Is the Earth flat? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

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





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

Is the Earth flat?
in Earth Science

The Earth is flat. 
  1. ?

    21 votes
    1. Yes
      19.05%
    2. No
      80.95%
Retired DebateIslander, Former Earth Science Community Moderator, and ex-Flat Earther. 



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • NopeNope 324 Pts
    edited January 7

    I posted this before and no one responded so I will post it again

    I am going to try and proove the earth is round. 

    First I will counter many flat earther arguments.

    YOU CANNOT USE SOMETHING AS EVIDENCE IF YOU WOULD EXPECT IT IN BOTH A FLAT AND ROUND EARTH MODELS- The earth looks flat. Proves nothing. The sun is 400 times bigger then the moon yet it looks the same size. The sun is also 400 farther away. The moon and sun appear to rotate around the earth. Well I could also say the earth appears to be rotating. Yes off course the moon appears to have a similar path through the sky. The globe earth model shows that the earth rotates and seen the moon orbits so slowly they appre to have the same

    Olbers paradoxes- Are current model says the unaverse is not inafntly old and large so this proves nothing.

    Airys  falier - This experiment was trying to prove aether. It's failer did not prove the earth is stationary but rather aether does not exist.

    Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments- Attempting to prove the diffrence in the speed of light based on the earths motion it failed. But Einstein's theory's suggest the speed of light is always that speed relative to where you are.

    Earth and the stars- Arguing the stars should get closer together when we get closer only shows you don't know how far the stars really are.

    I am also aware many have trouble believing in gravity because they think it is absurd. That is the problem of that person being un able to comprehend gravity not a good proof.

    Why we see the same side of the moon- The moon is tidally locked a very common thing to see in the unaverse. This means as the moon orbits the earth so does the moon rotate and they cancel out.

    Star patterns- Come on. The stars move around the galaxy's to and the start as so far that the motion of the earth really does not change the stars position in the sky.

    A vacuum cannot exist next to a pressure system- The atmosphere gradually gets thinner and thinner until eventually you have a almost vacuum it does not end abruptly.

    Nothing Can move in space- Newtons third law disagrees. You don't need to push of a physical object to move. How do magnets come together. They are not pushing of anything.

    Midnight summers-

    Image result for Celestial Equator Orbit Direction Right Angle Axis of Magnetic Pole to Orbit Axis of Rotation 100 South Magnetic Pole North Geographical Pole Tropic of Cancer South Geographical Pole 230 Tropic of Capricorn North Magnetic Pole

    You see the right angle line to orbit. If the earth were to make one rotation then that line would make a circle that looks like this.

    Image result for arctic circle map

    The globe model says every place within the circle should be able to see a midnight sun. And with atmospheric refraction which I will explain it is most certainly possible to see the midnight sun at the 65 parallel. I don't think it is hard to figure out why they can observe the midnight sun. One rotation and they always stay to on side of that perpendicular line to orbit meaning they can see the sun even at midnight.

    So why don't people witness the mid night sun in the southern hemisphere?

    Image result for southern arctic circle

    Maybe that is because the southern circle only encloses Antarctica and people don't really live their.

    Heat from the sun: What about the heat from the sun? Why is the hole earth not the same temperature? When light from the sun comes to the equator it gets a head on impact straight through the atmosphere. The light that goes to the poles comes at a side ways angle meaning it covers a grater area and has to go through more atmosphere.

    Image result for sun rays earth

    We know sun light going through more atmosphere leeds to less heat because every time the sun sets the heat from the sun decreases and sun sets have sun light coming in at a similar angle. It is like an ongoing sun rise and sun set never getting up over head. This means the suns rays are cooler and the poles don't heat up.

    Many construction projects don't take curvature in to account- Of course. The error would be really small. 1 mile without taking in to account curvature would lead to an error of length of 0.013 millimeters. Some projects do take into account the curvature of the earth. The hadron collider and many bridges.

    Rotating earth misconception explained: Some flat earther turn to arguments about how if the earth where rotating something would happen which it does not. One such argument is that if the earth where rotating the winds would be different. Things on the earth like objects water and air all move with the earth and have it's the same velocity. They move with the earth. We would not expect water or wind to act violently because that would require the direction to be continually changing quiqly. The earth rotates fast but because it is so large and takes around 24 hours to make a full rotation not much gravity is needed to keep us and everything on earth to stay on earth. People only feel something when they accelerate or there is a significant change direction. The earth velocity is pretty much the same and the change in direction is to slow to notice.

    If earth rotates around the sun 12 pm should be day in one side of the earth and night when the earth is on the other side of the earth: The earth actually takes around 23 hours 56 minutes to make a full rotation and because it rotates around the sun it takes around 24 hours tom make one full day night cycle. Their are inaccuracy which are corrected by leap years every four years skipping a leap year every 100 years and skipping the skipping of a leap year every 400 years. Their are still inaccuracy but we don't really worry about them after that. Scene the earth rotates every 23 hours and 56 minutes that is how it rotates to the stars. So this also explains why different starts appear during different seasons.

    Flight patterns: Flat earthers may use flight patterns as evidence. A lot of their arguments fail because they show a map of a square flat earth, say it makes not sense but it makes sense on a round flat earth. They did not prove the earth is flat but rather were proving the earth is not a square flat earth. If one wants to prove flight patterns don't make sense on a globe earth one must show a map of a GLOBE EARTH. Second many fail to consider wind speed and direction, supplies, weather conditions and how close the flight path is to emergency airports in case on needs to make an emergency landing. Also how accurate is your source? How do you know it is a real flight?

    Light refraction: Many flat earthers turn to the argument that they can observe something that should not be possible on a globe earth because of globe earth curvature. But the truth is it is possible to see farther then you might think you should due to atmospheric refraction. Here is how light refraction works. When light inters a substance that causes it to slow down it bends toward the normal which is a line perpendicular to the line separating the substance and the substance the light came from at the point of entry.

    Image result for light refraction

    When light inters a substance that speeds up light it will bend away from the normal.

    Image result for light refraction diagram slower medium to faster medium

    The higher the difference in speeds between substances or a vacuum the bigger the bend. This is why water magnifies things. It is because the light makes the object look closer. You can play with lenses and you would see that is statement holds true. If you can control where your light source is you should be able to see this effect. Now let us apply this to earth. The Earth atmosphere normally gets less dens as you go higher meaning light travels fast the higher you go which means the light bends away from the normal line the higher you go and toward the normal line the lower you go. This means light follows the curvature of the earth sort of. The less dens air above always bends the light away from the normal toward the more dens air which means it bends the light down. But wait the earth is curved so the earth's surface is going lower to just as the light is going down. When there is cold air on the ground and warm or hot air right above the larger difference means the light bends more and you have yourself a mirage. Given the right conditions you can see farther then you would normally be able to. Many many flat earth arguments therefor prove nothing.

    Caroline effect: Hurricanes always rotate counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. This is because of the Caroline effect. The farther you get from the equator the slower you are spinning. Hurricanes always have their wind move with the faster rotating side which is closer to the equator and because the rotate the wind must move agents the slower moving side farther from the equator. This cannot be explained by a rotating flat earth as hurricanes would spin in the same direction. For all you who ask why don't other objects rotate like this it has to be really big for the difference to make a difference. Hurricanes are big.

    Solar eclipse explained: Many flat earthers also turn to solar eclipse. They argue that the moons shadow moves from west to east even through the earth rotates counter clock wise when viewed from above the north pole and the moon orbits the same directions but takes a month to make one full orbit. They argue that the shadow should there for move from east to west. While this may seem at first like a logical conclusion when you think about it its completely not logical. If you turn in a light and put your finger in front of it so it has a shadow then wave your finger from side to side then move your finger closer and farther and wave your finger from side you should come to the this conclusion. The closer your finger is to the light source the faster your shadow moves when you move your finger a little. Second we must consider the moon is farther from the center of earth then the surface of the earth which means it moves faster than it may seem at first. Flat earthers who make this argument seem to be assuming the moon is directly on the surface of the earth rotating a lot slower than it does. The moon is farther from the earth meaning it needs to move less to get it's shadow to move fast and it rotates faster than one may first think. 

    Lunar eclipse: Many flat earth people do a bad job explaining lunar eclipse. What could create such a shadow if not earth? You can also see the shadow is round. If another object was to get in between the earth and moon such an effect as many flat earthers claim to cause, we should be able to observe its effects on the stars. Surly if it can get in between the earth and sun and cause the moon to get dark it would have some effect on the stars.  Yet no effect has been seen on the stars that are around the moon just before the lunar eclipse. This brings me to my next point.

    Full moon: There is a problem with the flat earth theory when considering full moons. The flat earth theory seems to suggest the full moons can only happen in the southern direction.

    Image result for flat earth sun

    We know this is not the case. Just wait for full moons and note their location in the sky. Are they to the North, West, East or South. If the moon is in the norther direction you know something is not right with the flat earth theory. This suggest the only way a full moon can work is if some other light source is lighting up the moon. It would at times need to be under the moon. The problem here is that if it where under the moon it should also illuminate us. If only the top side of it were illuminating and the bottom side matched the sky we should see its effect on the starts which we DON'T. We also see shadows in the moon creators which shows us the light is not coming from the moon itself and yes reflectors can be a sphere. Anything that reflects light can be considered a reflector which would make everything you see that does not produce light a reflector.

    Seasons: Flat earthers often do a bad job explaining seasons. A common explanation I receive for seasons from a flat earther is that during June the sun goes in a small orbit around the North pole and when it is December the sun goes on a large orbit being closer to the south pole.

    Image result for flat earth sun path

    While this may sound reasonable at first it falls apart when you consider the months of December.

    Image result for flat earth sun map december june

    Look at December. In order to cover all the area we know the sun covers the sun light needs to loop around the entire earth and leave a dark spot. Some flat earthers may say light bends like this because of the temperature. It does not explain why the light goes farther in the cold air of the south pole compared to the cold air of the north pole. Light travels faster in warmer air. Why does the light go farther in the colder air. In a globe earth this is easily explained as the sun always cavers half of the earth and the earths titled axes as it rotates the sun explains seasons.

    Tides: Tides are in the globe earth model dependent on the moon and sun. Scene the moon has around twice the impact on tides the sun only weakens or strengthens the tides.  It does not cause its own tides. Some flat earthers may argue the earth is way more massive and should attacked the water. It does. This does not mean the water should be totally leved. Record the tides for some time and you should see a pattern. When the moon, sun and earth are near aliment the tides get strong and the tides are weakest when the moon, earth and sun create a around 90 angle. Many flat earthers believe that it is just the rising and falling of the earth under the water. However there is no evidence this is possible and plenty of evidence the earth does not move up and down. Flat earthers may also argue that some bodies of water like lakes and inland body's don't have tides. The moon is not going to pull the water out of the lakes to cause tides. Only water that wraps around the earth normally have tides. This is because water from the place without the gravity of the moon pulling it up and move toward under the moon or to the opposite side of the earth. No water is pulled of the lakes and oceans but rather the water relocates from the ocean but there is no water to relocate on an inland body of water.

    I await your response. 

    Pogueanonymousdebater
  • NopeNope 324 Pts
    Hellow. Any one going to respond. Not again.
  • @Nope I'm working on it, got some other projects i'm working on too.
    NopeBaconToes
    Retired DebateIslander, Former Earth Science Community Moderator, and ex-Flat Earther. 
  • @Nope I definitely agree with your main point at the beginning about how you can't argue that the Earth is flat if that also supports that the Earth is round. However, there was one key point you missed in your huge argument. That point is that if the Earth is flat why aren't there any pictures of the end of the world. Think about it, if the Earth was flat, there would have to be an end of the Earth so why aren't there any pictures of it. I was watching an interview with some flat-earthers on the news a couple months ago and they said that you can't go there by yourself and there are "guided tours" to the end of the world, but where do you schedule your tour. You could easily look up tours to the end of the world and you would come up with joke articles. THE EARTH IS NOT FLAT!!!
  • NopeNope 324 Pts
    averyapro My problem with that argument is that barely anyone goes to the south pole which is where the flat earthers on this site think the edge of the earth is.
     They say Antarctica is actually an ice wall.
    Image result for flat earth map
    They argue that since the government knows the earth is flat they have bin to Antarctica and hide the information from the rest of the people. While I don't agree with that argument I don't have a good counter because it is true that only government scientist actually go there. So I have to find other ways to convince flat earthers the earth is round.
  • Ha Ha.
    Still arguing this old nonsense.

    Why does it go dark at night?
  • feafea 76 Pts
    @Fredsnephew I believe we have explained that before. 

    @Silverishgoldnova Do you have the rebuttal to Nope's arguments yet? 
  • Why does it go dark at night?

    You've never been able to offer a realistic answer to this question.
  • namemcnamenamemcname 88 Pts
    edited January 10
    @Nope It seems Silver isn't replying to you. He's either forgotten or just doesn't want to respond because he knows he can't refute it.
  • NopeNope 324 Pts
    namemcname Silver was last active on January 7, 2018. Two days before that Sliver said Silver was working on it and Silver was busy. My argument is a long one and will take time and may be hard to refute (I don't see how one could logically refute it). I hope silver is just busy or has a long rebuttal but I don't know. I do hope Silver responds or maybe the other flat earther. I am taking to you Erfisflat. : )
  • "Airys  falier - This experiment was trying to prove aether. It's failer did not prove the earth is stationary but rather aether does not exist."

    This is an unsupported claim. You haven't proved anything by this statement. It is just an assertment.

    "Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments- Attempting to prove the diffrence in the speed of light based on the earths motion it failed. But Einstein's theory's suggest the speed of light is always that speed relative to where you are."

    That isn't even what the experiment was trying to prove. It was intending to prove the motion of the earth relative to the aether. This is why Einstein said:

    "I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment."- Physicist, Albert Einstein

    And:

    "...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked...that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result."- Physicist, Albert Einstein

    "Earth and the stars- Arguing the stars should get closer together when we get closer only shows you don't know how far the stars really are."

    Another assertion. Prove that the stars are "light years away" then we have an argument.

    "I am also aware many have trouble believing in gravity because they think it is absurd. That is the problem of that person being un able to comprehend gravity not a good proof."

    Gravity is a theory. Using a theory to support an assumption that you intend to prove is a logical ffallacy.

    "Why we see the same side of the moon- The moon is tidally locked a very common thing to see in the unaverse. This means as the moon orbits the earth so does the moon rotate and they cancel out."

    Yes, I'm aware of what the heliocentric model claims. Prove this claim.

    "Star patterns- Come on. The stars move around the galaxy's to and the start as so far that the motion of the earth really does not change the stars position in the sky."

    Incoherent statement. Ignored.

    "A vacuum cannot exist next to a pressure system- The atmosphere gradually gets thinner and thinner until eventually you have a almost vacuum it does not end abruptly."

    You're just reasserting heliocentric claims. Prove that this is possible.

    "Nothing Can move in space- Newtons third law disagrees. You don't need to push of a physical object to move. How do magnets come together. They are not pushing of anything."

    Newtons third law does not agree. You cannot push off of a vacuum. The force exerted from a rocket would be cancelled out due to the vacuum. 

    "Midnight summers-

    Image result for Celestial Equator Orbit Direction Right Angle Axis of Magnetic Pole to Orbit Axis of Rotation 100 South Magnetic Pole North Geographical Pole Tropic of Cancer South Geographical Pole 230 Tropic of Capricorn North Magnetic Pole

    You see the right angle line to orbit. If the earth were to make one rotation then that line would make a circle that looks like this.

    Image result for arctic circle map

    The globe model says every place within the circle should be able to see a midnight sun. And with atmospheric refraction which I will explain it is most certainly possible to see the midnight sun at the 65 parallel. I don't think it is hard to figure out why they can observe the midnight sun. One rotation and they always stay to on side of that perpendicular line to orbit meaning they can see the sun even at midnight."

    Are you arguing against my claims, or are you making up flat earth claims. There is no midnight sun at the south "pole". That's something you need to prove.

    "So why don't people witness the mid night sun in the southern hemisphere?

    Image result for southern arctic circle

    Maybe that is because the southern circle only encloses Antarctica and people don't really live their."

    So there is no evidence of the midnight sun in Antarctica point conceded then?

    "Heat from the sun: What about the heat from the sun? Why is the hole earth not the same temperature? When light from the sun comes to the equator it gets a head on impact straight through the atmosphere. The light that goes to the poles comes at a side ways angle meaning it covers a grater area and has to go through more atmosphere."

    Yes, once again, you assert the heliocentric models claims. I'm telling you it's rubbish. Distance from the heat source should dictate the temperature. Not any particular angle.

    Image result for sun rays earth

    "We know sun light going through more atmosphere leeds to less heat because every time the sun sets the heat from the sun decreases and sun sets have sun light coming in at a similar angle. It is like an ongoing sun rise and sun set never getting up over head. This means the suns rays are cooler and the poles don't heat up."

    The same exact thing happens on a flat earth with distance being the deciding factor of heat. For instance, in January the earth is supposedly closest to the sun. This is impractical, and cannot be shown on any practical scale.

    "Many construction projects don't take curvature in to account- Of course. The error would be really small. 1 mile without taking in to account curvature would lead to an error of length of 0.013 millimeters."

    False. With one mile on the earth, we get a whopping 8 inches of curve.

     "Some projects do take into account the curvature of the earth. The hadron collider and many bridges."

    This goes unsourced, but I found a bridge that took the earth's supposed curvature into account.

    • Because of the height of the towers (693 ft or 211 m) and their distance apart (4,260 ft or 1,298 m), the curvature of the Earth's surface had to be taken into account when designing the bridge—the towers are 1 5⁄8inches (41.275 mm) farther apart at their tops than at their bases; they are not parallel to each other.[3][17]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verrazano-Narrows_Bridge

    The bridge may account for a curved surface of water, this doesn't mean the surface is curved.

     


    "Rotating earth misconception explained: Some flat earther turn to arguments about how if the earth where rotating something would happen which it does not. One such argument is that if the earth where rotating the winds would be different. Things on the earth like objects water and air all move with the earth and have it's the same velocity. They move with the earth. We would not expect water or wind to act violently because that would require the direction to be continually changing quiqly. The earth rotates fast but because it is so large and takes around 24 hours to make a full rotation not much gravity is needed to keep us and everything on earth to stay on earth. People only feel something when they accelerate or there is a significant change direction. The earth velocity is pretty much the same and the change in direction is to slow to notice."

    Similar to a train and it's smoke keeping the same velocity, but the smoke not following it along going up in a straight line? Riiiight. I'm aware of the amount of conjecture the heliocentric model has taken upon itself without evidence, there is no need for you to explain it to me. I've studied it extensively. You are not proving anything here.

    "If earth rotates around the sun 12 pm should be day in one side of the earth and night when the earth is on the other side of the earth: The earth actually takes around 23 hours 56 minutes to make a full rotation and because it rotates around the sun it takes around 24 hours tom make one full day night cycle. Their are inaccuracy which are corrected by leap years every four years skipping a leap year every 100 years and skipping the skipping of a leap year every 400 years. Their are still inaccuracy but we don't really worry about them after that. Scene the earth rotates every 23 hours and 56 minutes that is how it rotates to the stars. So this also explains why different starts appear during different seasons."

    Conjecture. See above statement. What it appears you are trying to do is take some flat earth claims and refute them.

    "Flight patterns: Flat earthers may use flight patterns as evidence. A lot of their arguments fail because they show a map of a square flat earth, say it makes not sense but it makes sense on a round flat earth. They did not prove the earth is flat but rather were proving the earth is not a square flat earth. If one wants to prove flight patterns don't make sense on a globe earth one must show a map of a GLOBE EARTH. Second many fail to consider wind speed and direction, supplies, weather conditions and how close the flight path is to emergency airports in case on needs to make an emergency landing. Also how accurate is your source? How do you know it is a real flight?"

    Not my argument. Not even refuting anything. Even if it was an attempt, it would be for or against a particular map. Moving on.

    "Light refraction: Many flat earthers turn to the argument that they can observe something that should not be possible on a globe earth because of globe earth curvature. But the truth is it is possible to see farther then you might think you should due to atmospheric refraction. Here is how light refraction works. When light inters a substance that causes it to slow down it bends toward the normal which is a line perpendicular to the line separating the substance and the substance the light came from at the point of entry.

    Image result for light refraction

    When light inters a substance that speeds up light it will bend away from the normal.

    Image result for light refraction diagram slower medium to faster medium

    The higher the difference in speeds between substances or a vacuum the bigger the bend. This is why water magnifies things. It is because the light makes the object look closer. You can play with lenses and you would see that is statement holds true. If you can control where your light source is you should be able to see this effect. Now let us apply this to earth. The Earth atmosphere normally gets less dens as you go higher meaning light travels fast the higher you go which means the light bends away from the normal line the higher you go and toward the normal line the lower you go. This means light follows the curvature of the earth sort of. The less dens air above always bends the light away from the normal toward the more dens air which means it bends the light down. But wait the earth is curved so the earth's surface is going lower to just as the light is going down. When there is cold air on the ground and warm or hot air right above the larger difference means the light bends more and you have yourself a mirage. Given the right conditions you can see farther then you would normally be able to. Many many flat earth arguments therefor prove nothing."

    A ton of assumptions. Refraction causes an object to appear LOWER than it's actual position. Anyone can prove this by filling a glass with water and putting an object on the other side of it. I don't know exactly where a vacuum would come into play, since chicago, being visible across lake Michigan some 60 miles away, wouldn't be in a vacuum. Refraction doesn't work that way, no matter how many diagrams and assertions you include to "prove it".

    Caroline effect: Hurricanes always rotate counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. This is because of the Caroline effect. The farther you get from the equator the slower you are spinning. Hurricanes always have their wind move with the faster rotating side which is closer to the equator and because the rotate the wind must move agents the slower moving side farther from the equator. This cannot be explained by a rotating flat earth as hurricanes would spin in the same direction. For all you who ask why don't other objects rotate like this it has to be really big for the difference to make a difference. Hurricanes are big.

    This doesn't prove the earth is a spinning ball, the flat earth has a equally convincing explanation for the "caroline" effect, which involves electromagnetism and the diamagnetic properties of water, which you probably wouldn't understand.

    "Solar eclipse explained: Many flat earthers also turn to solar eclipse. They argue that the moons shadow moves from west to east even through the earth rotates counter clock wise when viewed from above the north pole and the moon orbits the same directions but takes a month to make one full orbit. They argue that the shadow should there for move from east to west. While this may seem at first like a logical conclusion when you think about it its completely not logical. If you turn in a light and put your finger in front of it so it has a shadow then wave your finger from side to side then move your finger closer and farther and wave your finger from side you should come to the this conclusion. The closer your finger is to the light source the faster your shadow moves when you move your finger a little. Second we must consider the moon is farther from the center of earth then the surface of the earth which means it moves faster than it may seem at first. Flat earthers who make this argument seem to be assuming the moon is directly on the surface of the earth rotating a lot slower than it does. The moon is farther from the earth meaning it needs to move less to get it's shadow to move fast and it rotates faster than one may first think."

    This doesn't address the main point of the argument. We see the moon moving from east to west. The shadow of the moon during the eclipse moved towards the southeast.

    "Lunar eclipse: Many flat earth people do a bad job explaining lunar eclipse. What could create such a shadow if not earth? "

    Who cares. It certainly couldn't be the earth, which has been proved to be without curvature, axial or orbital movement. The selenelion refutes this, where the sun and moon both are above the horizon when the lunar eclipse happened. There is also the matter of direction the shadow moves. Which is exactly opposite the direction the heliocentric model claims it should.


    "You can also see the shadow is round. If another object was to get in between the earth and moon such an effect as many flat earthers claim to cause, we should be able to observe its effects on the stars. Surly if it can get in between the earth and sun and cause the moon to get dark it would have some effect on the stars.  Yet no effect has been seen on the stars that are around the moon just before the lunar eclipse. This brings me to my next point."

    What if no object at all causes the shadow on the moon?


    The hornet's foot has caused this round shadow.

    "Full moon: There is a problem with the flat earth theory when considering full moons. The flat earth theory seems to suggest the full moons can only happen in the southern direction.

    Image result for flat earth sun

    We know this is not the case. Just wait for full moons and note their location in the sky. Are they to the North, West, East or South. If the moon is in the norther direction you know something is not right with the flat earth theory. This suggest the only way a full moon can work is if some other light source is lighting up the moon. It would at times need to be under the moon. The problem here is that if it where under the moon it should also illuminate us. If only the top side of it were illuminating and the bottom side matched the sky we should see its effect on the starts which we DON'T. We also see shadows in the moon creators which shows us the light is not coming from the moon itself and yes reflectors can be a sphere. Anything that reflects light can be considered a reflector which would make everything you see that does not produce light a reflector."

    I have no clue where you found this asinine argument, nor do I understand the incoherent rebuttal set forth.

    "Seasons: Flat earthers often do a bad job explaining seasons. A common explanation I receive for seasons from a flat earther is that during June the sun goes in a small orbit around the North pole and when it is December the sun goes on a large orbit being closer to the south pole.

    Image result for flat earth sun path

    While this may sound reasonable at first it falls apart when you consider the months of December.

    Image result for flat earth sun map december june

    "Look at December. In order to cover all the area we know the sun covers the sun light needs to loop around the entire earth and leave a dark spot. Some flat earthers may say light bends like this because of the temperature. It does not explain why the light goes farther in the cold air of the south pole compared to the cold air of the north pole. Light travels faster in warmer air. Why does the light go farther in the colder air. In a globe earth this is easily explained as the sun always cavers half of the earth and the earths titled axes as it rotates the sun explains seasons."

    This is a 24 hour midnight sun argument. You haven't proved that happens. See above.

    "Tides: Tides are in the globe earth model dependent on the moon and sun. Scene the moon has around twice the impact on tides the sun only weakens or strengthens the tides.  It does not cause its own tides. Some flat earthers may argue the earth is way more massive and should attacked the water. It does. This does not mean the water should be totally leved. Record the tides for some time and you should see a pattern. When the moon, sun and earth are near aliment the tides get strong and the tides are weakest when the moon, earth and sun create a around 90 angle. Many flat earthers believe that it is just the rising and falling of the earth under the water. However there is no evidence this is possible and plenty of evidence the earth does not move up and down. Flat earthers may also argue that some bodies of water like lakes and inland body's don't have tides. The moon is not going to pull the water out of the lakes to cause tides. Only water that wraps around the earth normally have tides. This is because water from the place without the gravity of the moon pulling it up and move toward under the moon or to the opposite side of the earth. No water is pulled of the lakes and oceans but rather the water relocates from the ocean but there is no water to relocate on an inland body of water.


    Again, this is equally explained in the flat earth model with electromagnetic and diamagnetic water.

    I await your response. 

    Refuting ball earth theory has become boring. It's the same 10 or so "proofs", rinse and repeat. Prove that all bodies of water are curved.

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

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

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • NopeNope 324 Pts
    "This is an unsupported claim. You haven't proved anything by this statement. It is just an assertment."
    "Another assertion. Prove that the stars are "light years away" then we have an argument."
    Star color with brightness and Parallax.

    "Gravity is a theory. Using a theory to support an assumption that you intend to prove is a logical ffallacy."
    Right you are. But I was not using gravity to prove the earth is round. I was just saing that people that dismiss gravity as a theory because they think it is absurd does not mean gravity does not exist.

    "Yes, I'm aware of what the heliocentric model claims. Prove this claim."
    It should be proven when I prove the earth is round. But it is not disprove unless the earth can be proven flat. It was just an explanation to how the moon works in my modle.

    "You're just reasserting heliocentric claims. Prove that this is possible."
    Prove what? The atmosphere gradually thins or that a gradually decreasing pressure system can exists? You could prove eather with a weather balloon.

    "Newtons third law does not agree. You cannot push off of a vacuum. The force exerted from a rocket would be cancelled out due to the vacuum."
    Who said you would be pushing of a vacuum. Magnets don't push of anything. What do you mean the force you exerted from the rocket is cancelled out due to the vacuum? This counter needs more explaining.

    "Are you arguing against my claims, or are you making up flat earth claims."
    I am not arguing agents any one persons claim. I am simply countering common flat earth arguments I happen to see. I am trying to convince any flat earther and so I have to refute arguments they may have which is why I was trying to counter common flat earth arguments.
    "There is no midnight sun at the south "pole". That's something you need to prove." You may not understand. Many of my counters are not man't to be proves but rather to explain how their evidence can be disregarded because it is possible an is expected in the common round earth model. My Evidence comes latter.

    "Yes, once again, you assert the heliocentric models claims. I'm telling you it's rubbish. Distance from the heat source should dictate the temperature. Not any particular angle."
    First if the same amount of heat hits a bigger area each part of that area gets less heat. It stars as sun rays. This is why the farther one gets from the star the weaker the heat. Less heat covers the same amount of space. ANGLE MATTERS.

    "The same exact thing happens on a flat earth with distance being the deciding factor of heat. For instance, in January the earth is supposedly closest to the sun. This is impractical, and cannot be shown on any practical scale."
    What is impractical?

    "False. With one mile on the earth, we get a whopping 8 inches of curve."
    My statement holds true. I did not say how much curvature there was. I said the error in length.

    "This goes unsourced, but I found a bridge that took the earth's supposed curvature into account.
    • Because of the height of the towers (693 ft or 211 m) and their distance apart (4,260 ft or 1,298 m), the curvature of the Earth's surface had to be taken into account when designing the bridge—the towers are 1 5⁄8inches (41.275 mm) farther apart at their tops than at their bases; they are not parallel to each other.[3][17]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verrazano-Narrows_Bridge

    The bridge may account for a curved surface of water, this doesn't mean the surface is curved."

    Thanks for the source I guess. First why in your model would the water be curved? Second why should a bridge care about the curvature of water if it is raised above the water?


    "Similar to a train and it's smoke keeping the same velocity, but the smoke not following it along going up in a straight line? Riiiight. I'm aware of the amount of conjecture the heliocentric model has taken upon itself without evidence, there is no need for you to explain it to me. I've studied it extensively. You are not proving anything here."

    Yet again it is just a counter to any flat earther not a proof. Mass it the resistance to a change in velocity and direction. Smoke does not have a lot of mas. The individual particals are very easily to change their velocity and direction. Air particles can there fore essily change the velocity and direction of the smoke.


    "Conjecture. See above statement. What it appears you are trying to do is take some flat earth claims and refute them."

    Correct!


    "Not my argument. Not even refuting anything. Even if it was an attempt, it would be for or against a particular map. Moving on."

    I have seen SilverishGoldNova and other flat earthers you the flight pattern augment. I was refuting that argument.


    "A ton of assumptions. Refraction causes an object to appear LOWER than it's actual position. Anyone can prove this by filling a glass with water and putting an object on the other side of it. I don't know exactly where a vacuum would come into play, since chicago, being visible across lake Michigan some 60 miles away, wouldn't be in a vacuum. Refraction doesn't work that way, no matter how many diagrams and assertions you include to "prove it".

    Space is almost a vacuum and when I said substance I also want to include the absens of substances. I suggested playing withe lenses to see this effect in action. Diagrams are meant to explain it. Water magnifying things is sporting evidence. Filling a glass of water looking at an object inside and then saying refraction makes things appear lower is a BAD assumption. I would like to quote my teacher "Humans have a bad habit of thinking one example prove something." That is like me saying water magnifies things and that proves my statement. That is why I suggested playing with lenses. It bends this way in one situation so that is how it works in all situations. Um I don't think that is how it works. Many factors dictate how light bends things which I have listed. Mirages also fall right in line with my theory. The way I explained light refraction lines up perfectly with that we observe when observing objects in water in a class at different angles.


    "This doesn't prove the earth is a spinning ball, the flat earth has a equally convincing explanation for the "caroline" effect, which involves electromagnetism and the diamagnetic properties of water, which you probably wouldn't understand."

    I can't counter an argument if you don't explain it to me.


    "This doesn't address the main point of the argument. We see the moon moving from east to west. The shadow of the moon during the eclipse moved towards the southeast."

    Yea the moon moves from east to west from are eyes because the earth rotates counter clockwise when viewing it from the north. But so does the sun so what is your point?" 


    "Who cares. It certainly couldn't be the earth, which has been proved to be without curvature, axial or orbital movement. The selenelion refutes this, where the sun and moon both are above the horizon when the lunar eclipse happened. There is also the matter of direction the shadow moves. Which is exactly opposite the direction the heliocentric model claims it should."

    Atmospheric refraction.


    "What if no object at all causes the shadow on the moon?"

    Explain how that is possible.


    "The hornet's foot has caused this round shadow."

    What does that have to do with anything.


    "This is a 24 hour midnight sun argument. You haven't proved that happens. See above."

    It also applies to other southern places such as Chile, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand and south Africa. Even if it does not due a full loop it still goes curves inward.


    "Again, this is equally explained in the flat earth model with electromagnetic and diamagnetic water."

    Elaborate on the water diamagnetic and electromagnetic property.

    Pogue
  • @Fredsnephew ;

    Because we face away from the Sun, our most significant source of light taking into account luminosity and distance. Due to the expansion of the universe combined with the Doppler Effect, the night sky contains limited stars even on a clear day, less due to light pollution.

    The better question is: why would it be dark at night with a flat Earth? According to Spotlight Sun (where Sun and Moon rotate above the flat Earth), we would still kind of be able to see the Sun even at midnight.
  • I can't take credit for this, but saw it on reddit and had to share.

    "Flat Earthers never seem to appreciate how lucky we are that the Earth is horizontal rather than vertical"
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1328 Pts
    edited April 11
     Ballers be like...


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

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

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • Yup. Pretty much. Any issue with that aside from an appeal to the stone logical fallacy?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1328 Pts
    Ampersand said:
    Yup. Pretty much. Any issue with that aside from an appeal to the stone logical fallacy?
    Nope, seems logical enough for some...


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

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

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1328 Pts
    Kinda like taking the word that we are travelling in multiple directions simultaneously at 800 miles per second...
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Double fallacy this time, with you adding a strawman to your appeal to the stone fallacy this time.

    The evidence for a round moving earth has been explained to you multiple times in the past. Even if you think the evidence is wrong, it would then be a case of me not analysing the evidence correctly rather than just "taking the word" that this is the case. Ergo your point is based on a strawmen rather than reality.
  • Earth = Round 
    ErfisflatAmpersandPogue
  • No the earth is not flat because there have been studies shown for centuries that the earth is round. An argument is why are our globes round and not flat.
    Erfisflat
  • There is an abundance of "evidence" that says the earth is round. We do not know if this is actually real news though. The government has been hiding things from us for years. Examples of this are area 51. For all we know there could be aliens. We will never know until someone runs off the edge of the earth then the government will be forced to tell the truth. 
    Erfisflat
  • There is a lot of evidence that supports that the earth is round. Even though we don't know if this is a true fact, It is a fact that we have been living by for most of our lives and we probably won't know if the earth isn't flat unless some drastic event occurs to prove us wrong.
    Erfisflat
  • The world is not flat.  There are a countless amount of photos not sponsored by NASA or other organizations which could be in a "conspiracy" that show that the earth does, in fact, resemble a circular shape.
    ErfisflatAmpersand
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1328 Pts
    edited April 11
    Ampersand said:
    @Erfisflat

    Double fallacy this time, with you adding a strawman to your appeal to the stone fallacy this time.

    The evidence for a round moving earth has been explained to you multiple times in the past. Even if you think the evidence is wrong, it would then be a case of me not analysing the evidence correctly rather than just "taking the word" that this is the case. Ergo your point is based on a strawmen rather than reality.
    The evidence for a flat stationary earth has been explained to you multiple times in the past, and is more conclusive than any evidence you have.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat

    Double fallacy this time, with you adding a strawman to your appeal to the stone fallacy this time.

    The evidence for a round moving earth has been explained to you multiple times in the past. Even if you think the evidence is wrong, it would then be a case of me not analysing the evidence correctly rather than just "taking the word" that this is the case. Ergo your point is based on a strawmen rather than reality.
    The evidence for a flat stationary earth has been explained to you multiple times in the past, and is more conclusive than any evidence you have.
    Eh, that's your opinion in the form of a baseless claim and does nothing to dispute the logical fallacies of your previous posts that I pointed out.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1328 Pts
    edited April 11
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat

    Double fallacy this time, with you adding a strawman to your appeal to the stone fallacy this time.

    The evidence for a round moving earth has been explained to you multiple times in the past. Even if you think the evidence is wrong, it would then be a case of me not analysing the evidence correctly rather than just "taking the word" that this is the case. Ergo your point is based on a strawmen rather than reality.
    The evidence for a flat stationary earth has been explained to you multiple times in the past, and is more conclusive than any evidence you have.
    Eh, that's your opinion in the form of a baseless claim and does nothing to dispute the logical fallacies of your previous posts that I pointed out.
    You gave your opinion, and I gave mine. Funny how you couldn't get a single vote in the spherical earth debate.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat

    Double fallacy this time, with you adding a strawman to your appeal to the stone fallacy this time.

    The evidence for a round moving earth has been explained to you multiple times in the past. Even if you think the evidence is wrong, it would then be a case of me not analysing the evidence correctly rather than just "taking the word" that this is the case. Ergo your point is based on a strawmen rather than reality.
    The evidence for a flat stationary earth has been explained to you multiple times in the past, and is more conclusive than any evidence you have.
    Eh, that's your opinion in the form of a baseless claim and does nothing to dispute the logical fallacies of your previous posts that I pointed out.
    Meh, you gave your opinion, I gave mine. Funny how you couldn't get a single vote in the spherical earth debate.
    Nice argumentum ad populum logical fallacy. You trying to get in the record books or just incapable of forming a logical argument?

    Also are you referring to the one a few days back where no-one bothered to vote for anyone, including you?
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1328 Pts
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat

    Double fallacy this time, with you adding a strawman to your appeal to the stone fallacy this time.

    The evidence for a round moving earth has been explained to you multiple times in the past. Even if you think the evidence is wrong, it would then be a case of me not analysing the evidence correctly rather than just "taking the word" that this is the case. Ergo your point is based on a strawmen rather than reality.
    The evidence for a flat stationary earth has been explained to you multiple times in the past, and is more conclusive than any evidence you have.
    Eh, that's your opinion in the form of a baseless claim and does nothing to dispute the logical fallacies of your previous posts that I pointed out.
    Meh, you gave your opinion, I gave mine. Funny how you couldn't get a single vote in the spherical earth debate.
    Nice argumentum ad populum logical fallacy. You trying to get in the record books or just incapable of forming a logical argument?

    Also are you referring to the one a few days back where no-one bothered to vote for anyone, including you?
    Yeah, the one where I had to explain some laws of physics to refute your assertions. It's hard to get a vote as a flat earther, is it that hard to get a vote for a truism?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat

    Double fallacy this time, with you adding a strawman to your appeal to the stone fallacy this time.

    The evidence for a round moving earth has been explained to you multiple times in the past. Even if you think the evidence is wrong, it would then be a case of me not analysing the evidence correctly rather than just "taking the word" that this is the case. Ergo your point is based on a strawmen rather than reality.
    The evidence for a flat stationary earth has been explained to you multiple times in the past, and is more conclusive than any evidence you have.
    Eh, that's your opinion in the form of a baseless claim and does nothing to dispute the logical fallacies of your previous posts that I pointed out.
    Meh, you gave your opinion, I gave mine. Funny how you couldn't get a single vote in the spherical earth debate.
    Nice argumentum ad populum logical fallacy. You trying to get in the record books or just incapable of forming a logical argument?

    Also are you referring to the one a few days back where no-one bothered to vote for anyone, including you?
    Yeah, the one where I had to explain some laws of physics to refute your assertions. It's hard to get a vote as a flat earther, is it that hard to get a vote for a truism?
    Ah, claiming you were did something because you say so and then more argumentum ad populum logical fallacy.
    Erfisflat
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

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

Contact us

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

Get In Touch