I'm challenging xCivicx to A Debate About Flat Earth

[null]

If I'm not mistaken, it was @Neo The Resurrected ONE

@Neo The Resurrected ONE ?

 

[Neo. The Only. The One.]

@Neo The Resurrected ONE ?

??

 

[Gritsngravy]

For you dudes who believe the earth is flat, do y’all have any peer reviewed research papers about flat earth

 

[xCivicx]

This is you attempting to build-in a reason for you to place me on ignore and run from this smoke. No, I'll reply how I feel the need to reply

























That is not what I said in the vid. I told you that all three of those locations can SEE that star map, yet we cannot here in the North. I said nothing about them being seen at the same time, stop trying to twist my words so that we get caught up in me trying to explain what I said. That tactic does not work on me.

You are the one that needs to prove we can see the southern cross here in the North, because YOU were the one that said we all see the same stars, just from a different perspective. The burden of proof lies with you: prove that we see the same stars.



This is literally nonsensical. Nothing you've said makes any sense-- perspective has nothing to do with an inability to see across a supposed plane. The horizon does not change your perspective, nor does this concept "flip" a star map, making it appear upside down. You are gish galloping, throwing nonsense at me.

Ok we can do it your way

Video 1: Not related to anything in the thread, except for the fact that you made a thread challenging me to a flat earth debate, but somehow you think it was me that called you out? Isn't that what the definition of "challenging" someone is? Or am I crazy?

Video 2: You're still repeating the exact same concept even though I showed you where you were wrong but cool. Take that last image of the globe that you posted(the one that shows lights on the dark side of the earth but yet still does not show any stars on that side). Where are dawn and dusk occurring specifically in that image?

Also, dawn and dusk are characterized by being the time of day where the sun's light is still being cast in an area, even though the sun may have crossed the horizon

They are a part of the DAY, meaning that when you add those times of DAY in with the time of DAY that the sun is shining fully on an area, the time that DAY is occurring increases to 50%+

Video 3: This goes right back to where you're wrong from video 2. You seem to think that the gif that I posted is somehow a to-scale, completely accurate map of the flat earth model when I have said multiple times that it isn't. You seem to think that just because whoever made that gif, made it with the sun's light being the size that it is, that there's no way that the sun's light could actually cover a LARGER span than it does in the gif. I figured that you would find some fairly insignificant part of any crude image that I posted and that you would try and harp on it, so I'm ready to move on when you are because you don't seem to understand that the sun's light is actually covering more ground than what you see in that gif

And once again, as stated earlier in this thread, there are areas around the antarctic that experience 24 hour day and 24 hour night. Those areas SPECIFICALLY DO NOT experience the same 24 hour sun pathing, so what are you even talking about??



This literally disproves everything you said in the last part of video 3. The sun would appear to not be setting for such and extended time because it's moving in a WIDER CIRCUMFERENCE above that area in the antarctic. Notice how this was taken in DECEMBER, when it's WINTER TIME for the northern hemisphere

Video 4: Yeah you didn't understand what I said so now you're arguing from a basis of ignorance. Hawaii is very close to the equator. About half the distance that new york is. If florida (which is further away from the equator) rarely experiences seasonal shift, then why would hawaii(an island closer to the equator than florida) experience season shift? Be specific in your answer

Video 5: By this logic then would and should be seeing a reddish moon at almost every sunset since the atmosphere is scattering that light every night

So in essence, sunlight, which illuminates the moon, makes the moon looks white, up until the point where the earth is supposed to cast a black shadow fully on the moon, at with point the sunlight makes the moon look red. Please feel free to post an example of this phenomena occurring anywhere else, like in an experiment on light refraction or something

I'll have more on light rays later though

Video 6: The shadow you created in your video WAS an ellipse

The shadow on the moon that I posted what vertical with no curve to it whatsoever. THAT WAS MY POINT. Recreate that on your wall please

Video 7: I'm not even sure what the point of this video was. I just asked you to post a video of someone looking west and watching the sunset. That's what I did and you can see the sun appear to get smaller as it moves away from you

I'm not sure where all that extra "equator" talk came from because it was unnecessary. There was nothing to "debunk" here. I posted a factual video that everyone can see with their own eyes

 

[xCivicx]

There's plenty of religious, non-nihilistic people who don't believe the earth is flat, where you going with this?

And there are no nihilistic atheist flat earthers...

 

[OfTheCross]

Indonesia dirty as hell. can't even see the sun set

 

[xCivicx]

This is incredibly stupid.

1. I also know what the Earth looks like, because we have images of it. Your logic is that I need to specifically see the Earth from space with my own eyes, which is dumb for two reasons

a. You have never seen this dog with your own eyes. If we are following your logic, you cannot say ANYTHING is real, unless you've personally seen it.
b. You are arguing from ignorance, an informal fallacy. You are requiring impossible evidence from me (because you know I cannot go into space to view the Earth), and at the same time discarding the evidence from those that HAVE been to space.

I have already provided for you a non-composite real photograph of the Earth on Kodak paper, that was taken in 1972, decades before CGI and computer graphics were capable of generating an image of the Earth that was in any way comparable.

Spoiler

This image satisfies every requirement. It is a real photo, not a computer generated image. It is not composite. It shows the Earth in true color. It is on photo paper.

You are wrong.

You're right in that I don't know that that specific dog exists

But I DO KNOW that DOGS. EXIST.

That image does not depict a pear-shaped oblate spheroid. You already lost that one, I'm not sure why you're rehashing it

 

[xCivicx]

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." - Isaiah 40:22

The heavens are the top of the inside of the "tent", while the floor is the Earth. A circle is flat.

"He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth." - Job 37:3

Spheres don't have ends. Flat circles/planes do.

"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." - Psalms 104:5

Earth is spinning on its axis at 1/4 a mile per second. orbiting the Sun at over 18 miles per second and being pulled by its mass around the Milky Way at around 124 miles per second.

And not only do we not feel any of this motion, the constellations have remained semi-constant over hundreds of years

I guess they're moving at the exact same rate in the exact same direction huh

 

[xCivicx]

@Th3Birdman bro I'm not trying to fukk up your thread but he's not going to listen. You definitely should be doing something better with your time outside of this lopsided debate.

You're telling him not to bother with a thread that he chose to make??

I didn't force him to call me out

 

[xCivicx]

What do you think about space tourism, did they film this underwater and tell Michael Strahan to pretend he was in space?

As I said before, low-earth orbit is a concept that I'm not against

 

[Th3Birdman]

Cool so we'll start with curvature here

According to the exact curvature formula that you used, person standing 5 Feed above the ground has a should have a visibility of ~2.8 miles before the earth supposedly curves. The value of that curvature should be ~3 feet

At an elevation of 40,000(higher than planes usually fly), visibility should be ~245 miles before the earth supposedly curves. The value of that curvature should be around 30,000 feet, or a little over 5 miles of the earth curving down and away from you, out of line of sight

What you don't seem to understand, is that there actually have been people who tested these values in real life, in real time, with high-powered equipment

First of all, you need to show your work. You asked me for a formula, which I provided. You are now tossing out numbers with no context as to how you've reached the conclusions you have.

I'm not going to shoot you some bail by plugging in the correct numbers to the formula I provided- YOU have to do that. If I answer, I'm helping you. That is not how a debate works, and these weak, transparent tactics don't work on me.

Show me your math, and how you're plugging these numbers into that formula. I have a sneaking suspicion you don't know how, and I'm almost certain you will dodge this.

Here is the formula again: h=r-r cos(s/2r)

Falling objects:
Objects in motion seek the quickest path to achieving an "at rest" state

This is not an answer.

My question was WHY DO THINGS FALL ***DOWN***. Telling me things "seek" a path, is telling me objects are sentient, and can choose what path they take. Explain the mechanism by which they "seek" paths, Civic.

Your "explanation" is a non-explanation and reeks of scientific illiteracy. The quickest path to achieving an "at rest" state? Really? So that would mean if I dropped a stone from a plane, and held a book over that stone, the stone should climb up and land on the top of the book, because that would be quicker than falling to the Earth and would be an at rest state on top of the book.

See how dumb this sounds?

We have an explanation: general relativity. Objects all create bends/warps in spacetime, similar to a taut sheet with a stone on it. That stone creates a dip, and anything placed on that sheet will "fall" towards the center of that stone. Here is a visual demonstration of this concept:

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the "air" part of your post. When you fill a balloon with air, it "falls up", just like when you dive into a body of water, you tend to float up. Why doesn't gravity pull a cruise ship to the bottom of the ocean? Gravity supposedly keeps said cruise ship stuck to the ground on land correct?

It does not surprise me that you don't understand what I'm asking you.

1. The point I'm making is that you don't have an actual answer for why things fall DOWN. I asked you if I dropped a ball, why does it fall down? I intercepted you at the point of answering "buoyancy and density" (your go-to answer) because buoyancy and density does not explain why a ball does not fall up or side ways. When I drop a baseball, it is surrounded by air on all sides, meaning it is more dense and less buoyant than all the air surrounding it, but 100 times out of 100, if I dropped that ball, it falls DOWN.

If your answer (buoyancy and density) were correct, the ball would equally fall up or fall sideways. You cannot explain why it's ALWAYS DOWN.

2. Filling a balloon with air is not only completely irrelevant to the question of why does a BALL fall down, it's entirely inaccurate. Balloons do not float upwards with "air"-- they float because they are filled with Helium, a substance lighter than air. A balloon filled with air would fall to the ground.

The reason your tired "buoyancy and density" argument fails is because buoyancy only works BECAUSE OF GRAVITY. Gravity acts on all things, including the air, meaning if a substance is lighter than air, it will sit on top of that air.

Air, like water, is a fluid, so fluid dynamics apply. The same as air is less dense than water, meaning a beach ball filled with water will float to the surface of that water and sit on top of it, going no higher, a balloon filled with helium is lighter than air, so it will float to the top of that air and sit on top of it, going no higher. This is why helium balloons don't escape into space-- beach balls don't shoot into the air after floating to the top of water.

Buoyancy requires gravity to work-- air is being pulled down by gravity, which is why Helium rises, causing the buoyant effect.

3. Ships have ballast tanks that allow the ship to remain buoyant. It's that simple. When their ballast fails, or a ship takes on water, it can absolutely sink. You have said nothing.

 

[xCivicx]

I'm confused. Does filming underwater make you float or something? I've never been in a submarine before but I've been swimming and I wasn't floating like that underwater

Yes, you can manipulate the density of the water you're floating in with different solutions

 

[xCivicx]

What do you think asking for this means? I most likely will never be able to produce a first account photograph of Beyonce's titties, but I can assure you, they're there. A photo of the Earth blocking out the sun would require someone to have taken a picture like that for no reason, and for me to find that photo to appease a silly talking point that means nothing to this debate at large.

To be clear, I understand what you are trying to do here. You think that an image of the Sun being blocked out by the Earth will produce stars on the sides of a dark circular object. As I said to you earlier: THE SUN IS EXTREMELY BRIGHT.

I have already provided for you an image of the Earth in front of the Sun, taken by Apollo astronauts in 1969

Spoiler

The issue is why you didn't like this image the first time I posted this: THE SUN IS TOO BRIGHT. The Sun is never completely blocked out by the Earth (or Moon), and can cause exposure issues in cameras if its light hits the Earth (or Moon).

Even during a total solar eclipse, you can still see the Sun (more specifically, its corona):

Spoiler

All this^^^ light seeping out of the side can prevent cameras from being able to see stars, due to how exposure works.





We good or nah?



Absolutely incorrect.

What part of "THE EARTH IS FUKKING MASSIVE" do you not understand??? Human beings are essentially bacteria to the Earth, and even the largest structures we have ever built are tiny compared to the Earth. Hell, Mt. Everest is barely a bump on the Earth's surface. You would NEVER see black specks all across the Earth.

Here's a simple experiment using my key light again, and this definitively debunks your point:

You keep posting the same pics. Why?

And the earth looks absolutely ridiculous in that pic with the satellites, come on man

You think you sound logical by saying "i can't see it but I know it's there" but that's in fact a religious argument in nature

There should be SOME evidence of satellites reflecting sunlight in a photo of the night side of the earth. You can't produce it

 

[Th3Birdman]

What experiments have you done to prove that the sun is 92 million miles away?

Post them in here please

Easy work. This is basic trigonometry.

Angular diameter of Sun= 0.5 degrees.

(Using trigonometry) the radius or diameter of the Sun can be calculated from the distance between Earth and Sun:

a, as 2×Rsun = tan(0.5 degrees) × a.

Using the time it takes the Earth to go once around the Sun (P = 365 days), and the distance traveled by the Earth in this process (2πa, since Earth's orbit is only slightly elliptical), the average orbital speed of Earth as v = (2πa)/P.

Radius of the Sun, Rsun = 1.3927 million km
Orbital speed of Earth, v = roughly 30 km/s
= Earth-Sun distance, a = 149.6 million kilometers or 92,957,130 miles

 

[xCivicx]

nah. i'm gonna need a flat earth gps model first.

here is the globe gps model explained Global Positioning System - Wikipedia .

i.e. make assertions rather than pose questions when responding to a question.

I already explained my opinion on gps

Someone else reposted in this thread like a page or 2 ago

After you read it, can you answer my questions?