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.





Is the Earth flat?

123457»



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    The cloud blocked the sun

    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
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    The cloud blocked the sun


    @Erfisflat does he also tell that earth is round?
    Pogue
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    The cloud blocked the sun


    @Erfisflat does he also tell that earth is round?
    If he were to observe the natural physics of any large body of water he wouldn't. 
    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
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat find me the edge of the flat world please.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat find me the edge of the flat world please.



    someone234
    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
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat at that edge why isn't the sky hitting the ground?
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    In your analogy, he would be claiming that both the red apple and green were both granny Smith apples, showing obvious differences, and you are supporting his ignorant claims.
    Why?

    Because you say so?

    You need to stop doing that: you’re literally throwing out one claim after another.

    You didn’t provide a counter to anything I said you were doing, so you concede that your argument was indeed an unsupported assertion, because you provided no argument as to why the difference was relevant?

    if you don’t concede, why have you not responded to my central point? WHy did you instead simply drop your previous argument and make another claim?


    Your reply is nonsense: he’s clearly explaining what he meant, and he clearly explained that they are not identical things like you’re claiming.



    Pogue
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Pogue said:
    Erfisflat said:
    The response would be valid had I posted an image similar to this
    where the sun's rays do come to the observer from the sun, but I didn't. The rays go in all manner of direction, once again...

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






    Again, you point to other pictures, none showing lines going away from the observer(strawmen), and ignore the original post.
    Why is this a straw man?

    How does this argument misrepresent your position?

    Yet again: you’re just accusing someone of a logical fallacy, providing no reason and no explanation.

    You’re not going to bother answering, like you haven’t answered the multiple times I’ve asked you to explain why you think people are making straw men.

    Another hurled claim, with no argument that you won’t support


    even worse, if you pay attention: the examples he provided directly refute the “non rebuttal”, pretty trivial.

    why are you rejecting them out of hand with no argument? Are they that hard to argue against?
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Pogue said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Pogue said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Pogue said:
    @Erfisflat
    We can defend it here. Your sunrays argument has been debunked. You have not debunked my long argument. I know I can't say that someone already debunked it in a 1 vs 1 debate. In this, there is no point in just saying the same exact thing. Who is @goober? I think you mean @Gooberry
    You're going to continue to assert that the sun's rays are parallel now? Maybe we should be consulting mr. Webster...





    Those rays clearly intersect at a point above the clouds, whether or not you will admit it.
    So do train tracks intersect? This is revlevent I just need an answer from you. 
    Obviously not. This would prove difficult for any train to navigate on. They are also provably parallel lines that recede away from the observer. This is not the case for the image I presented as evidence. The train tracks would go all the way to the feet of the observer, in the image above, the rays go in all manner of direction.
    So again, I will repost this. The sun rays are just like train tracks. Too far away and they will configure or intersect. 
    Wait, so what about the pictures and videos that I sent. You always say refraction or lens but this contradicts your recent argument. I guess I have to repost I the debunk. 
    Since I do not have any editor I am using pictures from a video and so the image I am posting is not the one that you did. However, it still applies, just changes the orientation. They are actually parallel. Anything at a far distance will configure, just like train tracks. The convergence of rays is usually unable to be seen on a clear day/partially cloudy day. However, as I already have said, clouds make this illusion visible. This is because they only let a bit of sunlight through. In this picture, the sun is simply right here. Taking the clouds out of the picture helps. 

    You are assuming that they are in 2d when they are in 3d. 
    Note, switch z with y.  

    The sun has a very high z-axis value (z is where y is). So it is very far away. 
    These are the rays on a clear day from above the clouds. 

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

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

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

    Otherwise it just looks like you’re trying to ignore his argument.
    Obviously not. This would prove difficult for any train to navigate on. They are also provably parallel lines that recede away from the observer. This is not the case for the image I presented as evidence. The train tracks would go all the way to the feet of the observer, in the image above, the rays go in all manner of direction.
    That’s not a rebuttal to his argument:

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

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

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

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

    It’s a neat rhetorical ploy; but it’s up to you to provide a demonstration or explanation as to why those differences you cite are relevent, and why they can’t be the product of what Pogue explained is different in the examples in his post, then quite frankly your point is largely irrelevant me certainly not any form of rebuttal: it’s more the case you’re just hurling claims, and deciding not to defend them still.
    So now we're just going to deny observable facts and differences. I am not claiming that they are not sun's rays as your false analogy seems to suggest, I am claiming that they are not parallel, as they go even away from the observer, unlike receding train tracks. Way to dodge that though.
    I’m not denying observable facts and differences (nor does my analogy suggest you are claiming they are not the suns rays).

    What you are doing, is listing facts, and listing difference; then asserting that this means he is wrong. You havent
    explained, justified or presented an argument as to why these observable facts show his arguments are wrong, and you have provided no explanation, justification or argument that explains why you think these differences are relevant.

    thats why I’ve said you’ve not presented a rebuttal: you’re just pointing things out and saying that these prove he’s wrong: why? How? Because you say so? Because of reasons you won’t tell us?


  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat find me the edge of the flat world please.



    Let me debunk the ice wall. 
    1. Civilians can step foot on the continent and that image does not show a wall. This site shows images of areas in which you can step on the continent. https://oceanwide-expeditions.com/to-do/experiences/set-foot-on-the-antarctic-continent
    2.   The Flat Earth Map is Actually a Projection Map of a Globe
    3. "All of the circumnavigations and surveys, that have led to the depictions of Antarctica on a globe, point to the continent having a circumference of fewer than 15,000 miles, both as shown on the sailors' GPS devices, the length of time it took the circumnavigations to occur, and results of surveys."
    4. Since the wall is apart of the flat Earth model, it would have to be around the edge. This would mean that this flat world would mean that the flat map would have a large Antartica. Despite this, we know that the equator is larger but this map shows it to be smaller. "However, on the globe projection map that flat-earthers use, the circumference of Antarctica must be somewhere between 60,000- 78,000 miles." https://steemit.com/flatearth/@kerriknox/part-1-of-4-the-flat-earth-antarctica-conspiracy-debunking-the-ice-wall
    5. "Here's the math that you can do yourself to show this. I put in the coordinates for the very tip of Antarctica in South America to the topmost portion of land at the top of North America, to make as straight a line as possible on Google maps (Note that when you do this on Google maps, the line will be slightly curved. I wonder why) and got the coordinates of:

    King George Island
    Antarctica
    -61.901698, -57.998392

    to
    Ellesmere Island
    Baffin, Unorganized, NU, Canada
    82.790687, -63.845865

    for a total distance of just at 10,000 miles (10,000.23 mi to be exact). This is actually somewhat too short of a distance from the center of the Arctic Circle would be higher than my coordinates, and the center of the Antarctic Circle would also be lower. But we'll give flat earthers this 'conservative' estimate to show the approximate circumference of the interior of the ice wall.

    So, we put in the formula of C=2πr
    to get the total circumference of 62831.85 miles." https://steemit.com/flatearth/@kerriknox/part-1-of-4-the-flat-earth-antarctica-conspiracy-debunking-the-ice-wall

    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Pogue said:
    Erfisflat said:
    The response would be valid had I posted an image similar to this
    where the sun's rays do come to the observer from the sun, but I didn't. The rays go in all manner of direction, once again...

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






    Again, you point to other pictures, none showing lines going away from the observer(strawmen), and ignore the original post.
    Why is this a straw man?

    How does this argument misrepresent your position?

    Yet again: you’re just accusing someone of a logical fallacy, providing no reason and no explanation.

    You’re not going to bother answering, like you haven’t answered the multiple times I’ve asked you to explain why you think people are making straw men.

    Another hurled claim, with no argument that you won’t support


    even worse, if you pay attention: the examples he provided directly refute the “non rebuttal”, pretty trivial.

    why are you rejecting them out of hand with no argument? Are they that hard to argue against?
    It is a strawman because he is directly ignoring my image and posting images that are irrelevant. My position isn't that some rays aren't parallel, the sun may very well be far enough away from the obstructions that they will appear parallel, but again, this is ignoring my image where it is not. And thus this ends the relevant part of another of your rhetorically fallacious posts.
    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   -  
    Pogue said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat find me the edge of the flat world please.



    Let me debunk the ice wall. 
    1. Civilians can step foot on the continent and that image does not show a wall. This site shows images of areas in which you can step on the continent. https://oceanwide-expeditions.com/to-do/experiences/set-foot-on-the-antarctic-continent
    2.   The Flat Earth Map is Actually a Projection Map of a Globe
    3. "All of the circumnavigations and surveys, that have led to the depictions of Antarctica on a globe, point to the continent having a circumference of fewer than 15,000 miles, both as shown on the sailors' GPS devices, the length of time it took the circumnavigations to occur, and results of surveys."
    4. Since the wall is apart of the flat Earth model, it would have to be around the edge. This would mean that this flat world would mean that the flat map would have a large Antartica. Despite this, we know that the equator is larger but this map shows it to be smaller. "However, on the globe projection map that flat-earthers use, the circumference of Antarctica must be somewhere between 60,000- 78,000 miles." https://steemit.com/flatearth/@kerriknox/part-1-of-4-the-flat-earth-antarctica-conspiracy-debunking-the-ice-wall
    5. "Here's the math that you can do yourself to show this. I put in the coordinates for the very tip of Antarctica in South America to the topmost portion of land at the top of North America, to make as straight a line as possible on Google maps (Note that when you do this on Google maps, the line will be slightly curved. I wonder why) and got the coordinates of:

    King George Island
    Antarctica
    -61.901698, -57.998392

    to
    Ellesmere Island
    Baffin, Unorganized, NU, Canada
    82.790687, -63.845865

    for a total distance of just at 10,000 miles (10,000.23 mi to be exact). This is actually somewhat too short of a distance from the center of the Arctic Circle would be higher than my coordinates, and the center of the Antarctic Circle would also be lower. But we'll give flat earthers this 'conservative' estimate to show the approximate circumference of the interior of the ice wall.

    So, we put in the formula of C=2πr
    to get the total circumference of 62831.85 miles." https://steemit.com/flatearth/@kerriknox/part-1-of-4-the-flat-earth-antarctica-conspiracy-debunking-the-ice-wall

    1. Saying that people can visit Antarctica isn't the same as "debunking the ice wall".

    2. The azimuthal equidistant map, which I can't assume is absolutely correct, existed long before the globe. So claiming that someone took a globe and converted it to a flat map is exactly opposite of what actually happened.

    3. "All of the circumnavigations and surveys, that have led to the depictions of Antarctica on a globe, point to the continent having a circumference of fewer than 15,000 miles, both as shown on the sailors' GPS devices, the length of time it took the circumnavigations to occur, and results of surveys."

    Is yet another broad assumption, and is easily disproved by looking at early expeditions by Dr Cook.

    http://www.abodia.com/hoax/flat-earth/articles/flat-earth-around-antarticia.htm

    4. A bare assertion disproved by the above link.

    5. Assumes that coordinates abide by a spherical earth model, which is assuming the conclusion.


    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   -  
    “It is a strawman because he is directly ignoring my image and posting images that are irrelevant.”

    That’s not a straw man.

    A straw man is where you misrepresent your opponents position and attack the result

    He isn’t doing that.

    “My position isn't that some rays aren't parallel, the sun may very well be far enough away from the obstructions that they will appear parallel, but again, this is ignoring my image where it is not.”

    He has explained the image where it was not. Most importantly, he’s giving you examples, he’s not attacking a misrepresentation of your position.


    “And thus this ends the relevant part of another of your rhetorically fallacious posts.”

    By all means, keep saying that me pointing out details of how and when that you hurl claims without any justification repeatedly.

    maybe if you do it enough you’re hoping that I have forgetting how much you have contradicted yourself, changed arguments asserted the laws of physics were wrong, in your rants about refraction?

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    “It is a strawman because he is directly ignoring my image and posting images that are irrelevant.”

    That’s not a straw man.

    A straw man is where you misrepresent your opponents position and attack the result

    He isn’t doing that.

    “My position isn't that some rays aren't parallel, the sun may very well be far enough away from the obstructions that they will appear parallel, but again, this is ignoring my image where it is not.”

    He has explained the image where it was not. Most importantly, he’s giving you examples, he’s not attacking a misrepresentation of your position.


    “And thus this ends the relevant part of another of your rhetorically fallacious posts.”

    By all means, keep saying that me pointing out details of how and when that you hurl claims without any justification repeatedly.

    maybe if you do it enough you’re hoping that I have forgetting how much you have contradicted yourself, changed arguments asserted the laws of physics were wrong, in your rants about refraction?

    Of course you will give me another "but he already refuted it"! Did you ignore my refutation of his statements? Of course! Pointing at images of red apples doesn't make the green apple any more red, if we continue your analogy. By all means keep asserting that you are right about refraction, with irrelevant experiments.
    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   -  
    Just catching up on this debate. So Erfisflat seems like he knows he's secretly wrong, just doesn't wanna admit it. Anyway, this isn't a topic that interests me anymore, so have fun @Gooberry and @Pouge.
    Says The guy who flip flopped on the shape of the earth twice now...
    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   -  
    Once again, for the logically impaired. Looking at lights in the sky, and assuming that they are physical terra firma, and that they are spherical are like looking at pool balls on a pool table and assuming the table is a sphere.
    capiche?
    Pogue
    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   -  
    Cloud blocks the sun. The flat Earth has edges but real world no edge just you preacher of lies I am sick of it.
    Wait, you claim that you are in contact with aliens from another dimension and nobody blinks an eye. I point out the obvious and DEMONSTRATE the physical properties of water, and inherently, the shape of the earth and everyone goes nuts and agrees with each other that I'm full of sh!t, while being told to ".."...?
    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
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    Erfisflat said:
    Once again, for the logically impaired. Looking at lights in the sky, and assuming that they are physical terra firma, and that they are spherical are like looking at pool balls on a pool table and assuming the table is a sphere.
    capiche?
    False comparison fallacy. A pool table is very different than astronomy. How are we logically impaired? If everything else is a spinning sphere, why would the Earth be different? Also, pretty hypocritical. You use the sun as "proof". 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Cloud blocks the sun. The flat Earth has edges but real world no edge just you preacher of lies I am sick of it.
    Wait, you claim that you are in contact with aliens from another dimension and nobody blinks an eye. I point out the obvious and DEMONSTRATE the physical properties of water, and inherently, the shape of the earth and everyone goes nuts and agrees with each other that I'm full of sh!t, while being told to ".."...?
    1. I did combat him on it. 
    2. Your "properties" have been proven false. 
    3. You post some videos with no explanation or summary
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Pogue said:
    Erfisflat said:
    The response would be valid had I posted an image similar to this
    where the sun's rays do come to the observer from the sun, but I didn't. The rays go in all manner of direction, once again...

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






    Again, you point to other pictures, none showing lines going away from the observer(strawmen), and ignore the original post.
    Why is this a straw man?

    How does this argument misrepresent your position?

    Yet again: you’re just accusing someone of a logical fallacy, providing no reason and no explanation.

    You’re not going to bother answering, like you haven’t answered the multiple times I’ve asked you to explain why you think people are making straw men.

    Another hurled claim, with no argument that you won’t support


    even worse, if you pay attention: the examples he provided directly refute the “non rebuttal”, pretty trivial.

    why are you rejecting them out of hand with no argument? Are they that hard to argue against?
    It is a strawman because he is directly ignoring my image and posting images that are irrelevant. My position isn't that some rays aren't parallel, the sun may very well be far enough away from the obstructions that they will appear parallel, but again, this is ignoring my image where it is not. And thus this ends the relevant part of another of your rhetorically fallacious posts.
    If ignoring arguments was a fallacy, then I guess every post you have posted since the beginning of this thread is a straw man fallacy. 
    I guess I will explain why they are not irrelevant. 
    Probably the 2 best.


    These two images show how clouds change the image and block it and how perspective makes the image different than it is respectively. 
    These four are



    here to support what I said. 
    The sun rays are just like train tracks. Too far away and they will configure or intersect. 
    Wait, so what about the pictures and videos that I sent. You always say refraction or lens but this contradicts your recent argument. I guess I have to repost I the debunk. 
    Since I do not have any editor I am using pictures from a video and so the image I am posting is not the one that you did. However, it still applies, just changes the orientation. They are actually parallel. Anything at a far distance will configure, just like train tracks. The convergence of rays is usually unable to be seen on a clear day/partially cloudy day. However, as I already have said, clouds make this illusion visible. This is because they only let a bit of sunlight through. In this picture, the sun is simply right here. Taking the clouds out of the picture helps. 

    You are assuming that they are in 2d when they are in 3d. 
    Note, switch z with y.  

    The sun has a very high z-axis value (z is where y is). So it is very far away. 
    These are the rays on a clear day from above the clouds. 

    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Erfisflat said:
    I'm actually going to take your points one at a time, and I have decided to copy this one from Samuel Rowbotham. Since you've plagiarized yours, and my entire argument, which was on two days worth of type, was gone today when I tried to pull it up.@Pogue ;

    1. Eclipses.

    A SOLAR eclipse is the result simply of the moon passing between the sun and the observer on earth. But that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth, is a statement in every respect, because unproved, unsatisfactory. The earth has been proved to be without orbital or axial motion; and, therefore, it could never come between the sun and the moon. The earth is also proved to be a plane, always underneath the sun and moon; and, therefore, to speak of its intercepting the light of the sun, and thus casting its own shadow on the moon, is to say that which is physically impossible.

    Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth belowthe sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a "shadow" of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line?




    I don’t know why you’re reposting this:

    Pogue refuted on page 7, I provided a comprehensive refutation on page 8, and amphersand shortly after.

    Shall we repost these refutations? To point out that you have ignored them, or do you want
    to go back and defend your claims?
    For you to say "I've already explained why..." For pogue to say @goober already refuted this, and I have already refuted @ampersand rebuttal, waiting on him.
    Your points are so poor it's barely worth refuting them, but if you insist

    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:

    I'm actually going to take your points one at a time, and I have decided to copy this one from Samuel Rowbotham. Since you've plagiarized yours, and my entire argument, which was on two days worth of type, was gone today when I tried to pull it up.@Pogue ;

    1. Eclipses.

    A SOLAR eclipse is the result simply of the moon passing between the sun and the observer on earth. But that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth, is a statement in every respect, because unproved, unsatisfactory. The earth has been proved to be without orbital or axial motion; and, therefore, it could never come between the sun and the moon. The earth is also proved to be a plane, always underneath the sun and moon; and, therefore, to speak of its intercepting the light of the sun, and thus casting its own shadow on the moon, is to say that which is physically impossible.

    Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth belowthe sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a "shadow" of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line?



    Circular reasoning where your rationale for explaining why it is wrong is simply assuming you have already proven a load of nonsense like the earth being flat, not rotating etc.

    You then move onto a strawman where you argue against a made up version of eclipses that has nothing to do with the actual science you are trying to dispute. You present seeing the sun and moon at the same time in an eclipse as proof that the normal model of the world is flawed. In fact this is something we specifically expect to be able to happen due to atmospheric refraction so you are in fact helping prove the spherical earth correct by proving that their predictions are accurate. After all, that's the scientific method - you make predictions and then test them to see if they're correct. They are proof for the spherical earth.

    What's the excuse for lunar eclipses on a flat earth again? Isn't it a magical invisible object which sits between the sun and the moon which has never been detected or evidenced but is what you think causes the shadow?
    Are you ignoring the fact that the shadow has come from the wrong direction? Doesn't it seem like yet another ad hoc excuse that the three alleged bodies now don't necessarily have to be in a line to cause an eclipse? So, just to recap, I've shown an experiment that tests and measures the supposed curvature of the earth, and none is found, this is met with "refraction", with absolutely no practical evidence of such, aside from goober shining a laser through sugar water, and eclipses have been shown that are NOT predicted to happen as the current model shows, which is also met with the unsupported ad hoc excuse, "refraction".
    Your argument can be rebutted by the single phrase "you have not offered any proof in support of your claims" and for additional criticism "You have not actually responded to the points raised".

    For the former point, one of your many flaws is that you confuse your belief in something as proof or something. It renders most of your posts absolutely pointless.

    For the latter, you don't counter a single point I made - just jumping on to a load of other claims. Does or does not the generally accepted scientitic principle of the spherical earth factor in atmospheric refraction and expect exactly the situation in your video? if you're unsure, please refer to the link in my previous post. And do you dispute that your previous argument is based on circular reasoning and claims that you do not actually support?

    I'll go into some more depth about the specific claims you made, because why not, but if you continue to just make baseless claims then I'll just rebutt you with low effort answers bec ause that's all your arguments merit..

    "Are you ignoring the fact that the shadow has come from the wrong direction?" - You provide no evidence that a shadow has come from the wrong direction. You believing there is a shadow which goes the wrong way is not the same as a shadow going the wrong way. Baseless claim.

    "Doesn't it seem like yet another ad hoc excuse that the three alleged bodies now don't necessarily have to be in a line to cause an eclipse?" - Firstly, you show your ignorance that you don't understand what is being claimed. They are a straight line, but they don't look like they are due to refraction changing their apparent position in the sky.

    This is actually a question, not a claim - but you seem to act like we should be treating it as a claim which is nonsense when all you have done is offer a vague leading question with no support. If you think it is an ad hoc excuse then you should offer evidence to support that. Until you do there is no need to address baseless claims. And of course please remember to factor in that the theory of atmospheric refraction causing the refraction is literally thousands of years old with the earliest theory traceable back to Cleomedes.

    "So, just to recap, I've shown an experiment that tests and measures the supposed curvature of the earth, and none is found," - Baseless claim. Any-one can make claims about stuff they supposedly proved earlier in the thread - for instance I can say I explicitly showed how your experiments were meaningless and that you are fairly unintelligent. I offer absolutely nothing to support this which makes it identical in terms of evidence to your claim. See why your argument is so irrelevent? Why should anyone care about your baseless claims anymore than you care about that baseless claim?

    "this is met with "refraction", with absolutely no practical evidence of such,"- More baseless claims. Also I have also literally provided you multiple times with multiple scientific studies on atmospheric refraction showing it clearly exists and if you found any flaws in them have offered to provide literally hundreds more studies - and you have refused to look at them. Again, you believe something because you're a sheep who doesn't want to look at the evidence rather than a freethinker willing to make up their own mind.

    " and eclipses have been shown that are NOT predicted to happen as the current model shows, which is also met with the unsupported ad hoc excuse, "refraction"." More baseless claims. In my last post I directly linked to an explanation of what the current model says will happen and it matches what we observe in reality and in your video. The person here making excuses is you because you made a childish argument based on a strawman and are desperately trying to cover your . The standard scientific understanding of physics says that light refracts when it passes through a density gradient, such as the atmosphere, which can result in images appearing to be in a different position than they are in reality. If you try and make an argument against some other conception of reality - like one where the earth is spherical but light doesn't refract - then you are arguing against a strawman that no-one believes in and is irrelevant to the argument.
    PogueEmeryPearson
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Rants about refraction he says...

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

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Of course you will give me another "but he already refuted it"! Did you ignore my refutation of his statements? Of course! Pointing at images of red apples doesn't make the green apple any more red, if we continue your analogy. By all means keep asserting that you are right about refraction, with irrelevant experiments.

    1.) I have literally told you, in detail, why what you told him is not a rebuttal. So when you say "Did you ignore my refutation of his statements?" The answer is: No. No I did not.

    Before you accuse me of ignoring you, please read the post above:

    "What you are doing, is listing facts, and listing difference; then asserting that this means he is wrong. You havent
    explained, justified or presented an argument as to why these observable facts show his arguments are wrong, and you have provided no explanation, justification or argument that explains why you think these differences are relevant."

    2.) Pogue has presented a relatively detailed argument to explain the rays of sunlight. This is a perspective argument based on seeing rays in three dimensions coming at you from a different location and perspective than we normally see when having lines at a different vanishing point.

    Thus far, your only "rebuttal" is a dismissive argument based on assertion (and my previous post explains in detail why it's assertion).

    You spent 99.9% of your replies literally hurling accusations and making no arguments: we are forced to try and get you to actually address your point.

    3.) I have multiple pages of utterly unanswered, un-refuted examples. I have provided detailed explanations and justifications. Just because you realize that you are unable to refute them, and when you try, you end up contradicting yourself; doesn't mean you can dismiss them with baseless accusations and unsupported claims like you keep doing.

    You have LITERALLY refuted and contradicted your own position multiple times in your replies. Here are is a nice collection:


    - You said that refraction can't happen without in a change of medium.
    - You said that in my experiment, light was refracting without a change of medium.
    - You have claimed that an experiment of how light refracts in water is irrelevant and shows nothing about the atmosphere.
    - You have claimed that your experiment of how light refracts in water is relevant and shows what happens in the atmosphere.
    - You have argued that your experiments show that the laws of physics are different.
    - You have argued that you have pointed out that you haven't said anything different from the established laws of physics.
    - You have argued that the earth is demonstrably flat, it's a proven fact, and all evidence proves it for certain!
    - You have a GoFundMe account begging for funds so you can prove the earth is flat.

    In addition to this:

    - I have provided examples of light refracting without a change of medium: disproving your position.
    - I have provided examples of viewable curvature: disproving your claims that there is never curvature measured.
    - I have provided examples of objects beyond the horizon: disproving your claims that there is never curvature measured.
    - I have pointed out that the videos you cite show objects obscured by the horizon: showing that these videos show curvature.
    - I have provided evidence of light bending downwards due to refraction in water making the light appear higher than where it went in: disproving your claims that objects will only appear lower in the atmosphere.
    - I have provided a clear scientific reference to processes and scientific laws, backed up with observations noted above to show how and why refraction effects the very images you're taking: Refuting your claims that this shouldn't be seen on a spherical earth.
    - I have provided a pretty detailed experiment you can perform to detect the curvature and mitigate the effects of refraction; and have pointed out that this is a well, well known type of experiment is something flat earthers never perform.

    And that's just in this thread!


    Not only have you not provided any sort of reply to any of the above items; as well as ignoring in most cases; you are now literally denying reality and trying to pretend as if these posts don't exist, and I'm making it all up!.

    If that wasn't enough; I haven't even gone into all the individual claims you've made in this thread for which you've provided no explanation or argument; we provided a refutation for; and you have either dropped, ignored, or decided not to defend.


    But hey, you're a flat earther: you are going to be forced into making a terse-non reply, and being forced against your will to do anything more detailed than hurl acusations and tell people they're wrong!
    EmeryPearson
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    So this is yet another fruitless conversation reminiscent of any other post, you've offered to repost your refutation, and when I point out that just claiming that the experiments were "botched" is not a valid rebuttal, your reply is just another I've already done this, that or the other, followed by a lie, that i haven't provided a reason that we should use line of sight in water, while claiming that shining a laser through laser water refutes every position I've put forth so far, which is itself hasty generalization, ad hoc, and irrelevant. 

    @goober I think we were here about refraction when you just started asserting things you've claimed you've done. 
    EmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    "What you are doing, is listing facts, and listing difference; then asserting that this means he is wrong. You havent
    explained, justified or presented an argument as to why these observable facts show his arguments are wrong, and you have provided no explanation, justification or argument that explains why you think these differences are relevant."

    Those obvious differences and facts is the justification and argument. The tracks appear to converge, because they are receding parallel lines going away from the observer. The rays i pointed out are not anywhere near the observer. They start in the clouds and go away from the observer. I really can't dumb it down any more, but feel free to continue denying that I've pointed this out repeatedly! I thoroughly enjoy repeating myself while you do a little rhetorical dance around every point I make.

    Once again, I've pointed out obvious differences in the circumstances and you strap on your blinders and lie about my refutations, it's quite dishonest and literally a waste of time, but these kids seem to look up to you, despite the countless rhetorical fallacies in your arguments, and thus I am facing 3-4 thoughtless individuals. One who cannot develop an original rational thought, one who thinks he's a resurrected alien, and of course the flip flopper. It's as though I don't stand a chance. My only hope is that someone with a critically able mind will chance upon this conversation and be able to think for himself, and recognize your blatant denial and rhetorical fallaciousness. 
    EmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    I can't honestly address the very many "I have done this or that's" in your post, because it's not certain what you're speaking about.
    GooberryEmeryPearson
    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 March 2018
    You may have no responsibilities other than to troll me, but my time is up today, I have a life. Have fun talking about me and the flat earth in my absence.
    GooberryEmeryPearson
    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
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Rants about refraction he says...

    You post a video and I will post comments on that video.
    The atmosphere can work like a lens, in certain situations. With a high humidity, different temperatures in different areas of the air...the lens thing were just to showcase the concept behind some effects that can happen! Also, the sun is not within our atmosphere, and even in your video, you show that your experiment with the lens and the picture of a sun does not show the same thing as we see every day. And yes, your sun model on a flat earth does not work. The sun itself does not work in your model, its movement of it is wrong, and the position of it in your model is not the same as what we observe. 
    Another comment was this. 
    Hmm... it seems to me that the big lens is tilted a bit! Also, there's no such a big distortion in the atmosphere, remember that there's much more air in between, and that drops the index of refraction even more! Plus the sun and moon don't get smaller at sunset or moon rise! They keep the same aspect even at midday! This would also cause days to be longer than nights all the time all over the world! On hotter days, when the amount of evaporation is higher, the refraction should be different the sun would either set faster and/or the horizon be shorter. On top of that, sunrise and sunset would be different every day and locations! Warmer countries would have shorter days and torrid temperatures, remember the sun getting bigger at midday? In colder countries, the day would last longer, and the cold would not be explained! I understand that you're trying really hard to try and fit your speculations to reality, but, one bazillion microlenses don't make a giant lens. It makes fog! Also, fog blocks the view and it's in part by the principle discussed here! Each droplet refracts a bit of light, so the next droplet gets less and less light! Reality cannot be faked! Your imagination is incomplete and selective!
    Another comment was that it did not work. You know what. I will try it right now. It did not work. In his experiment, there were multiple things that could affect the outcome. Like the plastic or the little area, the card thing was behind. 

    Erfisflat said:
    "What you are doing, is listing facts, and listing difference; then asserting that this means he is wrong. You havent
    explained, justified or presented an argument as to why these observable facts show his arguments are wrong, and you have provided no explanation, justification or argument that explains why you think these differences are relevant."

    Those obvious differences and facts is the justification and argument. The tracks appear to converge, because they are receding parallel lines going away from the observer. The rays i pointed out are not anywhere near the observer. They start in the clouds and go away from the observer. I really can't dumb it down any more, but feel free to continue denying that I've pointed this out repeatedly! I thoroughly enjoy repeating myself while you do a little rhetorical dance around every point I make.

    Once again, I've pointed out obvious differences in the circumstances and you strap on your blinders and lie about my refutations, it's quite dishonest and literally a waste of time, but these kids seem to look up to you, despite the countless rhetorical fallacies in your arguments, and thus I am facing 3-4 thoughtless individuals. One who cannot develop an original rational thought, one who thinks he's a resurrected alien, and of course the flip flopper. It's as though I don't stand a chance. My only hope is that someone with a critically able mind will chance upon this conversation and be able to think for himself, and recognize your blatant denial and rhetorical fallaciousness. 
    I guess you ignored a lot of my posts in which I explained everything. 
    EmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    I am just gonna go post this because he ignored it. 
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Pogue said:
    Erfisflat said:
    The response would be valid had I posted an image similar to this
    where the sun's rays do come to the observer from the sun, but I didn't. The rays go in all manner of direction, once again...

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






    Again, you point to other pictures, none showing lines going away from the observer(strawmen), and ignore the original post.
    Why is this a straw man?

    How does this argument misrepresent your position?

    Yet again: you’re just accusing someone of a logical fallacy, providing no reason and no explanation.

    You’re not going to bother answering, like you haven’t answered the multiple times I’ve asked you to explain why you think people are making straw men.

    Another hurled claim, with no argument that you won’t support


    even worse, if you pay attention: the examples he provided directly refute the “non rebuttal”, pretty trivial.

    why are you rejecting them out of hand with no argument? Are they that hard to argue against?
    It is a strawman because he is directly ignoring my image and posting images that are irrelevant. My position isn't that some rays aren't parallel, the sun may very well be far enough away from the obstructions that they will appear parallel, but again, this is ignoring my image where it is not. And thus this ends the relevant part of another of your rhetorically fallacious posts.
    If ignoring arguments was a fallacy, then I guess every post you have posted since the beginning of this thread is a straw man fallacy. 
    I guess I will explain why they are not irrelevant. 
    Probably the 2 best.


    These two images show how clouds change the image and block it and how perspective makes the image different than it is respectively. 
    These four are



    here to support what I said. 
    The sun rays are just like train tracks. Too far away and they will configure or intersect. 
    Wait, so what about the pictures and videos that I sent. You always say refraction or lens but this contradicts your recent argument. I guess I have to repost I the debunk. 
    Since I do not have any editor I am using pictures from a video and so the image I am posting is not the one that you did. However, it still applies, just changes the orientation. They are actually parallel. Anything at a far distance will configure, just like train tracks. The convergence of rays is usually unable to be seen on a clear day/partially cloudy day. However, as I already have said, clouds make this illusion visible. This is because they only let a bit of sunlight through. In this picture, the sun is simply right here. Taking the clouds out of the picture helps. 

    You are assuming that they are in 2d when they are in 3d. 
    Note, switch z with y.  

    The sun has a very high z-axis value (z is where y is). So it is very far away. 
    These are the rays on a clear day from above the clouds. 


    Oh my gosh. I just remembered the other one. 
    EmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    Here do this test at home but make sure you have a clear view. 

    Best one, experiment 3. Watch the sunset lying down

    As detailed by the folks at MinutePhysics, the horizon is one of the easiest ways to validate the Earth’s curvature. As the sun dips behind the horizon, it slips from your view in a bottom-up direction. If you watch the sunset while lying on your back, and then hop up as the last rays disappear, then you should be able to see the sunset again.

    The same pattern applies to ships as they sail away — their hulls disappear from the bottom up. As MinutePhysics points out, if the Earth didn’t curve and the horizon didn’t exist, when you looked at Chicago from across Lake Michigan, you’d be able to see the Rocky Mountains.


    These prove Earth's curvature:

    1. Look at eclipses

    Lunar Eclipse GIFs - Find  Share on GIPHY

    Every once in a while, the Earth passes between the Moon and the Sun, creating a phenomenon known as the Lunar Eclipse.

    The Earth casts a shadow on the Moon as it passes through so if you look closely enough (a decent telescope should do it), you might be able to see a shaded arc. It’s always an arc and never a square or a rectangle.

    2. Send a camera into space

    Animated GIFs - Find  Share on GIPHY

    Companies like Sent Into Space have special balloon kits that allow you to send whatever you like into space and back. Look at this, a guy sent a camera to space and the Earth is round:  https://www.geek.com/geek-cetera/homemade-spacecraft-reaches-100000-ft-films-the-whole-way-1287792/.

    3. Watch the sun go over the horizon while lying down, then quickly stand up

    If you watch the sunset lying down, you’ll find it disappears in the horizon. But if you stand up, you should still be able to see the sun as it sets on the distant horizon.

    And if you happen to be at the ocean looking at ships, they will appear to emerge from the ocean – in a bottom-up direction. This is possible only because the ocean follows the curvature of the Earth and gradually drops from our line of sight.

    If the earth was flat the water would stay at the same level.

    4. The stars

    If you go to a different part of the world, you’ll notice the constellations there are completely different.

    A phenomenon first observed by Aristotle many, many years ago when he was returning from Egypt, the premise is the further you go away from the equator the further known constellations go towards the horizon.

    This phenomenon can only be explained by a round surface.

    Aristotle also concluded the Earth wasn’t very large because a small change in the distance makes a huge difference in terms of what we see in the night sky.

    In the flat Earth model, you could not see the same constellations and stars in S.A. and Africa (or S.A. and Australia or Africa and Australia) (the two will both be night) because you would only be able to see the front. Also, the stars that are only able to see in the Northern Hemisphere would be visible in the South. 
    Globe: 

    Flat:

    5. Time zones

    Time Zones GIFs - Find  Share on GIPHY

    Our planet is divided into 24 time zones, this is taking into account the position of the Sun and the Earth's rotation. The Sun isn’t visible to everyone at the same time.

    But that wouldn’t be the case if the Earth was flat. If the Sun shone directionally on a flat Earth, we would be able to see at all times.

    So basically, the only way these timezones can happen is if the world is spherical.

    time zones

    We have time zones because when the Sun is illuminating one side of the spherical Earth, the other side is dark.

    This can only be explained if the world is round, and rotating around its own axis. At a certain point when the sun is shining on one part of the Earth, the opposite side is dark, and vice versa. That allows for time differences and time zones, specifically ones that are larger than 12 hours.

    Another point concerning time zones, the sun, and Earth: If the sun was a “spotlight” (very directionally located so that light only shines on a specific location) and the world was flat, we would see the sun even if it didn’t shine on top of us (as you can see in the drawing below). Similarly, you can see the light coming out of a spotlight on a stage in the theater, even though you—the crowd—are sitting in the dark. The only way to create two distinctly separate time zones, where there is complete darkness in one while there’s light in the other as if the world is spherical.

    debunking the sun as spotlight theory

    Before I get into it, I want to say two things, on the top of the Burj Kalfa the sun sets 2 minutes later than the bottom. Also, if you do not have a model, you can not know if the flat Earth explains what happens. 

    I guess I will start and since you guys did not debunk these yet I will repost them.
    There are so many more ways you can prove to yourself the Earth is round. You can see more things the higher up you are. Long suspension bridges’ towers slope slightly away from one another to account for the curvature of the Earth. Every other planet is a spinning sphere. Satellites exist (as proven by the existence of your iPhone), and obey rules that only work if they’re orbiting around Earth. We’ve taken many, many pictures of Earth. Buy a weather balloon and strap a camera to it.

    Satellites have to exist for the internet to work. The TV would not be here without relativity which involves gravity. The ISS exists because you can clearly see it if it goes above your location. You can easily watch the youtube live stream from the ISS. 

    Hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons are all the same thing: Spinning masses of air sucking moisture from the ocean, dumping it back on us and destroying things in their path. A hurricane is just a giant wind drain—a low-pressure center with winds flushing into it. The wind always blows counter-clockwise inwards in Northern Hemisphere hurricanes—check out this picture of Hurricane Katrina and the United States. Notice the direction the wind is traveling with a compass, depending on where the Hurricane is.

    However, in the Southern Hemisphere, the wind travels the opposite direction. Here’s a picture of Hurricane Catarina, a very rare Southern Hemisphere Atlantic Hurricane:

    Notice that Catarina is very clearly spinning in the opposite direction. That’s because of the Coriolis effect—the wind changes direction as the planet spins. If the Earth wasn’t spinning, the wind should blow straight into the middle of the hurricane from all directions. But the Earth spins faster at the equator than at the poles, because our planet’s midsection has the furthest distance to travel with each rotation. Winds traveling northwards or southwards curve as they travel from slower spinning to faster spinning regions of the planet. The wind carves the opposite direction based on whether you are above or below the equator since the Earth’s rotation gets slower on alternate sides. 

    You can recreate this by spinning a basketball on your finger, and moving a marker from the bottom up or the top down—notice what the line looks like above and below the middle of the ball.

    Okay, let’s try to explain all that with a flat Earth. If Earth was a giant spinning plate with the North Pole at its center, all hurricanes should spin in the same direction and should have a much more spiral shape the further south (i.e., away from the center) you head. You could maybe slow down the spins further from the center of the spinning plate, but then you should see the continents ripping apart from the different speeds. It just doesn’t make any sense.

    Look at this, a guy sent a camera to space and the Earth is round:  https://www.geek.com/geek-cetera/homemade-spacecraft-reaches-100000-ft-films-the-whole-way-1287792/.

    The video proves why the Coriolis effect is real and is dictated by hemisphere.  The important parts are from 1:44-5:35. It has a controlled experiment. In the end, it explains why there is a difference between hemispheres. It works because it does. To understand this, think of a pool at the geographic poles. It is stationary relative to Earth, but every sidereal day, it is actually completing one full rotation. The part further away from the pole and closer to the equator move faster because it has to complete a larger movement in the same amount of time (that is why rockets are launched closer to the equator. When the plug is pulled (part of the experiment) everything is moving toward the drain in the middle. The far side is faster so it gets ahead while the slower part is too slow so it lags behind. 

    Edit: The video was a picture by accident because I copied and pasted my arguments. Here is the video:

    What about these then, 
    The critical point here is disappearing OVER the horizon, not disappearing simply because they are small boats that are too small to see. Also, what about the majority of observations? This video claims it is not visible,  but 
    .
    Shows curve because you can the wake of the boat. 
    Also, look at this, 

    AlairesEmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Rants about refraction he says...


    Yes, rants.

    Thus far, I've made like, thirty individual points, and multiple rebuttals to your position, and all you've provided are rants, assertions that I'm wrong, and strategically not acknowledging that what you're saying is contradicting itself.

    What you're doing with this, is posting a new argument; one that is hilarious I must add!

    1.) Why do you dismiss as irrelevant a video of how light behaves in water when the refraction index is changed: yet you provide a video of a the sun through a glass of water, and all of a sudden this is proof of something?
    2.) What are you scientific grounds for saying that my experiment cannot be demonstrated as analogous to the atmosphere; and yet yours is?
    3.) Why does the sun get smaller? This does not match observations of the sun as it sets.
    4.) What is the scientific basis you have determined for the sun appearing to set in the video.
    5.) What are the required conditions in the atmosphere to be able to cause what you see in the video in the atmosphere. Are those conditions possible? Practical?
    6.) Would this produce other observable effects?
    7.) Would this effect have to be transient, or constant to explain real world observations.
    8.) Do you have any experiments or observations that show such conditions occur atmosphere to the required degree?
    9.) In different conditions, or natural atmospheric variation would you expect to see contrary or different behavior? what would these look like, and do we observe them?
    10.) Why on earth does the video not make any reference to the very large magnifying glass?

    The real answers to this; that I'm sure you will conclude are detailed and justified; based on me providing an explanation that explains what I think is the case and why, in my attempt to scientific apply your position to the observations we actually have assertions and logical fallacies.

    1.) Because you're intellectually dishonest, and dismissing things out of hand you later assert are true when it is related to something you disagree with. This is obviously an incoherent position you've taken by saying one thing is okay when you do it; but not valid when anyone else does it to prove you wrong.

    2.) Same as 1: there are no scientific grounds for that position.

    3.) The sun gets smaller because it's getting further away: basic perspective. You have previously said that refraction will cause the sun to not appear to change size as it moves through the sky AND appear to set. A convoluted optical setup with magnifying glasses that are not analogous to the atmosphere can make one happen, but not the other. Without realizing it, you have again: refuted your own position by demonstrating that you're explanations do not explain the observations you claim it does.

    4.) The sun appears to set because the entire bottom of the magnifying lens ends up being cut off. It's not the water, or even inherently the refraction of the glass causing the sunset, it's the shape of the glass behind it that is causing the bottom portions to cut off.

    5.) The air has to form a static and unchanging convex magnifying shape where the boundary between the lower and higher refractive index are constant for the duration of the suns movement. This boundary has to stretch for thousands of miles, and cross from the tropics to polar regions: there is a line joining the tropics and polar regions where observers will view sunset. These conditions would produce sunset for a group of observers at the same time; and are laughably impractical on a global scale.

    Worse; to observe the sunset; this region has to be stationary and unchanging. As the sun moves away. While this is fine for one observer, an observer 79 miles away, they see the sunset 4 minutes later; where is there unchanging convex layer of air? Then there's the person 79 miles away from them? Is there another unchanging convex layer for them too? Obviously, the conditions in the atmosphere to explain the sunset are physically impossible.

    I would say that ta best you can make the sunset for one person, or a couple of people; but to say that I have to establish that amount of refraction that could be produced by air even in the right configuration could produce this effect to any substantial degree.

    So no; it's both impossible and impractical that this could be present in the atmosphere.

    6.) Even producing sunset for one observer would produce observable effects including:

    - The lens is in a static position; all objects (buildings, mountains, etc), would be distorted behind this region in order to produce the sunset.
    - Planes would obviously cross a transition in the sky as they fly through the boundary, moving from distorted to undistorted.
    - It would present itself as a massive weather front as one side would have to be cold and dry, the other warm and wet air.

    All of these would be obvious and detectable.

    7.) While it has been shown to be impossible, even if somehow there was some possible way of producing the effect for everyone; sunset is massively predictable over decades, meaning the changing air humidity and temperature must be static and keep the same configuration at all times over the year. This is obviously impossible: you have sunset over the desert, and over water. During winter. Summer, during windy periods and calm periods, the idea that the refraction in the air is stable and unchanging enough to produce a such a predictable sunset, is quite frankly, laughable.

    8.) Obviously not as shown above: it's impossible. I am going to predict that you're going to show some unrelated transient effect. Something that happens once in a blue moon, that isn't quite the same thing, but shows some distortion in one way due to known physical refraction that is understood and can be explained. I then suspect you're going to hold this example up and state that this "proves" it's happening in the atmosphere, despite presenting no arguments as to how, or why this is the case

    9.) Of course you would. For example. If the temperature cooled down on one side of the magical refraction barrier by a few degree's, this would reduce the magnification and retard the sunset; the other way around would increase the time of the sunset  any fluctations would produce changes. While there are minor changes to sunset (that come with observable refraction), this is normally minimal, there is very limited deviation of sunset times which allows only very minor variation. We sure don't see anything of that ilk; but then again, I'm sure you'll make an argument as I described in (8)

    10.) Because the video was likely produced by someone intellectually dishonest: who is desperate to find a reason, regardless of how impossible or implausible in order to explain an observation that is impossible on a flat plane.

    Both you, and the video producer do not attempt to analyze, demonstrate, or perform science, calculations or perform any mathematics to try and demonstrate the possibility or plausibility of the explanation and how it would apply in the atmosphere. There isn't even the most rudimentary or basic attempt to explain the observations at large: simply a vacuous and basic single example where you reproduce a one off observation; then stop there, providing no scientific scrutiny of how it was reproduced, or whether it explains the required sum of observations it is intended to explain.

    EmeryPearson
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Pogue said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat find me the edge of the flat world please.



    Let me debunk the ice wall. 
    1. Civilians can step foot on the continent and that image does not show a wall. This site shows images of areas in which you can step on the continent. https://oceanwide-expeditions.com/to-do/experiences/set-foot-on-the-antarctic-continent
    2.   The Flat Earth Map is Actually a Projection Map of a Globe
    3. "All of the circumnavigations and surveys, that have led to the depictions of Antarctica on a globe, point to the continent having a circumference of fewer than 15,000 miles, both as shown on the sailors' GPS devices, the length of time it took the circumnavigations to occur, and results of surveys."
    4. Since the wall is apart of the flat Earth model, it would have to be around the edge. This would mean that this flat world would mean that the flat map would have a large Antartica. Despite this, we know that the equator is larger but this map shows it to be smaller. "However, on the globe projection map that flat-earthers use, the circumference of Antarctica must be somewhere between 60,000- 78,000 miles." https://steemit.com/flatearth/@kerriknox/part-1-of-4-the-flat-earth-antarctica-conspiracy-debunking-the-ice-wall
    5. "Here's the math that you can do yourself to show this. I put in the coordinates for the very tip of Antarctica in South America to the topmost portion of land at the top of North America, to make as straight a line as possible on Google maps (Note that when you do this on Google maps, the line will be slightly curved. I wonder why) and got the coordinates of:

    King George Island
    Antarctica
    -61.901698, -57.998392

    to
    Ellesmere Island
    Baffin, Unorganized, NU, Canada
    82.790687, -63.845865

    for a total distance of just at 10,000 miles (10,000.23 mi to be exact). This is actually somewhat too short of a distance from the center of the Arctic Circle would be higher than my coordinates, and the center of the Antarctic Circle would also be lower. But we'll give flat earthers this 'conservative' estimate to show the approximate circumference of the interior of the ice wall.

    So, we put in the formula of C=2πr
    to get the total circumference of 62831.85 miles." https://steemit.com/flatearth/@kerriknox/part-1-of-4-the-flat-earth-antarctica-conspiracy-debunking-the-ice-wall

    1. Saying that people can visit Antarctica isn't the same as "debunking the ice wall".

    2. The azimuthal equidistant map, which I can't assume is absolutely correct, existed long before the globe. So claiming that someone took a globe and converted it to a flat map is exactly opposite of what actually happened.

    3. "All of the circumnavigations and surveys, that have led to the depictions of Antarctica on a globe, point to the continent having a circumference of fewer than 15,000 miles, both as shown on the sailors' GPS devices, the length of time it took the circumnavigations to occur, and results of surveys."

    Is yet another broad assumption, and is easily disproved by looking at early expeditions by Dr Cook.

    http://www.abodia.com/hoax/flat-earth/articles/flat-earth-around-antarticia.htm

    4. A bare assertion disproved by the above link.

    5. Assumes that coordinates abide by a spherical earth model, which is assuming the conclusion.


    1, That was to debunk your image
    2. You provide no evidence or a link at all. Here, have a link https://steemit.com/flatearth/@kerriknox/the-flat-earth-map-is-actually-a-globe.
    3. The link provides no evidence except for the UN flag and 2 explores taking a long time and in which it provides no explanation on how that supports it.
    4. Does not disprove it. I read the entire thing and nothing mentions the equator. 
    5. They do. http://resources.esri.com/help/9.3/arcgisengine/dotnet/89b720a5-7339-44b0-8b58-0f5bf2843393.htm (1st bullet of the 2nd post). 
    EmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    So this is yet another fruitless conversation reminiscent of any other post, you've offered to repost your refutation, and when I point out that just claiming that the experiments were "botched" is not a valid rebuttal, your reply is just another I've already done this, that or the other, followed by a lie, that i haven't provided a reason that we should use line of sight in water, while claiming that shining a laser through laser water refutes every position I've put forth so far, which is itself hasty generalization, ad hoc, and irrelevant. 

    @goober I think we were here about refraction when you just started asserting things you've claimed you've done. 
    Please explain a laser shinting through water, presented as:

    a.) an experiment that demonstrates how light acts as it moves through area's of different refractive index.
    b.) Examples of light working in a way that is contrary to experiments through water you have produced, and the way you've claimed it working in the atmosphere.

    And presented with a detailed explanation of how the experiment is relevant and pertinent to the atmosphere (by comparing refractive indexes, showing the actual conditions above water are most likely to produce the same effect.)

    Is.:

    a.) A hasty generalization.
    b.) "Ad Hoc"
    c.) Irrelevant

    I think you're just throwing random accusations, with no attempt to explain them.


    "I think we were here about refraction when you just started asserting things you've claimed you've done."

    Okay then; having gone back through all the posts that you have ignored, I have one specific thing out of all of them I think you should address, I will bold the relevant question at the end:

    If the earth was a sphere:

    - If light from a region below the horizon travels to a location where it passes into a region of higher refractive index; Snells law states this light will bend downwards.

    - If the light is bent downwards; the light from the object beyond the horizon, instead of carrying on a path that maybe hundreds of feet in the air, (because the object would be visible at that height), the light is bent downwards, so is visible at a lower, lower level.

    - We know that the air above water, is often much more humid than air around it, and the air at ground level is very slightly more dense than air even a little higher up. These don't produce a huge amount of change to refractive index, but a small amount to deflect light by fractions of a degree.

    - We know that this type of refraction in this case is more than possible, and can be demonstrated easily by, say, showing how a laser beam deflects light as it passes through regions of different refractive index.

    - These all mean that if Earth was a sphere: taking images over water would be fully expected (based on the laws of physics) to show less curvature than should actually be there; and in cases where the temperature is particularly warm; there could be a lot of difference.

    - I also explained that there is often much less refraction higher up; so in this case, you can avoid a lot of the problems by having sight lines: objects that are a known height (or the same relative height) above the water you are measuring. Not only will light from these not be as refracted as much; it will generally reflect adjacent objects about the same amount, leading to an easy to compare line.

    - When you perform this type of experiment (Like power lines over lake pontecharin, which are demonstrably organized in a straight line, and show the same result when viewed from the left or the right), you invariably see the curvature of the earth.

    - This last point effectively means that when you provide a reasonable experiment that accounts for refraction effects, the curvature you want is seen.

    If the earth is not a sphere, and is flat:

    - With what I understand of snells law, and the refractive indexes of the atmosphere, there is no way to produce sunset; so sunsets and objects falling over the horizon are impossible.

    - You have claimed both of these are caused by refraction.

    - You have posted a video of a sunset that you claim "proves this"

    - You haven't used snells law, or pointed out the different area's of the atmosphere and their refraction to show how light bends in your conditions.

    - You haven't described how you can tell this overarching effect is present in the atmosphere.

    - You haven't provided any diagrams, or examples that show the path of light from the sun.

    - You don't know where the sun is, so you don't know how much refraction is required; nor have you calculated how much refraction is present to show the two match up.

    - You haven't attempted to show how the atmospheric properties of two observers separated by 1 hour of time can produce sunset for both observers.

    - You have provided no objective way to account for your refraction, so thus far I can't see any way of making an observation that could show, or refute your example.

    - You have offered no plausible experiments by which we can prove for ourselves that the refraction in the atmosphere works as you claim.

    So my question is this:

    You dismissed my explanation out of hand: Please give me a detailed explanation of why you feel that what I produced above is simply me asserting "But Muh Refraction", while you also feel that your inability to provide anything more than vague explanations, and little detail is "a scientific argument."




    PogueEmeryPearson
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    Also, I would like to mention another thing. You completely ignore @Gooberry's 3rd post on the 1st page. I would also like to sum things up for the readers.  
    -The flat Earther repeatedly claims we have committed fallacies. When asked to give an explanation, he gives none. Except for once, in which he said I committed a straw man because I ignored his post (but I did not ignore it).
    -The flat Earther's "evidence"* is just him posting a video or a link with no explanation or summary of it (or even a part that is relevant/ supports his point). 
    -The flat Earther repeatedly denied and ignored multiple arguments and rebuttals with no proper rebuttal. 

    I hope this brief summary is close.  
    EmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    "What you are doing, is listing facts, and listing difference; then asserting that this means he is wrong. You havent
    explained, justified or presented an argument as to why these observable facts show his arguments are wrong, and you have provided no explanation, justification or argument that explains why you think these differences are relevant."

    Those obvious differences and facts is the justification and argument. The tracks appear to converge, because they are receding parallel lines going away from the observer. The rays i pointed out are not anywhere near the observer. They start in the clouds and go away from the observer. I really can't dumb it down any more, but feel free to continue denying that I've pointed this out repeatedly! I thoroughly enjoy repeating myself while you do a little rhetorical dance around every point I make.

    Once again, I've pointed out obvious differences in the circumstances and you strap on your blinders and lie about my refutations, it's quite dishonest and literally a waste of time, but these kids seem to look up to you, despite the countless rhetorical fallacies in your arguments, and thus I am facing 3-4 thoughtless individuals. One who cannot develop an original rational thought, one who thinks he's a resurrected alien, and of course the flip flopper. It's as though I don't stand a chance. My only hope is that someone with a critically able mind will chance upon this conversation and be able to think for himself, and recognize your blatant denial and rhetorical fallaciousness. 

    1.) I am completely acknowledging 100%, in it's entirety, that you are pointing out obvious differences in the circumstances. That's exactly what you're doing, I've said that's exactly what you're doing, and we agree that's' exactly what you're doing.

    Please don't pretend as if I'm not acknowledging what you're presenting. In each one of my replies on this point, I am pointing out EXACTLY what you're doing, and why I think it's completely irrelevant.

    2.) At the time I asked where on earth your refutation was that you claimed he ignored (I haven't seen much since, but don't care much for perusing the last 3 pages of posts that aren't addressed to me either): I pointed out that what you said is not a refutation.

    What you did, was simply listing the differences between train tracks on the ground, and light rays coming from a cloud; and then asserting that because they are different in some respects, that they can't both be the same thing.

    Rather than being dishonest; this is actually what you're doing, and you continue to do now; in fact, I think the problem is that you don't fully understand the argument I'm presenting, so I'll go into a little more detail.

    3.) To paraphrase Pogue a little, because I understand both of your arguments:

    His argument, is that the sun is producing a number of parallel rays of light to the earth: this means it becomes the vanishing point. On a 2d plane, such as rail road tracks, parallel lines will appear to converge at the vanishing point. His images and text explain that because it's not on a 2 plane, but an object in the sky producing parallel lines moving downwards onto the earth, it looks different than railroads, and could produce the effect.

    Whether or not you think that's right if you want to argue against it; for the purposes of a debate, you need to provide an argument as to why the sun in the sky at 95 million miles producing parallel lines to the earth wouldn't produce the effects seen there due to the examples of perspective that were given.

    Now; given that's your job; there are  multiple ways you can do that; but simply saying that one is different from the other means it can't be perspective is not an argument.

    Now; in your irate rebuttal here; you've gone on to point out a few examples of what is different.

    We get that.

    I know that.

    This is my point....

    What you don't do, is make any attempt to discuss or argue why anything you're saying is actually relevant.

    "The tracks appear to converge, because they are receding parallel lines going away from the observer. The rays i pointed out are not anywhere near the observer. They start in the clouds and go away from the observer.

    Perfect: Tracks appear to converge because they are receding parallel lines going away from the observer. You've just said that the rays go away from the observer. The example image Pogue provided showed the light going away from the observer.

    So indeed, according to your argument, and pogues, receding parallel lines will appear to converge as they move away from the observer. This is, like, Perspective 101.

    So, that's one fact, and observation.

    You then say the suns rays don't count, because they are "not anywhere near the observer".

    Why on earth does whether they are near the observer or not have any relevance? I don't know: you didn't say. It's kinda hard to say that this is a rebuttal when you don't explain the reason he's wrong and you're right. (You know, like I'm doing now, and you claim I don't).


    Pogue has pretty much said that if the earth is a sphere (which it is) the suns rays are receding parallel lines and thus appear to converge at the vanishing point (the sun). This means that you would get suns rays appearing to emanate from a single location in the sky, and perspective accounts for the rest when some of these light rays are blocked.

    Train tracks are on the ground, on a flat plane, with a vanishing point at 0 degrees at eye level. The sun i(according to pogues argument) is 95 million miles away, in the sky, with clouds or objects in the way at an orthogonal angle to the earths surface, and thus is going to produce different perspective effects.

    Unless your going to show some detailed examples that demonstrate why what he's proposed isn't explainable by perspective effects, and how being "near" or "far" effects perspective; then the problem with your argument is EXACTLY what I said it was; you're just throwing out differences, and asserting that the differences are relevant to the point at hand.

    That's not the way a scientific argument works.

    But please; go ahead and tell me why this detailed explanation is just "asserting" things, or "ignoring your refutation". Because quite frankly, if you think anyone believes you when I produce a detailed refutation like this, and you go on a dismissive rant about how I'm asserting things; you are sorely mistaken.
    PogueEmeryPearsonLogicVault
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    I can't honestly address the very many "I have done this or that's" in your post, because it's not certain what you're speaking about.

    Let me jog your memory: Perhaps in the future you should try and defend the stuff you claim, it may make it easier to remember some of the more outlandish nonsense!

    "What made you foolishly conclude that the beam was traveling from a lower index to a higher index? Common sense tells me that the entire tank was of one consistency, ie. all sugar water. "

    The laser is clearly refracted in the video, it bends up and down, quite happily, moves, etc: with this response you claimed that this water is one medium, and being one medium is no barrier to refraction (because we clearly see refraction occurring in the video).


    "For refraction to be even the slightest bit responsible for over 60 feet of missing curvature, which hopefully, we are moving back towards in conversation, we would need to be changing mediums for one, this is in and of itself ignored, not to mention the proven fact that refraction has ever done this action in any controlled and practical experiment, only the exact opposite is duplicated in every experiment. Refraction has been openly pointed out to cause an object to appear lower, if not inverted. I can site the experiments again."

    Here you have claimed that refraction requires a change of medium.


    The first comment, and the second comment can't both be true.


    So, in this example; you have contradicted your own position you made a few posts before.

    I also feel it important to point out the second part of that second comment:

    "not to mention the proven fact that refraction has ever done this action in any controlled and practical experiment, only the exact opposite is duplicated in every experiment. Refraction has been openly pointed out to cause an object to appear lower, if not inverted. I can site the experiments again."

    If you pay attention to these two sentences:

    - The video shows refraction can do that action in a controlled and practical experiment.
    - This is obviously not the exact opposite in every experiment.
    - This video clearly shows the light not appearing lower.


    What happened: is this video literally blew apart your entire position by proving every claim you just made. The only argument you had to offer to refute the video, was at first simply foot stamping at how it was irrelevant. And then when pressed, the first comment in this reply; where you basically contradicted what you just said before.

    So this basically handles the first example in the list where you contradicted yourself in order to try and dismiss an opponents argument.

    PogueEmeryPearson
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Crepuscular rays

    Rammshutu said:
    "Whether or not you think that's right if you want to argue against it; for the purposes of a debate, you need to provide an argument as to why the sun in the sky at 95 million miles producing parallel lines to the earth wouldn't produce the effects seen there due to the examples of perspective that were given."

    Not really sure why you worded the point like that, aside from it being incoherent (where is "there"?), it largely continues to ignore my image. Aside from the obvious fact that i have repeatedly done what you deem is "needed", most every person that isn't vested in this argument, or incredibly biased, should have already understood the argument. Of course there are the ones that spend most every waking moment for The past year or so  The images the opponent provides are of obstructions far enough away from the sun to produce what appears to be parallel lines in some images,

    where the sun is not in the image, or the obstruction. Then there are images where the sun is relatively far enough away from the obstructions, so that the lines do appear to converge at a distance, where the sun is. These rays also come toward the observer, as is nearly identical, and a defining characteristic that makes the tracks appear to not run parallel, or intersect, or the same distance from each other their entire length.
    This is consistent with what we know about perspective, that parallel lines, when viewed from some, but not all angles, converge. Agreed?


    And the same here.


    Obviously, the sun is not just above the trees here, but if it were, and there was a tree on the opposite side of the sun, it would throw some rays in the opposite direction, as we see here in the original, largely ignored image that I presented.


    Maybe you can understand my point now? For this to happen with a sun that is 95,000,000 miles away, the earth's atmosphere would have to behave as a concave lens that diverges the rays as it enters the clouds.


    Unless you guys are advocating for concave earth now, I think it is clear that this is evidence that instead suggests a small, close sun, and the errortosthenes experiment is squashed, eliminating another "proof" of a spherical earth.



    This is all getting a bit off topic. The sun and it's composition and altitude isn't the shape of the earth. The evidence is that different shadows at different locations prove that the earth is a ball, and is impossible on a flat surface. Since it has been conclusively shown that it is possible, this statement is another false one.
    EmeryPearsonLogicVault
    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   -  
    Lets skim over the Ad-homs, and attacks, shall we?

    So, as stated; Pogue produced an explanation of why the images are possible on a spherical earth with a 95 million mile away sun. It's your job, if this is a rational debate, rather than a poop flinging contest, to try and show why these images are not possible.

    Simply saying they are not possible, would be assertion; and to provide a counter explanation, rather than explaining why they are not possible; would be largely irrelevant.

    So, lets take your actual arguments.

    "The images the opponent provides are of obstructions far enough away from the sun to produce what appears to be parallel lines in some images"

    Where the sun is not in the image, or the obstruction. Then there are images where the sun is relatively far enough away from the obstructions, so that the lines do appear to converge at a distance, where the sun is. These rays also come toward the observer, as is nearly identical, and a defining characteristic that makes the tracks appear to not run parallel, or intersect, or the same distance from each other their entire length."


    So far, this is a fairly broad description of what weappear to be seeing,.

    "This is consistent with what we know about perspective, that parallel lines, when viewed from some, but not all angles, converge. Agreed?"

    No that not correct.

    Parallel lines appear to converge because a 1 meter ruler appears as a smaller angular size at 100m from your face, than it does 10m from your face because of basic trigonometry.

    This means, as they get at a higher distance, parallel lines will always appear to converge; you may have issues of field of view; where you don't see enough of either end to see them appear to converge, or they maybe horizontal and across your field of view, which minimizes the amount of convergence: but if one portion of the tracks is further away from you than another, they will be appearing to converge.


    "Obviously, the sun is not just above the trees here, but if it were, and there was a tree on the opposite side of the sun, it would throw some rays in the opposite direction, as we see here in the original, largely ignored image that I presented."

    It's not particularly clear what you're arguing: You seem to be saying that the sun isn't just above the tree's, but if it were, it would produce the image you just presented? That makes no sense; if your saying that if the sun was somewhere it was not, it would produce the image you would see, it would likely mean you have to go back to the drawing board with your argument.

    But let me tease out what I think you're saying: You're saying that if light appears to be moving away from the observer then the sun can't be a long distance: this is the only way I can interpret what you're saying to actually be a rational argument against the sun being at approximately optical infinity.

    That's fine.

    But none of the images you have presented show light coming in the different direction. The tree example, all the rays appear to be coming forward. In the cloud example; all the rays appear to be coming forward.

    After all this; your entire premise, is based upon something that doesn't even appear to be true; meaning that the majority of your argument thus far is mostly chaff.


    "Maybe you can understand my point now? For this to happen with a sun that is 95,000,000 miles away, the earth's atmosphere would have to behave as a concave lens that diverges the rays as it enters the clouds."

    It doesn't, and doesn't need to.








    ErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:


    I'm actually interested in going back to this experiment.

    The purpose of this "experiment", is to take a long distance image, and attempt to tell whether we see the amount of image cut off that is consistent with the amount of cut off we should see due to the earth dipping away. Right?

    If you're scientific; this means that you have to consider this evidence for a spherical earth if you made this measurement at Mobile: and showed broadly accurate results for how much curvature you see. Right?

    As you've repeatedly pointed to this experiment: Can I presume you have analyzed it in detail? Have you performed an analysis and cross referenced the measurements to make sure that they are accurate? Or did you just feel it agreed with you and so posted it without validating the conclusions?

    How willing are you to stand by the conclusions of the experiment? If the correct amount of curvature cut off is there, and it's obvious it's there in the image, and you missed it despite having performed analysis on the video, and despite me asking you to confirm you are confident in the experiment, would you not agree that this casts significant doubt on your ability to accurately and honestly analyze data?

    I will give you this: If I made a claim about an image; and was asked to confirm whether I was confident in that claim was accurate: and it was shown not just to be wrong by some unknown process or innaccuracy: but it was shown to be self-evidently and obviously wrong: then I would assuredly agree that I had issues with accurately and honestly analyzing data, and I would have to reassess my approach to arguments in the future.



    SilverishGoldNova
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:



    Obviously, the sun is not just above the trees here, but if it were, and there was a tree on the opposite side of the sun, it would throw some rays in the opposite direction, as we see here in the original, largely ignored image that I presented.


    The two images display the same phenomenon.

    In the former you concede that the apparent point where the lines converge does not represent  the placement of the sun but is a trick of perspective.

    In the latter you would like us to think that for some reason now it does now represent the placement of the sun and isn't a trick of perspective, but offer no proof to support this and offer no reason why this should be treated exactly the same as the first image which is understood to be a trick of perspective.

    Oh FYI you are strawmanning again with your explanation of "you must think the atmosphere is concave". If you don't even know what the actual scientific argument is, don't look a fool by just making up whatever first comes to your head and pretending it's the scientific basis you're meant to be arguing against.
    ErfisflatGooberrySilverishGoldNovaEmeryPearsonLogicVault
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:

    So, the good news here, is that it seems that if you want to make @Erfisflat go quiet and slink off out of a thread like Homer Simpson through a bush, all you need to do is ask him whether he actually performed any detailed analysis on the video and data he asserts is true, and asking him to state, for the record, that it would be reasonable to conclude he were incompetent, or dishonest if the video he claimed showed no curvature: actually, say, showed exactly the predicted amount of curvature.

    Hell, if he said that, I'd even go so far as to produce video evidence of objectively measurable atmospheric refraction and objects appearing higher from an experiment even he would except.
    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNovaEmeryPearson
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    Even my yard is not strictly flat. I am not sure what "flat Earth" claims aim to accomplish, when they contradict everything we can see with a naked eye. Scientific theories exist to describe the world around us, not to contradict it.
    ErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited May 2018
    MayCaesar said:
    Even my yard is not strictly flat. I am not sure what "flat Earth" claims aim to accomplish, when they contradict everything we can see with a naked eye. Scientific theories exist to describe the world around us, not to contradict it.
    Basic common sense should be applied. By stating the earth is flat, we dont mean without hills or mountains, we mean to say that water is flat and level, which is a fact. The earth, or what we know of it is mostly water, ergo, the earth is NOT a ball, or it is flat.
    EmeryPearsonLogicVault
    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
Sign In or Register to comment.

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