the scientific method, you are discounting repeatable measurements and verifiable evidence with asserted conjecture you have no ability to prove: which is basically the definition of a pseudoscientist

    Actually, if you paid attention, I did just that, and I guessed you wouldn't acknowledge it. 
    Hey, remember how I made the list of the same fallacious arguements you just make again and again and again?

    Wasn't #1 on the list  you claiming that you had proven something at some other point in the thread and then not linking to it or providing any evidence that this actually happened outside of your imagination?

    You need to learn some new tricks.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Ampersand said:
    lol, he admits it could be coincidence and offers absolutely no reason that it isn't, just saying he 'knows'.

    Thanks for showing your complete disregard for evidence and willingness to believe any conspiracy theory of if it suits you and allows you to ignore actual evidence.
    Oh yes, it's perfectly plausible that on the day that EPIC decided to take it's flagship "photo", the word sex is spelled out over hundreds of miles, and this is mere coincidence. 

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

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    Just, 3 things I'd like to insert here.

    1. The Earth is flat
    2. Go Stars
    3. 










    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • JudaismJudaism 180 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    What the? נָשָׁא is NOT NASA in Hebrew! It means to "deceive," and has nothing to do with the space organization.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    lol, he admits it could be coincidence and offers absolutely no reason that it isn't, just saying he 'knows'.

    Thanks for showing your complete disregard for evidence and willingness to believe any conspiracy theory of if it suits you and allows you to ignore actual evidence.
    Oh yes, it's perfectly plausible that on the day that EPIC decided to take it's flagship "photo", the word sex is spelled out over hundreds of miles, and this is mere coincidence. 

    Do you think just reiterating a fallacious arguement makes it any better?

    You have admitted it could be coincidence. Your only argument against it being a coincidence is you personally think it unlikely (aka argument from incredulity fallacy).
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:


    Gotta love the haters

    Your argument is pasting an arrow on to a picture and then posting how this proves the earth is flat with limited, if any other argument.

    If your rebuttal to this pretty clear proof that you have neither evidence or an argument to show your opinions are correct is name calling an memes; you are falling well short of the standards you demand of the other people in this thread.



    And again: there are reproducible experiments that show water is no flat, and the earth is a sphere: observations of boats and sunsets: if boats or pylons fall behind a body water: that body of water cannot Ben flat. If the sun sets at every location on earth, and rises at other locations at the same time, the earth cannot be flat.


    You only rebuttal to this: are assertions that refraction can cause this.

    Can you prove that refraction can make the sun appear to rise? Have you experimentally recreated the effect with water?

    Can you prove that the atmosphere bends light in the way you claim it does? Have you any experimental validation that the atmosphere does indeed behave in the way you claim?

    I am fairly certain that the answer to both of those are “no”. Which means despite your continual profession to follow the scientific method, you are discounting repeatable measurements and verifiable evidence with asserted conjecture you have no ability to prove: which is basically the definition of a pseudoscientist

    Actually, if you paid attention, I did just that, and I guessed you wouldn't acknowledge it. 
    No you didn’t.

    You posted a collection of opinions, that you assert proves fakery.

    Proof of fakery requires you to show that it was intentionally misrepresented as something it was not.

    So far, the only one misrepresenting anything is you:

    You have misrepresented NASAs explanation of how a photo was created, as an admission; it is not.

    You have misrepresented photos as proving fakery, as you have done again, by asserting that an artifact is fake with no explanation of how, where, why, etc.

     
    You have misrepresented your refraction effect as “explaining” sunset, and being evidence based, despite you not being able to reproduce a sunset with refraction in experimental conditions, nor show that the atmosphere is producing effect.


    in reality; your accusations on NASA are little more than a few ill thought opinions, tied together with paranoia that can mostly be explained by any number of rudimentary explantations.


    imagine you were in civil court, and you sued a friend for fraud when he sold you a picture: citing your friend telling you “this picture isn’t a full camera direct image, but a composite of smaller pictures”, and you saying that he misrepresented that image as a real picture.

    you'd he laughed out of court.

    Same as if you argued that some region of an image has some issue with it that you won’t describe is evidence that the image was faked.

    you have to offer evidence: why is fakery the best and most likely explanation of that artefact?


    Your not approaching this logically; you are relying on your own overwhelming bias: nothing you have said thus far is close to objective evidence.

    You need documents, recorded testimony of those directly involved, and direct corroberating evidence that could potentially hold up in court as evidence: and you have none of that.


  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    If you can’t provide a video where you have a flat surface, an object representing the sun above that surface, and a camera above that surface, and you can make the appear sun appear to set using refraction; then you have literally no proof of the effect you are using as the prime basis of your belief the earth is flat.
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    lol, he admits it could be coincidence and offers absolutely no reason that it isn't, just saying he 'knows'.

    Thanks for showing your complete disregard for evidence and willingness to believe any conspiracy theory of if it suits you and allows you to ignore actual evidence.
    Oh yes, it's perfectly plausible that on the day that EPIC decided to take it's flagship "photo", the word sex is spelled out over hundreds of miles, and this is mere coincidence. 


    Are you being serious? Seriously?

    Are you genuinely, arguing that it’s not possible for clouds to look like recognizable things, if you search for them?

    , if “name something a cloud does” was a question on family feud, “look like other stuff” would be #2 after “makes it rain”.






  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Just, 3 things I'd like to insert here.

    1. The Earth is flat
    2. Go Stars
    3. 










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

    Also those lines are all totally wrong. Poor spatial reasoning on your part - remember you're meant to be representing a 3d route on a 2d projection.

    Not to mention the outright lies, such as google literally confirming within 5 seconds that non-stop flights between Perth and Johannasberg exist.

    Illogical nonsense made up of unevidenced claims.
    SilverishGoldNova
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @SilverishGoldNova

    SA281

    Direct flight between Perth and Johannesburg.

    So, you’re position is now refuted.

    As your argument appears to have been that this flight is impossible on a flat earth: this also proves the earth is not flat.

    Right?
    SilverishGoldNova
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    lol, he admits it could be coincidence and offers absolutely no reason that it isn't, just saying he 'knows'.

    Thanks for showing your complete disregard for evidence and willingness to believe any conspiracy theory of if it suits you and allows you to ignore actual evidence.
    Oh yes, it's perfectly plausible that on the day that EPIC decided to take it's flagship "photo", the word sex is spelled out over hundreds of miles, and this is mere coincidence. 


    Are you being serious? Seriously?

    Are you genuinely, arguing that it’s not possible for clouds to look like recognizable things, if you search for them?

    , if “name something a cloud does” was a question on family feud, “look like other stuff” would be #2 after “makes it rain”.






    Recognizable things, most assuredly, everyone has seen this. Recognizable 3 letter innapropriate words spanning over hundreds of miles on a NASA image? The odds are about as astronomical as evolution happening.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    If you can’t provide a video where you have a flat surface, an object representing the sun above that surface, and a camera above that surface, and you can make the appear sun appear to set using refraction; then you have literally no proof of the effect you are using as the prime basis of your belief the earth is flat.
    As I said this has been done, site moderation deleted some posts to fix a glitch. Here they are again.

    Water as a gas (as in the atmosphere)


    Water in liquid form


    I had originally posted about 6 videos, they are numerous. Your turn.

    Edit: had to put this in.

    As your argument appears to have been that sunsets are impossible on a flat earth: this also proves the earth is not spherical.

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

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    @SilverishGoldNova

    SA281

    Direct flight between Perth and Johannesburg.

    So, you’re position is now refuted.

    As your argument appears to have been that this flight is impossible on a flat earth: this also proves the earth is not flat.

    Right?
    Actually it doesn't. A map, maybe, if the flights can be verified, but not the flat earth. 
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @SilverishGoldNova

    SA281

    Direct flight between Perth and Johannesburg.

    So, you’re position is now refuted.

    As your argument appears to have been that this flight is impossible on a flat earth: this also proves the earth is not flat.

    Right?
    SilverishGoldNova
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    @SilverishGoldNova

    SA281

    Direct flight between Perth and Johannesburg.

    So, you’re position is now refuted.

    As your argument appears to have been that this flight is impossible on a flat earth: this also proves the earth is not flat.

    Right?
    Echo. I answered this
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    lol, he admits it could be coincidence and offers absolutely no reason that it isn't, just saying he 'knows'.

    Thanks for showing your complete disregard for evidence and willingness to believe any conspiracy theory of if it suits you and allows you to ignore actual evidence.
    Oh yes, it's perfectly plausible that on the day that EPIC decided to take it's flagship "photo", the word sex is spelled out over hundreds of miles, and this is mere coincidence. 


    Are you being serious? Seriously?

    Are you genuinely, arguing that it’s not possible for clouds to look like recognizable things, if you search for them?

    , if “name something a cloud does” was a question on family feud, “look like other stuff” would be #2 after “makes it rain”.






    Recognizable things, most assuredly, everyone has seen this. Recognizable 3 letter innapropriate words spanning over hundreds of miles on a NASA image? The odds are about as astronomical as evolution happening.
    He asserts without evidence.

    for someone who repeatedly berates people for not being scientific; you just vomited an unevidenced assertion; you have no basis to claim the coincidence is unreasonable, nor do yo bother offering one.

    You have no evidence the image was altered, you have no real evidenxe these are letters and not clouds; only your subjective interpretation of the image. The S isn’t obviously an S, it’s completely unclear the E isn’t obviously an E and the X could be interpreted as an X or a Y, or nothing at all.

    It’s your subjective opinion; based on you picking out a pattern in clouds: that’s what humans do.

    Even worse, this subjective opinion, vehemently asserted as fact makes no sense: why on earth would an international cabal leave such obvious evidence when they go to impossibly convoluted lengths to try and cover it all up?

    Your position is riddled with these sorts of illogical contradictions; and asserted opinions. 

    Youre acting like a textbook pseudoscientist.




  • Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    @SilverishGoldNova

    SA281

    Direct flight between Perth and Johannesburg.

    So, you’re position is now refuted.

    As your argument appears to have been that this flight is impossible on a flat earth: this also proves the earth is not flat.

    Right?
    Actually it doesn't. A map, maybe, if the flights can be verified, but not the flat earth. 
    Plus they don't mention the other flights, very interesting. 
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    @Gooberry @Ampersand My position was not that direct flights from Perth to Johannesburg was impossible. My position was that the multiple flight paths shown debunked the globe Earth.

      
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    @SilverishGoldNova

    SA281

    Direct flight between Perth and Johannesburg.

    So, you’re position is now refuted.

    As your argument appears to have been that this flight is impossible on a flat earth: this also proves the earth is not flat.

    Right?
    Actually it doesn't. A map, maybe, if the flights can be verified, but not the flat earth. 

    So your position is unfalsifiable. Perfect.
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    If you can’t provide a video where you have a flat surface, an object representing the sun above that surface, and a camera above that surface, and you can make the appear sun appear to set using refraction; then you have literally no proof of the effect you are using as the prime basis of your belief the earth is flat.
    As I said this has been done, site moderation deleted some posts to fix a glitch. Here they are again.

    Water as a gas (as in the atmosphere)


    Water in liquid form


    I had originally posted about 6 videos, they are numerous. Your turn.

    Edit: had to put this in.

    As your argument appears to have been that sunsets are impossible on a flat earth: this also proves the earth is not spherical.

    Right?
    Erm.

    That boat is still visible at all times, and the camera obviously dips below the level of the flat surface.

    like I said:

    1.) camera on on a flat surface.
    2.) object above flat surface.
    3.) make object above flat surface appear to set behind flat surface due to refraction

    not:

    1) Camera arbitrarily held by hand at a non verifiable level that appears to move below the level of the surface

    2.) object above flat surface.

    3.) Make the bottom of the glass, and bottom of the object appear to be obscured by the front of the table that is infront of both the beaker and the boat because whoever took the video is lowering the camera level.

    This is a ridiculously shoddy experiment with effects that appear to be obviously attributable to the person taking the film being unscientific, and producing the effect by moving his camera below the level of the Surface, not as a result of any refraction.

    tldr: the “sunset” in the video is making it occur the same reason it occurs in real life: the surface the boat is on gets in the way of the observer of the boat.

    Erfisflat
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    And the first video is really just a collection of stills the configuration and validity of which cannot be determined, it cannot be shown to say what you say it does; and certainly isn’t showing a sunset.

    if you think clouds read the word “sex” makes a NASA image invalid, yet are immediately willing to claim this is legit: well; you appear to be a pseudoscientist, so I guess it’s par for the course.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    @SilverishGoldNova

    SA281

    Direct flight between Perth and Johannesburg.

    So, you’re position is now refuted.

    As your argument appears to have been that this flight is impossible on a flat earth: this also proves the earth is not flat.

    Right?
    Actually it doesn't. A map, maybe, if the flights can be verified, but not the flat earth. 

    So your position is unfalsifiable. Perfect.
    Is yours? I've given several examples of simple ways that NASA can prove the earth is a ball. To say that because I've pointed out an obvious strawman, my position is unfalsifiable is dishonest to say the least.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    @SilverishGoldNova

    SA281

    Direct flight between Perth and Johannesburg.

    So, you’re position is now refuted.

    As your argument appears to have been that this flight is impossible on a flat earth: this also proves the earth is not flat.

    Right?
    Actually it doesn't. A map, maybe, if the flights can be verified, but not the flat earth. 

    So your position is unfalsifiable. Perfect.
    Is yours? I've given several examples of simple ways that NASA can prove the earth is a ball. To say that because I've pointed out an obvious strawman, my position is unfalsifiable is dishonest to say the least.
    I thought we both agreed that NASA fakes images. Typo?
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    @SilverishGoldNova

    SA281

    Direct flight between Perth and Johannesburg.

    So, you’re position is now refuted.

    As your argument appears to have been that this flight is impossible on a flat earth: this also proves the earth is not flat.

    Right?
    Actually it doesn't. A map, maybe, if the flights can be verified, but not the flat earth. 

    So your position is unfalsifiable. Perfect.
    Is yours? I've given several examples of simple ways that NASA can prove the earth is a ball. To say that because I've pointed out an obvious strawman, my position is unfalsifiable is dishonest to say the least.

    We can prove the earth is a ball through direct images, and direct observation of the horizon. We see stuff fall below the horizon, and we see images of the earth from space. 

    This is proves the earth is a sphere.

    Now, you can provide overwhelming evidence that NASA is faking all images (you have provided such a sorely lacking amount of non-evidenxe you haven’t come close to providing anything close), and by producing conclusive evidence that all spherical earth dependant observations are caused by other processes and phenomena.

    For the latter: you have literally produced no evidence either. You have made no attempt to show the atmosphere is working in the way you say it is: asserting a glass of water or water air does something is literally zero proof that the atmosphere is doing just that. Moreover, shoddy, shakey videos with no determinable legitimacy or veracity because we can’t tell level or conditions, and appear not to show what you claim they do is zero proof that it’s wven possible.


    Your position is obviously unfalsifiable. As you dismiss contrary evidence with conjecture and unsupported speculation: which is always possible to assert whether you’re right or wrong.




  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "He asserts without evidence."

    Who is he?

    "for someone who repeatedly berates people for not being scientific; you just vomited an unevidenced assertion; you have no basis to claim the coincidence is unreasonable, nor do yo bother offering one."

    I'm pretty sure I did, reread the argument. Try to respond with something more than a rhetorical




    "You have no evidence the image was altered, you have no real evidenxe these are letters and not clouds; only your subjective interpretation of the image. The S isn’t obviously an S, it’s completely unclear the E isn’t obviously an E and the X could be interpreted as an X or a Y, or nothing at all."

    Take it how you want to. Ignore what you will. It's been pointed out to you. Give me another example of even 1 or two letters together, spanning over hundreds of miles in real life.

    "It’s your subjective opinion; based on you picking out a pattern in clouds: that’s what humans do."

    Deny, deny, deny.

    "Even worse, this subjective opinion, vehemently asserted as fact makes no sense: why on earth would an international cabal leave such obvious evidence when they go to impossibly convoluted lengths to try and cover it all up?"

    To drop a hint to those with any competent faculty of thinking? I understand that you haven't a rebuttal for the odds of this actually happening in reality, it's ok, you can ignore the evidence if you want, I don't care if you close your eyes, you're a lost cause. It's the people that are reading this that can still think for themselves that I'm doing this. Your pitiful naysays only strengthen my position.

    Your position is riddled with these sorts of illogical contradictions; and asserted opinions. 

    Lol.

    Youre acting like a textbook pseudoscientist.

    Lol. It's hilarious really.
    SilverishGoldNova
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    If you can’t provide a video where you have a flat surface, an object representing the sun above that surface, and a camera above that surface, and you can make the appear sun appear to set using refraction; then you have literally no proof of the effect you are using as the prime basis of your belief the earth is flat.
    As I said this has been done, site moderation deleted some posts to fix a glitch. Here they are again.

    Water as a gas (as in the atmosphere)


    Water in liquid form


    I had originally posted about 6 videos, they are numerous. Your turn.

    Edit: had to put this in.

    As your argument appears to have been that sunsets are impossible on a flat earth: this also proves the earth is not spherical.

    Right?
    Erm.

    That boat is still visible at all times, and the camera obviously dips below the level of the flat surface.

    like I said:

    1.) camera on on a flat surface.
    2.) object above flat surface.
    3.) make object above flat surface appear to set behind flat surface due to refraction

    not:

    1) Camera arbitrarily held by hand at a non verifiable level that appears to move below the level of the surface

    2.) object above flat surface.

    3.) Make the bottom of the glass, and bottom of the object appear to be obscured by the front of the table that is infront of both the beaker and the boat because whoever took the video is lowering the camera level.

    This is a ridiculously shoddy experiment with effects that appear to be obviously attributable to the person taking the film being unscientific, and producing the effect by moving his camera below the level of the Surface, not as a result of any refraction.

    tldr: the “sunset” in the video is making it occur the same reason it occurs in real life: the surface the boat is on gets in the way of the observer of the boat.

    Everyone else plainly saw the boat appear to drop. This inherently refutes your position.


    I've demonstrated how the sun and boats can appear to drop below a flat surface with refraction. At no time has the back of the countertop dropped out of sight, yet the sun and boats do. Since your model requires the exact opposite of refraction, I'll expect an experiment providing that demonstration, and your blatant denial of scientifically demonstrated evidence will be noted, pseudoscientist. 
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    SilverishGoldNova
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Judaism said:
    @Erfisflat

    I'm not in ignorance. The Zohar is one of the holiest books in Judaism, it states that the earth is round like a ball, that when one side faces the sun, the other faces darkness. So we know it was describing earth's orbit in space. It further mentions that people live all over this "ball," not coin. The Zohar then goes on to say that there was once a supercontinent which later split up into seven. . . sound familiar? Pangea. And there's more: The Talmud says in Berchaot that the Pleiades number in the hundreds (note that all other civilizations could only discern 7, and yet, they claimed divine knowledge). Lastly, the Talmud makes note that there are 10^18 stars in the universe, that is very close to the modern scientific estimate. R. Yitzchak of Acco said that the universe was 15 billion years old (again, science is close), R. Naham described the Big Bang in detail. . . IN DETAIL.

    So ya, I'm pretty sure these "old books," all claiming divine revelation from the G-d of Israel, are true. Just keep in mind, I'm not being apologetic here, for every source I just mentioned were written thousands of years ago, when science was just a newborn.

    So if this one G-d, who is the Creator of everything in our universe, says the earth is round - and even better - if modern science agrees - we're sure it's true. End of story. Have a good life and keep believing in the flat earth theory and that there is no G-d or whatever you believe. 

    Shalom.

    Zohar: 
    noun
    singular proper noun: Zohar
    1. the chief text of the Jewish Kabbalah, presented as an allegorical or mystical interpretation of the Pentateuch.

      Let's keep allegorical mysticism out of Earth Science. Besides, aren't the writers of the Zohar the same Jews who crucified an innocent Jewish man named Jesus, their King of kings, their Messiah?
    Erfisflat
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    Erfisflat
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    Image may contain text


    ISS really stands for Imaginary Space Station.
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    If you can’t provide a video where you have a flat surface, an object representing the sun above that surface, and a camera above that surface, and you can make the appear sun appear to set using refraction; then you have literally no proof of the effect you are using as the prime basis of your belief the earth is flat.
    As I said this has been done, site moderation deleted some posts to fix a glitch. Here they are again.

    Water as a gas (as in the atmosphere)


    Water in liquid form


    I had originally posted about 6 videos, they are numerous. Your turn.

    Edit: had to put this in.

    As your argument appears to have been that sunsets are impossible on a flat earth: this also proves the earth is not spherical.

    Right?
    Erm.

    That boat is still visible at all times, and the camera obviously dips below the level of the flat surface.

    like I said:

    1.) camera on on a flat surface.
    2.) object above flat surface.
    3.) make object above flat surface appear to set behind flat surface due to refraction

    not:

    1) Camera arbitrarily held by hand at a non verifiable level that appears to move below the level of the surface

    2.) object above flat surface.

    3.) Make the bottom of the glass, and bottom of the object appear to be obscured by the front of the table that is infront of both the beaker and the boat because whoever took the video is lowering the camera level.

    This is a ridiculously shoddy experiment with effects that appear to be obviously attributable to the person taking the film being unscientific, and producing the effect by moving his camera below the level of the Surface, not as a result of any refraction.

    tldr: the “sunset” in the video is making it occur the same reason it occurs in real life: the surface the boat is on gets in the way of the observer of the boat.

    Everyone else plainly saw the boat appear to drop. This inherently refutes your position.


    I've demonstrated how the sun and boats can appear to drop below a flat surface with refraction. At no time has the back of the countertop dropped out of sight, yet the sun and boats do. Since your model requires the exact opposite of refraction, I'll expect an experiment providing that demonstration, and your blatant denial of scientifically demonstrated evidence will be noted, pseudoscientist. 
    The sun only sets when he moves the camera below the level of the counter (except when he uses the glass with the curved base).

    Seriously, when the camera is above level the sun never sets.

    If the sun half set at every location on the earth; you may have a point: but the sun only sets in this video because of shoddy experimentation and an intellectually dishonest drops the level of the camera to reproduce the effects of the sun setting on a globe: by placing the surf in between sun and observer.

    But laughably; even if I his experiment literally doesn’t show what you say it does: you’ve also made no attempt to show that the atmosphere actually does act like this glass of water eithrr.

    So it’s pseudoscience in two ways!
    Erfisflat
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    SilverishGoldNova
    ISS actually stands for international space station.
    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNova
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    If you can’t provide a video where you have a flat surface, an object representing the sun above that surface, and a camera above that surface, and you can make the appear sun appear to set using refraction; then you have literally no proof of the effect you are using as the prime basis of your belief the earth is flat.
    As I said this has been done, site moderation deleted some posts to fix a glitch. Here they are again.

    Water as a gas (as in the atmosphere)


    Water in liquid form


    I had originally posted about 6 videos, they are numerous. Your turn.

    Edit: had to put this in.

    As your argument appears to have been that sunsets are impossible on a flat earth: this also proves the earth is not spherical.

    Right?
    Erm.

    That boat is still visible at all times, and the camera obviously dips below the level of the flat surface.

    like I said:

    1.) camera on on a flat surface.
    2.) object above flat surface.
    3.) make object above flat surface appear to set behind flat surface due to refraction

    not:

    1) Camera arbitrarily held by hand at a non verifiable level that appears to move below the level of the surface

    2.) object above flat surface.

    3.) Make the bottom of the glass, and bottom of the object appear to be obscured by the front of the table that is infront of both the beaker and the boat because whoever took the video is lowering the camera level.

    This is a ridiculously shoddy experiment with effects that appear to be obviously attributable to the person taking the film being unscientific, and producing the effect by moving his camera below the level of the Surface, not as a result of any refraction.

    tldr: the “sunset” in the video is making it occur the same reason it occurs in real life: the surface the boat is on gets in the way of the observer of the boat.

    Everyone else plainly saw the boat appear to drop. This inherently refutes your position.


    I've demonstrated how the sun and boats can appear to drop below a flat surface with refraction. At no time has the back of the countertop dropped out of sight, yet the sun and boats do. Since your model requires the exact opposite of refraction, I'll expect an experiment providing that demonstration, and your blatant denial of scientifically demonstrated evidence will be noted, pseudoscientist. 
    The sun only sets when he moves the camera below the level of the counter (except when he uses the glass with the curved base).

    Seriously, when the camera is above level the sun never sets.

    If the sun half set at every location on the earth; you may have a point: but the sun only sets in this video because of shoddy experimentation and an intellectually dishonest drops the level of the camera to reproduce the effects of the sun setting on a globe: by placing the surf in between sun and observer.

    But laughably; even if I his experiment literally doesn’t show what you say it does: you’ve also made no attempt to show that the atmosphere actually does act like this glass of water eithrr.

    So it’s pseudoscience in two ways!
    Ive done what was asked. You've chosen to completely dismiss the experimental results. 


    We can clearly still see the bottom of the bottle directly to the left of the image of the sun and boats, meaning the sun would have still been in full view, had the water not refracted the images so that they appeared lower than their actual position.

    The fact that this experiment is simple enough that literally anyone can verify the results and you have provided jack squat for evidence says it all. Maybe you should take another look at my signature. Still waiting on any contradictory results, as would be required if your model weren't based entirely on pseudoscience. You'll likely ignore this request like you did all the other requests for any type of evidence that supports your position. 

    Now you've decided to completely ignore the first experiment, it's ok to be wrong, it's ok that you don't live on a spinning testicle like you've always thought. Perform the experiments yourself, prove the results wrong. Don't just say "nah, that's wrong, light bends the other way through water", without an ounce of evidence. That is the real definition of pseudoscience. 




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

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    You were asked to replicate a sunset with camera and sun on a flat surface with the sunset produced by refraction.

    The first experiment (which I believe I covered) does no replicate the sunset; the part in question is a collection of stills, and none of the parameters or conditions of the experiment are determinable. 

    To to claim this is verifiable when you can’t verify what the conditions are is laughable. To additionaly claim it shows what I asked is even more laughable.

    The second video had conditions that are verifiable: specifically you can tell the container holds water, and the base of one of the containers are lenses.

    It also doesn’t replicate sunset with refraction; the camera operator deliberately lowers the camera below the level of the flat surface producing an actual sunset.

    The still image you produced is the closest the video ever gets to a sunset: and is half a sunset, with the much of sun visible at all times. That is competely understandable, as you start getting some of the image of the sun compressed obscured by the glass base of the container (which is non-0 thickness).

    Not only does this not produce what I asked for; you seem to be claiming it shows a sunset when it doesn’t.


    Why are you claiming this is a genuine experiment when it is self
    evidently and obviously a poor and sloppily executed experiment that only produces the sunset you see on earth because it replicates what occurs on a sphere: the surface gets in between the sun and observer.
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  

    I would like to summarize thus far:


    You’ve claimed a fish eye lens can’t make a curved line straight: this is not correct.


    You’ve claimed two rays of light hitting the same lens at identical angles will be distorted in two different ways: this is also demonstrably false.


    You’ve demanded people show you images despite admitting you won’t ever accept pictures are true. This is intellectually dishonest.


    You’ve claimed all pictures are fake: but refuse to provide any details about how you can tell: this is intellectually dishonest.


    You’ve claimed you have objective evidence that pictures are fake: but this evidence is your subjective opinion that clouds look like a word, that tired astronauts 21 days after landing on earth should look happy, and that a detailed description about how a composite image of earth was produced constituted an “admission of fakery”: this is also intellectually dishonest.


    You’ve claimed no one has yet produced evidence: this is untrue and a deliberate misrepresentation of information presented.


    You’ve claimed that bodies of water are measurably flat, despite obvious measurements that you acknowledge when it doesn’t appear flat: this is untrue and a deliberate misrepresentation of the information and facts presented.


    You’ve claimed a video of unverifiable conditions that doesn’t show a sunset, verifiably replicates a sunset; and claimed an obviously botched experiment that doesn’t replicate a sunset replicates a sunset: this is intellectually dishonest and a deliberate misrepresentation of the “evidence” supporting your position.


    You argue that refraction can produce a sunset on a flat earth despite having no experiments that can replicate a sunset and no experiments that can replicate this refraction actually occurs in the atmosphere; yet berate people for engaging  “pseudoscience”. This is intellectually dishonest and a deliberate misrepresentation of the arguments supporting your position.



    Does it not strike you as odd that you have to make so many dishonest or incorrect arguments to maintain your position? Why is that?

    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:

    I would like to summarize thus far:


    You’ve claimed a fish eye lens can’t make a curved line straight: this is not correct.


    You’ve claimed two rays of light hitting the same lens at identical angles will be distorted in two different ways: this is also demonstrably false.


    You’ve demanded people show you images despite admitting you won’t ever accept pictures are true. This is intellectually dishonest.


    You’ve claimed all pictures are fake: but refuse to provide any details about how you can tell: this is intellectually dishonest.


    You’ve claimed you have objective evidence that pictures are fake: but this evidence is your subjective opinion that clouds look like a word, that tired astronauts 21 days after landing on earth should look happy, and that a detailed description about how a composite image of earth was produced constituted an “admission of fakery”: this is also intellectually dishonest.


    You’ve claimed no one has yet produced evidence: this is untrue and a deliberate misrepresentation of information presented.


    You’ve claimed that bodies of water are measurably flat, despite obvious measurements that you acknowledge when it doesn’t appear flat: this is untrue and a deliberate misrepresentation of the information and facts presented.


    You’ve claimed a video of unverifiable conditions that doesn’t show a sunset, verifiably replicates a sunset; and claimed an obviously botched experiment that doesn’t replicate a sunset replicates a sunset: this is intellectually dishonest and a deliberate misrepresentation of the “evidence” supporting your position.


    You argue that refraction can produce a sunset on a flat earth despite having no experiments that can replicate a sunset and no experiments that can replicate this refraction actually occurs in the atmosphere; yet berate people for engaging  “pseudoscience”. This is intellectually dishonest and a deliberate misrepresentation of the arguments supporting your position.



    Does it not strike you as odd that you have to make so many dishonest or incorrect arguments to maintain your position? Why is that?

    If by summarizing, you mean intentionally misinterpreting 90% of my positions and openly lying and denying observable reality, I'm with you. Would you be open for a formal debate to settle the matter?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:

    I would like to summarize thus far:


    You’ve claimed a fish eye lens can’t make a curved line straight: this is not correct.


    You’ve claimed two rays of light hitting the same lens at identical angles will be distorted in two different ways: this is also demonstrably false.


    You’ve demanded people show you images despite admitting you won’t ever accept pictures are true. This is intellectually dishonest.


    You’ve claimed all pictures are fake: but refuse to provide any details about how you can tell: this is intellectually dishonest.


    You’ve claimed you have objective evidence that pictures are fake: but this evidence is your subjective opinion that clouds look like a word, that tired astronauts 21 days after landing on earth should look happy, and that a detailed description about how a composite image of earth was produced constituted an “admission of fakery”: this is also intellectually dishonest.


    You’ve claimed no one has yet produced evidence: this is untrue and a deliberate misrepresentation of information presented.


    You’ve claimed that bodies of water are measurably flat, despite obvious measurements that you acknowledge when it doesn’t appear flat: this is untrue and a deliberate misrepresentation of the information and facts presented.


    You’ve claimed a video of unverifiable conditions that doesn’t show a sunset, verifiably replicates a sunset; and claimed an obviously botched experiment that doesn’t replicate a sunset replicates a sunset: this is intellectually dishonest and a deliberate misrepresentation of the “evidence” supporting your position.


    You argue that refraction can produce a sunset on a flat earth despite having no experiments that can replicate a sunset and no experiments that can replicate this refraction actually occurs in the atmosphere; yet berate people for engaging  “pseudoscience”. This is intellectually dishonest and a deliberate misrepresentation of the arguments supporting your position.



    Does it not strike you as odd that you have to make so many dishonest or incorrect arguments to maintain your position? Why is that?

    If by summarizing, you mean intentionally misinterpreting 90% of my positions and openly lying and denying observable reality, I'm with you. Would you be open for a formal debate to settle the matter?
    I am absolutely not misrepresenting a single point I raised. I have supported every item I just made with an unchallenged or unrefuted argument. 

    You seem to be confusing arguments you don’t like, with misrepresentations.

    As for formal debates, sure as long as I have at least 30/36 hours for a response.

    I will accept any one of these topics:

    - ”flat earth theory is pseudoscience” (my BoP)
    - “refraction in the atmosphere produces sunset” (Your BoP)
    - “the earth is flat”: your BoP, two best arguments.
    - “the earth is not flat”: my BoP, two best arguments.
    - “NASA is a reputable source”: my BoP.
    - “NASA is not a reputable source”: your BoP
    - “images of the earth from space are faked” your BoP
    - Erfisflat is a pseudoscientist: “My BoP”
    - Erfisflat is deliberately dishonest: “My BoP”
    - Chicago is only visible from the other side
    of Lake Michigan due to refraction”: My BoP


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:

    I would like to summarize thus far:


    You’ve claimed a fish eye lens can’t make a curved line straight: this is not correct.


    You’ve claimed two rays of light hitting the same lens at identical angles will be distorted in two different ways: this is also demonstrably false.


    You’ve demanded people show you images despite admitting you won’t ever accept pictures are true. This is intellectually dishonest.


    You’ve claimed all pictures are fake: but refuse to provide any details about how you can tell: this is intellectually dishonest.


    You’ve claimed you have objective evidence that pictures are fake: but this evidence is your subjective opinion that clouds look like a word, that tired astronauts 21 days after landing on earth should look happy, and that a detailed description about how a composite image of earth was produced constituted an “admission of fakery”: this is also intellectually dishonest.


    You’ve claimed no one has yet produced evidence: this is untrue and a deliberate misrepresentation of information presented.


    You’ve claimed that bodies of water are measurably flat, despite obvious measurements that you acknowledge when it doesn’t appear flat: this is untrue and a deliberate misrepresentation of the information and facts presented.


    You’ve claimed a video of unverifiable conditions that doesn’t show a sunset, verifiably replicates a sunset; and claimed an obviously botched experiment that doesn’t replicate a sunset replicates a sunset: this is intellectually dishonest and a deliberate misrepresentation of the “evidence” supporting your position.


    You argue that refraction can produce a sunset on a flat earth despite having no experiments that can replicate a sunset and no experiments that can replicate this refraction actually occurs in the atmosphere; yet berate people for engaging  “pseudoscience”. This is intellectually dishonest and a deliberate misrepresentation of the arguments supporting your position.



    Does it not strike you as odd that you have to make so many dishonest or incorrect arguments to maintain your position? Why is that?

    I think this has literally come to a head. You have just denied seeing refraction cause an object being obscured by a flat plane due to refraction. You have ignored and dodged every request for even the slightest amount of experimental evidence and changed the subject while hypocritically calling me a pseudoscientist. 

    Will you continue to dodge? Are you ready to have your pitiful arguments and lack of evidence judged by another party? You can continue dodging the points and requests, then rhetorically assuming you've won the argument before changing the subject if you want here, I refuse to get into a debate with childish naysayers. You give me nothing to refute. I show evidence and you say nuh-uh. This is not a debate, and you should really look up what being intellectually dishonest means. 
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    How about a plain and simple shape of the earth shared BOP debate
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    I have denied something that is obviously not present in the video.

    I have explained what is in the video, which is half a sunset (which could easily be explained by the base of the glass), and a blatantly botched attempt to lower the camera below the level of the flat surface: which fakes a sunrise.

    You could prove me wrong by, say, showing the exact point where the fake sun appears to fully set below the surface the camera is still above; but you can’t do that, because it’s not in the video.

    The other video shows not very much; a collection of still photos with the conditions and setup unverifiable, and unknown. And your not really denying or arguing with anything I am saying: just pretending as if the video shows something it obviously does not.

    This is bush-league nonsense; I point out why your experiment is laughable, and don’t show anything like what you claim it does: you ignore everything and pretend as if I have addressed anything.

    The most damning part of this, is that the go-to experiment you post of how the sun is supposed to set due to major refraction occurring in the atmosphere shows neither a full sunset, nor any attempt at showing major refraction in the atmosphere. Just some who doesn’t know how to control variables in an experiment.
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    I have denied something that is obviously not present in the video.

    I have explained what is in the video, which is half a sunset (which could easily be explained by the base of the glass), and a blatantly botched attempt to lower the camera below the level of the flat surface: which fakes a sunrise.

    You could prove me wrong by, say, showing the exact point where the fake sun appears to fully set below the surface the camera is still above; but you can’t do that, because it’s not in the video.

    The other video shows not very much; a collection of still photos with the conditions and setup unverifiable, and unknown. And your not really denying or arguing with anything I am saying: just pretending as if the video shows something it obviously does not.

    This is bush-league nonsense; I point out why your experiment is laughable, and don’t show anything like what you claim it does: you ignore everything and pretend as if I have addressed anything.

    The most damning part of this, is that the go-to experiment you post of how the sun is supposed to set due to major refraction occurring in the atmosphere shows neither a full sunset, nor any attempt at showing major refraction in the atmosphere. Just some who doesn’t know how to control variables in an experiment.
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:

    I would like to summarize thus far:


    You’ve claimed a fish eye lens can’t make a curved line straight: this is not correct.


    You’ve claimed two rays of light hitting the same lens at identical angles will be distorted in two different ways: this is also demonstrably false.


    You’ve demanded people show you images despite admitting you won’t ever accept pictures are true. This is intellectually dishonest.


    You’ve claimed all pictures are fake: but refuse to provide any details about how you can tell: this is intellectually dishonest.


    You’ve claimed you have objective evidence that pictures are fake: but this evidence is your subjective opinion that clouds look like a word, that tired astronauts 21 days after landing on earth should look happy, and that a detailed description about how a composite image of earth was produced constituted an “admission of fakery”: this is also intellectually dishonest.


    You’ve claimed no one has yet produced evidence: this is untrue and a deliberate misrepresentation of information presented.


    You’ve claimed that bodies of water are measurably flat, despite obvious measurements that you acknowledge when it doesn’t appear flat: this is untrue and a deliberate misrepresentation of the information and facts presented.


    You’ve claimed a video of unverifiable conditions that doesn’t show a sunset, verifiably replicates a sunset; and claimed an obviously botched experiment that doesn’t replicate a sunset replicates a sunset: this is intellectually dishonest and a deliberate misrepresentation of the “evidence” supporting your position.


    You argue that refraction can produce a sunset on a flat earth despite having no experiments that can replicate a sunset and no experiments that can replicate this refraction actually occurs in the atmosphere; yet berate people for engaging  “pseudoscience”. This is intellectually dishonest and a deliberate misrepresentation of the arguments supporting your position.



    Does it not strike you as odd that you have to make so many dishonest or incorrect arguments to maintain your position? Why is that?

    I think this has literally come to a head. You have just denied seeing refraction cause an object being obscured by a flat plane due to refraction. You have ignored and dodged every request for even the slightest amount of experimental evidence and changed the subject while hypocritically calling me a pseudoscientist. 

    Will you continue to dodge? Are you ready to have your pitiful arguments and lack of evidence judged by another party? You can continue dodging the points and requests, then rhetorically assuming you've won the argument before changing the subject if you want here, I refuse to get into a debate with childish naysayers. You give me nothing to refute. I show evidence and you say nuh-uh. This is not a debate, and you should really look up what being intellectually dishonest means. 

    Want to see what a dodge looks like?


    1.) have you ever performed experiment to show the refraction effect you claim actually happens in the atmosphere.

    2.) in your video does a the sun disappear in the non-lensing container when the camera is above the counter?

    the answer to both, we both know is no: but you can’t admit that, I’m sure.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -   edited February 2018
    Yeah, the logical flaws in his evidence is clear and always, always applies to every single video or photo. It's always some combination of:

    1) Completely lacking any evidence and just some YouTuber ranting.

    2) His claims contradict what is actually shown, like claiming an image is being refracted down when it's being refracted sideways.

    3) The base claim is correct and uncontentious according to ordinary physics but then he makes unrelated wild claims based on it, e.g. "because this image of a straw is refracted, atmospheric refraction doesn't exist" and won't back it up this crazy connection with evidence or logic.
    Erfisflat
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Ampersand said:
    Yeah, the logical flaws in his evidence is clear and always, always applies to every single video he knows to. It's always some combination of:

    1) Completely lacking any evidence and just some YouTube r ranting.

    2) His claims contradict what is actually shown, like claiming an image is being refracted down when it's being refracted sideways.

    3) The base claim is correct and uncontentious according to ordinary physics but then he makes unrelated wild claims based on it, e.g. "because this image of a straw is refracted, atmospheric refraction doesn't exist" and won't back it up this crazy connection with evidence or logic.
    It’s actually pretty crazy: you can see the very moment he realizes he’s mistaken and then starts lying. He immediately posted a still photo that he felt conflicted with what I said the video showed, when it was pointed out that it wasn’t a sunset, he realizes this and decided not to post another still, he didn’t say that the video shows the sun falling below the level of the desk; he shouted at me and called me wrong.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    I have denied something that is obviously not present in the video.

    I have explained what is in the video, which is half a sunset (which could easily be explained by the base of the glass), and a blatantly botched attempt to lower the camera below the level of the flat surface: which fakes a sunrise.

    You could prove me wrong by, say, showing the exact point where the fake sun appears to fully set below the surface the camera is still above; but you can’t do that, because it’s not in the video.

    The other video shows not very much; a collection of still photos with the conditions and setup unverifiable, and unknown. And your not really denying or arguing with anything I am saying: just pretending as if the video shows something it obviously does not.

    This is bush-league nonsense; I point out why your experiment is laughable, and don’t show anything like what you claim it does: you ignore everything and pretend as if I have addressed anything.

    The most damning part of this, is that the go-to experiment you post of how the sun is supposed to set due to major refraction occurring in the atmosphere shows neither a full sunset, nor any attempt at showing major refraction in the atmosphere. Just some who doesn’t know how to control variables in an experiment.
    You can deny all you like. Saying that "the sun didn't set all the way" is fully ignoring the point. The angle of refraction is the crux of the experiment. This is why you have ignored this 3 times now, and why you can't offer even one experiment that supports your position. We can ALL see, even before the camera drops, which is obviously done to mimic the effects of perspective, and you think for some reason gives you permission to dismiss the entire experiment. 

    If you think you can better perform the experiment and prove results that contradict these at any time, I'll be ecstatic to see them. Matter of factly this is what your model claims the refraction of the atmosphere is doing, raising that image of the sun/boats back up from the edge of the counter. Of course, there is no practical evidence of it. No experiment that supports it, and a great many that contradicts it, this makes your position pseudoscience. 


    http://www.hko.gov.hk/m/article_e.htm?title=ele_00493

    http://www.pas-et-repas.com/2016/10/le-mont-canigou-visible-de-marseille.html

    Furthermore, if you have any evidence that water in it's gaseous state should bend light in the opposite direction, I'd be happy to look at it, until then, it's just your say so.

    As for the first experiment's setup,



    Granted, the set-up is not perfect per se, but it's better than what you have offered so far.



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

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • JudaismJudaism 180 Pts   -  
    I believe my time here is up. I'm done posting on this thread, people do reserve the right to think as they will and I don't want to be the guy you convinces them not to.
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    You’ve claimed refraction can make the sun appear to set.

    You’ve offered three videos as evidence. 

    None of these videos replicate the sun setting using refraction.


    They show refraction can produce distortion, that lowering the camera below the flat surface can produce a sunset, that the base of glass container can obscure and distort an object behind it.

    All of these are obvious “duh” facts: and none of them are related to what you claim can happen.


    You are happy making major claims about the mechanics of the atmosphere of the entire planet; and supporting it with shoddy videos of a glass of water that don’t even show the event you’re trying to explain: this is pseudoscientific nonsense.


    So, as I’ve refuted these nonsense videos as deliberate misrepresentations on your part, and explained why: it’s pretty clear you’re attempting to pretend you have evidence when you do not.


    Your position therefore seems to be:


    “But, But, But muh shoddy unverified unscientific YouTube experiment that doesn’t show what I claim”.

    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  

    @Gooberry
    I'll work on getting that formal set up soon.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    proof!
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    SilverishGoldNova
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
This Debate has been closed.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch