Flat Earth

Time Zones "I find it odd that you say atmosphere" You find it odd that i often use commonly known words to describe something that I myself "learned" about in school? What word would you propose I use? "the sun is revolving around a point in the Earth"s atmosphere... " I've shown you crepuscular rays, to which your reply was to parrot Wiki's "scientific explanation" for this problem, but he himself knows this is illogical, and holds no water. Realize that if you are going to remain close minded, and at leaast not visualize the concepts before seeing what the scientists say/appeal to authority, you're never going to see the truth. Before you look at this, visualize yourself on an endless plane, close to the north pole, but not dead center, and imagine what it would look like, to see the sun circling overhead. https://youtu.be... I would like to point out at this time, that since con used this argument to PROVE THAT THE EARTH IS A BALL. This means, to me, that there can be no other explanation. Yet, I've provided another explanation that is reasonable, OBSERVABLE, and pretty conclusive. My opponent concludes that it is an optical illusion, like in most other things he and science argues, that my eyes are playing tricks on me. This is not a parlor trick. This is basic physics of light. But there are several more reason to believe the sun is close. Granted these are not guaranteed authentic, but i see no signs of editing, and am open to any valid criticism. These are empirical observations, which anyone can see. My opponent's reply is basically: No, it's impossible. My indoctrination pamphlets tell me so, and this should be end all, (and probably is, in his mind) This is just not scientific. https://youtu.be... https://youtu.be... https://youtu.be... https://youtu.be... I'm sure there are many more reasons available online, I think the point has been made. Not to mention you completely ignored the Dog cam footage. Since the behavior of the celestial bodies is not relative to the conclusion, and is grounds for another debate entirely, which I would be glad to talk about later, this debate is drawing to a close. I was once a critical thinker where you are now, it goes a lot faster if you learn how to properly use Google to see both points of view by adding "flat earth" on the end of a search. It seems my opponent wants to discuss a new argument within arguments at this point, the final round, and has turned quizzical. Logical fallacy alert! http://rationalwiki.org... I remember having a ton of questions. I'd be happy to debate you again, after you've done the research, steer clear from the Flat Earth Society though, that is a shill site. Stay in contact, this is only about halfway down the rabbit hole from what I've seen. It would take too much time to answer each question, but I will give the basic, flat earth explanation for each question in a youtube video. A FAQ or two to get you started. Open minded individuals only. Everyone will realize the truth eventually. Scientific consensus changes. https://youtu.be... Gyroscopes "Videos can be altered...higher quality gyroscopes are able to precess" Con remains closed about this topic and reasserts his position that gyroscopes precess, just not where the average person with lack of proper equipment, this time dropping the claim he made that this supposedly happened with a children's top in the 1800's. Con himself brought up Focault. Since these motionless gyroscopes videos are common, versus a very very elusive video or some means of testing this, AT ALL, we can safely conclude that gyroscopes prove a flat, motionless earth. I'll give my opponent an instance where this would happen. This moron plainly demonstrates he is clearly not flying around a ball at 17,000 miles per hour. At this point, I've shown scientific, logical reason to rule out the idea that we are on a spinning ball. In zero gravity, there is much less friction. I would also like to point out what precess actually is, cheap gyros that are spun up by hand are known to precess because they aren't spun up fast enough. "My opponent seems to think it's okay to just dismiss scientific studies for some reason" https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true ornot. I hate to point these out, but... https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... No curvature "Alright, I decided to look up an explanation for this..." Without evenknowing it, my opponent is commiting several fallacies. His first position on this was mirage, when this was found false, he moved the goalposts, and agreed with the obvious, but claimed he was high enough to see over the curvature... when that was proved to be false, he uses someone elses argument that he clearly doesn't understand, or else he would have given a simple explanation. This is clearly an attempt to make this claim unfalsifiable by any means necessary, no matter how many assumptions he has to make or nonsense he has to parrot to do so, hoping the voter will be as confused as he is. "Now, if the earth was flat, you'd be able to seeallbuildings from Chicago during some time during the day, but I do believe that has never happened before. For example, you should just be able to get a pair of binoculars or another zooming in device, and see more buildings on a flat earth model from where Joshua took this picture. But I know of no evidence suggesting one can." As i've said, the earth isn't perfectly, mathematically flat. Assuming that there are no swells or waves or swell for 57 miles is illogical. Most people understand perspective and how the ground appears to rise to eye level where a 2-6 foot wave going above the eyes level is perfectly plausable. There are also experiments being done that show how this is possible with lensing. Orientation of the moon "According to that model, Australia and South America would have the orientation of the moon differently " My opponent is making the assumption that South America should see the Moon differently from austrailia. He assumes, once again the the moon is far away, and can be seen from all over the plane. I'm not even sure if he's making the claim that both continents see the moon at the same time. It seems that these attempts at refutations are basically rooted with one disagreement. Distance to the sun and moon. The firmament, and how it behaves is another debate entirely. Ive provided many pieces of evidence for my claim, which appear to have gone largely ignored, from unbiased sources. My opponent will likely still believe that the sun worshippers have it correct even after this debate. Here's a little more. https://youtu.be... And if he still thinks "stars" are someone else's sun, he's going to love this. https://youtu.be... https://youtu.be... Does he think Pluto is a real place? Or Mars? Get yourself a good camera if you can afford it, these are not fakes, and are the equivelant of a very nice telescope for a competitive price. http://www.pcmag.com... https://youtu.be... If my opponent dismisses the claims which depend on the sun and moon being close based entirely on the dozens of proofs I have given for myself, versus a theoretical mathematical equation that depends on what he assumes is a ball of physical terra firma being an astronomical distance away, he can be considered intellectually dishonest. Coriolis effect This proof again, is dependent on the distance to the sun and moon. My opponent obviously does not understand that this is not proof of a ball if there is an alternate, or in this case, better, plausible explanation to said proof for the flat earth. He gives one last appeal to authority fallacy here. "it's been proven scientifically many times" Ships "You can't just keep zooming in on a ship and make it re-appear indefinitely though" https://youtu.be... Agreed, eventually the object will reach the vanishing point of the telescopic device, or be obstructed by refraction or atmospheric blocking. "you claimed that we never have the right conditions to always be able to see the ship" You do realize that this enough water in the air at any time to flood it all one inch? Take a look at this one. https://youtu.be... "there's not always atmospheric blockage," On a flat earth, hundreds of miles will have an immense concentration of water at the eyes level, just above sea level. This is atmospheric blockage. If my opponent is to claim that there are times that there aren't any clouds for thousands of miles, he must provide evidence for this claim. All in all con seems to completely misunderstand the flat earth model. Perhaps an unbiased voter will understand, or admit to it anyway.