The sun's path throughout the day during an equinox

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on August 30, 2015, 07:20:20 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 30, 2015, 05:31:45 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on August 30, 2015, 04:09:27 AM

Now, how about addressing the phenomenon in OP instead of doing your usual thread diversion?

Someone claimed that I believe a wall of ice keeps the atmoplane in.  I am not the one who derailed, but I had to defend myself against such ridiculous allegations.  I have my good name to uphold, thank you very much.

I didn't say that YOU believe that the ice wall keeps the atmosphere in, but many flat earthers do.

Now your theory is entertaining to think about, but there is no proof of any of it. The only way for it to work is if the liquid gases flowed back into the zone where they would reevaporate. However, since the ice contracts the colder it gets, so it's reasonable that instead of getting higher the closer you get to the edge, it would get lower and the liquid gases would flow away into the void. Another problem is that I sincerely doubt that a planet with such volcanic activity would ever get THAT cold.

You are not thinking correctly.  If liquid gases were flowing towards the edge, they would continue to get colder and would eventually create a dam because they would become solid.  This dam would stop the fluid movement towards the edge and eventually, things would have to flow back towards the warmer areas where the gases would simply evaporate again.  It is simple physics.

Waiiiit a minute! How large is earth again? What's its radius according to flat earthers? It would have to be something like 100 million miles or something! Because I hope you realize that you are talking about temperatures below -210 degrees Celsius, right? And that's assuming that the pressure is sea level atmosphere pressure. I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. At that temperature, even ice apparently stops being stable, whatever that could mean. Are you suggesting that a planet that is geologically active and with an atmosphere will ever get THAT cold? Even Pluto is -233 degrees Celsius apparently, and it's not active, or has an atmosphere. It's a bit ridiculous. Come on. Also, how much atmosphere was there to begin with? Because even if it had twice what we've got now, it would probably be gone already, frozen in Antarctica. How was Earth created? All that makes no sense. You also have 0 proof about any of that, other than what you suppose would happen.

How was Earth created?

You tell us. 

I am all ears! 

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on August 30, 2015, 09:03:15 AM

How was Earth created?

You tell us. 

I am all ears!

Although it is not 100% proven, the most commonly accepted theory is that the rocks and dust that were revolving around the sun during the birth of the solar system attracted each other with their gravitational pull. As they grew larger and larger, their pull became more and more powerful. Thus, slowly, over the years, they became extremely large and... Well... Voila. We have planets. It actually makes a ton of sense.

... during the birth of the solar system .... 

You clearly do not understand your own question. 

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on August 30, 2015, 01:40:44 PM

... during the birth of the solar system .... 

You clearly do not understand your own question.

Uh... You asked me how the Earth was formed. The answer is, the same way the rest of the planets did. How did they form? The way I explained to you. There is no rational explanation for how a flat earth would be formed.

LOL  You are just making your schtick up as you go along! 

You are terrible!   

Successfully diverted the threat from its original subject, where no flat earth believer dares to commit to a straight answer because obviously, all the people that live between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn are in on the conspiracy ... because all of them observe the sun going in a straight line, east to west, during a culmination.

The Tropic of Cancer, by the way, is the most northerly circle of latitude on the Earth at which the Sun appears directly overhead at its culmination. Its southern equivalent is the Tropic of Capricorn.

The areas between those two lines include territories of over 100 counties, including China, India, Indonesia, most African nations, the northern halves of Australia and South-America, Central-America and Mexico. Obviously ALL the people in those countries are part of the world wide conspiracy to promote a round earth, because once a year they can just step out on the street, look up and see that the sun is not behaving like flat earth believers claim it does.

Successfully diverted the threat from its original subject, where no flat earth believer dares to commit to a straight answer because obviously, all the people that live between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn are in on the conspiracy ... because all of them observe the sun going in a straight line, east to west, during a culmination.

The Tropic of Cancer, by the way, is the most northerly circle of latitude on the Earth at which the Sun appears directly overhead at its culmination. Its southern equivalent is the Tropic of Capricorn.

The areas between those two lines include territories of over 100 counties, including China, India, Indonesia, most African nations, the northern halves of Australia and South-America, Central-America and Mexico. Obviously ALL the people in those countries are part of the world wide conspiracy to promote a round earth, because once a year they can just step out on the street, look up and see that the sun is not behaving like flat earth believers claim it does.

You think all of the people you mentioned stare at the sun all day?  Lol there is some wrong with.

Quote from: Soulblood on August 31, 2015, 12:39:48 AM

Successfully diverted the threat from its original subject, where no flat earth believer dares to commit to a straight answer because obviously, all the people that live between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn are in on the conspiracy ... because all of them observe the sun going in a straight line, east to west, during a culmination.

The Tropic of Cancer, by the way, is the most northerly circle of latitude on the Earth at which the Sun appears directly overhead at its culmination. Its southern equivalent is the Tropic of Capricorn.

The areas between those two lines include territories of over 100 counties, including China, India, Indonesia, most African nations, the northern halves of Australia and South-America, Central-America and Mexico. Obviously ALL the people in those countries are part of the world wide conspiracy to promote a round earth, because once a year they can just step out on the street, look up and see that the sun is not behaving like flat earth believers claim it does.

You think all of the people you mentioned stare at the sun all day?  Lol there is some wrong with.

You think they never look up at the sun during their lives?

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 12:47:17 AM

Quote from: Soulblood on August 31, 2015, 12:39:48 AM

Successfully diverted the threat from its original subject, where no flat earth believer dares to commit to a straight answer because obviously, all the people that live between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn are in on the conspiracy ... because all of them observe the sun going in a straight line, east to west, during a culmination.

The Tropic of Cancer, by the way, is the most northerly circle of latitude on the Earth at which the Sun appears directly overhead at its culmination. Its southern equivalent is the Tropic of Capricorn.

The areas between those two lines include territories of over 100 counties, including China, India, Indonesia, most African nations, the northern halves of Australia and South-America, Central-America and Mexico. Obviously ALL the people in those countries are part of the world wide conspiracy to promote a round earth, because once a year they can just step out on the street, look up and see that the sun is not behaving like flat earth believers claim it does.

You think all of the people you mentioned stare at the sun all day?  Lol there is some wrong with.

You think they never look up at the sun during their lives?

You think they stare at it for an entire day? 

Are you saying that diffraction does not occur with light?  Also, you did not even address  Charming Anarchist's points.  How do light rays diverge through a cloud when it should be parallel?

What? When did I say that diffraction does not occur? It's unrelated though.

So, are you still insisting on that stupid converging rays thing? What's next, asking why roads or railways appear to converge? I tell you what: one day, observe where the rays land, preferably at noon, because otherwise they're going to land too far. When they're coming through the clouds, they appear like they are converging, right? Well, go to the locations that they land (which are most likely 1km apart or even less, depending on what time it is) and place sticks and photograph their shadows. The best way to do it would be with a friend, so that you can photograph them simultaneously. You will notice that the shadows look precisely the same. If the rays weren't parallel, and had the extreme angles that they appear to have, it would mean that places only 1km apart would have a huge difference in time and vastly different shadows.

Are we done with this yet? It's stupid. Get over it.

Quote from: jroa on August 30, 2015, 08:48:28 AM

Are you saying that diffraction does not occur with light?  Also, you did not even address  Charming Anarchist's points.  How do light rays diverge through a cloud when it should be parallel?

What? When did I say that diffraction does not occur? It's unrelated though.

So, are you still insisting on that stupid converging rays thing? What's next, asking why roads or railways appear to converge? I tell you what: one day, observe where the rays land, preferably at noon, because otherwise they're going to land too far. When they're coming through the clouds, they appear like they are converging, right? Well, go to the locations that they land (which are most likely 1km apart or even less, depending on what time it is) and place sticks and photograph their shadows. The best way to do it would be with a friend, so that you can photograph them simultaneously. You will notice that the shadows look precisely the same. If the rays weren't parallel, and had the extreme angles that they appear to have, it would mean that places only 1km apart would have a huge difference in time and vastly different shadows.

Are we done with this yet? It's stupid. Get over it.

Diffraction is light changing direction, dum-dum.  And, train tracks appear to converge when your line of sight is approximately parallel to the tracks, not when your line of sight is perpendicular to the tracks, like it approximately is when watching rays of light shine through a cloud in the distance. 

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 31, 2015, 01:21:07 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 12:47:17 AM

Quote from: Soulblood on August 31, 2015, 12:39:48 AM

Successfully diverted the threat from its original subject, where no flat earth believer dares to commit to a straight answer because obviously, all the people that live between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn are in on the conspiracy ... because all of them observe the sun going in a straight line, east to west, during a culmination.

The Tropic of Cancer, by the way, is the most northerly circle of latitude on the Earth at which the Sun appears directly overhead at its culmination. Its southern equivalent is the Tropic of Capricorn.

The areas between those two lines include territories of over 100 counties, including China, India, Indonesia, most African nations, the northern halves of Australia and South-America, Central-America and Mexico. Obviously ALL the people in those countries are part of the world wide conspiracy to promote a round earth, because once a year they can just step out on the street, look up and see that the sun is not behaving like flat earth believers claim it does.

You think all of the people you mentioned stare at the sun all day?  Lol there is some wrong with.

You think they never look up at the sun during their lives?

You think they stare at it for an entire day? 

All they have to do is look out at sunrise, noon and sunset on one specific day in the year to see that the sun traveled a straight line ... all a single person under all those hundreds of millions that live in the described area has to do to prove flat earth is - on that day - take a few pictures, maybe a video, showing that the sun traveled in a curve instead the straight line a round earth predicts, and put it out on any of a million internet outlets ... and flat earth would be proven.

Why has nobody ever done that.

Maybe there is a forum member living in those areas ... why has that person never done that?

Hundreds of millions of people see this and not a single whistle blower has ever stepped forward in hundreds of years?

Jeez, that's what I call a successful conspiracy.

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 01:45:49 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 31, 2015, 01:21:07 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 12:47:17 AM

Quote from: Soulblood on August 31, 2015, 12:39:48 AM

Successfully diverted the threat from its original subject, where no flat earth believer dares to commit to a straight answer because obviously, all the people that live between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn are in on the conspiracy ... because all of them observe the sun going in a straight line, east to west, during a culmination.

The Tropic of Cancer, by the way, is the most northerly circle of latitude on the Earth at which the Sun appears directly overhead at its culmination. Its southern equivalent is the Tropic of Capricorn.

The areas between those two lines include territories of over 100 counties, including China, India, Indonesia, most African nations, the northern halves of Australia and South-America, Central-America and Mexico. Obviously ALL the people in those countries are part of the world wide conspiracy to promote a round earth, because once a year they can just step out on the street, look up and see that the sun is not behaving like flat earth believers claim it does.

You think all of the people you mentioned stare at the sun all day?  Lol there is some wrong with.

You think they never look up at the sun during their lives?

You think they stare at it for an entire day? 

All they have to do is look out at sunrise, noon and sunset on one specific day in the year to see that the sun traveled a straight line ... all a single person under all those hundreds of millions that live in the described area has to do to prove flat earth is - on that day - take a few pictures, maybe a video, showing that the sun traveled in a curve instead the straight line a round earth predicts, and put it out on any of a million internet outlets ... and flat earth would be proven.

Why has nobody ever done that.

Maybe there is a forum member living in those areas ... why has that person never done that?

Hundreds of millions of people see this and not a single whistle blower has ever stepped forward in hundreds of years?

Jeez, that's what I call a successful conspiracy.

Should it not be your burden of proof that anyone who not affiliated with the government has once stared at the sunrise while using a compass to check which direction it was rising on the exact day that it was supposed to be rising in the east and documented it with pictures or video or what ever else you went on about?  You act like I am supposed to do your legwork for you or just believe what you say, even though you have never done this yourself. 

Should it not be your burden of proof that anyone who not affiliated with the government has once stared at the sunrise while using a compass to check which direction it was rising on the exact day that it was supposed to be rising in the east and documented it with pictures or video or what ever else you went on about?  You act like I am supposed to do your legwork for you or just believe what you say, even though you have never done this yourself. 

Really? All you have to respond to this is the question of burden of proof? Billions of people, according to you, are caught in the throngs of conspiracy and falsehood, in a scam perpetrated by governments and agencies all over the world ... and there it is, the undeniable proof, evidence you can hold high, which would humiliate all those that have defended the round earth lie for so long, finally silencing all those shills ...

... and all you can bring forth is "burden of proof"?.

If you truly believe in flat earth, if you truly believe that satanist forces are betraying humainity day by day, wouldn't it be your duty to take that chance ... even if it would be a slight inconvenience?

Because I am NOT talking about us convincing you ... this is about the chance of you convincing the rest of the world ... isn't that worth some effort? Isn't this worth putting your actions were your mouth is?

But maybe then you wouldn't feel special anymore ... maybe your life would lose meaning if all those "sheep" would believe the same things you do. Maybe you would then need to make up a new conspiracy ...

So, what is it? Do you believe but not care ... or do you not believe? Because we have reached a point where there is no other choice.

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 06:05:42 AM

Should it not be your burden of proof that anyone who not affiliated with the government has once stared at the sunrise while using a compass to check which direction it was rising on the exact day that it was supposed to be rising in the east and documented it with pictures or video or what ever else you went on about?  You act like I am supposed to do your legwork for you or just believe what you say, even though you have never done this yourself. 

Really? All you have to respond to this is the question of burden of proof? Billions of people, according to you, are caught in the throngs of conspiracy and falsehood, in a scam perpetrated by governments and agencies all over the world ... and there it is, the undeniable proof, evidence you can hold high, which would humiliate all those that have defended the round earth lie for so long, finally silencing all those shills ...

... and all you can bring forth is "burden of proof"?.

If you truly believe in flat earth, if you truly believe that satanist forces are betraying humainity day by day, wouldn't it be your duty to take that chance ... even if it would be a slight inconvenience?

Because I am NOT talking about us convincing you ... this is about the chance of you convincing the rest of the world ... isn't that worth some effort? Isn't this worth putting your actions were your mouth is?

But maybe then you wouldn't feel special anymore ... maybe your life would lose meaning if all those "sheep" would believe the same things you do. Maybe you would then need to make up a new conspiracy ...

So, what is it? Do you believe but not care ... or do you not believe? Because we have reached a point where there is no other choice.

So, your whole argument is, "Surely, one person did this, so it must be true, even though I can not prove that one person did this?"  Your only rebuttal is to claim probability as a defense?  Did you think that we were playing roulette, because I thought we were having a debate.  Would you like for me to try to find my D&D dice so we can each roll to see who wins?  Your arguments get worse every time I read them.  You should feel bad bringing probability into a debate as a defense, much less a probability that you can do even defend using actual numbers, but your gut feeling instead, especially in a serious science forum.  Shame on you.   

Quote from: Soulblood on August 31, 2015, 07:04:10 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 06:05:42 AM

Should it not be your burden of proof that anyone who not affiliated with the government has once stared at the sunrise while using a compass to check which direction it was rising on the exact day that it was supposed to be rising in the east and documented it with pictures or video or what ever else you went on about?  You act like I am supposed to do your legwork for you or just believe what you say, even though you have never done this yourself. 

Really? All you have to respond to this is the question of burden of proof? Billions of people, according to you, are caught in the throngs of conspiracy and falsehood, in a scam perpetrated by governments and agencies all over the world ... and there it is, the undeniable proof, evidence you can hold high, which would humiliate all those that have defended the round earth lie for so long, finally silencing all those shills ...

... and all you can bring forth is "burden of proof"?.

If you truly believe in flat earth, if you truly believe that satanist forces are betraying humainity day by day, wouldn't it be your duty to take that chance ... even if it would be a slight inconvenience?

Because I am NOT talking about us convincing you ... this is about the chance of you convincing the rest of the world ... isn't that worth some effort? Isn't this worth putting your actions were your mouth is?

But maybe then you wouldn't feel special anymore ... maybe your life would lose meaning if all those "sheep" would believe the same things you do. Maybe you would then need to make up a new conspiracy ...

So, what is it? Do you believe but not care ... or do you not believe? Because we have reached a point where there is no other choice.

So, your whole argument is, "Surely, one person did this, so it must be true, even though I can not prove that one person did this?"  Your only rebuttal is to claim probability as a defense?  Did you think that we were playing roulette, because I thought we were having a debate.  Would you like for me to try to find my D&D dice so we can each roll to see who wins?  Your arguments get worse every time I read them.  You should feel bad bringing probability into a debate as a defense, much less a probability that you can do even defend using actual numbers, but your gut feeling instead, especially in a serious science forum.  Shame on you.   

Seriouly? It wasn't an argument, it was a proposal. Don't you WANT the population of earth to find out the true shape of the earth? Don't you want to become popular, rich, whatever you want?

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 07:15:48 AM

Quote from: Soulblood on August 31, 2015, 07:04:10 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 06:05:42 AM

Should it not be your burden of proof that anyone who not affiliated with the government has once stared at the sunrise while using a compass to check which direction it was rising on the exact day that it was supposed to be rising in the east and documented it with pictures or video or what ever else you went on about?  You act like I am supposed to do your legwork for you or just believe what you say, even though you have never done this yourself. 

Really? All you have to respond to this is the question of burden of proof? Billions of people, according to you, are caught in the throngs of conspiracy and falsehood, in a scam perpetrated by governments and agencies all over the world ... and there it is, the undeniable proof, evidence you can hold high, which would humiliate all those that have defended the round earth lie for so long, finally silencing all those shills ...

... and all you can bring forth is "burden of proof"?.

If you truly believe in flat earth, if you truly believe that satanist forces are betraying humainity day by day, wouldn't it be your duty to take that chance ... even if it would be a slight inconvenience?

Because I am NOT talking about us convincing you ... this is about the chance of you convincing the rest of the world ... isn't that worth some effort? Isn't this worth putting your actions were your mouth is?

But maybe then you wouldn't feel special anymore ... maybe your life would lose meaning if all those "sheep" would believe the same things you do. Maybe you would then need to make up a new conspiracy ...

So, what is it? Do you believe but not care ... or do you not believe? Because we have reached a point where there is no other choice.

So, your whole argument is, "Surely, one person did this, so it must be true, even though I can not prove that one person did this?"  Your only rebuttal is to claim probability as a defense?  Did you think that we were playing roulette, because I thought we were having a debate.  Would you like for me to try to find my D&D dice so we can each roll to see who wins?  Your arguments get worse every time I read them.  You should feel bad bringing probability into a debate as a defense, much less a probability that you can do even defend using actual numbers, but your gut feeling instead, especially in a serious science forum.  Shame on you.   

Seriouly? It wasn't an argument, it was a proposal. Don't you WANT the population of earth to find out the true shape of the earth? Don't you want to become popular, rich, whatever you want?

I was talking about the burden of proof statement that you replied to.  I am saying that you need to show proof and not just say, "This probably happened at least one."  If I get caught steeling something, I can't just say, "There is a probability that someone else would have stolen it anyway."  Do you think that a judge would accept that as a defense?  Yet, you expect me to accept that as proof in a debate?  This is getting ridiculous.  You are dumbing down the entire internet now.   

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 31, 2015, 07:19:18 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 07:15:48 AM

Quote from: Soulblood on August 31, 2015, 07:04:10 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 06:05:42 AM

Should it not be your burden of proof that anyone who not affiliated with the government has once stared at the sunrise while using a compass to check which direction it was rising on the exact day that it was supposed to be rising in the east and documented it with pictures or video or what ever else you went on about?  You act like I am supposed to do your legwork for you or just believe what you say, even though you have never done this yourself. 

Really? All you have to respond to this is the question of burden of proof? Billions of people, according to you, are caught in the throngs of conspiracy and falsehood, in a scam perpetrated by governments and agencies all over the world ... and there it is, the undeniable proof, evidence you can hold high, which would humiliate all those that have defended the round earth lie for so long, finally silencing all those shills ...

... and all you can bring forth is "burden of proof"?.

If you truly believe in flat earth, if you truly believe that satanist forces are betraying humainity day by day, wouldn't it be your duty to take that chance ... even if it would be a slight inconvenience?

Because I am NOT talking about us convincing you ... this is about the chance of you convincing the rest of the world ... isn't that worth some effort? Isn't this worth putting your actions were your mouth is?

But maybe then you wouldn't feel special anymore ... maybe your life would lose meaning if all those "sheep" would believe the same things you do. Maybe you would then need to make up a new conspiracy ...

So, what is it? Do you believe but not care ... or do you not believe? Because we have reached a point where there is no other choice.

So, your whole argument is, "Surely, one person did this, so it must be true, even though I can not prove that one person did this?"  Your only rebuttal is to claim probability as a defense?  Did you think that we were playing roulette, because I thought we were having a debate.  Would you like for me to try to find my D&D dice so we can each roll to see who wins?  Your arguments get worse every time I read them.  You should feel bad bringing probability into a debate as a defense, much less a probability that you can do even defend using actual numbers, but your gut feeling instead, especially in a serious science forum.  Shame on you.   

Seriouly? It wasn't an argument, it was a proposal. Don't you WANT the population of earth to find out the true shape of the earth? Don't you want to become popular, rich, whatever you want?

I was talking about the burden of proof statement that you replied to.  I am saying that you need to show proof and not just say, "This probably happened at least one."  If I get caught steeling something, I can't just say, "There is a probability that someone else would have stolen it anyway."  Do you think that a judge would accept that as a defense?  Yet, you expect me to accept that as proof in a debate?  This is getting ridiculous.  You are dumbing down the entire internet now.   

You were given a way to prove to everyone that the earth is flat. Then you reject it, starts talking about who should be proving (when you are the obvious minority, who are trying to disprove the generally accepted world view) and now you say something about probabilities.

You really are on confused individual.

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 07:29:23 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 31, 2015, 07:19:18 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 07:15:48 AM

Quote from: Soulblood on August 31, 2015, 07:04:10 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 06:05:42 AM

Should it not be your burden of proof that anyone who not affiliated with the government has once stared at the sunrise while using a compass to check which direction it was rising on the exact day that it was supposed to be rising in the east and documented it with pictures or video or what ever else you went on about?  You act like I am supposed to do your legwork for you or just believe what you say, even though you have never done this yourself. 

Really? All you have to respond to this is the question of burden of proof? Billions of people, according to you, are caught in the throngs of conspiracy and falsehood, in a scam perpetrated by governments and agencies all over the world ... and there it is, the undeniable proof, evidence you can hold high, which would humiliate all those that have defended the round earth lie for so long, finally silencing all those shills ...

... and all you can bring forth is "burden of proof"?.

If you truly believe in flat earth, if you truly believe that satanist forces are betraying humainity day by day, wouldn't it be your duty to take that chance ... even if it would be a slight inconvenience?

Because I am NOT talking about us convincing you ... this is about the chance of you convincing the rest of the world ... isn't that worth some effort? Isn't this worth putting your actions were your mouth is?

But maybe then you wouldn't feel special anymore ... maybe your life would lose meaning if all those "sheep" would believe the same things you do. Maybe you would then need to make up a new conspiracy ...

So, what is it? Do you believe but not care ... or do you not believe? Because we have reached a point where there is no other choice.

So, your whole argument is, "Surely, one person did this, so it must be true, even though I can not prove that one person did this?"  Your only rebuttal is to claim probability as a defense?  Did you think that we were playing roulette, because I thought we were having a debate.  Would you like for me to try to find my D&D dice so we can each roll to see who wins?  Your arguments get worse every time I read them.  You should feel bad bringing probability into a debate as a defense, much less a probability that you can do even defend using actual numbers, but your gut feeling instead, especially in a serious science forum.  Shame on you.   

Seriouly? It wasn't an argument, it was a proposal. Don't you WANT the population of earth to find out the true shape of the earth? Don't you want to become popular, rich, whatever you want?

I was talking about the burden of proof statement that you replied to.  I am saying that you need to show proof and not just say, "This probably happened at least one."  If I get caught steeling something, I can't just say, "There is a probability that someone else would have stolen it anyway."  Do you think that a judge would accept that as a defense?  Yet, you expect me to accept that as proof in a debate?  This is getting ridiculous.  You are dumbing down the entire internet now.   

You were given a way to prove to everyone that the earth is flat. Then you reject it, starts talking about who should be proving (when you are the obvious minority, who are trying to disprove the generally accepted world view) and now you say something about probabilities.

You really are on confused individual.

Who said I wanted to prove the Earth is flat?  I find it much more enjoyable to point out the round Earth theory flaws.  It makes you all look dumb for believing in this rubbish.  After people realize that they have been lied to all this time, they will usually naturally start researching the flat Earth theory and "gravitate" to our side.  lol

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 31, 2015, 08:13:07 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 07:29:23 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 31, 2015, 07:19:18 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 07:15:48 AM

Quote from: Soulblood on August 31, 2015, 07:04:10 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 06:05:42 AM

Should it not be your burden of proof that anyone who not affiliated with the government has once stared at the sunrise while using a compass to check which direction it was rising on the exact day that it was supposed to be rising in the east and documented it with pictures or video or what ever else you went on about?  You act like I am supposed to do your legwork for you or just believe what you say, even though you have never done this yourself. 

Really? All you have to respond to this is the question of burden of proof? Billions of people, according to you, are caught in the throngs of conspiracy and falsehood, in a scam perpetrated by governments and agencies all over the world ... and there it is, the undeniable proof, evidence you can hold high, which would humiliate all those that have defended the round earth lie for so long, finally silencing all those shills ...

... and all you can bring forth is "burden of proof"?.

If you truly believe in flat earth, if you truly believe that satanist forces are betraying humainity day by day, wouldn't it be your duty to take that chance ... even if it would be a slight inconvenience?

Because I am NOT talking about us convincing you ... this is about the chance of you convincing the rest of the world ... isn't that worth some effort? Isn't this worth putting your actions were your mouth is?

But maybe then you wouldn't feel special anymore ... maybe your life would lose meaning if all those "sheep" would believe the same things you do. Maybe you would then need to make up a new conspiracy ...

So, what is it? Do you believe but not care ... or do you not believe? Because we have reached a point where there is no other choice.

So, your whole argument is, "Surely, one person did this, so it must be true, even though I can not prove that one person did this?"  Your only rebuttal is to claim probability as a defense?  Did you think that we were playing roulette, because I thought we were having a debate.  Would you like for me to try to find my D&D dice so we can each roll to see who wins?  Your arguments get worse every time I read them.  You should feel bad bringing probability into a debate as a defense, much less a probability that you can do even defend using actual numbers, but your gut feeling instead, especially in a serious science forum.  Shame on you.   

Seriouly? It wasn't an argument, it was a proposal. Don't you WANT the population of earth to find out the true shape of the earth? Don't you want to become popular, rich, whatever you want?

I was talking about the burden of proof statement that you replied to.  I am saying that you need to show proof and not just say, "This probably happened at least one."  If I get caught steeling something, I can't just say, "There is a probability that someone else would have stolen it anyway."  Do you think that a judge would accept that as a defense?  Yet, you expect me to accept that as proof in a debate?  This is getting ridiculous.  You are dumbing down the entire internet now.   

You were given a way to prove to everyone that the earth is flat. Then you reject it, starts talking about who should be proving (when you are the obvious minority, who are trying to disprove the generally accepted world view) and now you say something about probabilities.

You really are on confused individual.

Who said I wanted to prove the Earth is flat?  I find it much more enjoyable to point out the round Earth theory flaws.  It makes you all look dumb for believing in this rubbish.  After people realize that they have been lied to all this time, they will usually naturally start researching the flat Earth theory and "gravitate" to our side.  lol

So Soulblood was right. Your ego can't survive if there are no "sheeps" you can laugh at whilst high on your own imaginations.
Soory, but close to all your credibility was lost there.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on August 31, 2015, 02:04:44 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 30, 2015, 08:48:28 AM

Are you saying that diffraction does not occur with light?  Also, you did not even address  Charming Anarchist's points.  How do light rays diverge through a cloud when it should be parallel?

What? When did I say that diffraction does not occur? It's unrelated though.

So, are you still insisting on that stupid converging rays thing? What's next, asking why roads or railways appear to converge? I tell you what: one day, observe where the rays land, preferably at noon, because otherwise they're going to land too far. When they're coming through the clouds, they appear like they are converging, right? Well, go to the locations that they land (which are most likely 1km apart or even less, depending on what time it is) and place sticks and photograph their shadows. The best way to do it would be with a friend, so that you can photograph them simultaneously. You will notice that the shadows look precisely the same. If the rays weren't parallel, and had the extreme angles that they appear to have, it would mean that places only 1km apart would have a huge difference in time and vastly different shadows.

Are we done with this yet? It's stupid. Get over it.

Diffraction is light changing direction, dum-dum.  And, train tracks appear to converge when your line of sight is approximately parallel to the tracks, not when your line of sight is perpendicular to the tracks, like it approximately is when watching rays of light shine through a cloud in the distance. 

O rly? That's what diffraction is?

No  shit Sherlock.

Actually, no, it's not exactly that, but what I was saying is that diffraction is completely unrelated to anything discussed here.

Now you probably never go ououtside, but if you did go outside, you would know that clouds, most of the time,  are further away from you than the ground directly below them is. If they are way too far away for the railway effect to have an effect on them, guess what, it doesn't. Since it's unlikely that you will go outside to see for yourself, once I get back to my computer (in two days that is, I'm on vacation) I will send you a photo of completely parallel rays coming out from very distant clouds.

I also told you to perform a simple experiment, that you ignored. I know that never going outside might make it hard to comprehend that if you walk a distance of 1km you're not going to get anywhere close to another time zone, but I can give you my word that it's like that.

So, now you are sticking to your statement that light does not ever change course? 

So, now you are sticking to your statement that light does not ever change course?

You are either very inconsistent, very confused or generally bad at understanding.

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 09:45:56 AM

So, now you are sticking to your statement that light does not ever change course?

You are either very inconsistent, very confused or generally bad at understanding.

Why did you pick on someone just because he misspelled diffraction?  Do you not believe in diffraction?  I am not the one who misspelled it, but I find it offensive for you to pick on someone's inability to spell instead of his point.  Why do you like punching puppies in the face? 

So, now you are sticking to your statement that light does not ever change course?

Oh my god jroa, you are so frustrating! Is that what you do when you are losing an argument? Fuck logic and troll away?

You are either inconceivably stupid, higher than sceptimatic's ice dome, or just fucking with me. Which one is it?

Did I ever say that light can't change direction? Anywhere? Just highlight where I said that. It can't be that hard. Although the best thing that you could do right now is to admit that you were completely wrong and stop making a complete fool of yourself.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on August 31, 2015, 02:04:44 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 30, 2015, 08:48:28 AM

Are you saying that diffraction does not occur with light?  Also, you did not even address  Charming Anarchist's points.  How do light rays diverge through a cloud when it should be parallel?

What? When did I say that diffraction does not occur? It's unrelated though.

So, are you still insisting on that stupid converging rays thing? What's next, asking why roads or railways appear to converge? I tell you what: one day, observe where the rays land, preferably at noon, because otherwise they're going to land too far. When they're coming through the clouds, they appear like they are converging, right? Well, go to the locations that they land (which are most likely 1km apart or even less, depending on what time it is) and place sticks and photograph their shadows. The best way to do it would be with a friend, so that you can photograph them simultaneously. You will notice that the shadows look precisely the same. If the rays weren't parallel, and had the extreme angles that they appear to have, it would mean that places only 1km apart would have a huge difference in time and vastly different shadows.

Are we done with this yet? It's stupid. Get over it.

Diffraction is light changing direction, dum-dum.  And, train tracks appear to converge when your line of sight is approximately parallel to the tracks, not when your line of sight is perpendicular to the tracks, like it approximately is when watching rays of light shine through a cloud in the distance. 

That is an incomplete definition.  Diffraction requires an object, refraction requires a change in medium. Diffraction indeed has nothing to do with the topic. Refraction should have been used.

Please note this.

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 31, 2015, 10:15:36 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 09:45:56 AM

So, now you are sticking to your statement that light does not ever change course?

You are either very inconsistent, very confused or generally bad at understanding.

Why did you pick on someone just because he misspelled diffraction?  Do you not believe in diffraction?  I am not the one who misspelled it, but I find it offensive for you to pick on someone's inability to spell instead of his point.  Why do you like punching puppies in the face?

Ok, you're definitely high. You even confused me with Master Evar.

Am I supposed to feel sorry for the poor puppy that I picked on? Oh yeah, the poor guy... All he wanted to do is share a bit of nonsense with us...

I also fail to see how diffraction would have anything to do with the shape of the earth. It would make more sense if he said refraction, because refraction is the reason why sometimes the curvature of earth is less prominent, and I know many flat earthers think it doesn't work or something. Diffraction though? It's completely unrelated. And by saying "defraction" he gives me the impression that it's not a spelling mistake, and that he simply has no idea what he's talking about. I also never said that I don't believe in diffraction. It simply has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 02:20:23 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on August 31, 2015, 02:04:44 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 30, 2015, 08:48:28 AM

Are you saying that diffraction does not occur with light?  Also, you did not even address  Charming Anarchist's points.  How do light rays diverge through a cloud when it should be parallel?

What? When did I say that diffraction does not occur? It's unrelated though.

So, are you still insisting on that stupid converging rays thing? What's next, asking why roads or railways appear to converge? I tell you what: one day, observe where the rays land, preferably at noon, because otherwise they're going to land too far. When they're coming through the clouds, they appear like they are converging, right? Well, go to the locations that they land (which are most likely 1km apart or even less, depending on what time it is) and place sticks and photograph their shadows. The best way to do it would be with a friend, so that you can photograph them simultaneously. You will notice that the shadows look precisely the same. If the rays weren't parallel, and had the extreme angles that they appear to have, it would mean that places only 1km apart would have a huge difference in time and vastly different shadows.

Are we done with this yet? It's stupid. Get over it.

Diffraction is light changing direction, dum-dum.  And, train tracks appear to converge when your line of sight is approximately parallel to the tracks, not when your line of sight is perpendicular to the tracks, like it approximately is when watching rays of light shine through a cloud in the distance. 

That is an incomplete definition.  Diffraction requires an object, refraction requires a change in medium. Diffraction indeed has nothing to do with the topic. Refraction should have been used.

Please note this.

Don't bother. I've already tried to explain to him that diffraction has nothing to do with the discussion and that the only reason why sun rays appear to converge is because of perspective, but he didn't understand. I think he doesn't even know what diffraction is.

Quote from: sokarul on August 31, 2015, 10:45:03 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 02:20:23 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on August 31, 2015, 02:04:44 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 30, 2015, 08:48:28 AM

Are you saying that diffraction does not occur with light?  Also, you did not even address  Charming Anarchist's points.  How do light rays diverge through a cloud when it should be parallel?

What? When did I say that diffraction does not occur? It's unrelated though.

So, are you still insisting on that stupid converging rays thing? What's next, asking why roads or railways appear to converge? I tell you what: one day, observe where the rays land, preferably at noon, because otherwise they're going to land too far. When they're coming through the clouds, they appear like they are converging, right? Well, go to the locations that they land (which are most likely 1km apart or even less, depending on what time it is) and place sticks and photograph their shadows. The best way to do it would be with a friend, so that you can photograph them simultaneously. You will notice that the shadows look precisely the same. If the rays weren't parallel, and had the extreme angles that they appear to have, it would mean that places only 1km apart would have a huge difference in time and vastly different shadows.

Are we done with this yet? It's stupid. Get over it.

Diffraction is light changing direction, dum-dum.  And, train tracks appear to converge when your line of sight is approximately parallel to the tracks, not when your line of sight is perpendicular to the tracks, like it approximately is when watching rays of light shine through a cloud in the distance. 

That is an incomplete definition.  Diffraction requires an object, refraction requires a change in medium. Diffraction indeed has nothing to do with the topic. Refraction should have been used.

Please note this.

Don't bother. I've already tried to explain to him that diffraction has nothing to do with the discussion and that the only reason why sun rays appear to converge is because of perspective, but he didn't understand. I think he doesn't even know what diffraction is.

Yeah I saw that. I just like to point out every time he is wrong.