Is the earth a ball?
in Earth Science

Erfisflat · June 2018

Evidence said:

Erfisflat said:

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

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

Look at Carrey's hat closely. It's hilarious that he is burning money to stay warm and eating crow(or is that a raven, which would be even more symbolic).

Evidence · June 2018

Erfisflat said:

Evidence said:

Erfisflat said:

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

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

Look at Carrey's hat closely. It's hilarious that he is burning money to stay warm and eating crow(or is that a raven, which would be even more symbolic).

@Erfisflat ; Ha, ha, ha, .. NASA, .. I would have missed that if you didn't point it out (my eyes aren't what they used to be). Love it. And yeah, .. "eating crow", .. LOL!
So tell me more, .. what's with the kid? Or the "alien" looking for the kid, .. Oh wait, never mind I got it. Taking the children from the Mexican immigrants! You're right, this short clip is full of symbolism. Open my eyes to more, .. I love it!

Erfisflat · June 2018

Evidence said:

Erfisflat said:

Evidence said:

Erfisflat said:

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

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

Look at Carrey's hat closely. It's hilarious that he is burning money to stay warm and eating crow(or is that a raven, which would be even more symbolic).

@Erfisflat ; Ha, ha, ha, .. NASA, .. I would have missed that if you didn't point it out (my eyes aren't what they used to be). Love it. And yeah, .. "eating crow", .. LOL!
So tell me more, .. what's with the kid? Or the "alien" looking for the kid, .. Oh wait, never mind I got it. Taking the children from the Mexican immigrants! You're right, this short clip is full of symbolism. Open my eyes to more, .. I love it!

Well, i see a pentagram at 1:15 on his neck, and the child has orange gloves on. This color has to do with sodomy and pedophilia in the occult, but I can't figure out a lot more than that about that.

Judaism · June 2018

Only a true idiot, you doesn't have ANY education WHATSOEVER, and DOESN'T understand science, will say that the earth is flat. Only an idiot. Welcome to Idiot America!

Judaism · June 2018

Judaism said:

Only a true idiot, you doesn't have ANY education WHATSOEVER, and DOESN'T understand science, will say that the earth is flat. Only an idiot. Welcome to Idiot America!

Says the guy that brought religious scripture to a science debate.

Erfisflat · June 2018

Judaism said:

Only a true idiot, you doesn't have ANY education WHATSOEVER, and DOESN'T understand science, will say that the earth is flat. Only an idiot. Welcome to Idiot America!

Evidence · June 2018

Erfisflat said:

Evidence said:

Erfisflat said:

Evidence said:

Erfisflat said:

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

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

Look at Carrey's hat closely. It's hilarious that he is burning money to stay warm and eating crow(or is that a raven, which would be even more symbolic).

@Erfisflat ; Ha, ha, ha, .. NASA, .. I would have missed that if you didn't point it out (my eyes aren't what they used to be). Love it. And yeah, .. "eating crow", .. LOL!
So tell me more, .. what's with the kid? Or the "alien" looking for the kid, .. Oh wait, never mind I got it. Taking the children from the Mexican immigrants! You're right, this short clip is full of symbolism. Open my eyes to more, .. I love it!

Well, i see a pentagram at 1:15 on his neck, and the child has orange gloves on. This color has to do with sodomy and pedophilia in the occult, but I can't figure out a lot more than that about that.

@Erfisflat
On the guys chest is a tattoo: Miami Ma(n)?? (Miami Massacre??) .. a string bracelet in his right arm, .. and Jim drew a hand touching a vertical dark line, .. can't make out the word he wrote though?? Something "Bad Loifort.. ??
this video is touching on a bunch of things there.. Flat earth, chemtrails, .. the pentagram, immigration separating children, etc.

Erfisflat · June 2018

Evidence said:

Erfisflat said:

Evidence said:

Erfisflat said:

Evidence said:

Erfisflat said:

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

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

Look at Carrey's hat closely. It's hilarious that he is burning money to stay warm and eating crow(or is that a raven, which would be even more symbolic).

@Erfisflat ; Ha, ha, ha, .. NASA, .. I would have missed that if you didn't point it out (my eyes aren't what they used to be). Love it. And yeah, .. "eating crow", .. LOL!
So tell me more, .. what's with the kid? Or the "alien" looking for the kid, .. Oh wait, never mind I got it. Taking the children from the Mexican immigrants! You're right, this short clip is full of symbolism. Open my eyes to more, .. I love it!

Well, i see a pentagram at 1:15 on his neck, and the child has orange gloves on. This color has to do with sodomy and pedophilia in the occult, but I can't figure out a lot more than that about that.

@Erfisflat
On the guys chest is a tattoo: Miami Ma(n)?? (Miami Massacre??) .. a string bracelet in his right arm, .. and Jim drew a hand touching a vertical dark line, .. can't make out the word he wrote though?? Something "Bad Loifort.. ??
this video is touching on a bunch of things there.. Flat earth, chemtrails, .. the pentagram, immigration separating children, etc.

The pentagram and orange gloves, to me, point to pizzagate. I can't make out what Carrey wrote either.

Evidence · June 2018

Judaism said:

Judaism said:

Only a true idiot, you doesn't have ANY education WHATSOEVER, and DOESN'T understand science, will say that the earth is flat. Only an idiot. Welcome to Idiot America!

Says the guy that brought religious scripture to a science debate.

@Judaism so why did you? Are you quoting yourself?

I use the Bible which is also a science-Help-Book, .. it reveals what we observe through science, .. and teaches us to use "evidence with substance" to believe, not just listen to Religious doctrines.

Evidence · June 2018

I want to talk with @Debra, she gave me a 13% Considerate on my last post. I want her to show me how I should have phrased my remark? Just showing me how "inconsiderate" I am doesn't help me any? Wait, .. it was pretty substantial though, .. 81% .. I guess I shouldn't complain.

Judaism · June 2018

@Evidence ;

You too use Scripture to prove your point, than why can't I? That's circular reasoning, pal.

Erfisflat · June 2018

Judaism said:

@Evidence ;

You too use Scripture to prove your point, than why can't I? That's circular reasoning, pal.

It's different when you use scripture as supporting evidence, after making a logically sound argument, and what you did. I consider it similar to pointing out "coincidences". For instance, after seeing water in the sky, we can point out how God divided the water below from the water above.

LogicVault · June 2018

The bible is a fictional story. It holds no power here.

Erfisflat · June 2018

Trolls have no place here.

Ampersand · July 2018

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

@Erfisflat

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think it is?

No, making baseless claims has no legitimacy at all, ergo other arguments could not be more illegitimate at worst they could only be equally irrelevant.

You again simply claim that "that these look nothing like the sun, in any way". Great, that's your unsupported baseless opinion and is therefore completely meaningless in a debate.

You wouldn't accept someone who believes in a spherical earth simply dismissing your argument and saying "No, that's a sun". Why do you think anyone should care about what you say if you can't support it and every claim you make is at its core meaningless because you have nothing to support it besides your own personal incredulity?

Erfisflat said:

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

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

As requested, can you form an actual argument:

here, I'll fill in the blanks for you.

What do you believe: That the moon is some kind of hologram or something
What evidence you have to support it: Videos of the moon show it to shimmer
Why this evidence proves commonly understood science is wrogn and you are right: ??????

Seriously, I can't even guess at filling in the blank except that you randomly believe beacuse peopel in the internet say it's true that you believe them.

Why don't you have a try at filling in the blanks above and try making an evidence and reason based argument that isn't fundamentally based on your baseless claims.

Erfisflat · July 2018

Long time @ampersand! Still trying to figure out what the "stars" are, huh? Good luck in your research!

"No, making baseless claims has no legitimacy at all, ergo other arguments could not be more illegitimate at worst they could only be equally irrelevant.

You again simply claim that "that these look nothing like the sun, in any way". Great, that's your unsupported baseless opinion and is therefore completely meaningless in a debate."

Please explain exactly what baseless claims I have made. I've stated the obvious observable fact that these:

Does not appear to be this:

This is not a baseless claim, this is observable fact that anyone with full use of their eyes can see. It's like looking outside and seeing a sunny cloudless sky and declaring that it is not raining. The offer stands for anyone including you to give me any similarities aside from both being lights in the sky, until then, your "no" is the only baseless unsupported opinion here. My guess is, since you ignored the last question in my post, you don't know either.

"As requested, can you form an actual argument:"

Which I have done. You, on the other hand have not made clear any arguments against the evidence I presented, only trying to pick at my arguments while altogether ignoring the evidence.

"here, I'll fill in the blanks for you.

"What do you believe: That the moon is some kind of hologram or something"

NOT a rock that is 250,000 miles away that is floating, or falling, whatever the case may be.

The moon was only brought up to show another observational piece of evidence that supports a liquid in the sky. There are videos of the moon that show visible waves involved with the moon. How do you explain this? Same question for the stars.

"What evidence you have to support it: Videos of the moon show it to shimmer"

I wouldn't say shimmer, the moon, once again, clearly shows a wave passing over/in front/ through it. The stars however, shimmer. Again, like the surface of a pool of water. How else do you explain this with the heliocentric model in mind? The original point was that the stars are not what we are told and until you can explain how I am in error, the point stands strong with empirical evidence.

"Why this evidence proves commonly understood science is (wrong) and you are right: ??????"

"Seriously, I can't even guess at filling in the blank except that you randomly believe (because) (people) in the internet say it's true that you believe them."

I've actually seen this for myself. Aside from that, this is not just "people in the internet say it's true" this is verifiable and empirical evidence. It is irrational to believe something someone says without verifiable and empirical evidence, and just as irrational to deny that same evidence for no reason whatsoever, as you have. I've filled in your blanks sufficiently. I'm guessing you'll continue to dismiss evidence and ignore pertinent arguments (you haven't even mentioned liquid OR the stars here), but you're welcome to prove me wrong.

Erfisflat · July 2018

@Ampersand, I know you like to have everything wrapped up into a neat little package already explained in detail, which is why you love the heliocentric model which has had 500+ years to perfect until the flat earth truth came along. So i did some hard core researching and found a near perfect match for what the stars are! God must be having an anti-gravity pool party in the sky! Maybe you'll get invited.

Ampersand · July 2018

Erfisflat said:

Long time @ampersand! Still trying to figure out what the "stars" are, huh? Good luck in your research!

"No, making baseless claims has no legitimacy at all, ergo other arguments could not be more illegitimate at worst they could only be equally irrelevant.

You again simply claim that "that these look nothing like the sun, in any way". Great, that's your unsupported baseless opinion and is therefore completely meaningless in a debate."

Please explain exactly what baseless claims I have made. I've stated the obvious observable fact that these:

Does not appear to be this:

This is not a baseless claim, this is observable fact that anyone with full use of their eyes can see. It's like looking outside and seeing a sunny cloudless sky and declaring that it is not raining. The offer stands for anyone including you to give me any similarities aside from both being lights in the sky, until then, your "no" is the only baseless unsupported opinion here. My guess is, since you ignored the last question in my post, you don't know either.

"As requested, can you form an actual argument:"

Which I have done. You, on the other hand have not made clear any arguments against the evidence I presented, only trying to pick at my arguments while altogether ignoring the evidence.

"here, I'll fill in the blanks for you.

"What do you believe: That the moon is some kind of hologram or something"

NOT a rock that is 250,000 miles away that is floating, or falling, whatever the case may be.

The moon was only brought up to show another observational piece of evidence that supports a liquid in the sky. There are videos of the moon that show visible waves involved with the moon. How do you explain this? Same question for the stars.

"What evidence you have to support it: Videos of the moon show it to shimmer"

I wouldn't say shimmer, the moon, once again, clearly shows a wave passing over/in front/ through it. The stars however, shimmer. Again, like the surface of a pool of water. How else do you explain this with the heliocentric model in mind? The original point was that the stars are not what we are told and until you can explain how I am in error, the point stands strong with empirical evidence.

"Why this evidence proves commonly understood science is (wrong) and you are right: ??????"

"Seriously, I can't even guess at filling in the blank except that you randomly believe (because) (people) in the internet say it's true that you believe them."

I've actually seen this for myself. Aside from that, this is not just "people in the internet say it's true" this is verifiable and empirical evidence. It is irrational to believe something someone says without verifiable and empirical evidence, and just as irrational to deny that same evidence for no reason whatsoever, as you have. I've filled in your blanks sufficiently. I'm guessing you'll continue to dismiss evidence and ignore pertinent arguments (you haven't even mentioned liquid OR the stars here), but you're welcome to prove me wrong.

Thank you for conceding the argument.

Your original statement was "that these look nothing like the sun, in any way". You then ask me to name similarities but say that this is aside from them both having the same general nature (a light source) and being in the same location (in the sky). By admitting their are similarities you concede the point - as well as seeming to miss other obvious ones like shape (both circular). Not like the sun ion any way =/= like the sun in multiple ways.

You also have no rationale for the next step that would be needed for you to form a cohesive argument: why the differences matter. Two thigns can look different and have almost no relation - a slug is not a rolex watch. On the other hand thigns can have numerous differences in appearance in an image and be very similar. For instance below are two pictures of human beings. they look nearly nothing alike, both from differences in the human beings and differences in the situation of how the picture was taken and the situation of the object.

It should be obvious but apparently I have to point this out: two things looking different does not mean they are entirely unrelated. Things can look different depending on the situation. Ergo you simply saying "they look different" is completely irrelevant.

That's of course putting aside the issue that you randomly saying an image is of a star does not mean the image is of a star.

As for your claim "Which I have done. You, on the other hand have not made clear any arguments against the evidence I presented, only trying to pick at my arguments while altogether ignoring the evidence" not onyl does it not make sense - because your arguments would contain your evidence, by 'picking' at your arguments I would obviously be responding to your evidence; of in your case your complete lack of evidence.

In your response "The moon was only brought up to show another observational piece of evidence that supports a liquid in the sky. There are videos of the moon that show visible waves involved with the moon. How do you explain this? Same question for the stars" you essentially show how you have no argument. You are the one claiming this shimmer shows there is water in the sky and that this somehow contradicts the commonly understood scientific understanding of the universe. i do not have to explain this- YOU have to explain this because it is your claim. The burden of proof is on you. Why does this show what you say? How does it contradict normal science? If you cannot explain that - which so far you cannot - then you have no argument for me to address.

"I wouldn't say shimmer, the moon, once again, clearly shows a wave passing over/in front/ through it. The stars however, shimmer. Again, like the surface of a pool of water. How else do you explain this with the heliocentric model in mind? The original point was that the stars are not what we are told and until you can explain how I am in error, the point stands strong with empirical evidence."

You haven't actually named a single way this contradicts the helocentric model. Your argument so far is "Hey, here's something weird but which I can't in any way point out contradicts the heliocentric model". Great, all I have to do is point out your complete lack of evidence. What part of the heliocentric model says that this 'shimmer' or 'wave' shouldn't happen? I mean if the tables were reversed and I was posting pictures of the moon seeming to shimmer slightly and stating that this is exactly as per the helocentric model but offered no proof about how or where it predicted such an event, you wouldn't accept that. Why do you expect me to accept random claims you can't support?

LogicVault · July 2018

@Erfisflat
"Trolls have no place here." Then leave if you believe that, because you are troll #1.

Erfisflat · July 2018

"Thank you for conceding the argument."

I don't consider that a concession at all, in fact it is entirely irrelevant to the conclusion. I know how you like to prance around as if you've done something useful, so I'll just let you continue on in your delusions.

"Your original statement was "that these look nothing like the sun, in any way". You then ask me to name similarities but say that this is aside from them both having the same general nature (a light source) and being in the same location (in the sky). By admitting their are similarities you concede the point - as well as seeming to miss other obvious ones like shape (both circular)."

Yes, similarities ASIDE from being lights in the sky, and not all stars are circular. This one for example, is oval shaped(1). In fact no stars under the lens of a p900 show a circle, unless you are a three year old with a crayon, which wouldn't be too surprising, considering your arguments. This one doesn't really have any particular shape at all.(2) The moon is often a "circular light in the sky", do you also consider the moon a sun? What about the lights on a passing plane? Your biased irrationality here is exhausting my patience. The question remains, how would you explain this in the heliocentric model?

(1)

(2)

Quite frankly, only a complete bafoon could call either of those a sun. Since you obviously can't identify it either, I'm going to assume you aren't.

"You also have no rationale for the next step that would be needed for you to form a cohesive argument: why the differences matter."

Sorry, I know you need everything spelled out for you, but to be fair, you did butt into this argument midway. The other debater, and nearly everyone else seems to have gotten the points that I all but specified: these are very obviously not balls of gas light years away, as government institutions insist, and there should be no body of liquid between any observer on earth and a visible star in the heliocentric model. The images that NASA give us do not represent reality.

"You essentially show how you have no argument."

That's not correct. My argument in this forum is that the earth is flat, and the heliocentric model is wrong. I've given verifiable and empirical evidence against the heliocentric model, and you've appeared to have stepped up to defend it, yet you want me to explain what it actually is. I've now explained in great detail what it isn't, or what it doesn't appear to be, so now I am waiting on a plausible excuse for these as per the heliocentric model.

" You are the one claiming this shimmer shows there is water..."

More specifically, liquid. This may be helium 3 or some unknown liquid as well. I'm not entirely sure, because it's to high to test. Other people have theories about what it is, but nothing conclusive enough for me, so I'm going with liquid, because that is what it looks like.

"...in the sky and that this somehow contradicts the commonly understood scientific understanding of the universe. i do not have to explain this- YOU have to explain this because it is your claim. The burden of proof is on you. Why does this show what you say? How does it contradict normal science? If you cannot explain that - which so far you cannot - then you have no argument for me to address."

You're welcome to run away at any time.

@ampersand, good to have you back buddy!

Erfisflat · July 2018

The two images of humans point is hilarious. I've given verifiable video evidence, where is NASA CGI of stars? Here's NASA's evidence of a star exploding.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/Kepler/caught-for-the-first-time-the-early-flash-of-an-exploding-star

@ampersand, you know that was a false comparison fallacy

Ampersand · July 2018

Erfisflat said:

The two images of humans point is hilarious. I've given verifiable video evidence, where is NASA CGI of stars? Here's NASA's evidence of a star exploding.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/Kepler/caught-for-the-first-time-the-early-flash-of-an-exploding-star

@ampersand, you know that was a false comparison fallacy

If you actually bothered to read your own link, you'd see that's just an image in a press release and their evidence is actually a peer reviewed scientific article that's been published in The Astrophysics Journal and explains the nature of their research and findings.Feel free to check their research rather than just making false claims.

Also my comparison was valid. Your argument that the two pictures don't look the same is only applicable if we expect the same types of thing to always look the same regardless of the situation in which they're photographed. If two objects can look different but still be the same type of thing (e.g. humans, stars, etc) then your argument is irrelevant. Therefore my example shows that baseless assumption your entire argument relies upon is false. Ergo you have no argument.

Erfisflat · July 2018

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

The two images of humans point is hilarious. I've given verifiable video evidence, where is NASA CGI of stars? Here's NASA's evidence of a star exploding.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/Kepler/caught-for-the-first-time-the-early-flash-of-an-exploding-star

@ampersand, you know that was a false comparison fallacy

If you actually bothered to read your own link, you'd see that's just an image in a press release and their evidence is actually a peer reviewed scientific article that's been published in The Astrophysics Journal and explains the nature of their research and findings.Feel free to check their research rather than just making false claims.

Also my comparison was valid. Your argument that the two pictures don't look the same is only applicable if we expect the same types of thing to always look the same regardless of the situation in which they're photographed. If two objects can look different but still be the same type of thing (e.g. humans, stars, etc) then your argument is irrelevant. Therefore my example shows that baseless assumption your entire argument relies upon is false. Ergo you have no argument.

The comparison is invalid because there are no actual footage of stars to compare this to. This was a bit over your head i know.
If I had no argument, you wouldn't be here.

Evidence · July 2018

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Long time @ampersand! Still trying to figure out what the "stars" are, huh? Good luck in your research!

"No, making baseless claims has no legitimacy at all, ergo other arguments could not be more illegitimate at worst they could only be equally irrelevant.

You again simply claim that "that these look nothing like the sun, in any way". Great, that's your unsupported baseless opinion and is therefore completely meaningless in a debate."

Please explain exactly what baseless claims I have made. I've stated the obvious observable fact that these:

Does not appear to be this:

This is not a baseless claim, this is observable fact that anyone with full use of their eyes can see. It's like looking outside and seeing a sunny cloudless sky and declaring that it is not raining. The offer stands for anyone including you to give me any similarities aside from both being lights in the sky, until then, your "no" is the only baseless unsupported opinion here. My guess is, since you ignored the last question in my post, you don't know either.

"As requested, can you form an actual argument:"

Which I have done. You, on the other hand have not made clear any arguments against the evidence I presented, only trying to pick at my arguments while altogether ignoring the evidence.

"here, I'll fill in the blanks for you.

"What do you believe: That the moon is some kind of hologram or something"

NOT a rock that is 250,000 miles away that is floating, or falling, whatever the case may be.

The moon was only brought up to show another observational piece of evidence that supports a liquid in the sky. There are videos of the moon that show visible waves involved with the moon. How do you explain this? Same question for the stars.

"What evidence you have to support it: Videos of the moon show it to shimmer"

I wouldn't say shimmer, the moon, once again, clearly shows a wave passing over/in front/ through it. The stars however, shimmer. Again, like the surface of a pool of water. How else do you explain this with the heliocentric model in mind? The original point was that the stars are not what we are told and until you can explain how I am in error, the point stands strong with empirical evidence.

"Why this evidence proves commonly understood science is (wrong) and you are right: ??????"

"Seriously, I can't even guess at filling in the blank except that you randomly believe (because) (people) in the internet say it's true that you believe them."

I've actually seen this for myself. Aside from that, this is not just "people in the internet say it's true" this is verifiable and empirical evidence. It is irrational to believe something someone says without verifiable and empirical evidence, and just as irrational to deny that same evidence for no reason whatsoever, as you have. I've filled in your blanks sufficiently. I'm guessing you'll continue to dismiss evidence and ignore pertinent arguments (you haven't even mentioned liquid OR the stars here), but you're welcome to prove me wrong.

Thank you for conceding the argument.

Your original statement was "that these look nothing like the sun, in any way". You then ask me to name similarities but say that this is aside from them both having the same general nature (a light source) and being in the same location (in the sky). By admitting their are similarities you concede the point - as well as seeming to miss other obvious ones like shape (both circular). Not like the sun ion any way =/= like the sun in multiple ways.

You also have no rationale for the next step that would be needed for you to form a cohesive argument: why the differences matter. Two thigns can look different and have almost no relation - a slug is not a rolex watch. On the other hand thigns can have numerous differences in appearance in an image and be very similar. For instance below are two pictures of human beings. they look nearly nothing alike, both from differences in the human beings and differences in the situation of how the picture was taken and the situation of the object.

It should be obvious but apparently I have to point this out: two things looking different does not mean they are entirely unrelated. Things can look different depending on the situation. Ergo you simply saying "they look different" is completely irrelevant.

That's of course putting aside the issue that you randomly saying an image is of a star does not mean the image is of a star.

As for your claim "Which I have done. You, on the other hand have not made clear any arguments against the evidence I presented, only trying to pick at my arguments while altogether ignoring the evidence" not onyl does it not make sense - because your arguments would contain your evidence, by 'picking' at your arguments I would obviously be responding to your evidence; of in your case your complete lack of evidence.

In your response "The moon was only brought up to show another observational piece of evidence that supports a liquid in the sky. There are videos of the moon that show visible waves involved with the moon. How do you explain this? Same question for the stars" you essentially show how you have no argument. You are the one claiming this shimmer shows there is water in the sky and that this somehow contradicts the commonly understood scientific understanding of the universe. i do not have to explain this- YOU have to explain this because it is your claim. The burden of proof is on you. Why does this show what you say? How does it contradict normal science? If you cannot explain that - which so far you cannot - then you have no argument for me to address.

"I wouldn't say shimmer, the moon, once again, clearly shows a wave passing over/in front/ through it. The stars however, shimmer. Again, like the surface of a pool of water. How else do you explain this with the heliocentric model in mind? The original point was that the stars are not what we are told and until you can explain how I am in error, the point stands strong with empirical evidence."

You haven't actually named a single way this contradicts the helocentric model. Your argument so far is "Hey, here's something weird but which I can't in any way point out contradicts the heliocentric model". Great, all I have to do is point out your complete lack of evidence. What part of the heliocentric model says that this 'shimmer' or 'wave' shouldn't happen? I mean if the tables were reversed and I was posting pictures of the moon seeming to shimmer slightly and stating that this is exactly as per the helocentric model but offered no proof about how or where it predicted such an event, you wouldn't accept that. Why do you expect me to accept random claims you can't support?

Yeah @Erfisflat why don't you show clear pictures like NASA does, taken by their billions and billions of $ satellite-telescopes;

instead of your wiggly stars taken by a cheap $899.99 camera by Flat Earthers:

These look nothing like NASA planets.

Erfisflat · July 2018

Evidence said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Long time @ampersand! Still trying to figure out what the "stars" are, huh? Good luck in your research!

"No, making baseless claims has no legitimacy at all, ergo other arguments could not be more illegitimate at worst they could only be equally irrelevant.

You again simply claim that "that these look nothing like the sun, in any way". Great, that's your unsupported baseless opinion and is therefore completely meaningless in a debate."

Please explain exactly what baseless claims I have made. I've stated the obvious observable fact that these:

Does not appear to be this:

This is not a baseless claim, this is observable fact that anyone with full use of their eyes can see. It's like looking outside and seeing a sunny cloudless sky and declaring that it is not raining. The offer stands for anyone including you to give me any similarities aside from both being lights in the sky, until then, your "no" is the only baseless unsupported opinion here. My guess is, since you ignored the last question in my post, you don't know either.

"As requested, can you form an actual argument:"

Which I have done. You, on the other hand have not made clear any arguments against the evidence I presented, only trying to pick at my arguments while altogether ignoring the evidence.

"here, I'll fill in the blanks for you.

"What do you believe: That the moon is some kind of hologram or something"

NOT a rock that is 250,000 miles away that is floating, or falling, whatever the case may be.

The moon was only brought up to show another observational piece of evidence that supports a liquid in the sky. There are videos of the moon that show visible waves involved with the moon. How do you explain this? Same question for the stars.

"What evidence you have to support it: Videos of the moon show it to shimmer"

I wouldn't say shimmer, the moon, once again, clearly shows a wave passing over/in front/ through it. The stars however, shimmer. Again, like the surface of a pool of water. How else do you explain this with the heliocentric model in mind? The original point was that the stars are not what we are told and until you can explain how I am in error, the point stands strong with empirical evidence.

"Why this evidence proves commonly understood science is (wrong) and you are right: ??????"

"Seriously, I can't even guess at filling in the blank except that you randomly believe (because) (people) in the internet say it's true that you believe them."

I've actually seen this for myself. Aside from that, this is not just "people in the internet say it's true" this is verifiable and empirical evidence. It is irrational to believe something someone says without verifiable and empirical evidence, and just as irrational to deny that same evidence for no reason whatsoever, as you have. I've filled in your blanks sufficiently. I'm guessing you'll continue to dismiss evidence and ignore pertinent arguments (you haven't even mentioned liquid OR the stars here), but you're welcome to prove me wrong.

Thank you for conceding the argument.

Your original statement was "that these look nothing like the sun, in any way". You then ask me to name similarities but say that this is aside from them both having the same general nature (a light source) and being in the same location (in the sky). By admitting their are similarities you concede the point - as well as seeming to miss other obvious ones like shape (both circular). Not like the sun ion any way =/= like the sun in multiple ways.

You also have no rationale for the next step that would be needed for you to form a cohesive argument: why the differences matter. Two thigns can look different and have almost no relation - a slug is not a rolex watch. On the other hand thigns can have numerous differences in appearance in an image and be very similar. For instance below are two pictures of human beings. they look nearly nothing alike, both from differences in the human beings and differences in the situation of how the picture was taken and the situation of the object.

It should be obvious but apparently I have to point this out: two things looking different does not mean they are entirely unrelated. Things can look different depending on the situation. Ergo you simply saying "they look different" is completely irrelevant.

That's of course putting aside the issue that you randomly saying an image is of a star does not mean the image is of a star.

As for your claim "Which I have done. You, on the other hand have not made clear any arguments against the evidence I presented, only trying to pick at my arguments while altogether ignoring the evidence" not onyl does it not make sense - because your arguments would contain your evidence, by 'picking' at your arguments I would obviously be responding to your evidence; of in your case your complete lack of evidence.

In your response "The moon was only brought up to show another observational piece of evidence that supports a liquid in the sky. There are videos of the moon that show visible waves involved with the moon. How do you explain this? Same question for the stars" you essentially show how you have no argument. You are the one claiming this shimmer shows there is water in the sky and that this somehow contradicts the commonly understood scientific understanding of the universe. i do not have to explain this- YOU have to explain this because it is your claim. The burden of proof is on you. Why does this show what you say? How does it contradict normal science? If you cannot explain that - which so far you cannot - then you have no argument for me to address.

"I wouldn't say shimmer, the moon, once again, clearly shows a wave passing over/in front/ through it. The stars however, shimmer. Again, like the surface of a pool of water. How else do you explain this with the heliocentric model in mind? The original point was that the stars are not what we are told and until you can explain how I am in error, the point stands strong with empirical evidence."

You haven't actually named a single way this contradicts the helocentric model. Your argument so far is "Hey, here's something weird but which I can't in any way point out contradicts the heliocentric model". Great, all I have to do is point out your complete lack of evidence. What part of the heliocentric model says that this 'shimmer' or 'wave' shouldn't happen? I mean if the tables were reversed and I was posting pictures of the moon seeming to shimmer slightly and stating that this is exactly as per the helocentric model but offered no proof about how or where it predicted such an event, you wouldn't accept that. Why do you expect me to accept random claims you can't support?

Yeah @Erfisflat why don't you show clear pictures like NASA does, taken by their billions and billions of $ satellite-telescopes;

instead of your wiggly stars taken by a cheap $899.99 camera by Flat Earthers:

These look nothing like NASA planets.

I thought the "peer reviewed scientific article that's been published in The Astrophysics Journal and explains the nature of their research and findings" chart was quite convincing, lol.

Ampersand · July 2018

Erfisflat said:

Evidence said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Long time @ampersand! Still trying to figure out what the "stars" are, huh? Good luck in your research!

"No, making baseless claims has no legitimacy at all, ergo other arguments could not be more illegitimate at worst they could only be equally irrelevant.

You again simply claim that "that these look nothing like the sun, in any way". Great, that's your unsupported baseless opinion and is therefore completely meaningless in a debate."

Please explain exactly what baseless claims I have made. I've stated the obvious observable fact that these:

Does not appear to be this:

This is not a baseless claim, this is observable fact that anyone with full use of their eyes can see. It's like looking outside and seeing a sunny cloudless sky and declaring that it is not raining. The offer stands for anyone including you to give me any similarities aside from both being lights in the sky, until then, your "no" is the only baseless unsupported opinion here. My guess is, since you ignored the last question in my post, you don't know either.

"As requested, can you form an actual argument:"

Which I have done. You, on the other hand have not made clear any arguments against the evidence I presented, only trying to pick at my arguments while altogether ignoring the evidence.

"here, I'll fill in the blanks for you.

"What do you believe: That the moon is some kind of hologram or something"

NOT a rock that is 250,000 miles away that is floating, or falling, whatever the case may be.

The moon was only brought up to show another observational piece of evidence that supports a liquid in the sky. There are videos of the moon that show visible waves involved with the moon. How do you explain this? Same question for the stars.

"What evidence you have to support it: Videos of the moon show it to shimmer"

I wouldn't say shimmer, the moon, once again, clearly shows a wave passing over/in front/ through it. The stars however, shimmer. Again, like the surface of a pool of water. How else do you explain this with the heliocentric model in mind? The original point was that the stars are not what we are told and until you can explain how I am in error, the point stands strong with empirical evidence.

"Why this evidence proves commonly understood science is (wrong) and you are right: ??????"

"Seriously, I can't even guess at filling in the blank except that you randomly believe (because) (people) in the internet say it's true that you believe them."

I've actually seen this for myself. Aside from that, this is not just "people in the internet say it's true" this is verifiable and empirical evidence. It is irrational to believe something someone says without verifiable and empirical evidence, and just as irrational to deny that same evidence for no reason whatsoever, as you have. I've filled in your blanks sufficiently. I'm guessing you'll continue to dismiss evidence and ignore pertinent arguments (you haven't even mentioned liquid OR the stars here), but you're welcome to prove me wrong.

Thank you for conceding the argument.

Your original statement was "that these look nothing like the sun, in any way". You then ask me to name similarities but say that this is aside from them both having the same general nature (a light source) and being in the same location (in the sky). By admitting their are similarities you concede the point - as well as seeming to miss other obvious ones like shape (both circular). Not like the sun ion any way =/= like the sun in multiple ways.

You also have no rationale for the next step that would be needed for you to form a cohesive argument: why the differences matter. Two thigns can look different and have almost no relation - a slug is not a rolex watch. On the other hand thigns can have numerous differences in appearance in an image and be very similar. For instance below are two pictures of human beings. they look nearly nothing alike, both from differences in the human beings and differences in the situation of how the picture was taken and the situation of the object.

It should be obvious but apparently I have to point this out: two things looking different does not mean they are entirely unrelated. Things can look different depending on the situation. Ergo you simply saying "they look different" is completely irrelevant.

That's of course putting aside the issue that you randomly saying an image is of a star does not mean the image is of a star.

As for your claim "Which I have done. You, on the other hand have not made clear any arguments against the evidence I presented, only trying to pick at my arguments while altogether ignoring the evidence" not onyl does it not make sense - because your arguments would contain your evidence, by 'picking' at your arguments I would obviously be responding to your evidence; of in your case your complete lack of evidence.

In your response "The moon was only brought up to show another observational piece of evidence that supports a liquid in the sky. There are videos of the moon that show visible waves involved with the moon. How do you explain this? Same question for the stars" you essentially show how you have no argument. You are the one claiming this shimmer shows there is water in the sky and that this somehow contradicts the commonly understood scientific understanding of the universe. i do not have to explain this- YOU have to explain this because it is your claim. The burden of proof is on you. Why does this show what you say? How does it contradict normal science? If you cannot explain that - which so far you cannot - then you have no argument for me to address.

"I wouldn't say shimmer, the moon, once again, clearly shows a wave passing over/in front/ through it. The stars however, shimmer. Again, like the surface of a pool of water. How else do you explain this with the heliocentric model in mind? The original point was that the stars are not what we are told and until you can explain how I am in error, the point stands strong with empirical evidence."

You haven't actually named a single way this contradicts the helocentric model. Your argument so far is "Hey, here's something weird but which I can't in any way point out contradicts the heliocentric model". Great, all I have to do is point out your complete lack of evidence. What part of the heliocentric model says that this 'shimmer' or 'wave' shouldn't happen? I mean if the tables were reversed and I was posting pictures of the moon seeming to shimmer slightly and stating that this is exactly as per the helocentric model but offered no proof about how or where it predicted such an event, you wouldn't accept that. Why do you expect me to accept random claims you can't support?

Yeah @Erfisflat why don't you show clear pictures like NASA does, taken by their billions and billions of $ satellite-telescopes;

instead of your wiggly stars taken by a cheap $899.99 camera by Flat Earthers:

These look nothing like NASA planets.

I thought the "peer reviewed scientific article that's been published in The Astrophysics Journal and explains the nature of their research and findings" chart was quite convincing, lol.

That's the abstract. The full details are downloadable through the link on the right.

Are you telling me that after allegedly spending years looking into the science behind physics and how are our earth works you don't even know how a scientific article works?

Ampersand · July 2018

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

The two images of humans point is hilarious. I've given verifiable video evidence, where is NASA CGI of stars? Here's NASA's evidence of a star exploding.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/Kepler/caught-for-the-first-time-the-early-flash-of-an-exploding-star

@ampersand, you know that was a false comparison fallacy

If you actually bothered to read your own link, you'd see that's just an image in a press release and their evidence is actually a peer reviewed scientific article that's been published in The Astrophysics Journal and explains the nature of their research and findings.Feel free to check their research rather than just making false claims.

Also my comparison was valid. Your argument that the two pictures don't look the same is only applicable if we expect the same types of thing to always look the same regardless of the situation in which they're photographed. If two objects can look different but still be the same type of thing (e.g. humans, stars, etc) then your argument is irrelevant. Therefore my example shows that baseless assumption your entire argument relies upon is false. Ergo you have no argument.

The comparison is invalid because there are no actual footage of stars to compare this to. This was a bit over your head i know.
If I had no argument, you wouldn't be here.

You've literally just provided photos of stars and the sun for comparison purposes to try and prove your argument. Now when it turns out you can't make a logical argument you claim these don't exist.

I mean it's obviously false seeing as you've already conceded otherwise by providing what you claim is footage of stars, but this new claim would just mean you have absolutely no argument anyway seeing as your entire argument was based on the footage so I'm happy enough to leave if you do just want to concede your entire argument on spurious grounds.

Erfisflat · July 2018

Evidence said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Long time @ampersand! Still trying to figure out what the "stars" are, huh? Good luck in your research!

"No, making baseless claims has no legitimacy at all, ergo other arguments could not be more illegitimate at worst they could only be equally irrelevant.

You again simply claim that "that these look nothing like the sun, in any way". Great, that's your unsupported baseless opinion and is therefore completely meaningless in a debate."

Please explain exactly what baseless claims I have made. I've stated the obvious observable fact that these:

Does not appear to be this:

This is not a baseless claim, this is observable fact that anyone with full use of their eyes can see. It's like looking outside and seeing a sunny cloudless sky and declaring that it is not raining. The offer stands for anyone including you to give me any similarities aside from both being lights in the sky, until then, your "no" is the only baseless unsupported opinion here. My guess is, since you ignored the last question in my post, you don't know either.

"As requested, can you form an actual argument:"

Which I have done. You, on the other hand have not made clear any arguments against the evidence I presented, only trying to pick at my arguments while altogether ignoring the evidence.

"here, I'll fill in the blanks for you.

"What do you believe: That the moon is some kind of hologram or something"

NOT a rock that is 250,000 miles away that is floating, or falling, whatever the case may be.

The moon was only brought up to show another observational piece of evidence that supports a liquid in the sky. There are videos of the moon that show visible waves involved with the moon. How do you explain this? Same question for the stars.

"What evidence you have to support it: Videos of the moon show it to shimmer"

I wouldn't say shimmer, the moon, once again, clearly shows a wave passing over/in front/ through it. The stars however, shimmer. Again, like the surface of a pool of water. How else do you explain this with the heliocentric model in mind? The original point was that the stars are not what we are told and until you can explain how I am in error, the point stands strong with empirical evidence.

"Why this evidence proves commonly understood science is (wrong) and you are right: ??????"

"Seriously, I can't even guess at filling in the blank except that you randomly believe (because) (people) in the internet say it's true that you believe them."

I've actually seen this for myself. Aside from that, this is not just "people in the internet say it's true" this is verifiable and empirical evidence. It is irrational to believe something someone says without verifiable and empirical evidence, and just as irrational to deny that same evidence for no reason whatsoever, as you have. I've filled in your blanks sufficiently. I'm guessing you'll continue to dismiss evidence and ignore pertinent arguments (you haven't even mentioned liquid OR the stars here), but you're welcome to prove me wrong.

Thank you for conceding the argument.

Your original statement was "that these look nothing like the sun, in any way". You then ask me to name similarities but say that this is aside from them both having the same general nature (a light source) and being in the same location (in the sky). By admitting their are similarities you concede the point - as well as seeming to miss other obvious ones like shape (both circular). Not like the sun ion any way =/= like the sun in multiple ways.

You also have no rationale for the next step that would be needed for you to form a cohesive argument: why the differences matter. Two thigns can look different and have almost no relation - a slug is not a rolex watch. On the other hand thigns can have numerous differences in appearance in an image and be very similar. For instance below are two pictures of human beings. they look nearly nothing alike, both from differences in the human beings and differences in the situation of how the picture was taken and the situation of the object.

It should be obvious but apparently I have to point this out: two things looking different does not mean they are entirely unrelated. Things can look different depending on the situation. Ergo you simply saying "they look different" is completely irrelevant.

That's of course putting aside the issue that you randomly saying an image is of a star does not mean the image is of a star.

As for your claim "Which I have done. You, on the other hand have not made clear any arguments against the evidence I presented, only trying to pick at my arguments while altogether ignoring the evidence" not onyl does it not make sense - because your arguments would contain your evidence, by 'picking' at your arguments I would obviously be responding to your evidence; of in your case your complete lack of evidence.

In your response "The moon was only brought up to show another observational piece of evidence that supports a liquid in the sky. There are videos of the moon that show visible waves involved with the moon. How do you explain this? Same question for the stars" you essentially show how you have no argument. You are the one claiming this shimmer shows there is water in the sky and that this somehow contradicts the commonly understood scientific understanding of the universe. i do not have to explain this- YOU have to explain this because it is your claim. The burden of proof is on you. Why does this show what you say? How does it contradict normal science? If you cannot explain that - which so far you cannot - then you have no argument for me to address.

"I wouldn't say shimmer, the moon, once again, clearly shows a wave passing over/in front/ through it. The stars however, shimmer. Again, like the surface of a pool of water. How else do you explain this with the heliocentric model in mind? The original point was that the stars are not what we are told and until you can explain how I am in error, the point stands strong with empirical evidence."

You haven't actually named a single way this contradicts the helocentric model. Your argument so far is "Hey, here's something weird but which I can't in any way point out contradicts the heliocentric model". Great, all I have to do is point out your complete lack of evidence. What part of the heliocentric model says that this 'shimmer' or 'wave' shouldn't happen? I mean if the tables were reversed and I was posting pictures of the moon seeming to shimmer slightly and stating that this is exactly as per the helocentric model but offered no proof about how or where it predicted such an event, you wouldn't accept that. Why do you expect me to accept random claims you can't support?

Yeah @Erfisflat why don't you show clear pictures like NASA does, taken by their billions and billions of $ satellite-telescopes;

instead of your wiggly stars taken by a cheap $899.99 camera by Flat Earthers:

These look nothing like NASA planets.

It's an amazing display of cognitive dissonance. What absurd lengths will he go through to hold on to the heliocentric model? He knows this is why NASA won't give us a real image of a star. Charts and CGI, no substantial information at all. They just don't match their description!

Erfisflat · July 2018

@Judaism, you still there? Conceded?

Evidence · July 2018

Erfisflat said:

Evidence said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Long time @ampersand! Still trying to figure out what the "stars" are, huh? Good luck in your research!

"No, making baseless claims has no legitimacy at all, ergo other arguments could not be more illegitimate at worst they could only be equally irrelevant.

You again simply claim that "that these look nothing like the sun, in any way". Great, that's your unsupported baseless opinion and is therefore completely meaningless in a debate."

Please explain exactly what baseless claims I have made. I've stated the obvious observable fact that these:

Does not appear to be this:

This is not a baseless claim, this is observable fact that anyone with full use of their eyes can see. It's like looking outside and seeing a sunny cloudless sky and declaring that it is not raining. The offer stands for anyone including you to give me any similarities aside from both being lights in the sky, until then, your "no" is the only baseless unsupported opinion here. My guess is, since you ignored the last question in my post, you don't know either.

"As requested, can you form an actual argument:"

Which I have done. You, on the other hand have not made clear any arguments against the evidence I presented, only trying to pick at my arguments while altogether ignoring the evidence.

"here, I'll fill in the blanks for you.

"What do you believe: That the moon is some kind of hologram or something"

NOT a rock that is 250,000 miles away that is floating, or falling, whatever the case may be.

The moon was only brought up to show another observational piece of evidence that supports a liquid in the sky. There are videos of the moon that show visible waves involved with the moon. How do you explain this? Same question for the stars.

"What evidence you have to support it: Videos of the moon show it to shimmer"

I wouldn't say shimmer, the moon, once again, clearly shows a wave passing over/in front/ through it. The stars however, shimmer. Again, like the surface of a pool of water. How else do you explain this with the heliocentric model in mind? The original point was that the stars are not what we are told and until you can explain how I am in error, the point stands strong with empirical evidence.

"Why this evidence proves commonly understood science is (wrong) and you are right: ??????"

"Seriously, I can't even guess at filling in the blank except that you randomly believe (because) (people) in the internet say it's true that you believe them."

I've actually seen this for myself. Aside from that, this is not just "people in the internet say it's true" this is verifiable and empirical evidence. It is irrational to believe something someone says without verifiable and empirical evidence, and just as irrational to deny that same evidence for no reason whatsoever, as you have. I've filled in your blanks sufficiently. I'm guessing you'll continue to dismiss evidence and ignore pertinent arguments (you haven't even mentioned liquid OR the stars here), but you're welcome to prove me wrong.

Thank you for conceding the argument.

Your original statement was "that these look nothing like the sun, in any way". You then ask me to name similarities but say that this is aside from them both having the same general nature (a light source) and being in the same location (in the sky). By admitting their are similarities you concede the point - as well as seeming to miss other obvious ones like shape (both circular). Not like the sun ion any way =/= like the sun in multiple ways.

You also have no rationale for the next step that would be needed for you to form a cohesive argument: why the differences matter. Two thigns can look different and have almost no relation - a slug is not a rolex watch. On the other hand thigns can have numerous differences in appearance in an image and be very similar. For instance below are two pictures of human beings. they look nearly nothing alike, both from differences in the human beings and differences in the situation of how the picture was taken and the situation of the object.

It should be obvious but apparently I have to point this out: two things looking different does not mean they are entirely unrelated. Things can look different depending on the situation. Ergo you simply saying "they look different" is completely irrelevant.

That's of course putting aside the issue that you randomly saying an image is of a star does not mean the image is of a star.

As for your claim "Which I have done. You, on the other hand have not made clear any arguments against the evidence I presented, only trying to pick at my arguments while altogether ignoring the evidence" not onyl does it not make sense - because your arguments would contain your evidence, by 'picking' at your arguments I would obviously be responding to your evidence; of in your case your complete lack of evidence.

In your response "The moon was only brought up to show another observational piece of evidence that supports a liquid in the sky. There are videos of the moon that show visible waves involved with the moon. How do you explain this? Same question for the stars" you essentially show how you have no argument. You are the one claiming this shimmer shows there is water in the sky and that this somehow contradicts the commonly understood scientific understanding of the universe. i do not have to explain this- YOU have to explain this because it is your claim. The burden of proof is on you. Why does this show what you say? How does it contradict normal science? If you cannot explain that - which so far you cannot - then you have no argument for me to address.

"I wouldn't say shimmer, the moon, once again, clearly shows a wave passing over/in front/ through it. The stars however, shimmer. Again, like the surface of a pool of water. How else do you explain this with the heliocentric model in mind? The original point was that the stars are not what we are told and until you can explain how I am in error, the point stands strong with empirical evidence."

You haven't actually named a single way this contradicts the helocentric model. Your argument so far is "Hey, here's something weird but which I can't in any way point out contradicts the heliocentric model". Great, all I have to do is point out your complete lack of evidence. What part of the heliocentric model says that this 'shimmer' or 'wave' shouldn't happen? I mean if the tables were reversed and I was posting pictures of the moon seeming to shimmer slightly and stating that this is exactly as per the helocentric model but offered no proof about how or where it predicted such an event, you wouldn't accept that. Why do you expect me to accept random claims you can't support?

Yeah @Erfisflat why don't you show clear pictures like NASA does, taken by their billions and billions of $ satellite-telescopes;

instead of your wiggly stars taken by a cheap $899.99 camera by Flat Earthers:

These look nothing like NASA planets.

I thought the "peer reviewed scientific article that's been published in The Astrophysics Journal and explains the nature of their research and findings" chart was quite convincing, lol.

Oh, I just love their whooosshh above their heads explanations, .. but when you study what they said and ask questions about it, they are stumped, just like the 'Leadah' (that's Arnold Schwarzenegger saying "Leader") of the greatest NASA team ever assembled here:

Us pee-ons: "How close to your target did you put the Rover on Mars?"
The Leadah: "I can't tell you too much about it, but, .. umm Hans, where are you Hans, he should be able to answer that? No Hans, .. maybe Franz can answer that? Franz, is Franz in the audience?"

NASA - were here to first 'pump you up' with bs, then take all your money, your children's money, and now we are taking your grandchildren's money.

Mr_Bombastic · July 2018

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

Erfisflat · July 2018

@mr_bombastic said

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

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

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

What's happening could be a combination of things:

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

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

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

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

Mr_Bombastic · July 2018

Enough of this ignorant BS. The Earth is round. How do I know this? Because I, as well as others, have circumnavigated the globe. I did it from East to West. I left from Long Beach, CA. Sailed to Hawaii. Australia was next. Then we hit the Suez Canal, visiting Spain, Turkey, Egypt and Italy. After that I sailed to the Philipines. Panama was the last stop, then back to Long Beach. The whole trip, we were heading mostly West. Never East. Now, explain how we traveled in the same direction and ended up where we started, if the Earth was flat. You cant. Have a nice day. You lose.

Erfisflat · July 2018

"Enough of this ignorant BS. The Earth is round. How do I know this? Because I, as well as others, have circumnavigated the globe. I did it from East to West. I left from Long Beach, CA. Sailed to Hawaii. Australia was next. Then we hit the Suez Canal, visiting Spain, Turkey, Egypt and Italy. After that I sailed to the (Phillipines). Panama was the last stop, then back to Long Beach. The whole trip, we were heading mostly West. Never East. Now, explain how we traveled in the same direction and ended up where we started, if the Earth was flat. You cant. Have a nice day. You lose."

You're exactly right, as you can see. The spherical earth is BS, as you call it, along with ships going over a hump of water. It's just physically impossible. Anyone who first asks the relevant questions will see plain as day that the earth couldn't possibly be a sphere. One by one, we can go over the pitiful list of reason to think we are on a spinning testicle and wonder, "how could I have been so stupid?" just as I and the great many flat earthers out there today.

Circumnavigation was another great proof, until a bit of common sense was applied, and I realized that the claim was 100% correct, although misunderstood. As in a quarter, or a pizza! With a round (flat) earth, when heading west, north is always to the right. You just went in a big circle with the north pole in the center! East and west are only relative.

Let me ask you this, if it were a ball, you could also get to the same spot if you headed north or south, correct? How many times have you done this, respected officer in the Navy? Have you heard of Admiral Byrd? Quite the interesting story there, if you care to look into it.

Since boats over the horizon has been dropped, Im curious, do you know what distance the boat started to disappear? In other words, how far do you think the horizon is away? 50 miles? 75?

We're running out of proofs of the pearoid really fast @mr_boombastic maybe it's time to ask Google why you think the earth is a ball? There are still eight more "proofs" left! We can go through them all one by one like this!

Mr_Bombastic · July 2018

@Erfisflat

That argument won't work. The sun determines east and west. If your argument was correct, the sun would change position as you make that circular tour of your mythical flat earth, with north always to your left. We traveled west. Always west. And arived where we started.

Mr_Bombastic · July 2018

There is also the problem of explaining the coreolis effect. If the Earth was flat, there would be no such thing. This effect is well worth understood. It is caused by the rotation of the earth. If the Earth was flat, there would be no hurricanes or tornadoes. Back to you.

Mr_Bombastic · July 2018

Couple more things to consider. How do you explain timezones for a flat earth? How do you account for the different seasons? How do you explain it being daytime in Australia, while it's dark in New York?

Mr_Bombastic · July 2018

One more thing. If the Earth is flat, why do we need communication satellites? If the Earth was flat, we could beam a signal anywhere we wanted in a straight line. But you know what? We cant. Because the earth is curved.

Mr_Bombastic · July 2018

Just thought of something. This can be independently confirmed by anyone with enough money to travel. Just look at the night sky anywhere in North America. Take a picture. Now, travel to Austraila. Do the same thing. What do you see? You see different stars. That's because both places are in opposite hemispheres. Proof positive that the earth is round. If this doesn't convince you, you are either a credulous fool, or you've been trolling this whole time.

Erfisflat · July 2018

Mr_Bombastic said:

@Erfisflat

That argument won't work. The sun determines east and west. If your argument was correct, the sun would change position as you make that circular tour of your mythical flat earth, with north always to your left. We traveled west. Always west. And arived where we started.

Actually that's not correct, in either way. Magnetic compasses determine the cardinal directions, and if you travel west, north would be on your right. Either way, as you can see, circumnavigation is not impossible on a flat earth model, nice try though.

Mr_Bombastic said:

There is also the problem of explaining the coreolis effect. If the Earth was flat, there would be no such thing. This effect is well worth understood. It is caused by the rotation of the earth. If the Earth was flat, there would be no hurricanes or tornadoes. Back to you.

This claim is by itself, unsatisfactory, but I understand the ignorance here. I was here too, and since the earth has never been proved to be in motion, nor has any curvature ever been found.

It is a bit more complicated in the flat earth model, and deals with instead the motions of the sun and moon, and we can get into this if you'd like, do you know anything about electromagnetism and dimagnetics, some explanations are found here:

https://flatearthscienceandbible.com/2016/02/13/ocean-tides-on-flat-earth-explained/

Though I have a logical refutation that should settle the matter. Why is the alleged rotation of the earth so selective? We know that actions must have an equal and opposite reaction, but why isn't anything else affected by this alleged 1,000 mph rotation? If water molecules in the air respond to the rotation of the earth, how does a hot air balloon just float around for hours on end and have no trouble getting back to it's starting position? A hot air balloon ride, by your logic would bring it's riders, in a mere two hours, around 2,000 miles away?

Let's hear an official explanation as to what the coriolis effect is exactly.

At 1:15 the explanation brings in a "magic paper airplane that could travel hundreds of miles"... why would it need to be magic? We have actual planes that can travel hundreds of miles now! Bring to me one pilot that corrects for the rotation of the earth. Hell, even NASA trains it's pilots to assume a flat and stationary earth. (See the summary)

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88104main_H-1391.pdf

So, why is it that the reactions from the earth's alleged rotation only (sometimes) affect moisture or storms in the atmosphere?

Mr_Bombastic said:

Couple more things to consider. How do you explain timezones for a flat earth? How do you account for the different seasons? How do you explain it being daytime in Australia, while it's dark in New York?

We are about halfway there now!

As has been conceded, sunsets are possible over a flat earth. If we need to discuss this again, let me know. Time zones are caused by a small and close sun. Yes, I know we want to hold onto our preconceived notion that the earth is 93 Brazilian miles away and can fit hundreds of imaginary earth testicles inside it. Has this been proved beyond doubt though? Look at this sun, does it look close?

When the sun is over a time zone at solar noon, another time zone will see it at an angle, it's simple really. If the sun is far enough away, perspective and atmospheric refraction causes the light to be obscured.Mr_Bombastic said:

One more thing. If the Earth is flat, why do we need communication satellites? If the Earth was flat, we could beam a signal anywhere we wanted in a straight line. But you know what? We cant. Because the earth is curved.

We don't need them. What we do need is all those towers popping up all over the place. Triangulation and communication towers were used long before the satellite myth was dreamed up by Aurthur C Clarke. They'll even openly admit that overseas communication is chiefly carried by undersea cables.

http://www.newsweek.com/undersea-cables-transport-99-percent-international-communications-319072

We also need those long flight balloons carrying the "satellites"

https://www.nasa.gov/scientificballoons

And unmanned drones.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/aircraft/GlobalHawk/index.html

Mr_Bombastic · July 2018

@Erfisflat

I notice that you completely ignored my question about the northern and southern stars. Why are they different?

Erfisflat · July 2018

@Mr_boombastic said
"I notice that you completely ignored my question about the northern and southern stars. Why are they different?"

My apologies, to ignore you was not my intention. When you said this:

"One more thing. If the Earth is flat, why do we need communication satellites?"

I assumed you meant what you said. I do not have unlimited amounts of time and I must have started typing a response to the other points and haven't looked back until now. So on to your last(?) piece of evidence for a spherical earth!

First of all, arguments pertaining to God's firmament are a non sequitur here. Consider the scenario:

Home inspector: " Your foundations for the home you are interested are not level, they are spherical"

Homeowner: " What would make you say that? It looks pretty level to me, all of the measurements I've conducted have come up showing level?"

Home inspector: "Why the trees above it and the birds in them of course!"

The stars are situated in a dome above our heads and act as a large ceiling on a house. The dome is of course rounded, and similar to the ceiling in a large building, so not everyone sees the same ceiling as everyone else. God set the celestial bodies in the firmament so they are roughly the same altitude away, not trillions of light years away as modern astronomy claims.

As of now you've dropped all points that seemingly support a spherical earth. I know it sounds crazy, but stating facts like water is always flat and level is scientifically and factually accurate. Are there any more clues that have led you to your belief system?

Erfisflat · July 2018

And of course the community troll picks and persues the red herring. I acknowledge and understand how line of sight works, do you understand how refraction in the atmosphere works? What about refraction in the firmament or "waters above"?

Erfisflat · July 2018

And of course the community troll picks and persues the red herring. I acknowledge and understand how line of sight works, do you understand how refraction in the atmosphere works? What about refraction in the firmament or "waters above"?

LogicVault · July 2018

@LogicVault
"And of course the community troll picks and persues the red herring" You ARE the troll that uses false information. This has been pointed out when and how you do it many times. Not only did you only start calling me a troll after I already pointed out how you in fact are one ( essentially you're saying "I'm rubber, you're glue"), but you also simply make the claim with no evidence. I provided information about the indicators of your behavior, which can be looked up for confirmation. Also, I have seen at least three people call you out on trolling, but you are the only one claiming I am and only because I already outed you for it. Though now, your fellow troll Evidence will probably join you in that effort since you both like to "tag team". Maybe not, since I just gave my prediction of it and he knows he'd only be confirming it by doing so. He is the smarter troll out of you two after all.

"do you understand how refraction in the atmosphere works? What about refraction in the firmament or "waters above"?" That is an actual red herring. Start using terms correctly.

Mr_Bombastic · July 2018

@Erfisflat

You're an idiot, or a troll. Or both. Welcome to my ignore list. You were entertaining for a bit, but you are beginning to bore me. Good riddance.

Erfisflat · July 2018

Mr_Bombastic said:

@Erfisflat

You're an idiot, or a troll. Or both. Welcome to my ignore list. You were entertaining for a bit, but you are beginning to bore me. Good riddance.

All points stand. And I'm on another ignore list! Farewell @mr_bombastic!

Ampersand · July 2018

Erfisflat said:

@mr_bombastic said

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

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

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

What's happening could be a combination of things:

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

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

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

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

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

Erfisflat · July 2018

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

@mr_bombastic said

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

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

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

What's happening could be a combination of things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

LogicVault · July 2018

@Erfisflat
"Water is flat, and therefore the earth couldn't be a ball." Except the water's surface isn't flat and Earth is in fact a sphere.

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

How to watch the Boston Bruins vs. Toronto Maple Leafs NHL Playoffs game tonight: Game 4 Livestream options, more

In this Debate

Is the earth a ball?
in Earth Science

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

How to watch the Boston Bruins vs. Toronto Maple Leafs NHL Playoffs game tonight: Game 4 Livestream options, more

In this Debate

Is the earth a ball?in Earth Science

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

Is the earth a ball?
in Earth Science