Flat earth does not work

Author: Nemiroff ,

Posts

Total: 79
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9

Their own proofs contradict them. Flights on airplanes trying to debunk curvature show a sun of the same size as from the ground. If it was closer and smaller, it would seem bigger as you got closer to it. Its clearly very far. Same with how the moon follows you as you drive.

The sun and the moon are said to cycle overhead, which makes it impossible for both solar and lunar eclipses to be true. Even if one is closer, one 1 type of eclipse is possible without some forced mechanisms. Yet we see both in reality. 

The space model fits all observations and perfectly predicts future events with zero contradictions. In my view, its not even close. It may seem fantastical due to the perceived truism of the concept of down, but logic can go down many paths, and only evidence free of preconceptions can point one to the only truth.

Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
--> @RationalMadman
Here

Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,387
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
duh.
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
I’ll gladly do a debate about this. The feeling of unleashing overwhelming scientific and logical evidence is very satisfying.
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
That the Earth isn’t flat, of course.
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
I was told these specific points of mine will be debunked. I am keeping an open mind, but my expectations are not high. I dont see how a solar and lunar eclipse can both exist in a flat model.

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 349
Posts: 10,671
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Nemiroff
Firstly please explain what you mean by 'in a plane it's just as high' and what you think you'd be able to see in a flat Earth instead. Do you know that over long distance things distort to make everything appear like it falls into the ground? In other words, over a maximum distance curving 'down' and horizon happens no matter what? I can show you a video with tennis balls if you want to see the effect at work in shorter distance (worked because it was a very sunny day allowing a mirage to form closer thant he entire distance it takes to perceive a horizon).
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
--> @RationalMadman
I cant explain what i meant by "in a plane it's just as high" because i never said that. I have no idea.

What i did say was that "Flights on airplanes trying to debunk curvature show a sun of the same size as from the ground. If it was closer and smaller, it would seem bigger as you got closer to it. Its clearly very far." Which has to do with the relative size and distance to the sun (or moon), not vision. They are clearly much farther and larger then flat earth theories describe, and the only way to have both eclipses is for one to pass underneath the earth, which they don't in flat models.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 349
Posts: 10,671
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Nemiroff
It's not true. What you are describing is to do with perception. The reason for your dilemma is the same reason as why we can't see across the world to a mountain that's higher than everything else. There is a maximum range of vision, not even to do with eyesight but refraction of light itself across distances. It makes things appear to go 'down' the further we look no matter what height we're at and no matter how long-sighted our eyes are. A 'horizon' occurs over flat surfaces if you would walk back far enough.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 349
Posts: 10,671
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
What you are saying is, however, not true. The Sun is indeed slightly 'lower in the sky' when in a plane than when on a Ground. I would like to see where you get the idea that it appears exactly the same height and size from plane-height to ground.
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
--> @RationalMadman
When you see a building far away, it looks tiny. As you get closer to it, it appears to grow. The sun and moon do not. They appear the same size from the ground, from an airplane, or from the tallest mountain. Obviously they do not actually grow and shrink, it is perception, but it is the way perception works. If they do not grow as you approach them, that must mean youve made no signficant distance towards the object. Meaning the object is very very far.

If the sun was close, it would appear to grow rapidly as you approach it, doubling, tripling, or growing exponentially... just like that skyscraper that a few miles away looked like it could fit between your fingers.

Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
--> @RationalMadman
Those 2 points are positive evidence against a flat earth, im quite sure they will not be refuted.

But to refute a popular flat earth claim regarding seeing curvature along the horizon... 
I guess many imagine us like ants on a beachball where you are big enough and the ball is small enough where it looks round.

You can see an ant on a beach ball, you cant see people, or even sky scrapers from above the earth. You can barely make out mountains. We are not ants on a beach ball, we are bacteria on a beach ball, and bacteria on a beach ball see and feel it as a flat plane.... despite it being clearly a ball.

The difference in size is never calculated in a flat earth argument. That is why our bridges and other structures dont need to account for the curvature. They are too tiny. A cross atlantic bridge would absolutely need to account for that.... but thats a long ways away.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 349
Posts: 10,671
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Nemiroff
I am busy atm I will tell you more later.
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
--> @RationalMadman
I think what he meant is that in an airplane the  angular diameter of the Sun is precisely the same as from the ground. That is because the Sun is so far away that a few miles difference is negligible--any increase in angular diameter is too small to be measured..

The Sun is 93 million miles away. An airplane flies about 5 miles high. So you are only 1/18.6 millionth closer to the Sun in an airplane. Not enough to make any measurable difference in angular diameter.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 349
Posts: 10,671
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Stronn
The sun is far away but not nearly as far away as Round Earth model makes out. You see, in flat earth model the sky is flat or is very shallow-curved towards antarctica. Either way, the sky is only appearing to go down into the ground nearly as fast as it is. The sun is rotating something like this:

One thing, don't look at 'Flat Earth Society' it is controlled opposition.



RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 349
Posts: 10,671
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Nemiroff
I genuinely don't think you even want to be convinced. You are clearly full of rage and condemnation to anyone who believes in flat earth. Your arguments actually display how you're not even remotely considering the Flat Earth mechanics, you're simply begging for the slightest ambiguity or confusion in how it works to poke a hole.

What you are describing doesn't disprove flat Earth at all. It is about perspective. Go into detail about why that will be impossible in a flat Earth please.

Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
--> @RationalMadman
Its not rage, im just dont think that flat earth can explain reality. I am not trying to hide that, it is my honest belief, but i am stating why. I am not trying to be convinced, i am trying to convince. I am open to being convinced, but that is up to you.

Personally im dissapointed by most round earther arguments. They say things obvious to them, but can be easily questioned if you dont agree to begin with. I feel i have more persuasive arguments on this issue so i am presenting them. I was hoping you would address them instead of attacking me. I have made no personal attacks.

Based on your images, the sun and moon spin in circles over the earth. Ill assume they go at different speeds and are at different altitudes in order to make a solar eclipse possible... but lunar eclipse, the moon doesnt dissapear behind the sun. the moon doesnt come near the sun during the lunar eclipse, they happen at night. 

Furthermore... even if the sun does seem to dip eventually, wouldn't it again get gradually smaller in the sky as it speeds away?
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,387
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
@RM

That profile pic is wrong, only make yourslef and just yourself happy

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 4,910
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
--> @Dr.Franklin
No one actually believes that the Earth is flat.

Some people just enjoy saying that it is, just to wind others up.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Well, we can see the moon and the sun, and they both are round. Why is only the Earth flat? Or is the round moon and sun also illusions?

No one actually believes that the Earth is flat.
Some people just enjoy saying that it is, just to wind others up.
Yeah, I suspected that after a few convos with them. But their logical contortions trying to support their position are entertaining.
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
--> @ethang5
Something can be round and flat like a disk. There is a difference between a circle and a sphere, even tho both are round

Assuming people who disagree with you are just trolling is a silly thing. Maybe the organizations that push the idea are trolling, but the people who believe it are often honest. Its not the craziest idea out there, just the easiest to debunk.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
--> @Nemiroff
Something can be round and flat like a disk. There is a difference between a circle and a sphere, even tho both are round
I know this. But since the moon, sun and the Earth are moving independently of each other, I know of no natural force that would keep a disk always facing Earth so as to always appear round. Do you?

Assuming people who disagree with you are just trolling is a silly thing.
Which is why I never do it. I said after talking to a few of them, I realized few actually believe it. No assumption was necessary.

And if it was the easiest to debunk, there would not be so many honest people out there who believe it.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 349
Posts: 10,671
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @ethang5
You are a Christian, do you know your religion declares Earth to be stationary and circular?

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 349
Posts: 10,671
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @zedvictor4
I don't know what makes you think you are entitled to say that, I believe the Earth is flat and so do others.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 349
Posts: 10,671
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Nemiroff
What you have said in this thread is nothing more than displaying deep miscomprehension of the Flat Earth model and mechanics. The sun goes around exactly on Flat Earth as is seen in the sky. In fact it makes far more sense than the Round Earth's model has. Seasons are explained far easier in flat Earth model by the rotation's angle and/or circumference altering throughout the year.