Just one truth?

My challenge to any flat earther is this:

Provide just one piece of physical evidence that could show a flat earth, and test it.

I bet you cannot find one true statement about the physical world and prove it.

prove the world is round, google photos of the earth...

there are only 3d renders.

prove the world is round, google photos of the earth...

there are only 3d renders.

Don't need photographs.  The horizon provides sufficient evidence the earth is round.

Quote from: RedHat on May 12, 2018, 12:50:18 PM

prove the world is round, google photos of the earth...

there are only 3d renders.

Don't need photographs.  The horizon provides sufficient evidence the earth is round.

then if we don't need photos how can we be positive it's round or flat? it's like Schrodinger's cat, it's both until proven otherwise

OR it is round but it's much bigger than first realized.

If the earth was flat, the horizon would always remain at eye level.  This is the case at sea level, but as elevation increases, the horizon falls below eye level.  This is indicative of curvature.

well the paper is flat, but it does bend, but it's still flat, who is to say the world it's just bumpy...which it is

prove the world is round, google photos of the earth...

there are only 3d renders.

1 - Demanding the other side prove their side is not proof of your side.
2 - Photos are not the only proof.
Mapping of Earth, completely with flight routes and times and the like prove Earth is round.
The existence of 2 celestial poles always 180 degrees apart does as well.
As does the mere existence of the horizon, as well as its behaviour.
3 - How are you trying to determine if they are 3D renders or photos?
There are plenty of photos of Earth, such as those from EPIC or Himawari.

prove the world is round, google photos of the earth...

there are only 3d renders.

He's asking you for proof that it's round.

prove the world is round, google photos of the earth...

there are only 3d renders.

There are many true images, even livestreams. You just do not believe them.
You believe that just because some images are composits, then every image is fake. Therefore even showing you a real photograph from space which states it is taken from space will do nothing to convince you.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/blue-marble-image-of-the-earth-from-apollo-17

If the earth was flat, the horizon would always remain at eye level.  This is the case at sea level, but as elevation increases, the horizon falls below eye level.  This is indicative of curvature.

Maybe you can explain where the horizon would be on a flat earth ?
And how you can estimate the distance to the horizon on a flat earth ?
There is no curvature on a flat earth ?
From my Navy days, I know where the horizon is, and how to estimate the distance to the horizon.

prove the world is round, google photos of the earth...

there are only 3d renders.

There are times when there is a live feed from the International Space Station. What I see is a high quality video, and yes, when the camera is directed towards the Earth, the horizon is curved. These are not just some rendered images, this is a HD stream that would require an insane amount of computing power to apply special effects. In fact, I am comfortable stating that it is impossible with our current technology.

The movie Shrek 3 used 20 million CPU render hours. Think about that. I took banks of processors an accumulated total of 10 million hours to render one hour of Shrek quality video.

Quote from: RedHat on May 12, 2018, 12:50:18 PM

prove the world is round, google photos of the earth...

there are only 3d renders.

There are times when there is a live feed from the International Space Station. What I see is a high quality video, and yes, when the camera is directed towards the Earth, the horizon is curved. These are not just some rendered images, this is a HD stream that would require an insane amount of computing power to apply special effects. In fact, I am comfortable stating that it is impossible with our current technology.

The movie Shrek 3 used 20 million CPU render hours. Think about that. I took banks of processors an accumulated total of 10 million hours to render one hour of Shrek quality video.

You imagine it would be difficult, therefore you conclude it is impossible?

Maybe you can explain where the horizon would be on a flat earth ?
And how you can estimate the distance to the horizon on a flat earth ?
There is no curvature on a flat earth ?
From my Navy days, I know where the horizon is, and how to estimate the distance to the horizon.

The horizon on a flat Earth should be the edge, however more likely as a blur.

The movie Shrek 3 used 20 million CPU render hours. Think about that. I took banks of processors an accumulated total of 10 million hours to render one hour of Shrek quality video.

And what were they doing for Shrek 3? Quite complex movements of complex characters, some with significant amounts of hair.
What happens with the ISS live streams? They basically have a static view of the ISS as a fairly simple Earth rotates below.
People will also question if it is actually live.

The "20 million CPU render hours" is just an artificial metric, not a measure of how long rendering actually takes.

I would say a better comparison would be to some things done with Unreal Engine 4, which can produce high quality real time renders on a decent gaming PC.

Quote from: DaveKillens on May 13, 2018, 12:04:43 PM

Quote from: RedHat on May 12, 2018, 12:50:18 PM

prove the world is round, google photos of the earth...

there are only 3d renders.

There are times when there is a live feed from the International Space Station. What I see is a high quality video, and yes, when the camera is directed towards the Earth, the horizon is curved. These are not just some rendered images, this is a HD stream that would require an insane amount of computing power to apply special effects. In fact, I am comfortable stating that it is impossible with our current technology.

The movie Shrek 3 used 20 million CPU render hours. Think about that. I took banks of processors an accumulated total of 10 million hours to render one hour of Shrek quality video.

You imagine it would be difficult, therefore you conclude it is impossible?

Not at all, read my post again. I stated that it is impossible with our current technology.

Quote from: DaveKillens on May 13, 2018, 12:04:43 PM

The movie Shrek 3 used 20 million CPU render hours. Think about that. I took banks of processors an accumulated total of 10 million hours to render one hour of Shrek quality video.

And what were they doing for Shrek 3? Quite complex movements of complex characters, some with significant amounts of hair.
What happens with the ISS live streams? They basically have a static view of the ISS as a fairly simple Earth rotates below.
People will also question if it is actually live.

The "20 million CPU render hours" is just an artificial metric, not a measure of how long rendering actually takes.

I would say a better comparison would be to some things done with Unreal Engine 4, which can produce high quality real time renders on a decent gaming PC.

Have you actually viewed a live feed from the International Space Station? Have you given the image of the Earth a close look?  Stop, look, think, use your brain.

Have you actually viewed a live feed from the International Space Station? Have you given the image of the Earth a close look?  Stop, look, think, use your brain.

Good advice. You should follow it.
When viewing these live streams, what is actually shown that allows you to verify it is live?
At best daylight patterns and cloud cover, which can be quite difficult to determine if the latter matches, and it doesn't change all that much.
The actual animation requirements for that is very simple.

It is nothing compared to Shrek.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on May 13, 2018, 02:09:19 PM

You imagine it would be difficult, therefore you conclude it is impossible?

Not at all, read my post again. I stated that it is impossible with our current technology.

You stated your conclusion that it is impossible based upon your opinion.

Something tickles me. SpaceX regularly sends rockets in space... and we, civilians, are allowed to come over to see the takeoff. there is even a camera on some of them, broadcasting Live images of the ascension. If this isn't deniable, then the satellites which are sent into the atmosphere by them are also true. Right?

Also, if there is no ISS, where did NASA/others send their astronauts? According to Julie Payette, it looked quite real...

Quote from: DaveKillens on May 13, 2018, 06:11:44 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on May 13, 2018, 02:09:19 PM

You imagine it would be difficult, therefore you conclude it is impossible?

Not at all, read my post again. I stated that it is impossible with our current technology.

You stated your conclusion that it is impossible based upon your opinion.

Yes, I have an opinion. You have an opinion, I have an opinion, anyone reading this post has an opinion. Unless one of us has the capacity to string together many supercomputers and assemble the code to make it all work, no one can predict whether it is possible. Can you prove definitively that it is possible? If not, then all I am hearing is an opinion.

Can you prove definitively that it is possible? If not, then all I am hearing is an opinion.

You are the one asserting it is impossible.
The burden of proof is on you to show that.

prove the world is round, google photos of the earth...

there are only 3d renders.

This is a false statement.  There are plenty of non-composite images of the earth from space.

Also, you were asked to provide evidence of a flat earth.  Making a false statement to try and discredit evidence of a round earth isn't the same thing as evidence of a flat earth.

Aside from the fact that the round earth has been proven, there are countless experiments that any person could do at any time to see that the earth is in fact round and not flat.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on May 14, 2018, 01:43:24 AM

Quote from: DaveKillens on May 13, 2018, 06:11:44 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on May 13, 2018, 02:09:19 PM

You imagine it would be difficult, therefore you conclude it is impossible?

Not at all, read my post again. I stated that it is impossible with our current technology.

You stated your conclusion that it is impossible based upon your opinion.

Yes, I have an opinion. You have an opinion, I have an opinion, anyone reading this post has an opinion. Unless one of us has the capacity to string together many supercomputers and assemble the code to make it all work, no one can predict whether it is possible. Can you prove definitively that it is possible? If not, then all I am hearing is an opinion.

Your opinion means absolutely nothing when it is formed contradictory of fact.  You are just spewing nonsense to try and protect yourself from the horror of having to admit you don't know what you are talking about.

Instead of pretending what you "know" is all there is to know, realize that you know nothing and there is always something to be learning.  Looking for information that exclusively supports your "opinion" isn't learning.  To actually believe that the earth is flat would require a person to be significantly delusional.

Quote from: DaveKillens on May 14, 2018, 07:59:34 AM

Can you prove definitively that it is possible? If not, then all I am hearing is an opinion.

You are the one asserting it is impossible.
The burden of proof is on you to show that.

That is true, and I stated why. The detail required to generate the video stream exceeds present processor abilities.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 14, 2018, 02:04:28 PM

Quote from: DaveKillens on May 14, 2018, 07:59:34 AM

Can you prove definitively that it is possible? If not, then all I am hearing is an opinion.

You are the one asserting it is impossible.
The burden of proof is on you to show that.

That is true, and I stated why. The detail required to generate the video stream exceeds present processor abilities.

In no particular order:
-Processors have been struggling to keep up with "moore's law" in recent years.
-JackBlack will argue with a wall
-the op still stands, FE does not have one truth on the shelf

That is true, and I stated why. The detail required to generate the video stream exceeds present processor abilities.

No. That was your assertion, which you failed to back up at all.

As such, you have not met your burden of proof.
I also explained why that was such an invalid comparison.

There are horizon at the point of view in which you stand.  They are flat.

It is the last horizon you seek.  This is the one as you approach the edge of the Earth and it is also flat and non-changing as you near the edge. 

You can not deny but can confirm.

There are 2 reasons you can't see the horizon even though the Earth is flat:

1) There is pollution and water vapor in the air. You can't see hundreds of miles because the pollution and water vapor stops the light eventually. That's why, if you look off into the horizon towards the sea, then you just see the grey mist.

2) The second reason deals with Einstein's theories involving light and gravity. Because light is warped by gravity, the light traveling towards you from a very long way away slowly warps toward the ground. Eventually, the light hits the ground and you can see nothing beyond that point. This also accounts for the perceived curvature of the Earth at the beach. The horizon seems warped because the light itself is warped.

there are a lot of problems with what you just said, but you shot yourself in the leg when you used proof of the Flat Earth Theory and Gravity in the same paragraph.

FES doesn't believe in gravity...

And the horizon should also be curved on a flat earth...

seriously, it is only my second post here, and I don't think I need to increment that number.