I'm challenging xCivicx to A Debate About Flat Earth
- Thread starter Th3Birdman
- Start date
-
- Tags
- debate flat earth
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
en.wikipedia.org
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.
My point about day and night was that dawn and dusk encompass DAYLIGHT, so YES, 50%+, even 60%+ of the earth can be receiving sunlight at the same time, in different levels of intensity
Night is the absence of sunlight. There's sunlight in dawn and dusk, therefore it is not night time. It's still DAY TIME
And I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying about the antarctic
When the sun is revolving at it's OUTERMOST RING(over the antarctic circle) it goes through phases of 24 hour DAY and 24 hour NIGHT
The 24 hour DAY coincides with sun being ABOVE horizon, moving on a very LARGE ARC, around that arctic boundary. The 24 hour NIGHT, is why the sun is still moving around that outermost boundary, but it is BEYOND THE HORIZON
You keep bringing up the 24 hour day but neglecting to mention the 24 hour night as well, I'm not sure why because they both occur, even though 24 hour night doesn't make a whole lot of sense on a spinning ball earth
I'm asking you to slow down and actually read what I'm posting for comprehension
Again, back to thermodynamics, the fact that the ISLAND of hawaii and the state of florida don't experience much temperature change is because the sun keeps those areas heated, INCLUDING THE WATER SURROUNDING THEM. You don't seem to know how climatology works
When you google "why is hawaii warm", this is the answer
When you google "why is florida warm", this is the answer
This proves my point, again I'm not sure why you're making me repeat myself. The sun spends the most time over and/or near the equator in the flat earth model and those locations are near the equator
Eclipses don't make any sense at all on the heliocentric model
For some reason I can't post any pics right now, but the positioning for a solar eclipse and the positioning for a "new moon" are the exact same, but they each cause opposing outcomes
For some reason I can't post any pics right now, but the positioning for a solar eclipse and the positioning for a "new moon" are the exact same, but they each cause opposing outcomes
MasterOfAllHeSurveyz
All Star
Because it's an absurd stance to rebut coming from an addled, crack hindered brain that think the stars in the constellations are holes in a dome.
I'm not sure what you think you've done here, but the conclusion you've come to is an ARGUMENT FROM INCREDULITY.
That is a fallacy; you cannot argue that because something seems incredible or coincidental that it is wrong. Math (trig) proves the distance of the sun. How can you argue against the math? The only people that argue against math don't actually understand the math being performed.
Yeah, the 400/400 thing is real. It is a coincidence. You know what else is a coincidence? You, a Flat Earther, and me, a scientific literate, exist at the same time, on the same message board and are interacting with each other, right now in 2022.
Calculate the chances of that happening.
Another argument from incredulity. You have committed so many fallacies in this interaction that no one with any debate history should be taking you seriously at this point.
You ask for a photo, and I provide a photo. You immediately disqualify it as proof because reality is "too beautiful"
On my way back home to LA from Hawaii, I took images of the Earth MYSELF, FROM MY OWN CAMERA, that look exactly like the picture I sent you.
I guess I'm drawing these images on my iPhone, huh?
Now you're lying by omission, leaving out what the thread was ACTUALLY ABOUT:
Amber rose says she no longer believes in God… there’s just too many questions
That thread was about Amber Rose no longer believing in a god, which brought out the religious and conspiracy nuts immediately.
My very first post was about conspiracy nuts IN GENERAL:
Be anti-science on a platform that literally only exists due to science brehs.
Question the science as a scientific illiterate but don't question your own narratives brehs.
Don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and a colloquial theory brehs.
Deny we went to the moon brehs.
Be a flat earther in 2022 brehs.
Be dumber than your ancestors brehs.
You got in your feelings because Flat Earth was mentioned. Nikka, I didn't quote you, didn't say anything about you, nor did I even realize you were in the thread. I saw the first post in that thread and commented, which brought me to the end of that thread. In fact, the first nikka I interacted with in that thread was @Tair because I negged him for what I believed was an anti-science comment (which reminds me-- remind me to Rep you in the future Tair)
You could have let what I said slide, but you felt some type of way.
Stop fukking lying breh, this is a goddamn message board and I can post what was *actually* said.
Last edited:
I hope you realize you ain't saying anything, breh.
If a group of nikkas get into an argument, and two of them decided to knuckle up, then that's them two shooting a fair one.
You got upset about something I said. Fair enough, but now I'm responding to you getting mad. You decided to call me out, when I made a general statement about conspiracy nuts. So, I put your ass in the ring. It's that simple.
Fam, you are not in an argument with Neil. You are in a debate with ME. You must stick to attacking things I have said. That is how debates go, period.
The Flat Earth Society is an extremely large group, having a yearly convention and thousands of members. Globebusters has a YouTube channel with 70k subscribers. They literally had a film on Netflix. They are as prominent as any group can be.
It would be dishonest for me to use the arguments of others in a debate with you. Your trash tactics do not work here. Stick to my words, my claims, my videos, and my submitted evidence in this thread. I have disproved your point about the original image being perfectly circular, and you are dodging it, referring to a whole other nikka.
But this does not match the model YOU posted, which I will remind you, looks like this:
As you have just admitted, the Earth is experiencing ~50% sunlight at any given time. The model YOU posted shows the Sun only shining light on roughly 25% of the Flat Earth. You have just admitted defeat on this point, thanks, we can move on.
This is a gish gallop. You said a lot of words that don't mean anything, and are hoping I cannot read through them.
First of all, you don't know what you're talking about-- Antarctica has SIX MONTHS of 24h daylight and SIX MONTHS of 24h darkness.
If the Sun were revolving around a flat disk as you believe, those places in the Antarctic would receive daylight and darkness every DAY. This does not happen in reality, as it's currently 24h of darkness in Antarctica as they are in winter, and it will be dark until October-November-ish where they'll be entering summer.
Here is the empirical evidence for what I'm saying: Sunrise and sunset times in Antarctica
You lose.
That's a fantastic video
First of all, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THERMODYNAMICS.
I'm aware you think that because the prefix "Thermo" is in the word, it has all to do with temperature, and that you can just toss it around for your hypothesis because it sounds vaguely scientific, but I can assure you it does not mean what you think it does.
Here are the Laws of Thermodynamics:
0th Law of Thermodynamics -if two thermodynamic systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third system, then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other
1st Law of Thermodynamics - Energy cannot be created or destroyed
2nd Law of Thermodynamics - For a spontaneous process, the entropy of the universe increases
3rd Law of Thermodynamics - A perfect crystal at zero Kelvin has zero entropy
Notice how none of these laws have anything to do with the seasons, and why they shift?
But further, and more importantly, the point about Florida and Hawaii DISPROVE your hypothesis about the sun rotating above the flat disk in wide and narrow circles. I literally laid this out in the video-- you are arguing GLOBE points, my dude.
Say it's currently Winter, for example. If you believe the sun moves in wider rings in North Hemisphere winter, this means the sun is now FURTHER AWAY from places like Florida and Hawaii, meaning they should experience significant seasonal shift from when it was CLOSER in the Summer.
Hawaii and Florida experience relatively the same temperatures year round. Your point is that the sun moving in wider rings causes the seasons, but in places like Hawaii and Florida, the temperature doesn't change significantly. How you don't realize this debunks your point is incredible.
McAllen, Texas, is one of the southernmost cities in America, just about where Cape Coral, Florida is in relation to the Equator. McAllen experiences significant seasonal shift in January, August and December. If what you were saying were correct, that city would be just as hot as Florida is all year round, because on your flat earth, they'd receive EXACTLY the same sun exposure as Cape Coral, Florida, which is hot and humid all year round.
On a ball Earth, all of this makes perfect sense:
Hawaii and Florida are relatively near the equator. The Earth's axial tilt causes them to be exposed to the sun throughout the year, no matter the season. This is why these two places experience relatively little seasonal shift. On your flat earth model, they would experience significant shift because the sun is moving AWAY and TOWARDS them, meaning they should be extremely hot in the summer (Hawaii is hot all year, makes no difference) and colder in the Winter. Hawaii, Indonesia and Florida literally disprove your argument, as they all have consistent temperatures throughout the year.
Last edited:
What the fukk kind of peyote are you on, my nikka? It makes PERFECT sense.
Two spheres, one of them acts as a light source.
Take the non-light source, put it in front of the light source-- voila, an eclipse.
On a Flat Earth eclipses don't make any sense. For a solar eclipse you literally steal the Globe Model's explanation, by saying the moon goes in front of the Sun. Disregarding for the moment that you literally cannot explain by what mechanism the moon travels in front of the Sun, YOU BELIEVE THE MOON IS A PROJECTION:
So if the moon is a projection, HOW THE FUKK CAN IT BLOCK OUT THE SUN?
A projection of an image is literally LIGHT. By saying the moon (which is a projection, according to you) is blocking out the Sun during a solar eclipse, you are saying LIGHT IS BLOCKING OUT LIGHT.
You have absolutely zero explanation for Lunar Eclipses.
Last edited:
No, the outcome is the same lol
This is position of the Sun, Moon and Earth during a new moon:
This is their position during a Lunar Eclipse:
This is their position during a Solar Eclipse:
As you can see, the positioning for a New Moon and Solar Eclipse are literally the SAME, and do not cause THE OPPOSITE to occur.
You have no fukking clue what you're talking about.
Edit: Solar Eclipses happen very often on this planet, with all of them occurring within a New Moon (that's the only time it can happen). The reason you don't see a solar eclipse for every new moon is because the Moon's orbit around the Earth is not perfectly circular, but tilted 5 degrees, so that shadow usually misses the Earth. Here's a diagram of this kind of tilt:
Last edited:
↓R↑LYB
I trained Sheng Long and Shonuff
Man the damn sun is round lol too. These nikkas gotta believe their eyes are lying to them or some shytI'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?
↓R↑LYB
I trained Sheng Long and Shonuff
It's CGI. Don't beLIEve the hype
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.
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.
Now you're picking hairs about "air" vs "hot air" smh
My main point was that if gravity was the powerful universal force that you believe it to be, then it should be impossible for any light gas to negate it and allow any object to flow UPWARD, because gravity should be causing EVERYTHING to stick to the earth's surface. According to gravity, we're all stuck to the ground until we utilize a force strong enough to negate gravitational force, to allow us to move in different directions/vectors that are NOT aimed at the "center of the earth"
A force as light as ANY gas, should NOT be strong enough to negate the force of gravity and allow us to float opposite to the vector pull of gravity, in a balloon. That doesn't make sense with respect to the properties of gravity on this plane
Then, even beyond this plane, the concept of gravity is convoluted and confusing with respect to the celestial bodies in "outer space"
I also asked you to show me an example of water sticking to a ball, 360 degrees all the way around said ball. You have not produced this so far
I'm going through this thread post by post(just like I do in every flat earth thread), so I'm hoping that you post an example of this later on in this thread
And I showed you an example of what I was talking about, with respect to the moon. If the earth was casting a shadow on the moon to cause it's phases, the half moon(where the moon is cut in half with an almost precisely vertical line) should never occur. EVERY shadow case on the moon by the earth should have a CURVE to it