[herewegoround]

I can't be bothered with this. It is clear now that this forum is as jam packed with lying cunts as the other one.

Believe what you want fuck head, I couldn't give a fuck. You're a lying piece of shit.

Anyone with half a brain who is capable of understanding a real argument will see that you proved nothing.

I am willingly to have an adult conversation with you about these topics, but if you can't control your emotions and resort to constant outbursts then I'm afraid this is where we part ways. Goodbye.

You phoney bastard. You have done nothing but evade, lie and pretend you have a real case. I am not emotional, I am just not going to pretend this is a real discussion. You allow yourself to make up phoney pseudo-scientific concepts and give yourself carte blanche to give it any property you want. I on the other hand stuck to logic and what is widely accepted to be true by the whole human race. I debate according to well established rules. You play by whatever rules you want. Using aetheric whirlpools, excuse me while a stifle a laugh, is like playing a game of chess and introducing a piece on the board that you can move anywhere at anytime, take any piece you want and make immune from being taken.

Who would play chess with someone playing by those rules?

The aether is a concept you use to explain why the evidence suggests the Earth is round. If an object is moving around but its apparent size doesn't change the most obvious explanation is that the object's distance isn't changing significantly. That's the most obvious explanation for the constant size of the sun. It's the explanation that any right minded sane person would assume. However, it fucks flat Earth theory because if the sun's size doesn't change anywhere on Earth is must be a long way away. So you invent some bullshit idea to explain that away. It's dishonest, plain and simple.

[Ghost of V]

Aether is no different than gravity. You cannot see gravity. You can't touch it. You can't even detect it. Yet, you still use gravity to explain your globular Earth theory. How is that any different than what I am doing? You believe things magically float in a void with nothing holding them up. That sounds pretty nonsensical to me. At least we have a force that holds up the heavens, it's called Universal Acceleration and it's most likely caused by the aether. We know Universal Acceleration exists because everything falls at the same rate. That is not a coincidence.

You seem to be assuming things here. I never stated that aether was a real thing. I simply use it in my model as a place holder for the cause of what I (and everyone else) observes. I am not an FE'er per se, but a Dual Earther... meaning I am open to the possibility of both a flat and round Earth. Currently, the overwhelming observational evidence supports flatness. You would see this too if you were able to get over your bias. Simply look out your window or observe a ship passing over the "horizon" (learn about perspective, btw). Both are great indicators of flatness.

I am more than willing to change my views if you can provide ONE sound argument that doesn't already have a scientific explanation. All of your arguments are old, reused, and simply boring. They have all been explained and I have given you ample tools to discover these explanations in the form of links and my own typed word.

I would appreciate it if you discussed my explanations and theories instead of trying to take shots at my own character. Is this how you normally conduct debates?

[herewegoround]

Aether is no different than gravity. You cannot see gravity. You can't touch it. You can't even detect it. Yet, you still use gravity to explain your globular Earth theory. How is that any different than what I am doing? You believe things magically float in a void with nothing holding them up. That sounds pretty nonsensical to me. At least we have a force that holds up the heavens, it's called Universal Acceleration and it's most likely caused by the aether. We know Universal Acceleration exists because everything falls at the same rate. That is not a coincidence.

You seem to be assuming things here. I never stated that aether was a real thing. I simply use it in my model as a place holder for the cause of what I (and everyone else) observes. I am not an FE'er per se, but a Dual Earther... meaning I am open to the possibility of both a flat and round Earth. Currently, the overwhelming observational evidence supports flatness. You would see this too if you were able to get over your bias. Simply look out your window or observe a ship passing over the "horizon" (learn about perspective, btw). Both are great indicators of flatness.

I am more than willing to change my views if you can provide ONE sound argument that doesn't already have a scientific explanation. All of your arguments are old, reused, and simply boring. They have all been explained and I have given you ample tools to discover these explanations in the form of links and my own typed word.

I would appreciate it if you discussed my explanations and theories instead of trying to take shots at my own character. Is this how you normally conduct debates?

We have a precise mathematical description of gravity which can be used to make astonishingly accurate predictions. You don't have that for the aether. The aether at the moment is little more than magic. It can do anything you want it to do. Gravity can't do anything scientists want it to do. It makes very specific predictions. If those predictions weren't observed it would be dropped.

When you invoked the aether as an argument I assumed you thought it was a real thing. I can see now how silly that was of me.

So ships passing over the horizon are now evidence of a flat Earth? Right, ok. I missed that meeting.

Once again you are just stating that my arguments are tired and old and have been answered.

This is a waste of time. You allow yourself to deny anything you want. You allow yourself to make concepts that have no justification.

I am playing by rules, you aren't.

You can say anything you want. Make up anything you want.

I stick to what makes sense and fits with what has been well established about the world.

I've said before, the aether is something you and your pals invented to explain why all the evidence, on the face of it, suggests overwhelmingly that the Earth is round.

[Rushy]

Well, that just depends. Mathematical predictions are rather easily fudged and can even lead to incorrect assumptions. For example, they still teach Newton's Gravity equation in grade school, which more or less states that Gravity is directly related to the mass of two bodies and you can calculate that force based on those two bodies. At least, that's what someone who assumes because the answer is "right-ish" that would be the case. The only problem is that such a statement is completely wrong. Gravity is directly related to the total energy of two bodies, not their mass. It just so happens that mass makes up the largest portion of a body's energy, which is why the equation is "seems like it is correct" but horrifically breaks down when more accurate results are needed (which is admittedly rare).

Thus, dismissing the idea based on "I don't see any math" is just as ridiculous as me dismissing the math because there is no idea. The two aren't related enough to draw conclusions from one in order to influence the other. Theory and math do go hand in hand, and while it'd be great to have both, it isn't necessary.

[juner]

I can't be bothered with this. It is clear now that this forum is as jam packed with lying cunts as the other one.

Believe what you want fuck head, I couldn't give a fuck. You're a lying piece of shit.

Anyone with half a brain who is capable of understanding a real argument will see that you proved nothing.

Since you have had multiple outbursts already, please consider this your only warning. Further insults will result in at least a 3 day ban.

[herewegoround]

Well, that just depends. Mathematical predictions are rather easily fudged and can even lead to incorrect assumptions. For example, they still teach Newton's Gravity equation in grade school, which more or less states that Gravity is directly related to the mass of two bodies and you can calculate that force based on those two bodies. At least, that's what someone who assumes because the answer is "right-ish" that would be the case. The only problem is that such a statement is completely wrong. Gravity is directly related to the total energy of two bodies, not their mass. It just so happens that mass makes up the largest portion of a body's energy, which is why the equation is "seems like it is correct" but horrifically breaks down when more accurate results are needed (which is admittedly rare).

Thus, dismissing the idea based on "I don't see any math" is just as ridiculous as me dismissing the math because there is no idea. The two aren't related enough to draw conclusions from one in order to influence the other. Theory and math do go hand in hand, and while it'd be great to have both, it isn't necessary.

Mathematical physical theories are always used at the level approximation that is appropriate. What does that prove? Newton's laws and Newton's universal law of gravitation are still remarkably accurate for many purposes. Sometimes a more deeper level of understanding is required. That's how science works.

There is nothing even comparable to that with the aether concept. It is little more than magic induced to twist evidence for the Earth being round into evidence for the Earth being flat.

All the arguments I have presented are based an assuming that the world works in the normal ways that are widely accepted. Not anything esoteric. Just the normal things we all expect.

The only way you can make flat Earth theory work is by either invoking all sorts of mysterious processes or by point black refusing to accept simple facts. You can see examples of both of these in this discussion. Jroa tried to deny that the angular size of the sun is constant, Vauxhall accepted that it is but tried to explain it away using a pseudo-scientific concept. Interestingly enough they both ganged up on me as if they were on the same side but they were totally contradicting one another.

[Ghost of V]

Well, that just depends. Mathematical predictions are rather easily fudged and can even lead to incorrect assumptions. For example, they still teach Newton's Gravity equation in grade school, which more or less states that Gravity is directly related to the mass of two bodies and you can calculate that force based on those two bodies. At least, that's what someone who assumes because the answer is "right-ish" that would be the case. The only problem is that such a statement is completely wrong. Gravity is directly related to the total energy of two bodies, not their mass. It just so happens that mass makes up the largest portion of a body's energy, which is why the equation is "seems like it is correct" but horrifically breaks down when more accurate results are needed (which is admittedly rare).

Thus, dismissing the idea based on "I don't see any math" is just as ridiculous as me dismissing the math because there is no idea. The two aren't related enough to draw conclusions from one in order to influence the other. Theory and math do go hand in hand, and while it'd be great to have both, it isn't necessary.

Mathematical physical theories are always used at the level approximation that is appropriate. What does that prove? Newton's laws and Newton's universal law of gravitation are still remarkably accurate for many purposes. Sometimes a more deeper level of understanding is required. That's how science works.

There is nothing even comparable to that with the aether concept. It is little more than magic induced to twist evidence for the Earth being round into evidence for the Earth being flat.

All the argument I have presented are based an assuming that the world works in the normal ways that are widely accepted. Not anything esoteric. Just the normal things we all expect.

The only way you can make flat Earth theory work is by either invoking all sorts of mysterious processes or by point black refusing to accept simple facts. You can see examples of both of theses in this discussion. Jroa tried to deny that the angular size of the sun is constant, Vauxhall accepted that it is but tried to explain it away using a pseudo-scientific concept. Interestingly enough they both ganged up on me as if they were on the same side but they were totally contradicting one another.

We all have different theories when it comes to the flat Earth model. Did you expect us to be bots spouting the same answers each time someone asks a question?

Welcome to the human race, buddy. We are not a Borg hivemind.

That being said, all your math is purely theoretical. It does not explain anything in nature at all, except what you have deemed it to explain. It's easy to say "gravity exists, it's what keeps the planets floating in space" and then work backwards from that while making up maths along the way.  But that's not proper science. First you have to start with an observation, then formulate the explanation and test it. First problem, how can you observe gravity? That is outrageous and impossible. Just like the theory of dark matter... it's an absolute farce. It's theoretical... and that's why it's called a theory to begin with. You are severely misunderstanding the scientific process and the terms associated with that process. If anything, my aether model just shows how ridiculous gravity is... because it's basically a substitute for gravity, and it's equally valid because it's equally nonsensical.

There is no evidence for gravity. Period. You can pull out whatever math problem you want, but until you can show me gravity particles... you've got nothing.

Also, saying that we have no math is a complete lie as well. For someone who claims to have read our material, you certainly don't seem to understand it and have forgotten about 90% of it... which leads me to believe that you simply lied.

We have solid maths proving that the Sun is merely about 3000 miles away.



A little trigonometry shows that




Using the values 50 degrees and 60 degrees as measured on the trip, with b=1000 miles, we find that h is approximately 2000 miles. Continuing the calculation, we find that a is approximately 2400 miles and the two distances R1 and R2 are approximately 3000 and 3900 miles, respectively.

Of course, you would have known this if you had actually read our material instead of claiming to have read our material. Cutting corners makes you look like a lazy person. You came here thinking you were at the top of your game, maybe you would type up a few posts and show us FE'ers how retarded we are, but it looks like your plan has seriously backfired. You are not as genius as you think you are, and this attempt at exercising your superiority over a scientific minority is very telling.

[herewegoround]

Well, that just depends. Mathematical predictions are rather easily fudged and can even lead to incorrect assumptions. For example, they still teach Newton's Gravity equation in grade school, which more or less states that Gravity is directly related to the mass of two bodies and you can calculate that force based on those two bodies. At least, that's what someone who assumes because the answer is "right-ish" that would be the case. The only problem is that such a statement is completely wrong. Gravity is directly related to the total energy of two bodies, not their mass. It just so happens that mass makes up the largest portion of a body's energy, which is why the equation is "seems like it is correct" but horrifically breaks down when more accurate results are needed (which is admittedly rare).

Thus, dismissing the idea based on "I don't see any math" is just as ridiculous as me dismissing the math because there is no idea. The two aren't related enough to draw conclusions from one in order to influence the other. Theory and math do go hand in hand, and while it'd be great to have both, it isn't necessary.

Mathematical physical theories are always used at the level approximation that is appropriate. What does that prove? Newton's laws and Newton's universal law of gravitation are still remarkably accurate for many purposes. Sometimes a more deeper level of understanding is required. That's how science works.

There is nothing even comparable to that with the aether concept. It is little more than magic induced to twist evidence for the Earth being round into evidence for the Earth being flat.

All the argument I have presented are based an assuming that the world works in the normal ways that are widely accepted. Not anything esoteric. Just the normal things we all expect.

The only way you can make flat Earth theory work is by either invoking all sorts of mysterious processes or by point black refusing to accept simple facts. You can see examples of both of theses in this discussion. Jroa tried to deny that the angular size of the sun is constant, Vauxhall accepted that it is but tried to explain it away using a pseudo-scientific concept. Interestingly enough they both ganged up on me as if they were on the same side but they were totally contradicting one another.

We all have different theories when it comes to the flat Earth model. Did you expect us to be bots spouting the same answers each time someone asks a question?

Welcome to the human race, buddy. We are not a Borg hivemind.

That being said, all your math is purely theoretical. It does not explain anything in nature at all, except what you have deemed it to explain. It's easy to say "gravity exists, it's what keeps the planets floating in space" and then work backwards from that while making up maths along the way.  But that's not proper science. First you have to start with an observation, then formulate the explanation and test it. First problem, how can you observe gravity? That is outrageous and impossible. Just like the theory of dark matter... it's an absolute farce. It's theoretical... and that's why it's called a theory to begin with. You are severely misunderstanding the scientific process and the terms associated with that process. If anything, my aether model just shows how ridiculous gravity is... because it's basically a substitute for gravity, and it's equally valid because it's equally nonsensical.

There is no evidence for gravity. Period. You can pull out whatever math problem you want, but until you can show me gravity particles... you've got nothing.

Also, saying that we have no math is a complete lie as well. For someone who claims to have read our material, you certainly don't seem to understand it and have forgotten about 90% of it... which leads me to believe that you simply lied.

We have solid maths proving that the Sun is merely about 3000 miles away.



A little trigonometry shows that




Using the values 50 degrees and 60 degrees as measured on the trip, with b=1000 miles, we find that h is approximately 2000 miles. Continuing the calculation, we find that a is approximately 2400 miles and the two distances R1 and R2 are approximately 3000 and 3900 miles, respectively.

Of course, you would have known this if you had actually read our material instead of claiming to have read our material. Cutting corners makes you look like a lazy person. You came here thinking you were at the top of your game, maybe you would type up a few posts and show us FE'ers how retarded we are, but it looks like your plan has seriously backfired. You are not as genius as you think you are, and this attempt at exercising your superiority over a scientific minority is very telling.

The evidence for gravity is massive. The evidence for the aether is none.

There is no flat Earth model that either you all agree on or that can explain all the facts. There is only one round Earth model which is based on common sense interpretations of the facts. I was pointing out that there are various flat Earth tactics for avoiding the obvious: namely the earth is round. You used one and jroa used another.

The angle of incidence of sunlight changes gradually over the face of the Earth. There are two explanations. The Earth is flat and the sun is a few thousand miles away or the Earth is round and the sun is a long way away compared to the diameter of the Earth. The facts actually indicate, assuming the Earth is flat, that the sun is about 4000 miles away. No matter.

If the sun was somewhere between 2000 and 4000 miles above a flat Earth, its distance from any given observer would change significantly over the course of a day. The most common sense expectation would be that its apparent size would change significantly. It doesn't. jroa tried to deny that, you tried to explain it with a phoney concept you can give no account of.

The path the sun follows across the sky would also be dramatically different. Still, never mind, you have the magic aether that can do anything.

Poor old me, I'm stuck with facts and logic. I don't stand a chance.

[Ghost of V]

By your own admission, you can't argue with math... and the math shows that sun is about 3000 miles away.

The sun seemingly remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmosphere. I do maintain that the sun does change size, slightly, throughout the day, however. It is barely noticeable, so it's not really worth mentioning.

Here are some wise words from Samuel Rowbotham himself:

  "It is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense
    medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when
    it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the
    medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or
    foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a
    few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame;
    on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere
    will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a
    greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and
    vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset,
    the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than
    at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and
    holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through
    which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or
    magnified, as well as modified in colour."

[herewegoround]

By your own admission, you can't argue with math... and the math shows that sun is about 3000 miles away.

The sun seemingly remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmosphere. I do maintain that the sun does change size, slightly, throughout the day, however. It is barely noticeable, so it's not really worth mentioning.

Here are some wise words from Samuel Rowbotham himself:

  "It is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense
    medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when
    it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the
    medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or
    foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a
    few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame;
    on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere
    will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a
    greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and
    vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset,
    the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than
    at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and
    holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through
    which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or
    magnified, as well as modified in colour."

You can't argue with maths and if you take into account the changing angle of the incidence of sunlight, as I said, there are two interpretations. The Earth is flat and the sun is a few thousand miles away or the Earth is round and the sun is a long way away.

If you also take into account the near constant angular size of the sun at any location on Earth, the most obvious and common sense assumption is that the Earth is round and the sun is a long way away. Can you see what I mean, the evidence on the face of it, would suggest overwhelmingly that the Earth is round.

However, you have a pseudo-scientific concept which can do anything you want it to do. It's the magic chess piece. Once again, I'm stuck trying to make sense of things in terms of what are well established facts about the world. You are allowing yourself to invent a concept and use it to twist, what on the face of it are strong reasons for assuming the Earth is round, into reasons for assuming the Earth is flat.

Can't you at least have the honesty and integrity to admit that on the face of it, the most obvious explanation is that the Earth is round?

[Ghost of V]

By your own admission, you can't argue with math... and the math shows that sun is about 3000 miles away.

The sun seemingly remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmosphere. I do maintain that the sun does change size, slightly, throughout the day, however. It is barely noticeable, so it's not really worth mentioning.

Here are some wise words from Samuel Rowbotham himself:

  "It is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense
    medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when
    it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the
    medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or
    foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a
    few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame;
    on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere
    will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a
    greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and
    vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset,
    the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than
    at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and
    holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through
    which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or
    magnified, as well as modified in colour."

You can't argue with maths and if you take into account the changing angle of the incidence of sunlight, as I said, there are two interpretations. The Earth is flat and the sun is a few thousand miles away or the Earth is round and the sun is a long way away.

If you also take into account the near constant angular size of the sun at any location on Earth, the most obvious and common sense assumption is that the Earth is round and the sun is a long way away. Can you see what I mean, the evidence on the face of it, would suggest overwhelmingly that the Earth is round.

However, you have a pseudo-scientific concept which can do anything you want it to do. It's the magic chess piece. Once again, I'm stuck trying to make sense of things in terms of what are well established facts about the world. You are allowing yourself to invent a concept and use it to twist, what on the face of it are strong reasons for assuming the Earth is round, into reasons for assuming the Earth is flat.

Can't you at least have the honesty and integrity to admit that on the face of it, the most obvious explanation is that the Earth is round?

Occam's razor supports a flat Earth. As far as "you can't argue with maths", I'm not sure I understand your point. You certainly seem to think that math wins debates. I'm sorry... but are the "rules" different for you? Am I not allowed to use math now? Please let me know what rules I should be following in this debate. Thanks.

[herewegoround]

By your own admission, you can't argue with math... and the math shows that sun is about 3000 miles away.

The sun seemingly remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmosphere. I do maintain that the sun does change size, slightly, throughout the day, however. It is barely noticeable, so it's not really worth mentioning.

Here are some wise words from Samuel Rowbotham himself:

  "It is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense
    medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when
    it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the
    medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or
    foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a
    few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame;
    on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere
    will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a
    greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and
    vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset,
    the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than
    at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and
    holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through
    which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or
    magnified, as well as modified in colour."

You can't argue with maths and if you take into account the changing angle of the incidence of sunlight, as I said, there are two interpretations. The Earth is flat and the sun is a few thousand miles away or the Earth is round and the sun is a long way away.

If you also take into account the near constant angular size of the sun at any location on Earth, the most obvious and common sense assumption is that the Earth is round and the sun is a long way away. Can you see what I mean, the evidence on the face of it, would suggest overwhelmingly that the Earth is round.

However, you have a pseudo-scientific concept which can do anything you want it to do. It's the magic chess piece. Once again, I'm stuck trying to make sense of things in terms of what are well established facts about the world. You are allowing yourself to invent a concept and use it to twist, what on the face of it are strong reasons for assuming the Earth is round, into reasons for assuming the Earth is flat.

Can't you at least have the honesty and integrity to admit that on the face of it, the most obvious explanation is that the Earth is round?

Occam's razor supports a flat Earth. As far as "you can't argue with maths", I'm not sure I understand your point. You certainly seem to think that math wins debates. I'm sorry... but are the "rules" different for you? Am I not allowed to use math now? Please let me know what rules I should be following in this debate. Thanks.

What? When it comes to a simple geometric question like the shape of the Earth maths does win the debate. When did I say or imply you can't you use maths?

You aren't making any sense.

The change in angle of incidence of sunlight over the surface of the Earth suggests the Earth is flat with the sun a few thousand miles away or that the Earth is round with the sun a long way away.

The apparent size of the sun doesn't change significantly over the course of a day or at different locations around the Earth.

Can you be honest enough to admit that the most common sense interpretation of these facts, based on our everyday experience of the world, is that the Earth is round

[Ghost of V]

When did I say or imply you can't you use maths?

You can't argue with maths

I am being completely honest with you. Are you sure you're feeling ok?

[herewegoround]

You can't argue with maths

I am being completely honest with you. Are you sure you're feeling ok?

You are avoiding the issue.

Can you be honest enough to admit that the most common sense interpretation of these facts, based on our everyday experience of the world, is that the Earth is round?

[Ghost of V]

You can't argue with maths

I am being completely honest with you. Are you sure you're feeling ok?

You are avoiding the issue.

Can you be honest enough to admit that the most common sense interpretation of these facts, based on our everyday experience of the world, is that the Earth is round?

I am asking why I cannot use math in this argument and you are avoiding the question. I am not the one avoiding anything here, you are.

You can't argue with maths

Please explain to me why you are now claiming that you never said this.

[herewegoround]

When did I say or imply you can't you use maths?

You can't argue with maths

I am being completely honest with you. Are you sure you're feeling ok?

When I said, you can't argue with maths, I meant in a general way. I didn't mean you specifically can't argue with maths. I meant that maths can't be argued with by anyone including me.

Really, I don't believe you didn't understand that.

[herewegoround]

You are just creating phoney problems to avoid the issue.

The most obvious and common sense explanation for the changing angle of incidence of sunlight over the surface of the Earth and the almost constant angular size of the sun is that the Earth is round.

Can you be honest enough to admit that?

[Ghost of V]

Can you be honest enough to admit that?

Why do you keep saying this? It would be absolutely dishonest for me to say that the Earth is round when I have never actually seen the curvature of the Earth or Earth from space.

I have given you my opinions on the subject already. You seem to be ignoring the answers given because you simply do not like them. That's not my problem.

It is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium... This is basic stuff, man. C'mon. I know you don't like this explanation, but it's based on observable phenomenon and holds up. Are you denying that light appears magnified when travelling through a dense medium? Do you have evidence to support this?

[herewegoround]

Can you be honest enough to admit that?

Why do you keep saying this? It would be absolutely dishonest for me to say that the Earth is round when I have never actually seen the curvature of the Earth or Earth from space.

I have given you my opinions on the subject already. You seem to be ignoring the answers given because you simply do not like them. That's not my problem.

It is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium... This is basic stuff, man. C'mon. I know you don't like this explanation, but it's based on observable phenomenon and holds up. Are you denying that light appears magnified when travelling through a dense medium? Do you have evidence to support this?

I'm not asking you to admit the Earth is round. I am asking to admit that it is a reasonable assumption to make, given the changing angle of incidence of sunlight and the unchanging angular size of the sun, that the Earth is round.

Even allowing for changes in density of medium, how could the sun appear pretty much the same size all the time to every single person on Earth if it is a few thousand miles away?
It would be as if some force was conspiring to make it seem like the Earth was round.

A round Earth is the most obvious and common sense conclusion. I'm not asking you to believe it, I'm just asking you to acknowledge that it is the most obvious and common sense conclusion given what we see in our everyday lives.

[Ghost of V]

A round Earth is the most obvious and common sense conclusion. I'm not asking you to believe it, I'm just asking you to acknowledge that it is the most obvious and common sense conclusion given what we see in our everyday lives.

But it's not the common sense conclusion. It might be the common sense conclusion for you because you already believe that the Earth is round, but for me there are too many other variables involved... including light moving through a dense medium. You are displaying confirmation bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias