Random flat Earth chit chat

Are you intentionally conflating the two definitions of philosophy, or do you legitimately not understand the word?

Regardless, your many claims have been rebutted, one by one, but you never engage with those rebuttals. Yes, I'm not presenting a positive argument (one that posits something) in support of my view, because I'm arguing against the very nature of positive assertions.

So, to your "evidence":

Zooming
Yes, we can't zoom in forever, but we're not asking you to zoom in forever, just to see across the ocean. How big is North America? What would it's apparent size be when viewed from Europe (using a flat earth map)? Do the math. North America would be large enough to be visible to the naked eye - no zooming required. But if you really want to zoom, don't use a digital camera.

I mention that because your argument referred to pixels. Digital cameras have a finite number of pixels, yes, so you can only zoom in so far. Digital cameras are the wrong tool.

I'd suggest a reflecting telescope. You can buy the mirror and then build the rest yourself. It's by far the most cost-effective way to own a large telescope, and will let you see vastly better than any commercially available digital camera.

Visible distance
How far away do you people think the sun is? So clearly we can see that far. If we apply that scale to the earth, we should be able to see objects of that size at that distance, yes?

So why can't we?

Objects in the way
I refuted that one myself. The ocean doesn't have any objects in the way. Also, if you're on a tall object you can look over basically everything.

I remember once a FE guy (maybe you) mentioned that the CN Tower could be seen from too great a distance. Let's try it the other way. If you were on the CN Tower's observation deck, how far away should you be able to see? Remember, you can easily resolve anything bigger than 1 degree of arc, and with Lake Ontario adjacent there shouldn't be anything obscuring the view to the south. How far would you expect to be able to see objects?

This is testable. With a flat earth, a view from the CN Tower Skypod (447 m above the ground) should include Cleveland. Why doesn't it?

Disproving the sunset with zoom
There were several problems with this.

First, when zooming, the sun didn't get bigger. That's because the visible object at the start wasn't the sun, but the bloom from the light. The sun hadn't actually set yet. But if the camera stayed on it, the sun would have set. Do you have a camera that can do this? This is probably the easiest of all of the refutations for you to test yourself. Zoom into the sun, as in the video, and then, while zoomed in, watch the sun set. Once you've zoomed in enough to resolve the disc, there's no more bloom.

Or, just use the moon. There are many pictures of moonrise, because the moon doesn't have the light bloom problem (being vastly dimmer than the sun). If the flat earth model holds that the sun doesn't set, it also holds that the moon doesn't set. So why are there so many pictures of the moon setting?

One failure defeats a scientific theory. Just one. Then the theory requires revision.

Given the stupidity of flaters, I would guess so.

When are you going to admit that this is just a troll bait thread?

Looking at the sky to prove the shape of the ground beneath you is an affirming the consequent formal logical fallacy, in that one doesn't necessarily follow the other. 


For example;

- if car is out of gas, then car won't run. Car won't run, therefore car is out of gas. (But what if something else is the cause for car not running?)
- if Earth is curved, then lights in the sky. Lights in the sky, therefore Earth is curved. (But what if something else if the cause for lights in the sky?)



This is why you used the word "appear" Sifr, because there is no way for you to be certain what is going on up there. You can only assume.

When are you going to admit that this thread is just troll bait, TF?

"iT's jUsT yOuR aSsErTiOn tHaT iT woRkS" - TF probably

That's just your assertion.

You're welcome to go into more detail for the audience and I.

So @terminatorfroce expand more on your idea please, that GPS, contrary to what THEY tell us, actually uses ground-based transmitters instead of satellite based. So are the thousands of people who work with the satellites in on it, or are they just duped?

Same question for telecommunication, if you please. I ask specifically because I do some contracting work at a few telecoms, and they're usually proud to showcase their satellites they've commissioned and supposedly placed into orbit to facilitate beaming TV signals all around. So, all of the people in the pictures on their wall standing around the rocket that they used: in on it, or duped? The people who actually work on the telecom technology using those satellites, I mean the folks who actually have to factor in the distance to the satellite to engineer the transmissions: in on it, or duped?

All of the thousands of people involved in the logistics of purchasing, building, and launching that satcom gear: in on it, or duped? 

And this is just one telecom in one country. So I mean, big if true eh?

Affirming the consequent fallacy. How can you know 100% there aren't other explanations to how they work or how people are being duped? For one, things are becoming more and more compartmentalized, which make it much harder for one person to see the whole picture.

No, no my sweet child, again you can't just name random logical fallacies and have them stick. It's either true that this telecom has space-based satellites or it's not. If it's not, there has to be a reason they present it as true. If anything you could have nailed me on false dichotomy with the choices I provided, but since you're just picking these out of a hat you missed the easy layup. But still, assuming that you would contend that they do not use space-based satellites for transmissions, are they simply mistaken when they assert that they do, are they in on the conspiracy, or is there some other explanation?