NASA says humans could land on Mars in 25 years

[Beanz]

Sorry Beanz, I didn't even read your post, I've told and shown you what water does in this reality. If you are disputing the natural physics of water, then it's on you to prove it. And for me to believe something to be true, I need to see it, be able to repeat it etc.

I know you can't scale it (doesn't that ring some alarm bells in your common sense?), but you will continue to believe water can conform to the exterior of a shape, even tho you can't demonstrate this claim to yourself. It's something you can't observe for yourself, so it's basically blind faith.

Enjoy your spinning ball.

This is you admitting defeat. You expect Tito to watch a two hour video and yet you fail to address any of the points I made that deconstruct the fallacy you have created. You have not even made an argument. You refused to start a thread, refused to define terms, ignored any accepted definition of empirical science after insisting on it, and then cited the example of the horizon which actually destroys your assertions.

Get a telescope and watch a ship disappear over the horizon. Not just fade out and become miniscule. Watch it sink like somebody descending over a hill. It is telling that you wish your world to be limited by the literal horizontal line at the furthest point your eyes can resolve. Stand on the shoulders of even 3rd century Greek astronomers and just like climbing a hill or watchtower because we are on a globe you will see further.

Still waiting on your empirical proof (based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic on your ball earth.

Can I ask what your definition of the horizon is? The problem is there are different meanings of what the horizon is. I think there's about 10 different meanings. Is it the line that divides the sky and the earth, is it the geometrical horizon, the astronomical horizon, the true horizon, and each one of the them has a different assumption. Right, the true horizon is based on the spherical earth, the geometric horizon assumes a flat plain, the astronomical one assumes that the fundamental plain is through the center of the eye (personally that's how I define it).

Now think for moment, if you see a ship disappear over the horizon, then fix that point. As you rise up, it would be impossible for the horizon to rise with you. Geometry dictates this. That point should continue to drop.

The claim that water can conform to the exterior of a shape like it does on a spinning globe, doesn't stand up to the scientific method. You can't observe it, you can provide a demonstrable experiment for me to repeat and confirm.

The steps of the scientific method go something like this:

Make an observation or observations.
Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science."

You couldn't be bothered to read my post, and you don't even believe in Empirical proof anyway, so any evidence I offered, you would reject. I think you do realize that you do not have to personally observe and document something for it to be considered empirical evidence, but are happy to pretend otherwise in order to wrap your flat earth theory around all the evidence that has proved quite conclusively it is a sphere. So when someone points out the daftness of pretending everything is scaleable you just pretend it never happened and move on and put another wrapper on. Like rubber bands that eventually become a ball.

Boing

[Alpha]

empirical
/ɛmˈpɪrɪk(ə)l,ɪmˈpɪrɪk(ə)l/
adjective
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

So what observation or experience do you have for you spinning ball earth?

[Beanz]

You don't belive in empirical evidence. You have ROUNDLY dismissed the empirical research of millions of scientists conducted over a couple thousand years in favour of having your ears tickled by loons.

[Alpha]

You don't belive in empirical evidence. You have ROUNDLY dismissed the empirical research of millions of scientists conducted over a couple thousand years in favour of having your ears tickled by loons.

Loons? Ad hominem stuff again?

You don't even understand the terms you are using.

Still waiting on an observation or experience do you have for you spinning ball earth?

[TitoFan]

As I said earlier, Alpha. The onus is on the Flat Earthers to prove the Earth is flat, not the other way around. When established scientific principles and studies have demonstrated the Earth is round, the accepted fact for hundreds of years, it is up to the Flat Earthers to prove otherwise. So far you've responded with a YouTube clip from a person with questionable credentials, and "proofs" based on observations at altitudes that are minuscule and insignificant when compared to the size of the Earth. Questions of how could a flat Earth move through space without the predictable and calculable destructive stresses have gone pretty much unanswered (or answered unsatisfactorily). Dubay's own assertions about the movement of the Sun are pretty much nonsensical. Honestly, a sun revolving in front of a flat Earth makes no physics sense whatsoever. No answers as to planes and satellites circling the Earth. If the Earth were truly flat..... you travel in a straight line..... you're bound to reach the edge. Has anyone ever SEEN the edge of the Earth?

Again, question the Moon landings all you want. I personally can't produce proof that the landings were real. TBH, I can't fathom such an elaborate, long-lasting, perfectly-coordinated hoax, but....... so be it. Question the Moon landings. But for heavens sakes, man..... when you enter the "world is flat" realm, you lose me altogether.

[p4pking]

Stop taking this retard seriously.. it’s a colossal waste.

[walrus]

Stop taking this retard seriously.. it’s a colossal waste.

Don’t be so hard on yourself

[Freedom]

[TitoFan]

Michelle seems just as puzzled about this Flat Earth thing as the rest of us are.

What she failed to mention, yet crossed my mind, is that when we observe the full moon in detail, we can make out all the geographical details.... craters, mountains, and such. The Moon is perfectly round which, if we're to dismiss this spherical celestial body notion, would mean the Moon is actually a circle and is also flat. I mean, why would the Earth be flat while the Moon is spherical, right? Yet, each time we observe the full moon, we see different geographical details. Which would only be possible if the Moon were itself spherical and rotated on an axis with respect to Earth. How else to explain the differences in topography?

Anyway, just another thing to consider.

I still think we're all just getting our collective chains pulled.

[Alpha]

We only see 1 side of the moon from earth Tito.

[TitoFan]

Is the Moon flat also, then?

[Master]

Is the Moon flat also, then?

The moon is definitely round, so how can the earth be flat?

[Alpha]

Is the Moon flat also, then?

The moon is definitely round, so how can the earth be flat?

Spicoli mentioned this awhile back, and it's a good question to ask.

But it's like looking at a pool table and thinking because the balls are round, then the table must be round as well.

[Beanz]

Is the Moon flat also, then?

The moon is definitely round, so how can the earth be flat?

Spicoli mentioned this awhile back, and it's a good question to ask.

But it's like looking at a pool table and thinking because the balls are round, then the table must be round as well.

Not really because you can see the straight edges on a pool table where as the straight edge you see as the horizon is a disc slice section of the sphere that is earth, not your distortion of your eyes telling you it is flat.

[Alpha]

Is the Moon flat also, then?

The moon is definitely round, so how can the earth be flat?

Spicoli mentioned this awhile back, and it's a good question to ask.

But it's like looking at a pool table and thinking because the balls are round, then the table must be round as well.

Not really because you can see the straight edges on a pool table where as the straight edge you see as the horizon is a disc slice section of the sphere that is earth, not your distortion of your eyes telling you it is flat.

It is the exact same thinking, of course we can see the edges of the table, but we are not that size in relation to the earth. An ant on a pool looking at the balls, then thinks the table has to be round. That's the thought pattern.