I'm challenging xCivicx to A Debate About Flat Earth

[Th3Birdman]

I'm still waiting for you to address this video btw

I'll go ahead and post it again

So, you're admitting you're dodging my first hand images of the Earth, eh?

I have nothing at all to do with the flat earth society

The concepts that you believe in, have been introduced and corroborated by high priest ngt

That's all I'm saying. We can drop the subject of the shape of earth now, if you want to

Can we start the debate about flight on a spinning ball now?

I have nothing to do with Neil. I have not corroborated Neil's position. You cannot use that in an argument with ME.

I have provided a non-composite image of the Earth that existed before CGI, and demonstrated with my own camera why you cannot see stars in that image. I also proved that the image was not of a perfect sphere.

Address this^^^

If you can't, you admit you have lost this debate.

 

[Th3Birdman]

Again, you're still attempting to take that crude gif that I posted and argue against it as if it's an actual factual flat earth model, even though I told you that it wasn't. That's the reason that I didn't even want to post it in the first place

YOU POSTED THAT GIF, goofy nikka!

You are in a debate-- why would you post an image of something you don't believe?


Is that image not what you believe is happening? You don't believe the sun is rotating above a flat plane?

Because if you DO believe that, then it's perfectly reasonable to debunk that image, because the purpose of that image is to show the sun's rotation above the planet.

The truth is, you don't have a model. This is why everything you could post is debunked instantly, and why you always run away from everything you do post. If you had a model, you would post it.

Flat Earth is not about proving the Earth is flat; it's about undermining science and common sense because you people are religious. You don't have any evidence for what you say.

Now THE BOLD is a strawman

You're literally making up concepts to argue against right now

And you're showing that you don't understand what I'm trying to explain to you

Stop using words you don't know the meaning of. You don't know what a strawman is (which is weird considering that's all you argue against in these threads)
What you quoted me on was me giving you reasons why your model/belief doesn't make sense. That is not what a strawman is, jesus christ


You believe the sun rotates above a flat planet. So I debunk that concept by explaining that Antarctica and places in Alaska experience 24 hour darkness and 24 hour daylight. If the sun was rotating ABOVE the Earth (which is what you believe my G) those places would never have 6 months of light or darkness. It is IMPOSSIBLE FOR THAT TO HAPPEN.

 

[Th3Birdman]

Ok so this is the 2nd time that you referred to a wider circumference and stated that it's impossible for this to occur in the northern hemisphere

For the 4th time, on the flat earth model, the sun revolves on it's LARGEST PATH, in the SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE

How can I explain this to any clearer? Help me help you

Pay attention to what the fukk you're responding to nikka:

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.

I am clearly talking about your model-- that the sun rotates above the Southern Hemisphere in a wide ring in North winter and a narrow ring in the Northern Hemisphere in North summer.

You either can't read or have comprehension issues.

In the winter, that ring will be the wide ring. This means the sun should be at its furthest point from Hawaii, Florida and Indonesia, causing them to be significantly cooler than the time that ring is closest to them.

Because we KNOW the temperature in these places does not significantly change at any point in the year, your idea of the sun rotating above the Earth is FALSE.

Pay attention, you're not talking to a dummy.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

This mufukka will NEVER produce a model of a flying space pizza and doesn't understand simple math AT ALL!!!!

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Flat Earth - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

​

The flat Earth model is an archaic and scientifically disproven conception of Earth's shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period (323 BC), the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period (31 BC), and China until the 17th century.

.........
​

Despite the scientific fact and obvious effects of Earth's sphericity, pseudoscientific flat Earth conspiracy theories are espoused by modern flat Earth societies and, increasingly, by unaffiliated individuals using social media.

​

 

[Th3Birdman]

Solar eclipses occur during the day

New moons occur during the night

The sun, moon and earth are in the exact same position in both instances, yet it's daytime for one and nighttime for the other

The images that you posted literally show this

You are confused and trying to obfuscate what we are talking about because you are confused.

New moons do NOT only occur during night. Solar eclipses ONLY happen during New Moons, meaning new moons do not occur during the night. You're debunking your own talking point but you're not perceptive enough to realize that


New moons do NOT occur at night. I have no idea where you're getting this from.

 

[Th3Birdman]

Also @Th3Birdman you seem to have studied my posts on here, so you know that I'm eventually going to post the fact that the creator of the concept of "gravity" said that the concept of "gravity" was bullshyt

Can you go ahead and address this now or do you need me to post the quote first?

Stop trying to discredit people that are far more intelligent than you.

Newton did not "create" gravity. He observed a phenomena and gave it a name. Whether Newton was there to observe the fact of gravity and give it a name or not, does not change the fact that things fall down.

YOU are burdened with explaining why things fall down if it is not gravity. That bullshyt "answer" you gave about things "seeking an at rest state" is not going to cut it. You need to provide a way to test that claim, a way to prove it false, and the mathematical formulas showing why your hypothesis makes sense.





But one thing at a time: you still haven't

- explained what causes lunar eclipses
- provided an accurate model of a flat earth
- explained how, if the sun is rotating in wide rings during North Hemisphere winter, the sun manages to still rotate above the Earth in the same timeframe it does during North Hemisphere summer, when its rotation is narrower without speeding up.

Stop trying to move on when you ain't explained none of this shyt. Your feet are being held to the fire, I'm not the typical coli nikka that's just about to let you move to a different flerf talking point.

 

[Th3Birdman]

I want y'all to notice the tactic this motherfukker is currently trying to pull against me in here.

Look at what I wrote (font larger for emphasis):

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.

And look at what he wrote in response to that:

Ok so this is the 2nd time that you referred to a wider circumference and stated that it's impossible for this to occur in the northern hemisphere

For the 4th time, on the flat earth model, the sun revolves on it's LARGEST PATH, in the SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE

Transparent as fukk.

Anyone can clearly see that I'm saying the wide revolution is in the southern hemisphere and the narrow one is in the north.
What he's trying to do is move attention away from the inescapable argument I put forth, and pretend that I am not directly debunking exactly what he was talking about, so that he can force a fake argument about a supposed "misunderstanding", so that he doesn't have to address the fact that I debunked his claim.

Man if you still follow this nikka for Flat Earth shyt, you are a fool. I have cooked him, it's right there.

 

[Geordi]

I want y'all to notice the tactic this motherfukker is currently trying to pull against me in here.

Look at what I wrote (font larger for emphasis):



And look at what he wrote in response to that:





Transparent as fukk.

Anyone can clearly see that I'm saying the wide revolution is in the southern hemisphere and the narrow one is in the north.
What he's trying to do is move attention away from the inescapable argument I put forth, and pretend that I am not directly debunking exactly what he was talking about, so that he can force a fake argument about a supposed "misunderstanding", so that he doesn't have to address the fact that I debunked his claim.

Man if you still follow this nikka for Flat Earth shyt, you are a fool. I have cooked him, it's right there.

He's trying to be as confusing as possible so we eventually get tired and leave then he can claim victory. If he really wanted to know the truth he wouldn't be using all these con-artist tricks.

 

[Doomsday]

Please post the link to the quote where I said that the sun and moon are 70 miles away?

That's between you and the other homie, not me. I'm paraphrasing what he stated in that thread. The thread was linked in THIS ONE, so if you want to see it that bad, go right ahead.

Notice everyone that he once again completely ignores the second paragraph of my post. Proving my point once again.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Anyone who poses a question he can't answer, or, refutes his nonsense, is put on 'Ignore'. He then resorts to lying about them.



How does the Sun travel 15° each hour regardless of the season or the observer's position on the Earth if it's flat?​

 

[Kendom]

I really never thought I would see the day when we would have multi page debates on whether the earth is flat. Sometimes with the internet I think we're moving backwards

 

[xCivicx]

Civic, the distinction between these two things is incredibly relevant.

From my response, you can see that I obviously thought you meant a helium balloon. Nobody ever (EVER) refers to hot-air balloons in the manner you did. When someone wants to distinguish between a helium balloon (which floats) and a hot-air balloon (which floats), they use the phrase "hot-air". You simply said air.



No one calls gravity a "powerful universal force". This is another easily debunked Flerf talking point that you got from a closed Facebook group.

Gravity is a weak force. Every single scientific publication states this:

Why is gravity the strongest force?

Actually, gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. Ordered from strongest to weakest, the forces are 1) the strong nuclear force, 2) ...

www.wtamu.edu

The four fundamental forces of nature

Facts about the four fundamental forces that describe every interaction in nature.

www.space.com

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/activities/jeff/Gravity.html

You are, again, arguing against strawmen arguments.



"Gas" is not a force. A force is an influence that can change the motion of an object. Forces have direction and a magnitude. "Gas" does not have direction nor magnitude.



Another argument from incredulity fallacy. It does not matter that the concept is confusing TO YOU. This is why you are a Flat Earther-- you don't understand scientific concepts, as they are too difficult for you. But instead of taking the time to understand them, you have gone off the rails, and instead have dedicated your time to undermining them because you don't understand them.

Fam, it is entirely OK to not understand these things, and it has been obvious from your first post that you don't. But what is not OK, is making shyt up and lying about scientific organizations and people because you don't understand them. It only takes effort to learn things.



Here you are demonstrating that you don't understand gravity. This will only happen in space, away from the gravitational influence of the Earth.

The Earth has a large gravity well, compared to a ball that is on Earth. Earth's gravity is larger than the ball, so the water will instead be pulled to the Earth, instead of sticking to the ball.

What's more is that what you are asking for, you will deny, because whenever someone produces images from space, you say the image is fake. Stop asking for things you don't want. You are not here to learn, you are here to deny reality-- that is your goal here.



Another incredible misunderstanding of natural phenomena.

The Earth's shadow is NOT what causes the phases of the moon, where the hell are you getting your information from?

The phases of the Moon are due to the Sun's light on its surface, which is influenced by the Earth's and Moon's orbit.

You literally don't even understand the scientific principles that you are arguing against

Lunar phase - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You're just talking in circles now

Gases do have a direction. Gases lighter than air float upward(must be stronger than gravity) and gases heavier than air sink downward. It's almost like this phenomenon is perfectly explained by density

Gravity causes water to stick to a ball, but only in space, meaning that you cannot produce an experiment that will result in gravity sticking to a ball. You believe in something that you cannot prove. Got it

Please post an image or something that would illustrate how the sun could illuminate the moon enough to cause a full moon, while simultaneously being below the horizon(meaning it's nighttime where the observer is viewing the moon)

 

[xCivicx]

So that video is saying different people in completely different places saw different things based on their location and position.. You dont understand that?

You ignored my video. If these people are in low earth orbit what would they see when they look out the window?

No, it's a video of astronauts who have been to "space" all giving different accounts of whether or not stars are visible in space. It's a video full of contradictions

And I would assume that they see clouds?

 

[xCivicx]

Based on the posts you've made here, I find this INCREDIBLY difficult to believe. You had to have left after the first couple of classes.




Do YOU even understand this nonsensical post?

No, seriously, you're clearly typing words just to type words, not to make any logical sense.

"The sun does not revolve to it's same position, everywhere on this plane all the time"? What???

You have not answered me-- your ridiculous model shows the sun revolving above a flat disk in a 24 hour time period. So:

1. How does that sun revolve above the Earth in that wide ring, but also the narrow ring in 24 hours without ever speeding up?

2. Why does Antarctica experience 6 months of night and 6 months of daylight if the sun is revolving around the flat disk every 24 hours?

You're proving again and again that you don't know how circular motion works

I'm not sure how many more times you need me to repeat myself

The sun moves in it's largest circumference near the antarctic circle. It's moving at a uniform speed. It has a much larger distance to move. This accounts for the points in time where it remains ABOVE the horizon(hence DAYTIME) for extended periods of time

THEN, after it revolves AWAY from a fixed point and moves BELOW the horizon(aka NIGHTTIME) it stays BELOW the horizon for extended periods of time, until it revolves back around to rise ABOVE the horizon on the opposite side from where it crossed the horizon previously

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend what I'm saying??