I'm challenging xCivicx to A Debate About Flat Earth

[Th3Birdman]

This picture

I'm still not understanding his question.

He said "vertical shadow". That image shows that half the moon is in shadow because the sun is on the other side of it. We're talking about eclipses


Vertical means up and down, or perpendicular to a horizontal plane. The Earth casts a curved shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse, which is one of the most damning pieces of evidence for a globe Earth:

Spoiler

They have absolutely no explanation for why there is a curved shadow during lunar eclipses, which is why ol boy had to exclude them from the conversation earlier:

The Eclipses:
This should be self-explanatory.
Solar eclipse: The moon passes in front of the sun
Lunar eclipse: That's a completely different discussion that should be set aside for now

This man believes the sun and the moon revolve above the Earth, meaning there are two objects up there. His explanation for Solar eclipses is that the moon goes in front of the sun. He is correct there-- the moon passes in front of the sun in reality.

The problem is that he doesn't use this same logic for the lunar eclipse, because it is impossible on his flat earth model. He doesn't have an explanation for why there is a shadow on the moon during lunar eclipses, because he cannot admit Earth is the thing causing that shadow.

Why does the moon randomly go in front of the sun? He has no explanation for that either.

How can the moon (which he thinks is a projection) block out the sun during a solar eclipse if the moon is a projection? He has no explanation for that either.

The only thing he can do is endlessly question reality, because he cannot explain his fake reality.

 

[Koichos]

@Koichos
did the Hebrews think the earth was flat and is that what Bible scholars agree on? Does scripture refer to flat earth?

The T'na"ch does not teach that the Earth is flat and I would not dignify such claims by bothering to respond to them. Ask any ignorant fool who claims that it does a simple and basic Hebrew inquiry like ?אוּלַי אַתָּה רוֹצֶה מַשֶּׁהוּ קַר לִשְׁתּוֹת, אֲדוֹנִי ʾulai ʾattah rotzeh mashehu qar lish'tot, ʾadoni? ('Maybe you would like something cold to drink, sir?'); in fact, they often confuse אֲדוֹנִי ('sir!', directly equivalent to the French monsieur and the German mein Herr) with one of the Creator's titles (that is, אֲדוֹנָי) and say something like 'Oh, I'm not familiar with that 'scripture', where does it come from?'!!! Of course, if someone cannot understand even this simple question, using words that are taken directly from the pages of T'na"ch (the 'Bible' they seem to know oh-so well), nothing they say should be taken too seriously.

It is naïve in the extreme to think that there was ever a time when intelligent and educated people really believed that the earth was flat, because it must have been known that the earth was a sphere from the time when Man started sailing the world's seas; there is no other possible explanation for the observed phenomenon that the North Star (i.e., Polaris, which is fixed in the sky as seen from any location in the northern hemisphere) becomes progressively lower in the sky as one proceeds southward and higher as one proceeds northward. And we know that mariners were already sailing the seas at least by the time of King Sh'lomoh, if not earlier. People will always make up nonsense and lies about the 'Bible'. I cannot stop them doing this and neither can anyone else, but it does not make their claims true.

 

[Uchiha God]

 

[Uchiha God]

I've also always wondered if flat earthers look at the moon and see that it's clearly round, but just decide to ignore it

matter fact, have they come up with flat moon theory or something?

 

[Morethan1]

I've never in my life seen someone get bodied like this

@Th3Birdman is doing work in this thread

 

[Xcenai]

now that he's ran away again .. whenever a flat earth thread pops up, we can just refer to this one

 

[xCivicx]

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

According to heliocentric theory

Diameter of the sun = 864,400 miles

Diameter of the moon = 2,159.1 miles

864,400 / 2,159.1 = ~400. The sun is supposedly 400x the size of the moon

Distance from earth to the sun = 94,434,000

Distance from the earth to the moon = 238,900

94,434,000 / 238,900 = ~400

400 / 400 = 1

The math for figuring out the motion and rate of speed of the sun and the moon, math out the be the exact same whether you think the sun is 400x the size and 400x the distance of the moon, or if the sun and moon are the same size and same distance from the earth

 

[xCivicx]

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:

You didn't post a real picture of the earth from the ISS, the earth literally looks like a drawing in that image

You keep referring back to size as if I don't understand the the concept, yet you mentioned multiple times that you believe that multiple images of the earth from different distances and angles exist, which means there should be a least ONE image close enough to capture the evidence of multiple satellites, since there supposedly thousands in orbit

Which japanese satellite do you think that is btw?

 

[xCivicx]

You went into a thread about an amber rose thread and brought up flat earth randomly and for no reason

All I asked you to do was bump one of the many flat earth threads if you wanted have a discussion on it. YOU choose to make a thread and YOU chose the words that you specifically used in the title

Even in this very thread, you literally said that you're only responding to ONE flat earther in this thread. What's that guy's name

 

[xCivicx]

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.

I've never heard of the concept gravity affecting the blood stream when upside down. When I google, none of the responses that come up have anything to do with gravity

Also, you do know that the creator of the concept of gravity called it bullshyt correct?

 

[xCivicx]

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 retard 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.

Nope

I'm bringing up the statements of a generally highly respected, "credentialed" heliocentric "scientist". There's no one on my side of the argument who you could point to, who is anywhere near the figurehead that ngt is. The statements he makes are endorsed by the heliocentric scientific community.

He has a background in high level physics. I have a background in high level physics. You do not.

The fact that you are now attempting to argue against a person who is effectively a high priest of the heliocentric community(YOUR COMMUNITY) shows that you don't really understand what you're debating here

The earth is not supposed to look as close to a perfect sphere as all of the pictures that YOU posted, suggest

 

[xCivicx]

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

For the majority of people, there isn't anything that would serve as enough proof outside of NASA saying it themselves

As the saying goes, it's easier to fool someone that it is to convince them them that they are being fooled

 

[xCivicx]

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.

Cool

So why have the constellations remained generally the same over multiple centuries? They must be moving a the same rate of speed and the same directions as the earth right?

I notice you skipped that part

 

[Reflected]

I've never heard of the concept gravity affecting the blood stream when upside down. When I google, none of the responses that come up have anything to do with gravity

Also, you do know that the creator of the concept of gravity called it bullshyt correct?

Bro, I honestly can't tell if you struggle with reading or are intentionally misreading things, I'm thinking the former.

Cardiovascular Health in Microgravity - NASA

Humans “heart” Earth. The cardiovascular system that includes both the heart and blood vessels has evolved to operate in Earth’s gravity while standing,

www.nasa.gov

NASA - Cardiovascular System Gets 'Lazy' in Space; New Study Gets Blood Flowing on Station

Cardiovascular systems get 'lazy' in space, but a new study gets blood flowing on board the space station.

www.nasa.gov

In space, there's a much different result. There's no gravity to pull blood into the lower part of the body. Instead, blood goes to the chest and head, causing astronauts to have puffy faces and bulging blood vessels in their necks.

On return to Earth, gravity once again “pulls” the blood and fluids into the abdomen and legs. The loss of blood volume, combined with atrophy of the heart and blood vessels that can occur in space, reduces the ability to regulate a drop in blood pressure that happens when we stand on Earth. Some astronauts experience orthostatic intolerance -- difficulty or inability to stand as a result of light headedness and/or fainting after return to Earth.

Cardiorespiratory Responses to Inversion - PubMed

In brief: Cardiorespiratory responses to hanging upside down (inversion) were measured in 50 healthy young subjects. Measurements were taken at rest before and after inversion and for three minutes in the head-down position. Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure increased significantly and...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure increased significantly and remained significantly elevated during inversion. Heart rate decreased significantly and remained so during inversion. Respiratory response was unaffected except for a significant increase in oxygen uptake during the first two minutes of inversion.

CV Physiology | Effects of Gravity on Venous Return

www.cvphysiology.com

Gravitational forces significantly affect venous return, cardiac output, and arterial and venous pressures. To illustrate this, consider a person who is lying down and then suddenly stands up. When the person is lying down (supine position), gravitational forces are similar on the thorax, abdomen and legs because these compartments lie in the same horizontal plane. In this position, venous blood volumes and pressures are distributed evenly throughout the body. When the person suddenly stands upright, gravity acts on the vascular volume causing blood to accumulate in the lower extremities. (Compare the size of veins in the top of your feet while lying down and standing.)

And from my post:

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.

 

[Gritsngravy]

For the majority of people, there isn't anything that would serve as enough proof outside of NASA saying it themselves

As the saying goes, it's easier to fool someone that it is to convince them them that they are being fooled

That’s not a reason to not try and prove it, and I don’t think that’s true
Actually it wouldn’t even be that hard to have people believe in flat earth if they saw proof