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!
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
Although I love the originality, atmosphere, and overall mood you bring to the website, I have to respectfully disagree. To illustrate, I recently went to Panama for stem cell treatment, long story short, the facility for the treatment is on the 63rd floor, and as I looked out with I could see more of the country, as well as the curvature, I find that it is more defined the higher up you go. And yes I do know that the validity of personal statements is sketchy, but since you don't believe anything put out by Nasa, I had to use some way to illustrate why the world is round.
However, admittedly I am not an expert on this topic, so feel free to respond, as always I will try and read your arguments with an open mind, as a conversation is the only way to come to a solid conclusion.
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 40%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 23%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 60%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 23%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 60%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz/633492-pilots-when-can-you-start-seeing-curvature-earth-sky-black.html
The Mythsustainers did a piece on this, complete with curved glass helmets, with gopro cameras, looking out curved glass windows.
They haven't fooled flat earthers though.
110,000 ft. Fisheye (gopro) camera versus standard.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.7  
  Sources: 6  
  Relevant (Beta): 16%  
  Learn More About Debra
Water only accounts for about "0.05 percent of the Earth's total mass."
https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=lw&ei=DjlfWJsLyOuYAcKToKgP&ved=0EKkuCAUoAQ#q=mass+of+all+water+on+earth
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.44  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 16%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.64  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.88  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.68  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 65%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.24  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
Is this evidence? I have shown here with practical physics, observations, and mathematics that living on a spinning ball is impossible. So I agree with your statement, except for the last bit. I have tried it. This is the reason I'm here, i, like many others are ignoring preassumptions and test the globe with practical physics, observations, and mathematics and experiment.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.92  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 69%  
  Learn More About Debra
Can you please return to the conversation we were on before you start asking other random unrelated questions.
For the last 2000 years, navigators have used the stars and the sun to work out where they are on the surface of the planet. This navigation used the LINEAR relationship between angle to a star, and position on the surface of the earth. The relationship between angle to a star and distance on the surface of a flat earth is non-linear; so the earth can't be flat.
You may not like the fact that the position of the stars and the surface of the earth have a defined geometric relationship that has been understood and used by navigators and explorers for 2000 years, but that is the reality.
If you don't understand what that means, I can always try and explain this in even simpler terms.
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
Apparently you flagged my last argument as a Fallacy: would you care to elaborate?
Which fallacy is it? How am I wrong?
Generally speaking, debate is about the exchange of arguments and information, rather than clicking an agree button and hiding.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 48%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.06  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Changing the subject to perspective when we were talking about Navigation using the stars doesn't seem to make much sense."
I responded to your point which I thought you were summarizing with:
"by all means go ahead and explain how the North Star could drop in the sky 2 degrees EVERY 140 miles travelled north/south on a flat surface."
This is perspective. I'm guessing you haven't sourced your argument because I've already refuted it in my responses. Since, no doubt you are not a Viking or Greek mariner, who navigates by polaris, I'm assuming you've done a Google to debunk me. Just saying that for 2,000 years, everyone navigated by a "linear" relationship and this is only possible on a ball is patently ridiculous, falsely assumes the distance to Polaris, and doesn't even begin to account for refraction. The Vikings, while we're talking about them, knew the earth was flat and navigated the North seas (using Polaris) for hundreds of years.
http://www.vikingaheimar.is/en/fate-gods
So, instead of me taking your word on whether 2,000 year old stargazers assumed a flat or spherical earth, properly sourcing shouldn't be too much to ask. Chances are, you'll find the distance to the star is assumed, and is calculated by assuming the earth's assumed motion or shape.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.2  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.88  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 7%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.42  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 46%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 34%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.34  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 35%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 39%  
  Substantial: 54%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 43%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 0.74  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 39%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
So, before you started mentally masturbating with your strawman about what % water earth is, we had a somewhat relevant chain conversation which stopped with you. Since you have forgotten, I'll catch you up.
"1. Time Zones"
I'm sorry you've lost me on this one. Are you claiming that day doesn't actually fade into night, as anyone who's been outside during sunrise or sunset can verify? Sunlight should drop off significantly if the earth was a ball and was blocking sunlight after sunset. Like the NASA cartoons.
Instead there is twilight which can last for hours.
Coveny-dropped .
"2. Coriolis Effect – Still have not explained the differences, point stands
unrefuted."
I've already explained the most practical example of the coriolis effect is a sham. Drains run out depending on the shape of the bowl and direction and force that water enters it. If you have another practical example of the coriolis effect, please explain, or this point is moot.
Coveny -dropped
3. Sun’s height – Your diagram does not address the sun’s height in the sky.
What are you going on about? The sun appears to come up from the horizon til it gets overhead, then it appears to drop back to the horizon. This is perfectly explained by perspective.
Coveny- no response
"In your diagram it stays the same height, and it wouldn’t be higher or lower in certain areas of the world. "
"Secondly that proves a round earth rather than a flat earth, as the plane gets further away it gets closer to the earth by the viewer, even though it doesn’t really get closer to the earth in reality. My point stands unrefuted."
Wow. I hope you can explain how your point still stands after refuting it yourself. A plane remains at roughly the same altitude from the earth (like my sun). When we see it from our perspective, it appears to rise up, if approaching, and drop down, if it is receding. Are we clear on this?
Coveny- "but, but, muh 75% water"
"4) Star move – We see the arrow exactly the same way in a room, it doesn’t flip.
It most certainly does.
https://youtu.be/KDUXlhv77dA
Maybe you need to do the experiment yourself. Ok, let's make it even easier to visualize. You are on one side of a room, facing your friend on an opposite wall, who is also facing you. An arrow, on the floor, facing your friend will appear upright to you, but upside down to him (flipped ). You can continue denying this on all you want.
Coveny- no response
"Secondly stars appear small not big,
What makes you think that? Have you measured the size of an actual star now? Or are we taking NASA'S word for this? You ever seen a star under high magnification? Stars obviously aren't gas giant balls of flame trillions of miles away.
Coveny- no response
"so “refraction” that makes objects bigger has no bearing on this discussion. Regardless of the size of the light, in the distance it should fade away if it’s like you say it is. (where the stars being close to the earth is the reason they move) My point stands unrefuted."
A) perspective
As I've explained before, and you have great difficulty understanding, this is perspective. The railroad tracks don't just "fade away", nether do the telephone poles. They merge with the horizon.
Edit: The distance to the star amongst other factors decide how this happens, and has no bearing on the shape of the earth.
Everything follows this law, and all dimensions converge at the horizon.
"Refraction" is everywhere too. There is a LOT of water in the air.
https://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html
As a science buff, you should know that water bends light.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refrn/Lesson-1/Refraction-and-Sight
It can be shown that water both magnifies and displaces objects due to smells law. Sometimes, when an object is close to a solid object, such as the side of a glass, or the ground plane, the bended light will be obstructed.
http://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/terrestrial.html
This is why stars the sun and moon don't "fade out". As perspective brings their apparent position closer to the horizon, an increasing amount of water gets between you and star, the sun, the moon, etc. the object is magnified, and displaced.
Coveny- no response
"5) Horizon – Your video show the boat “fading to obscurity” bottom first proving my point. (although all the talk about mirrors was annoying) My point stands unrefuted."
As has been shown, light can bend and displace objects. It can also invert light, in the form of a mirage.
This might be a bad example, due solely to the diagram underneath which shows a curved road, and an abnormal sized head abnormally high from the ground. As we see, the ground under the car hasn't disappeared, the trees show us the horizon, but the heat on the road (which contains a concentrated amount of water) has inverted the sky (and the vehicle) onto the road.
https://youtu.be/afkT3f6sZuc
Since there are no trees to give us reference on the ocean, we cannot tell where the true horizon is. So now that we know more about water, and light, we can see what's going on. The boat is magnified and slightly displaced with more and more distance (water in the air) causing an inferior mirage that obscures the bottom of the boat which is magnified until it is displaced under the ground plane (the ocean's surface) it's all very perfectly well explained in the video, I was assuming you could understand English and eighth grade level science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEqDbsPUgH8
And you have to Google how much the earth curves at ten miles and you still get it wrong? It's 66.6 feet of curvature at ten miles. Research your own model before you call mine ridiculous.
Coveny- no responseThe other rebuttals are there too, I'll copy those next. Either come up with a rebuttal or stop wasting my time.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.32  
  Sources: 19  
  Relevant (Beta): 67%  
  Learn More About Debra
1 - Time zones
The sun disappears it doesn't "fade away" as I have already stated. Just like that video you shared of sun going down behind the mountain as the curvature covers it. The sun didn't get smaller and "fade" away it drops below the horizon and the horizon covers it. If it worked the say it worked the sun would just get smaller and smaller then fade out, but it doesn't fade out, and you still haven't addressed the areas in your diagram that would ALWAYS see the sun.
2 - Coriolis effect
You explained drains, I responded that the ocean doesn't have walls like a drain does and that proves nothing because you are trying to explain a controlled "flush" rather than occuring in nature without walls to shape it. I believe my response was something about how your whole idea was full of s*** just like they toilet you used as an example.
3 - Sun's height
You still miss the point on this completely. You diagram can NOT compensate for the sun "moving around" for your diagram to work the sun's path must never move, yet it does. Sometimes it's higher sometimes it's much lower in the sky. Move the circle around on your diagram and see what happens. Whole areas of the world quit getting daylight. Also as the video I posted shows the path wouldn't go from east to west, it would go from east to north in a circle rather than a straight line. Again none of that has to do with your magical "perspective". Perspective NEVER makes stuff disappear it get's closer to the horizon and smaller, but you video demonstrates exactly how much bulls*** your perspective thing is, as the sun does NOT get smaller or fades away. It drops below the curvature of the earth... clearly. It PROVES the earth is round just like I said.
4 - Stars move
On the flip... no the image doesn't "flip" regardless of where you stand only your angle changes. But after watching a bit of that video I can see where you get your rampant insults in the face of anyone who disagrees with you. I'm tempted to make a video, but I don't want to waste the time.
Small stars
What makes me think the stars appear small? Are you serious? Go outside at night, go so somewhere away from the city and watch a sun rise (up from below the edge of the earth) or a sun set (down past the edge of the earth) you'll see stars and you'll see these big objects called the sun and moon. One APPEARS big (like when planes fly at 20 thousand feet in between the earth and the moon (which still looks the same size as it does from earth) but don't block out the moon), the other APPEARS small, as in the plane can block them out. What is wrong with your brain?
A) perspective
Ok lets address this with REALITY rather than a drawing. Look at the lights close in the picture, and look at how the same light far away is smaller and fading away even though it's not going into the horizon? Does this make sense to you yet? If the stars are small already they would FADE AWAY if they got further away just like these street lamps. You do think street lamps are real right?
Refraction has no baring on this. Even it were in effect (which it's not) it would just off set it and would have ZERO affect on the brightness of the light source or prevent that light source from fading away. But hey maybe I should try your approach! Bananas prove that the earth is round! (man it's fun making s*** up)
5) Horizon -
Oh look another banana. Ok refraction and the mirror effect deal with stuff you can see, and they end when the object is out of site. It just keeps getting smaller rather than being consumed by the bottom up. (as your video of the boat SHOWS)
Look a banana video proving heat distortion and hills/valleys are a thing. I find it so strange that you both use something to "prove" your flat earth, then completely ignore it if it doesn't suit you. sigh
It's not "my" model, it's sciences model that has been proven thousands of ways by 10s of thousands of different people. They are the ones who proved the bibles model wrong. (well after you guys stopped killing them for disagreeing with you) As I said at the beginning of this I don't have an interest researching this, I have an interest in stopping you from being anti-science and pro-religion. We had a time when you guys were in charge it's call the dark ages. I'd really prefer NOT to go back there again.
You have rebutted nothing. You hold a banana up as "proof", and say it's been refuted, but as we've seen you lie... a LOT.
  Considerate: 67%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.86  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
I await your proof of how an object in the sky can move linearly with distance traveled. You can assert "Perspective" or "refraction" explain it, is meaningless: you may as well have said "magic" explains it. I also await your proof of how various forms of navigation requires one to assume the distance to Polaris. How? Why.
,
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
I really don't think he understands this. I've begun calling it bannana proof, because bananas prove the world is curved not flat, and that's exactly how ridiculous he sounds.
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 37%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
@coveny
1 - Time zones
“The sun disappears it doesn't "fade away" as I have already stated. Just like that video you shared of sun going down behind the mountain as the curvature covers it. “
Did you seriously just say that? You think mountains are curvature?
“The sun didn't get smaller and "fade" away it drops below the horizon and the horizon covers it. If it worked the say it worked the sun would just get smaller and smaller then fade out, but it doesn't fade out, and you still haven't addressed the areas in your diagram that would ALWAYS see the sun.”
I really didn't think I had to cover a basic concept like refraction to an adult with such detail. I've showed you there is a lot of water in the air. I've shown you how the light, as it travels through a body of water, will bend.
Even some of the dumbest globetards on the plane know about refraction. Though they assume (since we're on a spinning ball and that's all there is going to ever be no matter what) that the light is bent to great degrees because of the atmosphere, though the claim is that the light is bent the demonstrably opposite direction.
They bring pseudoscience, I bring real science. The sun is supposedly mathematically impossible to see for a short time in your model, supposedly over the imaginary curve already when we see it setting.
“we can see the Sun even when it is *geometrically* just below the horizon, at both sunrise and sunset.”
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/52-our-solar-system/the-sun/observing-the-sun/194-why-can-we-see-the-sun-s-image-before-sunrise-and-after-sunset-beginner
but as can be demonstrated below, refraction works in the opposite way. instead of the sun being raised above it's true position, it is lowered. So, once again, the sun, and anything with enough atmosphere between the observer (you) and the observed (the sun) will be magnified and lowered until it is obstructed.
This means the stars, the moon and the sun, when close to the horizon, are actually slightly higher and smaller than what they appear to be.
2 - Coriolis effect
You explained drains, I responded that the ocean doesn't have walls like a drain does and that proves nothing because you are trying to explain a controlled "flush" rather than occuring in nature without walls to shape it. I believe my response was something about how your whole idea was full of s*** just like they toilet you used as an example."
https://youtu.be/HY4slgQ3wwU
https://youtu.be/2B22yLZD4Ng
Drains go in both directions in both hemispheres. This in no way or the other proves curvature. A red herring.
3 - Sun's height
“You still miss the point on this completely. You diagram can NOT compensate for the sun "moving around" for your diagram to work the sun's path must never move, yet it does.”
Are you referring to seasons, when the sun appears closer to the southern horizon as it passes from east to west, or just the general, everyday east to west motion of the sun?
“Sometimes it's higher sometimes it's much lower in the sky. Move the circle around on your diagram and see what happens. Whole areas of the world quit getting daylight. Also as the video I posted shows the path wouldn't go from east to west, it would go from east to north in a circle rather than a straight line. Again none of that has to do with your magical "perspective". “
Magical? Perspective is a well known law of everyday life. There's nothing magical about it. You may have to try again on this whole point until now.
“Perspective NEVER makes stuff disappear it get's closer to the horizon and smaller, “
No, thats refraction AND perspective, along with atmospheric blockage (clouds, dust, heat, etc.)
“but you video demonstrates exactly how much bulls*** your perspective thing is, as the sun does NOT get smaller or fades away. It drops below the curvature of the earth... clearly. It PROVES the earth is round just like I said.”
The sun does get smaller,
https://youtu.be/aAbOZor0Whs
https://youtu.be/GDaiw-G1VGE
https://youtu.be/W0Gx1vD1CRE
though as more and more water gets in front of it, the change is less apparent (magnification) . This is once again, due to refraction and perspective. Here are three experiments that show this.
https://youtu.be/wExbki15td8
https://youtu.be/HH5U74rpYeU
And I've done one myself that gives the same results.
So, with the scientific method, i can demonstrate exactly what we see, can you?
4 - Stars move
On the flip... no the image doesn't "flip" regardless of where you stand only your angle changes. But after watching a bit of that video I can see where you get your rampant insults in the face of anyone who disagrees with you. I'm tempted to make a video, but I don't want to waste the time.
“The angle changes (dependent on the positions), you now agree. Do you agree that 180 degrees is an angle? You see the inverted image of what someone on opposite sides of the room/plane does. You're thinking this.”
When it's actually this.
There's no simpler way to explain this. I've probably wasted more time than i should have already. Any more and I’'ll just be repeating myself.
“Small stars
What makes me think the stars appear small? Are you serious? Go outside at night, go so somewhere away from the city and watch a sun rise (up from below the edge of the earth) or a sun set (down past the edge of the earth) you'll see stars and you'll see these big objects called the sun and moon.”
I mean yes, compared to the stars, yes the sun is big, and the stars are just points of light.
“One APPEARS big (like when planes fly at 20 thousand feet in between the earth and the moon (which still looks the same size as it does from earth) but don't block out the moon), the other APPEARS small, as in the plane can block them out. What is wrong with your brain?
Totally irrelevant. Back to your point,
“Secondly stars appear small not big, so “refraction” that makes objects bigger has no bearing on this discussion. Regardless of the size of the light, in the distance it should fade away if it’s like you say it is.”
Again, this is where you are ignorant.
Refraction causes the light to remain relatively the same size as is drops towards the horizon (due to perspective) and displaces it's apparent position to a lower point until it is intercepted by the ground plane. Regardless of whether you understand it, that's how it works. The earth has been measured, and there is no curve, pointing at the sky proves nothing.
A) perspective
Ok lets address this with REALITY rather than a drawing. Look at the lights close in the picture, and look at how the same light far away is smaller and fading away even though it's not going into the horizon? Does this make sense to you yet? If the stars are small already they would FADE AWAY if they got further away just like these street lamps. You do think street lamps are real right?
There is not nearly enough atmosphere over this road to cause enough refraction.
“Refraction has no baring on this. Even it were in effect (which it's not) it would just off set it and would have ZERO affect on the brightness of the light source or prevent that light source from fading away.
Says you? I'm properly sourcing AND demonstrating every point very clearly. For you to just say “refraction doesn't exist, and even if it did, it don't work like you're showing me hur-deedurr.”
“ But hey maybe I should try your approach! Bananas prove that the earth is round! (man it's fun making s*** up)”
Bananas? I must have missed that. I'm not debating for ID. Irrelevant nonsense.
“5) Horizon -
Oh look another banana. Ok refraction and the mirror effect deal with stuff you can see, and they end when the object is out of site. It just keeps getting smaller rather than being consumed by the bottom up. (as your video of the boat SHOWS)
Look a banana video proving heat distortion and hills/valleys are a thing. I find it so strange that you both use something to "prove" your flat earth, then completely ignore it if it doesn't suit you. sigh”
I don't see an argument here. Just more talk of bananas…
“It's not "my" model, it's sciences model”
You don't know the meaning of science. You are (attempting to) defend this scientific model (unscientifically).
“ that has been proven thousands of ways by 10s of thousands of different people.”
And you can't even do it once.
“ They are the ones who proved the bibles model wrong. (well after you guys stopped killing them for disagreeing with you)
I haven't killed anyone, did you have daddy issues or something?
“As I said at the beginning of this I don't have an interest researching this, I have an interest in stopping you from being anti-science and pro-religion. We had a time when you guys were in charge it's call the dark ages. I'd really prefer NOT to go back there again.
You have rebutted nothing. You hold a banana up as "proof", and say it's been refuted, but as we've seen you lie... a LOT.”
Error 404: argument not found. Conclusion: opponent does not know anything about refraction and perspective, and jumps to hasty conclusions based on a faulty premise.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.34  
  Sources: 21  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
1 - Time Zones
Yes I seriously said that. Yes I think mountains are curvature. (I don't think you understand what you are asking, mountains aren't flat, they curve)
Refraction... Still has nothing to do with brightness of a light source. (look back at the street lights) Oh the insults are back because you have no argument this is like deja vu all over again. You ready for me to make you look like the lying fool you are again?
Supposedly impossible to see the sun? So you can see the sun at night? This is the part where you look like a fool and start back tracking. I think your next step is to claim "see" doesn't mean "see" and start a semantics argument, followed by saying you didn't say it, follow by accusing me of a strawman, or putting words in your mouth, followed by you curling up in a ball for a few days crying about how bad I made you look. Peddle your elsewhere, you have posted a video in this thread which shows beyond a shadow of a doubt the sun sets below the horizon rather than fades away as my street lamps prove.
2 - Coriolis effect
Oh look you have videos of swirling water around objects again. (well at least it's not a toilet) AGAIN, explain it where there isn't a structure that could easily affect it. (think ocean where there are no pipes, river beds, or other obstructions to distort the coriolis effect)
3 - Sun's height
No in the video where the sun goes behind the mountain it does NOT get smaller, or fade away. Don't take what I say out of context. In that video you can see the sun disappear bottom up it falls below the curvature of the earth. You have not "gives the same results" with the scientific method, or demonstrated anything. Refraction displaces an object, perspective is actually several things, none of which make objects disappear, but it does make them get smaller, and make distances between objects smaller. (which has no bearing on the sun's height from different places on the planet)
4 - Stars move
No you do not see an inverted image... ever in your image you are looking from a different angle is all. I really don't want to have to make a video on this... sigh
Small stars
Oh look you finally figured out stars are small. It seemed like a big deal to you when you wrote this paragraph, but now that I proved you wrong... no big deal right?
Oh look even though the stars don't go to the horizon your "proof" is ... mutter mutter perspective.... mutter mutter refraction... mutter mutter your ignorant and don't understand ... mutter mutter I'm right because I say so. Um no you're not right, and you are most definitely ignorant. The stars move depending on the time of the year or your location on the planet. Some stars can only be seen from certain parts of the world, and they don't "fade away".
A) Perspective
So you admit your model only works when a small subset of environmental factors are at play, or you want to admit your perspective thing is BS?
Reflection - Says the picture. You can see the light sources fade away as they get further away and don't intersect with the ground. So no heat distortion effect, or any of your other BS. You can clearly see on my picture the lights fade away... says the picture. I have sourced and demonstrated it very clearly. For you to just say "reflection and perspective did it" won't work like you're showing me hur-deedurr. (I don't like you but I have to admit the swedish chef reference earned you points...)
Bananas - You are totally debating irrelevant nonsense, and yes you missed that.
5 - Horizon
You don't see a way to disprove the argument so you use insults.
Oh look you admit round earth is the scientific model. I should frame that one as you finally let some honesty slip through while you were trying to insult me. You are the pseudoscience king, I'm sure you believe everything out of David Wolfe's mouth.
Daddy issues, refraction and perspective banana distractions blah blah blah
Look you want to keep going so I make you look even stupider than you do now, be my guest. I can rub salt in your wounds for as long as you like. You want to seem smart but really all you do is look stupid. You mutter about that proves nothing but sounds vaguely scientific without showing how it would account for reality. You say you don't trust books and websites, yet quote them when it suits you. You insult and ridicule rather than bringing clear and supported evidence. You somehow think the whole world is working together to protect the US. That all the pictures are fakes. That it's all this big scam for what? Oh you don't know. Just like you don't know why Russia, China, and the US would be working together. Or you don't know why no one has seen the edge. Or you don't know why your tests only work in certain environments under a specific set of conditions. You pretend to be an intellectual when really all you are is a bible thumping anti-intellectual.
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 19%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 67%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Don't flatter yourself, this is not all that i have going on, and considering 99% of your last post is logically fallacious, (guilty by association, strawman, cherry picking, appeal to the stone, circular reasoning, ad hominem, kettle logic, hasty generalization, appeal to ridicule, and general dumbassery, I'm still counting) responding to such has become a waste of my time, and your posts have probably made whoever reads them and takes anything you say even remotely seriously a little bit dumber than before.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 42%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Oh and you missed one.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
  Considerate: 50%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.08  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 44%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.22  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 62%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 51%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 29%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.64  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 25%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 23%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 73%  
  Learn More About Debra
First paragraph
Yes I seriously said that. Yes I think mountains are curvature. (I don't think you understand what you are asking, mountains aren't flat, they curve) Coveny
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 38%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.24  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 56%  
  Learn More About Debra
"mountains are curvature"
"MOUNTAINS ARE CURVATURE"
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 22%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 43%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
  Considerate: 55%  
  Substantial: 26%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 50%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 42%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 26%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 22%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.22  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 26%  
  Learn More About Debra
Breathtaking
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 50%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.08  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
What a horrible video. Did you shoot that with a disposable camera?
What is the second mutually exclusive statement I'm making? My claim is that I think mountains are curvature. Your stance is that is flat, mountains aren't flat. That doesn't mean that they are ONLY curvature. I never made a mutually exclusive statement. My statement is Curvature is the correct, flat is not. This is not the same thing as saying mountains are either flat or curved, and it's not curved. Take your bulls*** accusations and shove them. I presented to false dichotomy, nor am I presenting a false dichotomy because I haven't stated that flat or curved are the ONLY answers.
And to support my claim here is curvature defined:
Dictionary - the act of curving or the state of being curved.
Webster - the act of curving : the state of being curved
Free Dictionary - The act of curving or the state of being curved
Oxford - The fact of being curved or the degree to which something is curved.
And the curve on the picture you present against it with a rough line showing the curve.
Don't go away mad little man...
  Considerate: 36%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.12  
  Sources: 8  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 34%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 60%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 56%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 56%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 43%  
  Substantial: 53%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.88  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
No ad hominem attacks or curves there at all... ROFL
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 23%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.14  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra