"Upside down" exists in space?
I'm challenging xCivicx to A Debate About Flat Earth
- Thread starter Th3Birdman
- Start date
-
- Tags
- debate flat earth
It's literally not possible to have peer-reviewed research papers on the topic because you'll lose your funding and be fired for trying(this has happened to multiple people)
The peer-review system is an echo chamber. The people who fund research dictate what results the want to achieve by way of said research
First of all, only ONE image in that post is the same. The reason I sent it to you was because it is what you asked for.
The second image is of the sun being blocked out by the Moon. It is the equivalent of an image of the Earth blocking on the Sun-- it demonstrates that you can never fully block out the sun, because the corona of the Sun will still shine very brightly, and if your camera cannot handle that kind of brightness, you will still run into exposure issues causing you to be unable to see stars.
It's a direct answer to your question
No, you need to stop this bullshyt. You asked for something, and it was provided. That is a real image of the Earth taken from the ISS, where you can see the Earth and stars, just as you asked.
THIS is intellectual dishonesty. When you ask someone for something but deny it when they provide it, you are poisoning the well. No amount of evidence will ever be good enough for you because you literally deny reality. Saying the Earth looks ridiculous in that photo is an argument from incredulity, an informal fallacy.
You got what you asked for, an image of the Earth where you can see the stars. You JUST told someone you have no issue with LEO (low Earth Orbit), and the ISS is in Low Earth Orbit. You are a liar and a cheat.
Sorry, but this only works on mental midgets. I cannot see air most of the time, but I know it's there. I cannot see you, but I'm aware you exist. I have never been to Wyoming, but it's a real place where people actually live.
There is nothing "religious" about that, because I have evidence all these things exist, including the Earth and the Stars. You don't have a single shred of evidence for anything you say-- YOU are the religious one here. You deny evidence, balk at explanations and can't do a single line of math.
You have failed at understanding the concept of "size".
The largest satellite we have orbiting the Earth is the ISS. It is the size of a football field. Every single other satellite is significantly smaller than that, but lets assume every satellite is the size of the ISS
Can you see a football field from an airplane, at a height of 30,000 feet? Why or why not?
Realize, then, that you are asking for someone to be able to see a football field sized object from significantly higher up. The Blue Marble was an image taken at 95,040,000 feet (18000 km) away from the surface of the Earth-- that is 3200 TIMES THE DISTANCE OF A PLANE. If you can barely see a football field from a plane, how the fukk can you see it from 3200 times FURTHER?
Are you stupid?
And just to satisfy this ridiculous ask, here is an image of Japanese satellites from the ISS:
Last edited:
Reflected
Living in fear in the year of the tiger.
Where did I say it did? Point is, gravity impacts the cardiovascular system, you can easily experience that by simply standing upside down. So I was asking you what do you think happens when you stand upside down for an extended period time. That experience is due to the pressure put on the surrounding organs, due to gravity, and the workload it puts on the heart as a result. So I'm wondering why you think being in space and it having an impact on the cardiovascular system is silly to believe, because it's the complete opposite of silly if you believe in gravity... inb4 we don't believe in gravity.
Reflected
Living in fear in the year of the tiger.
Please bait this idiot into a live debate. My lord, there is no way this guy doesn't dodge this shyt, and that alone is enough to shut it down. He is definitely dumb, but I honestly think he engages in bad faith, the live debate will expose that. People like him should always be ignored beyond a live debate.
Terrible reasoning.
The image was of a specific dog. We were talking about a SPECIFIC subject in the image, just like how we're talking about a specific planet.
You're really, really bad at arguing fam lol
If you think I have lost a single interaction in this thread, you're more delusional than I originally thought.
You keep bringing up Neil, when you're talking to me. I haven't once referenced The Flat Earth Society, so why can't you stick to things I've said?
This is because you have your talking points ready, and are not prepared to take on a fresh opponent. Earlier you tried and failed at calling me "disingenuous", but here you are, using arguments against me I have never once stated. If I brought up the stupid arguments from other flat earthers, you would be in here calling me all kinds of dishonest because it wouldn't be something you said, so why the fukk are you doing that to me?
Why do you keep asking me about pears? Please search through my post history and provide a SINGLE quote from me on this board with the word "pear" in that quote, besides this one.
What you are doing is attacking a strawman argument. You are not in a debate with Neil, so stop talking about what Neil said-- you accepted a debate with me by posting in this thread. I cannot "lose" something I've not once stated.
Last edited:
Gritsngravy
Superstar
In my opinion I think the burden is on people to prove the earth is flat, if people really believe that we need debates against earth scientist, Astronomers, and meteorologist on this topic
I'm not sure who you think you're talking to but you can save that show your work school teacher shyt for one of your fanboys on hereFirst 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)
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:
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.
cos(a) = 1 - (h/r). The simplified version of the formula you posted. I mathed it out then plugged it into many of the EASILY GOOGLABLE, OFFICIAL CURVATURE CACULATORS on the internet and they all came back with the same thing
An object ~200 miles away will have curved ~5 miles down below the horizon. 8 inches per mile squared
You don't seem to understand how potential and kinetic energy work. Objects seek their point of lowest energy period.
This balloon is being filled with helium?? Explain that one to me thanks
You're wrong again
When a ship takes on water it's gaining DENSITY, which has nothing to do with gravity. We're definitely going to go deeper into gravity in the future
But let's keep track though:
You can't produce a picture of stars from space
You can't explain how the earth can cast a vertical shadow on the moon
You can't explain why the moon, which is supposedly sitting in the blackness of space, can appear blue to observers on earth
You dodged my question about the 3 different areas of the southern hemisphere viewing the same constellation simultaneously
You apparently don't know what photoshop is
And now you attempting to deflect from the video that I posted. Watch that video and debunk it. I'll wait. I'll also be back later
MasterOfAllHeSurveyz
All Star
You don't feel anything because you're moving at the same speed you dumb fukk.
This is proof positive that your moms smoked slabs (+$100 rocks) when you were in the womb.
Yeah, you are crazy, because YOU told ME to BUMP another thread! Nikka, I posted what you said in the original post of this thread! Anyone can read what you told me to do.
So instead of rehashing another thread, I made a fresh one.
YOU CALLED ME OUT, saying I apparently had something on my chest, like you're on my mind or some shyt. I made a general statement based on the OP of the original thread, and you got froggy.
Now you gotta leap nikka
You can't gish gallop your way out of this one-- Day and Night are the two all encompassing phases of that cycle. It's not called the Day, Dawn, Dusk, Night cycle, it is called the diurnal cycle, "di" meaning "two".
di- | Etymology of prefix di- by etymonline
"two, double, twice, twofold," from Greek di-, shortened form of dis "twice," which is… See origin and meaning of di-.
www.etymonline.com
Diurnal cycle - Wikipedia
Lol it literally doesn't matter if that gif is to scale, and not once did I make a reference to scale. I, myself, posted images that weren't to scale, because scale isn't the point of the illustration. You're not getting out of this by trying to change the subject, moving the argument to who created that gif, and about "scale". Nuh uh.
Your "model" shows the sun rotating above a flat disk, which is what YOU BELIEVE. The continents exist, regardless of their scale on that model, because we know they exist as people live in these places.
As I showed on the World Day/Night map, on December 21st 2022, Western Australia, South Africa and Argentina will be experiencing day, all at the same time. So, if your sun is rotating in and outward above a flat disk, it would have to somehow stretch the sunlight in an unnatural way to reach Western Australia, Argentina and South Africa, meaning on the flat disk, more than 75% of the Earth will be shrouded in Sunlight. It does not matter if this is "to scale" nikka, those places exist on the Earth, so the sunlight would have to cover 75% of the Earth to reach all three. Look at the model you showed, and pay attention to where those places are. Scale does not matter
And as for Antarctica experiencing 24h sunlight, doesn't that debunk literally everything you've ever said???
In the Northern Hemisphere Winter, you believe the Sun rotating in a wider ring, farthest from us here in the North. According to your belief, the sun shouldn't be seen 24 hours a day, because it's rotating around a giant disk, meaning it should disappear from view in the Antarctic.
You know you fukked up, right?
No it doesn't! It literally proves we're on a ball that is spinning! Lmao!
You would never see the sun for 24 hours from a single point in the Antarctic if the Sun was rotating above the Earth in a wide ass circle like you believe:
That video was taken in SUMMER for the Antarctic (December), which is exactly when the Globe Earth predicts you'd be able to see the sun for 24 hours. Goddamn you are incredibly easy to debunk lmao:
No, YOU don't understand what you are saying. You tried to invoke Thermodynamics, when you clearly don't understand thermodynamics. Please show a scientific paper that explains seasonal shift with Thermodynamics.
Remember, thermodynamics is a scientific concept, so you must provide scientific sources if you're going to invoke science. You cannot post links or images from other flat earthers who also don't understand thermodynamics.
Further, you clearly didn't understand the argument I was making. I'm the one telling YOU that Hawaii doesn't experience much, if any, variation of temperature throughout the year. The point was that, because it is NOT on the Equator, and is on the 21st North Parallel, making it a part of the Northern Hemisphere, then during Southern Hemisphere Summer, Hawaii should be very far away from the rotating-above-the-disk Sun, causing it to have a significant season shift.
The fact that it DOESN'T means the Sun is not rotating above the Earth breh lol. You clearly didn't understand what I was saying, and that's because you are not smart enough to understand the shyt YOU are saying YOURSELF. You are literally repeating what other Flat Earthers say and not critically thinking about the shyt you're regurgitating.
You bringing up Florida makes that argument WORSE. Florida is even further from the Equator, but still rarely experiences seasonal shift. Again: YOUR EXPLANATION FOR THE SEASONS IS THAT THE SUN IS ROTATING INWARD AND OUTWARD OVER THE EARTH.
If that were the reasons for the seasonal shifts, why doesn't Florida (a location that would receive even LESS sunlight than Hawaii according to YOUR BELIEF) experience any significant seasonal shift?
You are literally debunking your own argument here and don't even realize it
Jesus Christ.
Fam, the red atmosphere comes from the sun's light passing through the thickest parts of the atmosphere. During a Lunar Eclipse, the Sun, Earth and Moon are all roughly aligned. Normally, they are NOT aligned, meaning those sun rays passing through the atmosphere are not there, so the Moon appears in its natural color.
The alignment causes the same effect as a sunset.
However, YOU LITERALLY HAVE NO EXPLANATION FOR THIS AT ALL. You can't explain the curved shadow on the moon, nor can you explain the color.
No it was not. It was perfectly circular. Learn what shapes are.
This is not what the shadow in my video looked like, please stop.
The point was to show that multiple, independent amateur photographers all recorded the sun setting and the sun's apparent size did not change. You lied on me, saying I was being disingenuous posting one video of the sun setting, so I sent you multiple.
"All that extra equator talk" was me explaining to you that in order to see the sun set parallel to the camera, you need to be in a place close to the Equator, like Jakarta Indonesia, which is where my video came from, proving this. In the videos that are not on the equator, the Sun usually sets at an angle, because the Earth is tilted at a 23 degree angle.
The video you posted was in fact disingenuous. You showed a video of a person not understanding how particles in the air affect the appearance of the Sun. Scattered particulates can make the light from the sun appear bigger, and when the sun passes through a clearer part of the sky, that effect dissipates and the sun appears in its normal apparent size.
Last edited:
I am entirely aware that I'm speaking to a scientific illiterate.
Again, show your work. Stop talking to me about calculators, and post the formula, plug in the numbers HERE ON THE COLI, and explain.
I am not accepting your numbers without context. You need to demonstrate you speak math. It's obvious that you don't, and that's why you're getting upset.
I showed my trigonometry, you need to show you can do the math. Otherwise, you are admitting you don't actually know what you're talking about.
This balloon is being filled with helium?? Explain that one to me thanks
Another example of you being disingenuous. What you said was "air", you did not say "hot air", which is less dense than regular air. That is an extremely important distinction to make, since we are talking about density. For example, when I brought up the beach ball in water thing, I didn't make a distinction between cold water and warm water.
Warmer water rises and colder water sinks because it is more dense.
You should have said a hot-air balloon.
Density is mass per unit volume.
The ship sinking due to taking on water is due to it losing it's buoyancy. It sinks because of gravity. Gravity is pulling it DOWN.
I need to see an example of what you're talking about. A "vertical" shadow on the moon? Please explain what you mean here.
Lol because you are looking through sunlight scattered by particles in the air. We already discussed this: it's called Rayleigh Scattering:
Rayleigh scattering - Wikipedia
So, when looking at the moon through the Earth's atmosphere during the day, the Moon, which is roughly white, takes on the bluish hue from the light in the atmosphere. This is incredibly simple stuff lol
Except I didn't and directly addressed you and addressed the point IN VIDEO.
You just can't keep up.
Lol are you fukking serious? I use Photoshop every other day. I literally made a video of me using Photoshop DIRECTED AT YOU PAGES AGO. Here it is again:
Already debunked every video you've posted in this thread. Try to keep up, sport.
null
...
in that case let's just leave it at that.
If the earth was flat #catset would’ve knocked everything off the edge a long time ago
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,063
- Reputation
- 8,154
- Daps
- 122,270
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
That dude posted a mathematical formula and didn't bother posting the observer height or atmospheric refraction....SOMETHING ALL CURVE CALCULATORS ACCOUNT FOR, then declared ALL the calculators supported his answer. Also, the "8 inches per mile squared" rule only works for 100 miles or less as an approximation, so there's no way it would work on an object 200 miles away!!!!
