Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

RFD Earth is more flat than it is spherical

Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 5:22:34 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Below are my reasons for my vote in the debate: "The Earth is more flat than it is spherical":

1. Cited Sources.

Pro's sources supported his argument concerning horizon lines (https://www.youtube.com...), the wisdom of past civilizations (http://www.enlightened-consciousness.com...), and the arguments of other scientists concerning a flat earth (http://beforeitsnews.com...). While it is true that many of Pro's cited sources came from what could be considered more "conspiracy theory" leaning websites, all of his sources seemed up to date, and at least not to shoddy in design (with the exception of the Youtube video).

Con used three sources, https://cosmosmagazine.com..., http://www.freep.com..., and http://wp.lps.org... . The first did give evidence for his theory of gravity, the second did not really aid his argument anymore than his opponent's, and the third link was out of date. I concluded that, based on these reasons, Pro used the better sources.

2. Argument about Nikola Tesla

Pro quoted Nikola Tesla in the following matter: "How would gravity work on an infinite plane? This was supported and attributed to Nikola Tesla.

"Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electo-magnetic levitation. Electromag levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the FIRMAMENT."

~ Nikola Tesla."

Con presented the following argument in retort: "I tried to confirm this and found that the only sources claiming this were of the "planetruth.com", "flatearthyo.org" and similar sources. While I'm not saying these are de facto incorrect, if Nikola Tesla did hold these fews there would likely be historical documentation outside of conspiracy websites.

And more importantly, something is not true because a person says it is. Nikola Tesla said many insane things in his life, the majority of them due to the actually documented insanity that he possessed. He's a brilliant man, but his word, especially in this context, is proof of nothing."

I could find no websites by the name of "planetruth.com" or "flatearthyo.org". In addition, there was no word of any "documented insanity" in the Wikipedia page on Tesla. There was however, this interesting piece of information: "He was also critical of Einstein's theory of relativity, saying:

'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.'" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...)

This tends to agree side with Pro's view, as the theory of relativity has less merit with a flat Earth. I did not, however, find any evidence of Tesla actually saying Pro's quote.

3. Airplane Windows

Con said photos taken from airplane windows were not done with fish-eye lens, thus this was proof of a flat earth. Pro argued that airplane windows are convex by design, and thus have the same effect. Con did not continue to argue the matter, which appears to be a concession.

4. Gravity

This paticular argument was very detailed, and somewhat confusing to me, since I am not well read on the subject in question. Both sides gave good evidence to support their arguments, so this paticular part of the argument is a draw.

5. Plane Flights

Here is a link to a travel website with a map of flights taken from Buenos Aires to Sydney. Please take a moment to review it: http://www.flightnetwork.com...

I'll admit, this is the one that blew me away the most. You'll notice that instead of traveling in a straight line, which would made the most sense if minumum distance to your location was desired, the plane in question travels in a semi-oval pattern. Why? In a spherical earth, it would make the most sense to travel in a straight line. However, in a flat earth, (https://www.bing.com...) such a pattern makes perfect sense. It would be entirely neccessary to fly in such a manner.

Conclusion

For these reasons, I hold that Pro won the debate.Up until this point, I never really seriously considered the idea that the earth could be flat. Now I'm not so sure. Well done Pro!
I'm not sure what to put here yet. Someone please give me some suggestions.
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,537
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 7:20:59 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 5:22:34 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
Below are my reasons for my vote in the debate: "The Earth is more flat than it is spherical":

1. Cited Sources.

Pro's sources supported his argument concerning horizon lines (https://www.youtube.com...), the wisdom of past civilizations (http://www.enlightened-consciousness.com...), and the arguments of other scientists concerning a flat earth (http://beforeitsnews.com...). While it is true that many of Pro's cited sources came from what could be considered more "conspiracy theory" leaning websites, all of his sources seemed up to date, and at least not to shoddy in design (with the exception of the Youtube video).

Con used three sources, https://cosmosmagazine.com..., http://www.freep.com..., and http://wp.lps.org... . The first did give evidence for his theory of gravity, the second did not really aid his argument anymore than his opponent's, and the third link was out of date. I concluded that, based on these reasons, Pro used the better sources.

2. Argument about Nikola Tesla

Pro quoted Nikola Tesla in the following matter: "How would gravity work on an infinite plane? This was supported and attributed to Nikola Tesla.


"Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electo-magnetic levitation. Electromag levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the FIRMAMENT."

~ Nikola Tesla."

Con presented the following argument in retort: "I tried to confirm this and found that the only sources claiming this were of the "planetruth.com", "flatearthyo.org" and similar sources. While I'm not saying these are de facto incorrect, if Nikola Tesla did hold these fews there would likely be historical documentation outside of conspiracy websites.

And more importantly, something is not true because a person says it is. Nikola Tesla said many insane things in his life, the majority of them due to the actually documented insanity that he possessed. He's a brilliant man, but his word, especially in this context, is proof of nothing."

I could find no websites by the name of "planetruth.com" or "flatearthyo.org". In addition, there was no word of any "documented insanity" in the Wikipedia page on Tesla. There was however, this interesting piece of information: "He was also critical of Einstein's theory of relativity, saying:

'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.'" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...)

This tends to agree side with Pro's view, as the theory of relativity has less merit with a flat Earth. I did not, however, find any evidence of Tesla actually saying Pro's quote.

3. Airplane Windows

Con said photos taken from airplane windows were not done with fish-eye lens, thus this was proof of a flat earth. Pro argued that airplane windows are convex by design, and thus have the same effect. Con did not continue to argue the matter, which appears to be a concession.

4. Gravity

This paticular argument was very detailed, and somewhat confusing to me, since I am not well read on the subject in question. Both sides gave good evidence to support their arguments, so this paticular part of the argument is a draw.

5. Plane Flights

Here is a link to a travel website with a map of flights taken from Buenos Aires to Sydney. Please take a moment to review it: http://www.flightnetwork.com...

I'll admit, this is the one that blew me away the most. You'll notice that instead of traveling in a straight line, which would made the most sense if minumum distance to your location was desired, the plane in question travels in a semi-oval pattern. Why? In a spherical earth, it would make the most sense to travel in a straight line. However, in a flat earth, (https://www.bing.com...) such a pattern makes perfect sense. It would be entirely neccessary to fly in such a manner.

Conclusion

For these reasons, I hold that Pro won the debate.Up until this point, I never really seriously considered the idea that the earth could be flat. Now I'm not so sure. Well done Pro!

Thank you, and don't let the public opinion (group think) deter you from further investigation if this interests you.
https://www.youtube.com...
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 2:19:30 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 7:20:59 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 6/1/2016 5:22:34 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
Below are my reasons for my vote in the debate: "The Earth is more flat than it is spherical":

1. Cited Sources.

Pro's sources supported his argument concerning horizon lines (https://www.youtube.com...), the wisdom of past civilizations (http://www.enlightened-consciousness.com...), and the arguments of other scientists concerning a flat earth (http://beforeitsnews.com...). While it is true that many of Pro's cited sources came from what could be considered more "conspiracy theory" leaning websites, all of his sources seemed up to date, and at least not to shoddy in design (with the exception of the Youtube video).

Con used three sources, https://cosmosmagazine.com..., http://www.freep.com..., and http://wp.lps.org... . The first did give evidence for his theory of gravity, the second did not really aid his argument anymore than his opponent's, and the third link was out of date. I concluded that, based on these reasons, Pro used the better sources.

2. Argument about Nikola Tesla

Pro quoted Nikola Tesla in the following matter: "How would gravity work on an infinite plane? This was supported and attributed to Nikola Tesla.


"Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electo-magnetic levitation. Electromag levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the FIRMAMENT."

~ Nikola Tesla."

Con presented the following argument in retort: "I tried to confirm this and found that the only sources claiming this were of the "planetruth.com", "flatearthyo.org" and similar sources. While I'm not saying these are de facto incorrect, if Nikola Tesla did hold these fews there would likely be historical documentation outside of conspiracy websites.

And more importantly, something is not true because a person says it is. Nikola Tesla said many insane things in his life, the majority of them due to the actually documented insanity that he possessed. He's a brilliant man, but his word, especially in this context, is proof of nothing."

I could find no websites by the name of "planetruth.com" or "flatearthyo.org". In addition, there was no word of any "documented insanity" in the Wikipedia page on Tesla. There was however, this interesting piece of information: "He was also critical of Einstein's theory of relativity, saying:

'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.'" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...)

This tends to agree side with Pro's view, as the theory of relativity has less merit with a flat Earth. I did not, however, find any evidence of Tesla actually saying Pro's quote.

3. Airplane Windows

Con said photos taken from airplane windows were not done with fish-eye lens, thus this was proof of a flat earth. Pro argued that airplane windows are convex by design, and thus have the same effect. Con did not continue to argue the matter, which appears to be a concession.

4. Gravity

This paticular argument was very detailed, and somewhat confusing to me, since I am not well read on the subject in question. Both sides gave good evidence to support their arguments, so this paticular part of the argument is a draw.

5. Plane Flights

Here is a link to a travel website with a map of flights taken from Buenos Aires to Sydney. Please take a moment to review it: http://www.flightnetwork.com...

I'll admit, this is the one that blew me away the most. You'll notice that instead of traveling in a straight line, which would made the most sense if minumum distance to your location was desired, the plane in question travels in a semi-oval pattern. Why? In a spherical earth, it would make the most sense to travel in a straight line. However, in a flat earth, (https://www.bing.com...) such a pattern makes perfect sense. It would be entirely neccessary to fly in such a manner.

Conclusion

For these reasons, I hold that Pro won the debate.Up until this point, I never really seriously considered the idea that the earth could be flat. Now I'm not so sure. Well done Pro!

Thank you, and don't let the public opinion (group think) deter you from further investigation if this interests you.
https://www.youtube.com...

You're welcome, and I won't. Thank you for the Youtube link.
I'm not sure what to put here yet. Someone please give me some suggestions.
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 6:10:22 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 4:08:12 PM, Cobalt wrote:
Well poo. Now I'm going to have to post this debate on the voting thread.

Well, it is posted on the voting thread, if you mean the Kescarte DDO Voting Forum. I don't think it's on the Voter's Union thread though, so try there. :)
I'm not sure what to put here yet. Someone please give me some suggestions.
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,537
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 8:52:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 4:08:12 PM, Cobalt wrote:
Well poo. Now I'm going to have to post this debate on the voting thread.

Thanks! I am too lazy for that. Thanks again for the debate!
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 11:58:31 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 5:22:34 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
Below are my reasons for my vote in the debate: "The Earth is more flat than it is spherical":

1. Cited Sources.

Pro's sources supported his argument concerning horizon lines (https://www.youtube.com...), the wisdom of past civilizations (http://www.enlightened-consciousness.com...), and the arguments of other scientists concerning a flat earth (http://beforeitsnews.com...). While it is true that many of Pro's cited sources came from what could be considered more "conspiracy theory" leaning websites, all of his sources seemed up to date, and at least not to shoddy in design (with the exception of the Youtube video).

Con used three sources, https://cosmosmagazine.com..., http://www.freep.com..., and http://wp.lps.org... . The first did give evidence for his theory of gravity, the second did not really aid his argument anymore than his opponent's, and the third link was out of date. I concluded that, based on these reasons, Pro used the better sources.

2. Argument about Nikola Tesla

Pro quoted Nikola Tesla in the following matter: "How would gravity work on an infinite plane? This was supported and attributed to Nikola Tesla.


"Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electo-magnetic levitation. Electromag levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the FIRMAMENT."

~ Nikola Tesla."

Con presented the following argument in retort: "I tried to confirm this and found that the only sources claiming this were of the "planetruth.com", "flatearthyo.org" and similar sources. While I'm not saying these are de facto incorrect, if Nikola Tesla did hold these fews there would likely be historical documentation outside of conspiracy websites.

And more importantly, something is not true because a person says it is. Nikola Tesla said many insane things in his life, the majority of them due to the actually documented insanity that he possessed. He's a brilliant man, but his word, especially in this context, is proof of nothing."

I could find no websites by the name of "planetruth.com" or "flatearthyo.org". In addition, there was no word of any "documented insanity" in the Wikipedia page on Tesla. There was however, this interesting piece of information: "He was also critical of Einstein's theory of relativity, saying:

'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.'" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...)

This tends to agree side with Pro's view, as the theory of relativity has less merit with a flat Earth. I did not, however, find any evidence of Tesla actually saying Pro's quote.

3. Airplane Windows

Con said photos taken from airplane windows were not done with fish-eye lens, thus this was proof of a flat earth. Pro argued that airplane windows are convex by design, and thus have the same effect. Con did not continue to argue the matter, which appears to be a concession.

4. Gravity

This paticular argument was very detailed, and somewhat confusing to me, since I am not well read on the subject in question. Both sides gave good evidence to support their arguments, so this paticular part of the argument is a draw.

5. Plane Flights

Here is a link to a travel website with a map of flights taken from Buenos Aires to Sydney. Please take a moment to review it: http://www.flightnetwork.com...

I'll admit, this is the one that blew me away the most. You'll notice that instead of traveling in a straight line, which would made the most sense if minumum distance to your location was desired, the plane in question travels in a semi-oval pattern. Why? In a spherical earth, it would make the most sense to travel in a straight line. However, in a flat earth, (https://www.bing.com...) such a pattern makes perfect sense. It would be entirely neccessary to fly in such a manner.

Conclusion

For these reasons, I hold that Pro won the debate.Up until this point, I never really seriously considered the idea that the earth could be flat. Now I'm not so sure. Well done Pro!

Well, at the very least, we know how complete dumba$$es can win debates, from extremely poor RFDs that are as ignorant as the debater in question.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 1:53:43 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 11:58:31 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/1/2016 5:22:34 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
Below are my reasons for my vote in the debate: "The Earth is more flat than it is spherical":

1. Cited Sources.

Pro's sources supported his argument concerning horizon lines (https://www.youtube.com...), the wisdom of past civilizations (http://www.enlightened-consciousness.com...), and the arguments of other scientists concerning a flat earth (http://beforeitsnews.com...). While it is true that many of Pro's cited sources came from what could be considered more "conspiracy theory" leaning websites, all of his sources seemed up to date, and at least not to shoddy in design (with the exception of the Youtube video).

Con used three sources, https://cosmosmagazine.com..., http://www.freep.com..., and http://wp.lps.org... . The first did give evidence for his theory of gravity, the second did not really aid his argument anymore than his opponent's, and the third link was out of date. I concluded that, based on these reasons, Pro used the better sources.

2. Argument about Nikola Tesla

Pro quoted Nikola Tesla in the following matter: "How would gravity work on an infinite plane? This was supported and attributed to Nikola Tesla.


"Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electo-magnetic levitation. Electromag levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the FIRMAMENT."

~ Nikola Tesla."

Con presented the following argument in retort: "I tried to confirm this and found that the only sources claiming this were of the "planetruth.com", "flatearthyo.org" and similar sources. While I'm not saying these are de facto incorrect, if Nikola Tesla did hold these fews there would likely be historical documentation outside of conspiracy websites.

And more importantly, something is not true because a person says it is. Nikola Tesla said many insane things in his life, the majority of them due to the actually documented insanity that he possessed. He's a brilliant man, but his word, especially in this context, is proof of nothing."

I could find no websites by the name of "planetruth.com" or "flatearthyo.org". In addition, there was no word of any "documented insanity" in the Wikipedia page on Tesla. There was however, this interesting piece of information: "He was also critical of Einstein's theory of relativity, saying:

'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.'" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...)

This tends to agree side with Pro's view, as the theory of relativity has less merit with a flat Earth. I did not, however, find any evidence of Tesla actually saying Pro's quote.

3. Airplane Windows

Con said photos taken from airplane windows were not done with fish-eye lens, thus this was proof of a flat earth. Pro argued that airplane windows are convex by design, and thus have the same effect. Con did not continue to argue the matter, which appears to be a concession.

4. Gravity

This paticular argument was very detailed, and somewhat confusing to me, since I am not well read on the subject in question. Both sides gave good evidence to support their arguments, so this paticular part of the argument is a draw.

5. Plane Flights

Here is a link to a travel website with a map of flights taken from Buenos Aires to Sydney. Please take a moment to review it: http://www.flightnetwork.com...

I'll admit, this is the one that blew me away the most. You'll notice that instead of traveling in a straight line, which would made the most sense if minumum distance to your location was desired, the plane in question travels in a semi-oval pattern. Why? In a spherical earth, it would make the most sense to travel in a straight line. However, in a flat earth, (https://www.bing.com...) such a pattern makes perfect sense. It would be entirely neccessary to fly in such a manner.

Conclusion

For these reasons, I hold that Pro won the debate.Up until this point, I never really seriously considered the idea that the earth could be flat. Now I'm not so sure. Well done Pro!

Well, at the very least, we know how complete dumba$$es can win debates, from extremely poor RFDs that are as ignorant as the debater in question.

I'm sorry to hear that you were not satisfied with the quality of my RFD. Would you care to elaborate on how I could improve for the future? Being a member of voting groups, this is very important to me. Thanks! :)
I'm not sure what to put here yet. Someone please give me some suggestions.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 8:49:20 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 1:53:43 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that you were not satisfied with the quality of my RFD. Would you care to elaborate on how I could improve for the future? Being a member of voting groups, this is very important to me. Thanks! :)

KD, I don't participate in formal debates either as a debater or a voter, however I'd suggest that a good place to start in any matter of science is a scientific understanding of what knowledge is, and how it is validated and verified.

All scientific methods and theories derive from this understanding, and nothing is science which fails to adhere to this definition.

Do you know what the definition is? Does Pro's argument adhere to it?

If not, Pro's argument might be philosophically valid, but is not valid scientifically. And in that case, one must wonder at the legitimacy of argument that needs to weaken rigour just to make a cause for truth.

Please poke if you'd like an account of how knowledge works in science, and an analysis of why flat-earth theories tend not to adhere to that definition.
simplelife
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 10:08:40 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 5:22:34 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
Below are my reasons for my vote in the debate: "The Earth is more flat than it is spherical":

1. Cited Sources.

Pro's sources supported his argument concerning horizon lines (https://www.youtube.com...), the wisdom of past civilizations (http://www.enlightened-consciousness.com...), and the arguments of other scientists concerning a flat earth (http://beforeitsnews.com...). While it is true that many of Pro's cited sources came from what could be considered more "conspiracy theory" leaning websites, all of his sources seemed up to date, and at least not to shoddy in design (with the exception of the Youtube video).

Con used three sources, https://cosmosmagazine.com..., http://www.freep.com..., and http://wp.lps.org... . The first did give evidence for his theory of gravity, the second did not really aid his argument anymore than his opponent's, and the third link was out of date. I concluded that, based on these reasons, Pro used the better sources.

2. Argument about Nikola Tesla

Pro quoted Nikola Tesla in the following matter: "How would gravity work on an infinite plane? This was supported and attributed to Nikola Tesla.


"Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electo-magnetic levitation. Electromag levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the FIRMAMENT."

~ Nikola Tesla."

Con presented the following argument in retort: "I tried to confirm this and found that the only sources claiming this were of the "planetruth.com", "flatearthyo.org" and similar sources. While I'm not saying these are de facto incorrect, if Nikola Tesla did hold these fews there would likely be historical documentation outside of conspiracy websites.

And more importantly, something is not true because a person says it is. Nikola Tesla said many insane things in his life, the majority of them due to the actually documented insanity that he possessed. He's a brilliant man, but his word, especially in this context, is proof of nothing."

I could find no websites by the name of "planetruth.com" or "flatearthyo.org". In addition, there was no word of any "documented insanity" in the Wikipedia page on Tesla. There was however, this interesting piece of information: "He was also critical of Einstein's theory of relativity, saying:

'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.'" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...)

This tends to agree side with Pro's view, as the theory of relativity has less merit with a flat Earth. I did not, however, find any evidence of Tesla actually saying Pro's quote.

3. Airplane Windows

Con said photos taken from airplane windows were not done with fish-eye lens, thus this was proof of a flat earth. Pro argued that airplane windows are convex by design, and thus have the same effect. Con did not continue to argue the matter, which appears to be a concession.

4. Gravity

This paticular argument was very detailed, and somewhat confusing to me, since I am not well read on the subject in question. Both sides gave good evidence to support their arguments, so this paticular part of the argument is a draw.

5. Plane Flights

Here is a link to a travel website with a map of flights taken from Buenos Aires to Sydney. Please take a moment to review it: http://www.flightnetwork.com...

I'll admit, this is the one that blew me away the most. You'll notice that instead of traveling in a straight line, which would made the most sense if minumum distance to your location was desired, the plane in question travels in a semi-oval pattern. Why? In a spherical earth, it would make the most sense to travel in a straight line. However, in a flat earth, (https://www.bing.com...) such a pattern makes perfect sense. It would be entirely neccessary to fly in such a manner.

Conclusion

For these reasons, I hold that Pro won the debate.Up until this point, I never really seriously considered the idea that the earth could be flat. Now I'm not so sure. Well done Pro! : :

The earth is neither flat or a globe. It's impossible for one man to determine if the earth is flat or a globe because all he can observe is the earth that he is walking or running on or flying over when he's in a balloon, plane or spaceship. It would be impossible for a man to observe the earth as a globe from his one perspective. They only reason one man believes the earth is a globe because he gets collective information from other people's perspective of the earth they experienced. In other words, one observer cannot provide any solid evidence that the earth is flat or a globe.

Once you understand how we human beings and our experiences were created, then you would realize the earth is neither flat or a globe. If you're interested, I can provide knowledge of how we were created along with our experiences.
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 10:10:40 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 10:08:40 PM, simplelife wrote:

The earth is neither flat or a globe. It's impossible for one man to determine if the earth is flat or a globe because all he can observe is the earth that he is walking or running on or flying over when he's in a balloon, plane or spaceship. It would be impossible for a man to observe the earth as a globe from his one perspective. They only reason one man believes the earth is a globe because he gets collective information from other people's perspective of the earth they experienced. In other words, one observer cannot provide any solid evidence that the earth is flat or a globe.

Once you understand how we human beings and our experiences were created, then you would realize the earth is neither flat or a globe. If you're interested, I can provide knowledge of how we were created along with our experiences.

I'm interested; please continue.
I'm not sure what to put here yet. Someone please give me some suggestions.
simplelife
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 10:57:13 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 10:10:40 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
At 6/2/2016 10:08:40 PM, simplelife wrote:

The earth is neither flat or a globe. It's impossible for one man to determine if the earth is flat or a globe because all he can observe is the earth that he is walking or running on or flying over when he's in a balloon, plane or spaceship. It would be impossible for a man to observe the earth as a globe from his one perspective. They only reason one man believes the earth is a globe because he gets collective information from other people's perspective of the earth they experienced. In other words, one observer cannot provide any solid evidence that the earth is flat or a globe.

Once you understand how we human beings and our experiences were created, then you would realize the earth is neither flat or a globe. If you're interested, I can provide knowledge of how we were created along with our experiences.

I'm interested; please continue. : :

The only possible explanation of who we are and how we came into being is by understanding how we human beings can build computer generated simulations of what we observe in this world or from people's imaginations ( thoughts about things that aren't of this world ) such as the computer generated movies of the future.

Man has built a computer generated simulation games called Sims 4 and Sims City. When I first played the game Sims City with my step-daughter ten years ago, it was in it's infancy so the characters had simple cartoon type bodies and their homes were just exterior walls, roofs and windows on the sides. It was very boring to play so I only played it for about ten minutes.

Today, Sims 4 characters can be built by the player of the game in such a way that it will be different than anyone else's characters. That's because we understand that everyone that we have ever met looks different than another person. Now we have technology in place that can read the "aura" of a person because scientists know that each person is different than another.

Getting back to the Sims 4 simulation game, it won't be long before it will be played like simulation games you can play on the internet. This means you will be experiencing being inside a Sim character walking around in a world with other characters that are being controlled by other people on the internet. You will be able to build homes together and marry each other and have children, etc.

The reason I know how we're created is because the technology that feeds our minds with information has been known to me for over 36 years. I didn't realize the spoken words in my mind came from technology back then because I thought it was our actual Creator speaking into my mind. For over 28 years, every time the voice spoke into my mind with commands, I was forced to obey them. This force could put my body to the ground whenever it wanted to do some work which I didn't understand at that time. All these commands and unexplained ( miracles ) got me to totally trust the voice to the point where it forced me to start writing words that formed in my mind. This started on June 16th, 2008.

For the next 7 years and 9 months, the voice kept feeding my information that formed into the words that I had to write and eventually speak. It also fed me visions, dreams and spoken analogies directly in my mind to teach me everything our Creator wanted me to know about who we are, how we're created, the future and what the voice was that gave me words to write and speak.

Two years and 5 months ago, I had learned that everything we experience is only an illusion like a vision or dream. Then the voice gave me a memory of playing the Sims City game with my step daughter. It then let me know that we are like the characters in the Sims City game. I instantly knew at that point that we were living in a simulation program similar to the Sims City game.

Soon after learning that, the voice had me start watching youtube.com videos of physicists talking about quantum mechanics. During one video, they were talking about quantum computers of the future and that one day, they would be able to make a Sims simulation game where our minds could be placed it into the game as one of the characters in it. We would be in the Sims City game believing it was all real and not know the difference between that reality versus the reality outside the game.

After hearing that physicist talking about that, all the knowledge I had been taught via the voice of God let me know that we definitely are living in a computer generated simulation program. For the next two years, I met several people who believed we were living in a simulation also but once they heard my story, their belief got stronger and were happy to hear that it was true.

On March 17th of this year, I met a man who loved physics and we started talking. We talked for over 2 hours and we had a great time talking about the simulation we're involved in though he was a little bit skeptical of the voice of God that I was referring to. However, he told me to check out IBM's Watson because it sounded to him like the voice of God was similar. I went home and immediately Googled IBM's Watson and learned that it was a small robot with a computer in it. It operates with voice recognition and searches the internet for information. It's a servant for professionals such as doctors, lawyers, etc. Doctors are using it to diagnose their patients. All they have to do is tell Watson the symptoms and Watson returns the analysis and possible remedies.

When I learned about IBM's Watson, I knew instantly that the voice that I heard in my mind and the one that fed me all the information into words, dreams, visions and spoken analogies was nothing but technology that our Creator used to speak a simulation program into existence. The same technology then takes information from the program and feeds the minds of the created beings in the simulation that makes each created being experience a visible world, thoughts, visions, dreams, spoken words, etc.

So each mind is nothing but a computer processor that takes information from the technology that our Creator used to convert ( process ) information into visible objects such as our bodies, the earth we walk and run on or fly over. All we're observing is processed information that form visible objects in our minds. Even our minds are made of information. This information is in the form of invisible vibrations which is the dark matter that astro-physicists, physicists and cosmologists talk about. They call it dark matter because they don't have any equipment to detect what it is. It's actually invisible vibrations where all the information is stored where a simulation program is with all the information that makes us characters within the program.

We are definitely living in a computer generated simulation but so advanced from the simulation games that our Creator taught us to build that we can't understand how his technology works. All I know is that our Creator can speak into this technology ( the voice of God ) and create a simulation so perfectly that the characters believe they're real people living in real worlds.
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,537
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 4:48:27 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 1:53:43 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:58:31 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/1/2016 5:22:34 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
Below are my reasons for my vote in the debate: "The Earth is more flat than it is spherical":

1. Cited Sources.

Pro's sources supported his argument concerning horizon lines (https://www.youtube.com...), the wisdom of past civilizations (http://www.enlightened-consciousness.com...), and the arguments of other scientists concerning a flat earth (http://beforeitsnews.com...). While it is true that many of Pro's cited sources came from what could be considered more "conspiracy theory" leaning websites, all of his sources seemed up to date, and at least not to shoddy in design (with the exception of the Youtube video).

Con used three sources, https://cosmosmagazine.com..., http://www.freep.com..., and http://wp.lps.org... . The first did give evidence for his theory of gravity, the second did not really aid his argument anymore than his opponent's, and the third link was out of date. I concluded that, based on these reasons, Pro used the better sources.

2. Argument about Nikola Tesla

Pro quoted Nikola Tesla in the following matter: "How would gravity work on an infinite plane? This was supported and attributed to Nikola Tesla.


"Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electo-magnetic levitation. Electromag levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the FIRMAMENT."

~ Nikola Tesla."

Con presented the following argument in retort: "I tried to confirm this and found that the only sources claiming this were of the "planetruth.com", "flatearthyo.org" and similar sources. While I'm not saying these are de facto incorrect, if Nikola Tesla did hold these fews there would likely be historical documentation outside of conspiracy websites.

And more importantly, something is not true because a person says it is. Nikola Tesla said many insane things in his life, the majority of them due to the actually documented insanity that he possessed. He's a brilliant man, but his word, especially in this context, is proof of nothing."

I could find no websites by the name of "planetruth.com" or "flatearthyo.org". In addition, there was no word of any "documented insanity" in the Wikipedia page on Tesla. There was however, this interesting piece of information: "He was also critical of Einstein's theory of relativity, saying:

'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.'" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...)

This tends to agree side with Pro's view, as the theory of relativity has less merit with a flat Earth. I did not, however, find any evidence of Tesla actually saying Pro's quote.

3. Airplane Windows

Con said photos taken from airplane windows were not done with fish-eye lens, thus this was proof of a flat earth. Pro argued that airplane windows are convex by design, and thus have the same effect. Con did not continue to argue the matter, which appears to be a concession.

4. Gravity

This paticular argument was very detailed, and somewhat confusing to me, since I am not well read on the subject in question. Both sides gave good evidence to support their arguments, so this paticular part of the argument is a draw.

5. Plane Flights

Here is a link to a travel website with a map of flights taken from Buenos Aires to Sydney. Please take a moment to review it: http://www.flightnetwork.com...

I'll admit, this is the one that blew me away the most. You'll notice that instead of traveling in a straight line, which would made the most sense if minumum distance to your location was desired, the plane in question travels in a semi-oval pattern. Why? In a spherical earth, it would make the most sense to travel in a straight line. However, in a flat earth, (https://www.bing.com...) such a pattern makes perfect sense. It would be entirely neccessary to fly in such a manner.

Conclusion

For these reasons, I hold that Pro won the debate.Up until this point, I never really seriously considered the idea that the earth could be flat. Now I'm not so sure. Well done Pro!

Well, at the very least, we know how complete dumba$$es can win debates, from extremely poor RFDs that are as ignorant as the debater in question.

I'm sorry to hear that you were not satisfied with the quality of my RFD. Would you care to elaborate on how I could improve for the future? Being a member of voting groups, this is very important to me. Thanks! :)

You really have to ignore that guy, he offers nothing positive, mostly insults. He loves balls.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,537
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 4:56:53 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 8:49:20 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/2/2016 1:53:43 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that you were not satisfied with the quality of my RFD. Would you care to elaborate on how I could improve for the future? Being a member of voting groups, this is very important to me. Thanks! :)

KD, I don't participate in formal debates either as a debater or a voter, however I'd suggest that a good place to start in any matter of science is a scientific understanding of what knowledge is, and how it is validated and verified.

All scientific methods and theories derive from this understanding, and nothing is science which fails to adhere to this definition.

Do you know what the definition is? Does Pro's argument adhere to it?

If not, Pro's argument might be philosophically valid, but is not valid scientifically. And in that case, one must wonder at the legitimacy of argument that needs to weaken rigour just to make a cause for truth.

Please poke if you'd like an account of how knowledge works in science, and an analysis of why flat-earth theories tend not to adhere to that definition.

I'd like to hear this input.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,537
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 5:01:12 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 2:19:30 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
At 6/1/2016 7:20:59 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 6/1/2016 5:22:34 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
Below are my reasons for my vote in the debate: "The Earth is more flat than it is spherical":

1. Cited Sources.

Pro's sources supported his argument concerning horizon lines (https://www.youtube.com...), the wisdom of past civilizations (http://www.enlightened-consciousness.com...), and the arguments of other scientists concerning a flat earth (http://beforeitsnews.com...). While it is true that many of Pro's cited sources came from what could be considered more "conspiracy theory" leaning websites, all of his sources seemed up to date, and at least not to shoddy in design (with the exception of the Youtube video).

Con used three sources, https://cosmosmagazine.com..., http://www.freep.com..., and http://wp.lps.org... . The first did give evidence for his theory of gravity, the second did not really aid his argument anymore than his opponent's, and the third link was out of date. I concluded that, based on these reasons, Pro used the better sources.

2. Argument about Nikola Tesla

Pro quoted Nikola Tesla in the following matter: "How would gravity work on an infinite plane? This was supported and attributed to Nikola Tesla.


"Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electo-magnetic levitation. Electromag levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the FIRMAMENT."

~ Nikola Tesla."

Con presented the following argument in retort: "I tried to confirm this and found that the only sources claiming this were of the "planetruth.com", "flatearthyo.org" and similar sources. While I'm not saying these are de facto incorrect, if Nikola Tesla did hold these fews there would likely be historical documentation outside of conspiracy websites.

And more importantly, something is not true because a person says it is. Nikola Tesla said many insane things in his life, the majority of them due to the actually documented insanity that he possessed. He's a brilliant man, but his word, especially in this context, is proof of nothing."

I could find no websites by the name of "planetruth.com" or "flatearthyo.org". In addition, there was no word of any "documented insanity" in the Wikipedia page on Tesla. There was however, this interesting piece of information: "He was also critical of Einstein's theory of relativity, saying:

'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.'" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...)

This tends to agree side with Pro's view, as the theory of relativity has less merit with a flat Earth. I did not, however, find any evidence of Tesla actually saying Pro's quote.

3. Airplane Windows

Con said photos taken from airplane windows were not done with fish-eye lens, thus this was proof of a flat earth. Pro argued that airplane windows are convex by design, and thus have the same effect. Con did not continue to argue the matter, which appears to be a concession.

4. Gravity

This paticular argument was very detailed, and somewhat confusing to me, since I am not well read on the subject in question. Both sides gave good evidence to support their arguments, so this paticular part of the argument is a draw.

5. Plane Flights

Here is a link to a travel website with a map of flights taken from Buenos Aires to Sydney. Please take a moment to review it: http://www.flightnetwork.com...

I'll admit, this is the one that blew me away the most. You'll notice that instead of traveling in a straight line, which would made the most sense if minumum distance to your location was desired, the plane in question travels in a semi-oval pattern. Why? In a spherical earth, it would make the most sense to travel in a straight line. However, in a flat earth, (https://www.bing.com...) such a pattern makes perfect sense. It would be entirely neccessary to fly in such a manner.

Conclusion

For these reasons, I hold that Pro won the debate.Up until this point, I never really seriously considered the idea that the earth could be flat. Now I'm not so sure. Well done Pro!

Thank you, and don't let the public opinion (group think) deter you from further investigation if this interests you.
https://www.youtube.com...

You're welcome, and I won't. Thank you for the Youtube link.

Blog with current events related to flat earth.
http://whotfetw.com...
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 5:17:56 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 5:01:12 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 6/1/2016 2:19:30 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
At 6/1/2016 7:20:59 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 6/1/2016 5:22:34 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
Below are my reasons for my vote in the debate: "The Earth is more flat than it is spherical":

1. Cited Sources.

Pro's sources supported his argument concerning horizon lines (https://www.youtube.com...), the wisdom of past civilizations (http://www.enlightened-consciousness.com...), and the arguments of other scientists concerning a flat earth (http://beforeitsnews.com...). While it is true that many of Pro's cited sources came from what could be considered more "conspiracy theory" leaning websites, all of his sources seemed up to date, and at least not to shoddy in design (with the exception of the Youtube video).

Con used three sources, https://cosmosmagazine.com..., http://www.freep.com..., and http://wp.lps.org... . The first did give evidence for his theory of gravity, the second did not really aid his argument anymore than his opponent's, and the third link was out of date. I concluded that, based on these reasons, Pro used the better sources.

2. Argument about Nikola Tesla

Pro quoted Nikola Tesla in the following matter: "How would gravity work on an infinite plane? This was supported and attributed to Nikola Tesla.


"Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electo-magnetic levitation. Electromag levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the FIRMAMENT."

~ Nikola Tesla."

Con presented the following argument in retort: "I tried to confirm this and found that the only sources claiming this were of the "planetruth.com", "flatearthyo.org" and similar sources. While I'm not saying these are de facto incorrect, if Nikola Tesla did hold these fews there would likely be historical documentation outside of conspiracy websites.

And more importantly, something is not true because a person says it is. Nikola Tesla said many insane things in his life, the majority of them due to the actually documented insanity that he possessed. He's a brilliant man, but his word, especially in this context, is proof of nothing."

I could find no websites by the name of "planetruth.com" or "flatearthyo.org". In addition, there was no word of any "documented insanity" in the Wikipedia page on Tesla. There was however, this interesting piece of information: "He was also critical of Einstein's theory of relativity, saying:

'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.'" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...)

This tends to agree side with Pro's view, as the theory of relativity has less merit with a flat Earth. I did not, however, find any evidence of Tesla actually saying Pro's quote.

3. Airplane Windows

Con said photos taken from airplane windows were not done with fish-eye lens, thus this was proof of a flat earth. Pro argued that airplane windows are convex by design, and thus have the same effect. Con did not continue to argue the matter, which appears to be a concession.

4. Gravity

This paticular argument was very detailed, and somewhat confusing to me, since I am not well read on the subject in question. Both sides gave good evidence to support their arguments, so this paticular part of the argument is a draw.

5. Plane Flights

Here is a link to a travel website with a map of flights taken from Buenos Aires to Sydney. Please take a moment to review it: http://www.flightnetwork.com...

I'll admit, this is the one that blew me away the most. You'll notice that instead of traveling in a straight line, which would made the most sense if minumum distance to your location was desired, the plane in question travels in a semi-oval pattern. Why? In a spherical earth, it would make the most sense to travel in a straight line. However, in a flat earth, (https://www.bing.com...) such a pattern makes perfect sense. It would be entirely neccessary to fly in such a manner.

Conclusion

For these reasons, I hold that Pro won the debate.Up until this point, I never really seriously considered the idea that the earth could be flat. Now I'm not so sure. Well done Pro!

Thank you, and don't let the public opinion (group think) deter you from further investigation if this interests you.
https://www.youtube.com...

You're welcome, and I won't. Thank you for the Youtube link.

Blog with current events related to flat earth.
http://whotfetw.com...

That's interesting, who writes it?
I'm not sure what to put here yet. Someone please give me some suggestions.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 5:42:44 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
What on earth did I just read?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Sorry, couldn't resist.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 5:55:46 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 4:56:53 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 6/2/2016 8:49:20 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/2/2016 1:53:43 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that you were not satisfied with the quality of my RFD. Would you care to elaborate on how I could improve for the future? Being a member of voting groups, this is very important to me. Thanks! :)

KD, I don't participate in formal debates either as a debater or a voter, however I'd suggest that a good place to start in any matter of science is a scientific understanding of what knowledge is, and how it is validated and verified.

All scientific methods and theories derive from this understanding, and nothing is science which fails to adhere to this definition.

Do you know what the definition is? Does Pro's argument adhere to it?

If not, Pro's argument might be philosophically valid, but is not valid scientifically. And in that case, one must wonder at the legitimacy of argument that needs to weaken rigour just to make a cause for truth.

Please poke if you'd like an account of how knowledge works in science, and an analysis of why flat-earth theories tend not to adhere to that definition.

I'd like to hear this input.
Sure thing, Edl.

Let's loosely describe philosophy as logic exploring existence, and science as existence understood by predicted observation. Science began as a branch of philosophy called Natural Philosophy, but in the Renaissance began to drift away, due mainly to points of difference regarding what knowledge was, and how it was acquired and validated.

Some philosophers like to conceive that all science is still a branch of philosophy, but in practice they're two distinct but connected disciplines: philosophers sometimes draw on science for seeds of new questions, while scientists sometimes draw on philosophy for seeds of new conjectures. The key point though is that scientists don't tell philosophers what to do, and philosophers can't tell scientists what to do -- their methods have drifted apart.

So a philosophical argument that the Earth could be flat or round will appeal to language, intuition and logic, since these are a philosopher's tools. By contrast, a scientific discussion about whether the Earth is flat or round must use observation, modelling and testable predictions.

Scientific discussion is more rigorous than philosophical discussion in that in science, every disagreement must be resolvable by observation. So the only valid scientific conjectures are those where you can specify what observation will falsify them. Put another way: philosophers can skate on ignorance or error by using apologetics -- rhetorical excuse-making. But scientists can't. For each scientific conjecture, they must say: if you ever see the following, then I am wrong.

Pseudoscientific arguments use the jargon of science, but always avoid falsification. They will never specify observable circumstances under which they're wrong. Flat Earth arguments tend to be of this sort. They will make excuse after excuse for why they might be right, but will never say: if you observe this then I'm wrong.

Pseudoscientific arguments are mainly interesting because of how they test what knowledge is, and how we validate it. Science is built on a knowledge-framework called empiricism [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. It holds that knowledge comes principally (or solely) from observation. Science uses best-practice methods to try and strip subjectivity from observation; and whatever is left is something that in principle, anyone can observe. From these observations, models are built, and models are tested according to their ability to predict everything observed significantly, specifically and falsifiably. These models aren't absolute -- they can be improved or replaced. However, they are designed to predict precisely what we observe as accurately as possible, as efficiently as possible. And they have their own falsification built in.

On a finite Earth, the simplest falsification of a roundness is a topological edge. That is, if you can ever produce an edge to the Earth's surface beyond which all further travel is impossible, then the Earth should not be treated as round. Anyone wishing to demolish a round Earth model need only supply such an edge, independently confirmed.

Meanwhile, absent satellite photography, the simplest falsification of flatness is to systematically explore what lies away from our starting point. If after doing so, we discover that everything we find can all be reached within (say) 20,000km of our origin, so that every outbound trip becomes a round trip of 40,000km or so, nothing more distant can be found, and we still have found no edge, then we have produced the knowledge that the Earth is round. Anyone wishing to do so can still falsify this model by producing an edge. And anyone wishing to argue that the matter remains unresolved can show the existence of some place new, more than 20,000km away, requiring us to continue exploring.

Anyone arguing that the Earth is flat, yet unable to produce an edge, or a point more than 20,000km away, is arguing pseudoscience. Scientifically you don't have to rebut pseudoscience. If it doesn't come with its own falsification then it's invalid, and can be ignored.

Since I didn't read the original debate, I realise that Con may not have argued the science. It's possible that Con has lost simply from not understanding empiricism very well. But that doesn't mean Pro's arguments are scientific, or sound.

I hope this may be useful.
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,537
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 8:56:33 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 5:55:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/3/2016 4:56:53 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 6/2/2016 8:49:20 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/2/2016 1:53:43 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that you were not satisfied with the quality of my RFD. Would you care to elaborate on how I could improve for the future? Being a member of voting groups, this is very important to me. Thanks! :)

KD, I don't participate in formal debates either as a debater or a voter, however I'd suggest that a good place to start in any matter of science is a scientific understanding of what knowledge is, and how it is validated and verified.

All scientific methods and theories derive from this understanding, and nothing is science which fails to adhere to this definition.

Do you know what the definition is? Does Pro's argument adhere to it?

If not, Pro's argument might be philosophically valid, but is not valid scientifically. And in that case, one must wonder at the legitimacy of argument that needs to weaken rigour just to make a cause for truth.

Please poke if you'd like an account of how knowledge works in science, and an analysis of why flat-earth theories tend not to adhere to that definition.

I'd like to hear this input.
Sure thing, Edl.

Let's loosely describe philosophy as logic exploring existence, and science as existence understood by predicted observation. Science began as a branch of philosophy called Natural Philosophy, but in the Renaissance began to drift away, due mainly to points of difference regarding what knowledge was, and how it was acquired and validated.

Some philosophers like to conceive that all science is still a branch of philosophy, but in practice they're two distinct but connected disciplines: philosophers sometimes draw on science for seeds of new questions, while scientists sometimes draw on philosophy for seeds of new conjectures. The key point though is that scientists don't tell philosophers what to do, and philosophers can't tell scientists what to do -- their methods have drifted apart.

So a philosophical argument that the Earth could be flat or round will appeal to language, intuition and logic, since these are a philosopher's tools. By contrast, a scientific discussion about whether the Earth is flat or round must use observation, modelling and testable predictions.

Scientific discussion is more rigorous than philosophical discussion in that in science, every disagreement must be resolvable by observation. So the only valid scientific conjectures are those where you can specify what observation will falsify them. Put another way: philosophers can skate on ignorance or error by using apologetics -- rhetorical excuse-making. But scientists can't. For each scientific conjecture, they must say: if you ever see the following, then I am wrong.

Pseudoscientific arguments use the jargon of science, but always avoid falsification. They will never specify observable circumstances under which they're wrong. Flat Earth arguments tend to be of this sort. They will make excuse after excuse for why they might be right, but will never say: if you observe this then I'm wrong.

Pseudoscientific arguments are mainly interesting because of how they test what knowledge is, and how we validate it. Science is built on a knowledge-framework called empiricism [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. It holds that knowledge comes principally (or solely) from observation. Science uses best-practice methods to try and strip subjectivity from observation; and whatever is left is something that in principle, anyone can observe. From these observations, models are built, and models are tested according to their ability to predict everything observed significantly, specifically and falsifiably. These models aren't absolute -- they can be improved or replaced. However, they are designed to predict precisely what we observe as accurately as possible, as efficiently as possible. And they have their own falsification built in.

On a finite Earth, the simplest falsification of a roundness is a topological edge. That is, if you can ever produce an edge to the Earth's surface beyond which all further travel is impossible, then the Earth should not be treated as round. Anyone wishing to demolish a round Earth model need only supply such an edge, independently confirmed.

Meanwhile, absent satellite photography, the simplest falsification of flatness is to systematically explore what lies away from our starting point. If after doing so, we discover that everything we find can all be reached within (say) 20,000km of our origin, so that every outbound trip becomes a round trip of 40,000km or so, nothing more distant can be found, and we still have found no edge, then we have produced the knowledge that the Earth is round. Anyone wishing to do so can still falsify this model by producing an edge. And anyone wishing to argue that the matter remains unresolved can show the existence of some place new, more than 20,000km away, requiring us to continue exploring.

Anyone arguing that the Earth is flat, yet unable to produce an edge, or a point more than 20,000km away, is arguing pseudoscience. Scientifically you don't have to rebut pseudoscience. If it doesn't come with its own falsification then it's invalid, and can be ignored.

Since I didn't read the original debate, I realise that Con may not have argued the science. It's possible that Con has lost simply from not understanding empiricism very well. But that doesn't mean Pro's arguments are scientific, or sound.

I hope this may be useful.

I can tell you didn't read the debate, I did offer empirical evidence that either the earth is flat, or a lot bigger than were told. I never said the earth was finite, but if there is an edge, it is guarded by the world's navy. Flat earthers use the scientific method and zeteticm to find what shape the earth is. Gravity and astrophysics is pseudoscience to me, seeing a city skyline from 60 miles away when it should be well over the curvature of the earth is empirical.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,537
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 8:58:52 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 5:17:56 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:01:12 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 6/1/2016 2:19:30 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
At 6/1/2016 7:20:59 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 6/1/2016 5:22:34 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
Below are my reasons for my vote in the debate: "The Earth is more flat than it is spherical":

1. Cited Sources.

Pro's sources supported his argument concerning horizon lines (https://www.youtube.com...), the wisdom of past civilizations (http://www.enlightened-consciousness.com...), and the arguments of other scientists concerning a flat earth (http://beforeitsnews.com...). While it is true that many of Pro's cited sources came from what could be considered more "conspiracy theory" leaning websites, all of his sources seemed up to date, and at least not to shoddy in design (with the exception of the Youtube video).

Con used three sources, https://cosmosmagazine.com..., http://www.freep.com..., and http://wp.lps.org... . The first did give evidence for his theory of gravity, the second did not really aid his argument anymore than his opponent's, and the third link was out of date. I concluded that, based on these reasons, Pro used the better sources.

2. Argument about Nikola Tesla

Pro quoted Nikola Tesla in the following matter: "How would gravity work on an infinite plane? This was supported and attributed to Nikola Tesla.


"Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electo-magnetic levitation. Electromag levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the FIRMAMENT."

~ Nikola Tesla."

Con presented the following argument in retort: "I tried to confirm this and found that the only sources claiming this were of the "planetruth.com", "flatearthyo.org" and similar sources. While I'm not saying these are de facto incorrect, if Nikola Tesla did hold these fews there would likely be historical documentation outside of conspiracy websites.

And more importantly, something is not true because a person says it is. Nikola Tesla said many insane things in his life, the majority of them due to the actually documented insanity that he possessed. He's a brilliant man, but his word, especially in this context, is proof of nothing."

I could find no websites by the name of "planetruth.com" or "flatearthyo.org". In addition, there was no word of any "documented insanity" in the Wikipedia page on Tesla. There was however, this interesting piece of information: "He was also critical of Einstein's theory of relativity, saying:

'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.'" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...)

This tends to agree side with Pro's view, as the theory of relativity has less merit with a flat Earth. I did not, however, find any evidence of Tesla actually saying Pro's quote.

3. Airplane Windows

Con said photos taken from airplane windows were not done with fish-eye lens, thus this was proof of a flat earth. Pro argued that airplane windows are convex by design, and thus have the same effect. Con did not continue to argue the matter, which appears to be a concession.

4. Gravity

This paticular argument was very detailed, and somewhat confusing to me, since I am not well read on the subject in question. Both sides gave good evidence to support their arguments, so this paticular part of the argument is a draw.

5. Plane Flights

Here is a link to a travel website with a map of flights taken from Buenos Aires to Sydney. Please take a moment to review it: http://www.flightnetwork.com...

I'll admit, this is the one that blew me away the most. You'll notice that instead of traveling in a straight line, which would made the most sense if minumum distance to your location was desired, the plane in question travels in a semi-oval pattern. Why? In a spherical earth, it would make the most sense to travel in a straight line. However, in a flat earth, (https://www.bing.com...) such a pattern makes perfect sense. It would be entirely neccessary to fly in such a manner.

Conclusion

For these reasons, I hold that Pro won the debate.Up until this point, I never really seriously considered the idea that the earth could be flat. Now I'm not so sure. Well done Pro!

Thank you, and don't let the public opinion (group think) deter you from further investigation if this interests you.
https://www.youtube.com...

You're welcome, and I won't. Thank you for the Youtube link.

Blog with current events related to flat earth.
http://whotfetw.com...

That's interesting, who writes it?

It's more of a collection of authors contributing to The flat-earth Awakening
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 9:15:00 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 8:58:52 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:17:56 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:01:12 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 6/1/2016 2:19:30 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
At 6/1/2016 7:20:59 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 6/1/2016 5:22:34 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
Below are my reasons for my vote in the debate: "The Earth is more flat than it is spherical":

1. Cited Sources.

Pro's sources supported his argument concerning horizon lines (https://www.youtube.com...), the wisdom of past civilizations (http://www.enlightened-consciousness.com...), and the arguments of other scientists concerning a flat earth (http://beforeitsnews.com...). While it is true that many of Pro's cited sources came from what could be considered more "conspiracy theory" leaning websites, all of his sources seemed up to date, and at least not to shoddy in design (with the exception of the Youtube video).

Con used three sources, https://cosmosmagazine.com..., http://www.freep.com..., and http://wp.lps.org... . The first did give evidence for his theory of gravity, the second did not really aid his argument anymore than his opponent's, and the third link was out of date. I concluded that, based on these reasons, Pro used the better sources.

2. Argument about Nikola Tesla

Pro quoted Nikola Tesla in the following matter: "How would gravity work on an infinite plane? This was supported and attributed to Nikola Tesla.


"Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electo-magnetic levitation. Electromag levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the FIRMAMENT."

~ Nikola Tesla."

Con presented the following argument in retort: "I tried to confirm this and found that the only sources claiming this were of the "planetruth.com", "flatearthyo.org" and similar sources. While I'm not saying these are de facto incorrect, if Nikola Tesla did hold these fews there would likely be historical documentation outside of conspiracy websites.

And more importantly, something is not true because a person says it is. Nikola Tesla said many insane things in his life, the majority of them due to the actually documented insanity that he possessed. He's a brilliant man, but his word, especially in this context, is proof of nothing."

I could find no websites by the name of "planetruth.com" or "flatearthyo.org". In addition, there was no word of any "documented insanity" in the Wikipedia page on Tesla. There was however, this interesting piece of information: "He was also critical of Einstein's theory of relativity, saying:

'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.'" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...)

This tends to agree side with Pro's view, as the theory of relativity has less merit with a flat Earth. I did not, however, find any evidence of Tesla actually saying Pro's quote.

3. Airplane Windows

Con said photos taken from airplane windows were not done with fish-eye lens, thus this was proof of a flat earth. Pro argued that airplane windows are convex by design, and thus have the same effect. Con did not continue to argue the matter, which appears to be a concession.

4. Gravity

This paticular argument was very detailed, and somewhat confusing to me, since I am not well read on the subject in question. Both sides gave good evidence to support their arguments, so this paticular part of the argument is a draw.

5. Plane Flights

Here is a link to a travel website with a map of flights taken from Buenos Aires to Sydney. Please take a moment to review it: http://www.flightnetwork.com...

I'll admit, this is the one that blew me away the most. You'll notice that instead of traveling in a straight line, which would made the most sense if minumum distance to your location was desired, the plane in question travels in a semi-oval pattern. Why? In a spherical earth, it would make the most sense to travel in a straight line. However, in a flat earth, (https://www.bing.com...) such a pattern makes perfect sense. It would be entirely neccessary to fly in such a manner.

Conclusion

For these reasons, I hold that Pro won the debate.Up until this point, I never really seriously considered the idea that the earth could be flat. Now I'm not so sure. Well done Pro!

Thank you, and don't let the public opinion (group think) deter you from further investigation if this interests you.
https://www.youtube.com...

You're welcome, and I won't. Thank you for the Youtube link.

Blog with current events related to flat earth.
http://whotfetw.com...

That's interesting, who writes it?

It's more of a collection of authors contributing to The flat-earth Awakening

I see. Are there any groups attempting to build a homemade rocket and launch it high enough to take pictures of the earth in an attempt to see if it is flat by camera? Or would a potential dome render such an exercise ineffective? For that matter, could anyone get a rocket past the international aviation police?
I'm not sure what to put here yet. Someone please give me some suggestions.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,905
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 10:09:20 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I'll admit, this is the one that blew me away the most. You'll notice that instead of traveling in a straight line, which would made the most sense if minumum distance to your location was desired, the plane in question travels in a semi-oval pattern. Why? In a spherical earth, it would make the most sense to travel in a straight line. However, in a flat earth, (https://www.bing.com......) such a pattern makes perfect sense. It would be entirely neccessary to fly in such a manner.

I have no idea why it would be necessary to fly in such a manner 'in a flat earth'.

Having checked with a toy globe and a piece of string (yes, I did it physically) the shortest route from BA to Sydney matches up with what is on the map as near as I can tell, ducking under NZ, diving down towards Antartica and then up the east coast of South America.

Google maps etc. all use a projection that is notorious for distortion near the poles over long distances. I used to work with spatial databases and had lots of 'fun' (ie no fun at all) worrying about the problems of representing a round earth on a flat map.
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,537
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 10:29:40 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 9:17:10 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
Oh, and is this a good example of what flat earth flight patterns look like?

http://www.flightnetwork.com...

https://youtu.be...
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,537
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 10:40:37 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 9:15:00 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
At 6/3/2016 8:58:52 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:17:56 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:01:12 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 6/1/2016 2:19:30 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
At 6/1/2016 7:20:59 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 6/1/2016 5:22:34 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
Below are my reasons for my vote in the debate: "The Earth is more flat than it is spherical":

1. Cited Sources.

Pro's sources supported his argument concerning horizon lines (https://www.youtube.com...), the wisdom of past civilizations (http://www.enlightened-consciousness.com...), and the arguments of other scientists concerning a flat earth (http://beforeitsnews.com...). While it is true that many of Pro's cited sources came from what could be considered more "conspiracy theory" leaning websites, all of his sources seemed up to date, and at least not to shoddy in design (with the exception of the Youtube video).

Con used three sources, https://cosmosmagazine.com..., http://www.freep.com..., and http://wp.lps.org... . The first did give evidence for his theory of gravity, the second did not really aid his argument anymore than his opponent's, and the third link was out of date. I concluded that, based on these reasons, Pro used the better sources.

2. Argument about Nikola Tesla

Pro quoted Nikola Tesla in the following matter: "How would gravity work on an infinite plane? This was supported and attributed to Nikola Tesla.


"Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electo-magnetic levitation. Electromag levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the FIRMAMENT."

~ Nikola Tesla."

Con presented the following argument in retort: "I tried to confirm this and found that the only sources claiming this were of the "planetruth.com", "flatearthyo.org" and similar sources. While I'm not saying these are de facto incorrect, if Nikola Tesla did hold these fews there would likely be historical documentation outside of conspiracy websites.

And more importantly, something is not true because a person says it is. Nikola Tesla said many insane things in his life, the majority of them due to the actually documented insanity that he possessed. He's a brilliant man, but his word, especially in this context, is proof of nothing."

I could find no websites by the name of "planetruth.com" or "flatearthyo.org". In addition, there was no word of any "documented insanity" in the Wikipedia page on Tesla. There was however, this interesting piece of information: "He was also critical of Einstein's theory of relativity, saying:

'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.'" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...)

This tends to agree side with Pro's view, as the theory of relativity has less merit with a flat Earth. I did not, however, find any evidence of Tesla actually saying Pro's quote.

3. Airplane Windows

Con said photos taken from airplane windows were not done with fish-eye lens, thus this was proof of a flat earth. Pro argued that airplane windows are convex by design, and thus have the same effect. Con did not continue to argue the matter, which appears to be a concession.

4. Gravity

This paticular argument was very detailed, and somewhat confusing to me, since I am not well read on the subject in question. Both sides gave good evidence to support their arguments, so this paticular part of the argument is a draw.

5. Plane Flights

Here is a link to a travel website with a map of flights taken from Buenos Aires to Sydney. Please take a moment to review it: http://www.flightnetwork.com...

I'll admit, this is the one that blew me away the most. You'll notice that instead of traveling in a straight line, which would made the most sense if minumum distance to your location was desired, the plane in question travels in a semi-oval pattern. Why? In a spherical earth, it would make the most sense to travel in a straight line. However, in a flat earth, (https://www.bing.com...) such a pattern makes perfect sense. It would be entirely neccessary to fly in such a manner.

Conclusion

For these reasons, I hold that Pro won the debate.Up until this point, I never really seriously considered the idea that the earth could be flat. Now I'm not so sure. Well done Pro!

Thank you, and don't let the public opinion (group think) deter you from further investigation if this interests you.
https://www.youtube.com...

You're welcome, and I won't. Thank you for the Youtube link.

Blog with current events related to flat earth.
http://whotfetw.com...

That's interesting, who writes it?

It's more of a collection of authors contributing to The flat-earth Awakening

I see. Are there any groups attempting to build a homemade rocket and launch it high enough to take pictures of the earth in an attempt to see if it is flat by camera? Or would a potential dome render such an exercise ineffective? For that matter, could anyone get a rocket past the international aviation police?

There are lots of balloon/rocket launches, however most use the fish eye lens. This one uses both cameras.
https://youtu.be...
The flat earth community is divided on the whole dome thing, this engineer physicist believes it.
https://youtu.be...
The edge/dome may be thousands of miles into Antarctica, we may never see it. There is also Mr byrds testimony of a second "bubble" beyond Antarctica, which some people think is the hollow earth.
https://youtu.be...
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 10:44:51 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 8:56:33 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:55:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/3/2016 4:56:53 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 6/2/2016 8:49:20 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/2/2016 1:53:43 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that you were not satisfied with the quality of my RFD. Would you care to elaborate on how I could improve for the future? Being a member of voting groups, this is very important to me. Thanks! :)

All scientific methods and theories derive from this understanding, and nothing is science which fails to adhere to this definition.

Do you know what the definition is? Does Pro's argument adhere to it?

I'd like to hear this input.
Scientific discussion is more rigorous than philosophical discussion in that in science, every disagreement must be resolvable by observation. So the only valid scientific conjectures are those where you can specify what observation will falsify them. Put another way: philosophers can skate on ignorance or error by using apologetics -- rhetorical excuse-making. But scientists can't. For each scientific conjecture, they must say: if you ever see the following, then I am wrong.

Pseudoscientific arguments use the jargon of science, but always avoid falsification. They will never specify observable circumstances under which they're wrong. Flat Earth arguments tend to be of this sort. They will make excuse after excuse for why they might be right, but will never say: if you observe this then I'm wrong.

On a finite Earth, the simplest falsification of a roundness is a topological edge. That is, if you can ever produce an edge to the Earth's surface beyond which all further travel is impossible, then the Earth should not be treated as round. Anyone wishing to demolish a round Earth model need only supply such an edge, independently confirmed.

Meanwhile, absent satellite photography, the simplest falsification of flatness is to systematically explore what lies away from our starting point. If after doing so, we discover that everything we find can all be reached within (say) 20,000km of our origin, so that every outbound trip becomes a round trip of 40,000km or so, nothing more distant can be found, and we still have found no edge, then we have produced the knowledge that the Earth is round. Anyone wishing to do so can still falsify this model by producing an edge. And anyone wishing to argue that the matter remains unresolved can show the existence of some place new, more than 20,000km away, requiring us to continue exploring.

Anyone arguing that the Earth is flat, yet unable to produce an edge, or a point more than 20,000km away, is arguing pseudoscience. Scientifically you don't have to rebut pseudoscience. If it doesn't come with its own falsification then it's invalid, and can be ignored.

I can tell you didn't read the debate, I did offer empirical evidence that either the earth is flat, or a lot bigger than were told. I never said the earth was finite, but if there is an edge, it is guarded by the world's navy. Flat earthers use the scientific method and zeteticm to find what shape the earth is. Gravity and astrophysics is pseudoscience to me, seeing a city skyline from 60 miles away when it should be well over the curvature of the earth is empirical.
Ed, I didn't read the debate because it wasn't linked in the Original Post. However, on replying to you I checked your profile, saw how many debates of this sort you'd engaged in, and then still elected not to read it because there is no profit in engaging good faith methods to bad faith argument.

For the interest of other members however, Zeteticism is not a scientific method, in that it avoids falsification of hypotheses, and thus evades transparency and accountability for ignorant and erroneous ideas -- two key requisites for systematic empiricism. [https://wiki.tfes.org...] It is in fact a fancy name for pseudoscientific apologetics.

Note how Ed has avoided the key criterion I gave above: every scientific conjecture must be accompanied with a falsifiable prediction. Note how I offered two refutations for round earth -- two points more than 20,000km apart, or an edge. Ed could offer neither evidence, however he has still offered no falsifying observation for a flat Earth.

The bit is pseudoscience in action:
if there is an edge, it is guarded by the world's navy

Note how it's vague, lacking transparency. Does Ed conjecture that there is an edge, or that there isn't? He doesn't know, so he won't say.

Secondly, note how it has replaced his own failed burden of evidence (Ed can't find an edge) with an evidence shift (the skeptic must find evidence that there isn't a great navy.)

Note also how the excuse is not based on new observation. It's pulled from thin air from a guy who doesn't know whether the earth has an edge or where it is, yet purportedly does know that it's guarded by a navy.

And finally, note how Ed's inability to make specific, significant, accurate, falsifiable prediction is evidence itself that Ed has no knowledge, but only an endless stream of special-pleading conjecture.

This is why such argument is engaged in bad faith, and why science dismisses pseudoscience as dishonest, deluded and unconstructive.
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,537
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 10:48:59 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 10:09:20 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I'll admit, this is the one that blew me away the most. You'll notice that instead of traveling in a straight line, which would made the most sense if minumum distance to your location was desired, the plane in question travels in a semi-oval pattern. Why? In a spherical earth, it would make the most sense to travel in a straight line. However, in a flat earth, (https://www.bing.com......) such a pattern makes perfect sense. It would be entirely neccessary to fly in such a manner.

I have no idea why it would be necessary to fly in such a manner 'in a flat earth'.

Having checked with a toy globe and a piece of string (yes, I did it physically) the shortest route from BA to Sydney matches up with what is on the map as near as I can tell, ducking under NZ, diving down towards Antartica and then up the east coast of South America.

Google maps etc. all use a projection that is notorious for distortion near the poles over long distances. I used to work with spatial databases and had lots of 'fun' (ie no fun at all) worrying about the problems of representing a round earth on a flat map.

So why does Delta airlines make 2 stops in North America on all their flights?
http://www.debate.org...
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,537
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 11:01:24 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 10:44:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/3/2016 8:56:33 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:55:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/3/2016 4:56:53 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 6/2/2016 8:49:20 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/2/2016 1:53:43 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that you were not satisfied with the quality of my RFD. Would you care to elaborate on how I could improve for the future? Being a member of voting groups, this is very important to me. Thanks! :)

All scientific methods and theories derive from this understanding, and nothing is science which fails to adhere to this definition.

Do you know what the definition is? Does Pro's argument adhere to it?

I'd like to hear this input.
Scientific discussion is more rigorous than philosophical discussion in that in science, every disagreement must be resolvable by observation. So the only valid scientific conjectures are those where you can specify what observation will falsify them. Put another way: philosophers can skate on ignorance or error by using apologetics -- rhetorical excuse-making. But scientists can't. For each scientific conjecture, they must say: if you ever see the following, then I am wrong.

Pseudoscientific arguments use the jargon of science, but always avoid falsification. They will never specify observable circumstances under which they're wrong. Flat Earth arguments tend to be of this sort. They will make excuse after excuse for why they might be right, but will never say: if you observe this then I'm wrong.

On a finite Earth, the simplest falsification of a roundness is a topological edge. That is, if you can ever produce an edge to the Earth's surface beyond which all further travel is impossible, then the Earth should not be treated as round. Anyone wishing to demolish a round Earth model need only supply such an edge, independently confirmed.

Meanwhile, absent satellite photography, the simplest falsification of flatness is to systematically explore what lies away from our starting point. If after doing so, we discover that everything we find can all be reached within (say) 20,000km of our origin, so that every outbound trip becomes a round trip of 40,000km or so, nothing more distant can be found, and we still have found no edge, then we have produced the knowledge that the Earth is round. Anyone wishing to do so can still falsify this model by producing an edge. And anyone wishing to argue that the matter remains unresolved can show the existence of some place new, more than 20,000km away, requiring us to continue exploring.

Anyone arguing that the Earth is flat, yet unable to produce an edge, or a point more than 20,000km away, is arguing pseudoscience. Scientifically you don't have to rebut pseudoscience. If it doesn't come with its own falsification then it's invalid, and can be ignored.

I can tell you didn't read the debate, I did offer empirical evidence that either the earth is flat, or a lot bigger than were told. I never said the earth was finite, but if there is an edge, it is guarded by the world's navy. Flat earthers use the scientific method and zeteticm to find what shape the earth is. Gravity and astrophysics is pseudoscience to me, seeing a city skyline from 60 miles away when it should be well over the curvature of the earth is empirical.
Ed, I didn't read the debate because it wasn't linked in the Original Post. However, on replying to you I checked your profile, saw how many debates of this sort you'd engaged in, and then still elected not to read it because there is no profit in engaging good faith methods to bad faith argument.

For the interest of other members however, Zeteticism is not a scientific method, in that it avoids falsification of hypotheses, and thus evades transparency and accountability for ignorant and erroneous ideas -- two key requisites for systematic empiricism. [https://wiki.tfes.org...] It is in fact a fancy name for pseudoscientific apologetics.

Note how Ed has avoided the key criterion I gave above: every scientific conjecture must be accompanied with a falsifiable prediction. Note how I offered two refutations for round earth -- two points more than 20,000km apart, or an edge. Ed could offer neither evidence, however he has still offered no falsifying observation for a flat Earth.
Again if you had read my debate, you would find a time lapse of Chicago from 60 miles which should not be possible on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference.
https://youtu.be...
Chicago's tallest building should be over 1,000ft below the curvature.

The bit is pseudoscience in action:
if there is an edge, it is guarded by the world's navy

Note how it's vague, lacking transparency. Does Ed conjecture that there is an edge, or that there isn't? He doesn't know, so he won't say.

I don't know, because I haven't, and never will explore Antarctica, so I cannot say what I cannot prove.

Secondly, note how it has replaced his own failed burden of evidence (Ed can't find an edge) with an evidence shift (the skeptic must find evidence that there isn't a great navy.)

The skeptic need only to look at the Antarctic treaty.

Note also how the excuse is not based on new observation. It's pulled from thin air from a guy who doesn't know whether the earth has an edge or where it is, yet purportedly does know that it's guarded by a navy.

And finally, note how Ed's inability to make specific, significant, accurate, falsifiable prediction is evidence itself that Ed has no knowledge, but only an endless stream of special-pleading conjecture.

This is why such argument is engaged in bad faith, and why science dismisses pseudoscience as dishonest, deluded and unconstructive.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,537
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 11:03:47 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 10:44:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/3/2016 8:56:33 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:55:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/3/2016 4:56:53 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 6/2/2016 8:49:20 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/2/2016 1:53:43 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that you were not satisfied with the quality of my RFD. Would you care to elaborate on how I could improve for the future? Being a member of voting groups, this is very important to me. Thanks! :)

All scientific methods and theories derive from this understanding, and nothing is science which fails to adhere to this definition.

Do you know what the definition is? Does Pro's argument adhere to it?

I'd like to hear this input.
Scientific discussion is more rigorous than philosophical discussion in that in science, every disagreement must be resolvable by observation. So the only valid scientific conjectures are those where you can specify what observation will falsify them. Put another way: philosophers can skate on ignorance or error by using apologetics -- rhetorical excuse-making. But scientists can't. For each scientific conjecture, they must say: if you ever see the following, then I am wrong.

Pseudoscientific arguments use the jargon of science, but always avoid falsification. They will never specify observable circumstances under which they're wrong. Flat Earth arguments tend to be of this sort. They will make excuse after excuse for why they might be right, but will never say: if you observe this then I'm wrong.

On a finite Earth, the simplest falsification of a roundness is a topological edge. That is, if you can ever produce an edge to the Earth's surface beyond which all further travel is impossible, then the Earth should not be treated as round. Anyone wishing to demolish a round Earth model need only supply such an edge, independently confirmed.

Meanwhile, absent satellite photography, the simplest falsification of flatness is to systematically explore what lies away from our starting point. If after doing so, we discover that everything we find can all be reached within (say) 20,000km of our origin, so that every outbound trip becomes a round trip of 40,000km or so, nothing more distant can be found, and we still have found no edge, then we have produced the knowledge that the Earth is round. Anyone wishing to do so can still falsify this model by producing an edge. And anyone wishing to argue that the matter remains unresolved can show the existence of some place new, more than 20,000km away, requiring us to continue exploring.

Anyone arguing that the Earth is flat, yet unable to produce an edge, or a point more than 20,000km away, is arguing pseudoscience. Scientifically you don't have to rebut pseudoscience. If it doesn't come with its own falsification then it's invalid, and can be ignored.

I can tell you didn't read the debate, I did offer empirical evidence that either the earth is flat, or a lot bigger than were told. I never said the earth was finite, but if there is an edge, it is guarded by the world's navy. Flat earthers use the scientific method and zeteticm to find what shape the earth is. Gravity and astrophysics is pseudoscience to me, seeing a city skyline from 60 miles away when it should be well over the curvature of the earth is empirical.
Ed, I didn't read the debate because it wasn't linked in the Original Post. However, on replying to you I checked your profile, saw how many debates of this sort you'd engaged in, and then still elected not to read it because there is no profit in engaging good faith methods to bad faith argument.

For the interest of other members however, Zeteticism is not a scientific method, in that it avoids falsification of hypotheses, and thus evades transparency and accountability for ignorant and erroneous ideas -- two key requisites for systematic empiricism. [https://wiki.tfes.org...] It is in fact a fancy name for pseudoscientific apologetics.

Note how Ed has avoided the key criterion I gave above: every scientific conjecture must be accompanied with a falsifiable prediction. Note how I offered two refutations for round earth -- two points more than 20,000km apart, or an edge. Ed could offer neither evidence, however he has still offered no falsifying observation for a flat Earth.

At 20,000km anything would be shrunk to nothing due to perspective

The bit is pseudoscience in action:
if there is an edge, it is guarded by the world's navy

Note how it's vague, lacking transparency. Does Ed conjecture that there is an edge, or that there isn't? He doesn't know, so he won't say.

Secondly, note how it has replaced his own failed burden of evidence (Ed can't find an edge) with an evidence shift (the skeptic must find evidence that there isn't a great navy.)

Note also how the excuse is not based on new observation. It's pulled from thin air from a guy who doesn't know whether the earth has an edge or where it is, yet purportedly does know that it's guarded by a navy.

And finally, note how Ed's inability to make specific, significant, accurate, falsifiable prediction is evidence itself that Ed has no knowledge, but only an endless stream of special-pleading conjecture.

This is why such argument is engaged in bad faith, and why science dismisses pseudoscience as dishonest, deluded and unconstructive.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,537
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 11:11:59 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 10:44:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/3/2016 8:56:33 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:55:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/3/2016 4:56:53 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 6/2/2016 8:49:20 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/2/2016 1:53:43 AM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that you were not satisfied with the quality of my RFD. Would you care to elaborate on how I could improve for the future? Being a member of voting groups, this is very important to me. Thanks! :)

All scientific methods and theories derive from this understanding, and nothing is science which fails to adhere to this definition.

Do you know what the definition is? Does Pro's argument adhere to it?

I'd like to hear this input.
Scientific discussion is more rigorous than philosophical discussion in that in science, every disagreement must be resolvable by observation. So the only valid scientific conjectures are those where you can specify what observation will falsify them. Put another way: philosophers can skate on ignorance or error by using apologetics -- rhetorical excuse-making. But scientists can't. For each scientific conjecture, they must say: if you ever see the following, then I am wrong.

Pseudoscientific arguments use the jargon of science, but always avoid falsification. They will never specify observable circumstances under which they're wrong. Flat Earth arguments tend to be of this sort. They will make excuse after excuse for why they might be right, but will never say: if you observe this then I'm wrong.

On a finite Earth, the simplest falsification of a roundness is a topological edge. That is, if you can ever produce an edge to the Earth's surface beyond which all further travel is impossible, then the Earth should not be treated as round. Anyone wishing to demolish a round Earth model need only supply such an edge, independently confirmed.

Meanwhile, absent satellite photography, the simplest falsification of flatness is to systematically explore what lies away from our starting point. If after doing so, we discover that everything we find can all be reached within (say) 20,000km of our origin, so that every outbound trip becomes a round trip of 40,000km or so, nothing more distant can be found, and we still have found no edge, then we have produced the knowledge that the Earth is round. Anyone wishing to do so can still falsify this model by producing an edge. And anyone wishing to argue that the matter remains unresolved can show the existence of some place new, more than 20,000km away, requiring us to continue exploring.

Anyone arguing that the Earth is flat, yet unable to produce an edge, or a point more than 20,000km away, is arguing pseudoscience. Scientifically you don't have to rebut pseudoscience. If it doesn't come with its own falsification then it's invalid, and can be ignored.

I can tell you didn't read the debate, I did offer empirical evidence that either the earth is flat, or a lot bigger than were told. I never said the earth was finite, but if there is an edge, it is guarded by the world's navy. Flat earthers use the scientific method and zeteticm to find what shape the earth is. Gravity and astrophysics is pseudoscience to me, seeing a city skyline from 60 miles away when it should be well over the curvature of the earth is empirical.
Ed, I didn't read the debate because it wasn't linked in the Original Post. However, on replying to you I checked your profile, saw how many debates of this sort you'd engaged in, and then still elected not to read it because there is no profit in engaging good faith methods to bad faith argument.

For the interest of other members however, Zeteticism is not a scientific method, in that it avoids falsification of hypotheses, and thus evades transparency and accountability for ignorant and erroneous ideas -- two key requisites for systematic empiricism. [https://wiki.tfes.org...] It is in fact a fancy name for pseudoscientific apologetics.

Note how Ed has avoided the key criterion I gave above: every scientific conjecture must be accompanied with a falsifiable prediction. Note how I offered two refutations for round earth -- two points more than 20,000km apart, or an edge. Ed could offer neither evidence, however he has still offered no falsifying observation for a flat Earth.

The bit is pseudoscience in action:
if there is an edge, it is guarded by the world's navy

Note how it's vague, lacking transparency. Does Ed conjecture that there is an edge, or that there isn't? He doesn't know, so he won't say.

Secondly, note how it has replaced his own failed burden of evidence (Ed can't find an edge) with an evidence shift (the skeptic must find evidence that there isn't a great navy.)

Note also how the excuse is not based on new observation. It's pulled from thin air from a guy who doesn't know whether the earth has an edge or where it is, yet purportedly does know that it's guarded by a navy.

And finally, note how Ed's inability to make specific, significant, accurate, falsifiable prediction is evidence itself that Ed has no knowledge, but only an endless stream of special-pleading conjecture.

This is why such argument is engaged in bad faith, and why science dismisses pseudoscience as dishonest, deluded and unconstructive.

Zeteticism differs from the usual scientific method in that using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A zetetic forms the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be then testing that out.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...