geckothegeek

Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« Reply #20 on: July 23, 2017, 11:42:05 PM »
If your model doesn't represent....REALITY, then the model doesn't hold true.
Excellent news, given that my model does represent.... REALITY. Does.... YOURS? (hint: no)

And I'm still looking forward to your reply on the specific mechanism that enables Southern star trails
I already replied. Celestial gears.


Celestial gears: Oh man, that's a great one.  Does anyone have to lube the gear bearings or is there a celestial grease gun?

I suppose those celestial gears must also be something like an automatic transmission. There must be some way to shift the gears to change the sun from its summer orbit to its winter orbit and then back and forth ?

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1367
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« Reply #21 on: July 24, 2017, 12:49:36 AM »
If your model doesn't represent....REALITY, then the model doesn't hold true.
Excellent news, given that my model does represent.... REALITY. Does.... YOURS? (hint: no)

And I'm still looking forward to your reply on the specific mechanism that enables Southern star trails
I already replied. Celestial gears.


Celestial gears: Oh man, that's a great one.  Does anyone have to lube the gear bearings or is there a celestial grease gun?

I suppose those celestial gears must also be something like an automatic transmission. There must be some way to shift the gears to change the sun from its summer orbit to its winter orbit and then back and forth ?

Its run by a giant pendulum and much like the dark object it can't be seen.
Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

geckothegeek

Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« Reply #22 on: July 24, 2017, 05:24:00 AM »
If your model doesn't represent....REALITY, then the model doesn't hold true.
Excellent news, given that my model does represent.... REALITY. Does.... YOURS? (hint: no)

And I'm still looking forward to your reply on the specific mechanism that enables Southern star trails
I already replied. Celestial gears.


Celestial gears: Oh man, that's a great one.  Does anyone have to lube the gear bearings or is there a celestial grease gun?

I suppose those celestial gears must also be something like an automatic transmission. There must be some way to shift the gears to change the sun from its summer orbit to its winter orbit and then back and forth ?

Its run by a giant pendulum and much like the dark object it can't be seen.
Just like the ice wall it can't be seen. ???
Cars have planetary gears. Why can't the flat earth ?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2017, 05:29:45 AM by geckothegeek »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« Reply #23 on: July 24, 2017, 10:47:28 AM »
Australia's size is 2x as large as it should be.
You repeating this over and over does not make it true. You've made a flawed and unsubstantiated assumption.

Last time I checked, this is a forum, not the wiki, and I'm asking YOU.
That's nice, dear. I'm still not here to lecture you. If you'd like to read the basics, read up on them.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

geckothegeek

Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« Reply #24 on: July 24, 2017, 05:37:58 PM »
Australia's size is 2x as large as it should be.
You repeating this over and over does not make it true. You've made a flawed and unsubstantiated assumption.

Last time I checked, this is a forum, not the wiki, and I'm asking YOU.d
That's nice, dear. I'm still not here to lecture you. If you'd like to read the basics, read up on them.

Assuming that if you are looking at the Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection, it IS true that Australia DOES appear to be 2x the width that it actually IS, which IS obvious to the most casual observer.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2017, 05:41:17 PM by geckothegeek »

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« Reply #25 on: July 24, 2017, 11:51:57 PM »
Thanks for the count !  Does that "we" include yourself ?
But I think it has been said close to 7 billion times  "around"  (if you'll pardon the pun) the world !


Celestial gears: Oh man, that's a great one.  Does anyone have to lube the gear bearings or is there a celestial grease gun?

Please refrain from off-topic, and low-content posting in the upper fora, especially Flat Earth Debate. Gecko, you already know better.

Consider this a warning to you both.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1367
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2017, 02:32:16 PM »
Thanks for the count !  Does that "we" include yourself ?
But I think it has been said close to 7 billion times  "around"  (if you'll pardon the pun) the world !


Celestial gears: Oh man, that's a great one.  Does anyone have to lube the gear bearings or is there a celestial grease gun?

Please refrain from off-topic, and low-content posting in the upper fora, especially Flat Earth Debate. Gecko, you already know better.

Consider this a warning to you both.

Noted.  I replied to a low content post with one of my own.   Celestial gears.
Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« Reply #27 on: July 25, 2017, 07:34:18 PM »
What you claim in not a projection, is literally known by that very name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
Yes, Round Earthers like to call it that. Your point?

You know that Tom doesn't believe in this map. (Apparently.) He believes the Antarctica is a continent. (Apparently.) How do you reconcile these wildly differing, mutually exclusive hypotheses as to the fundamental shape and form of the Earth? Which one are we to believe, and/or debate?

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« Reply #28 on: July 25, 2017, 07:38:09 PM »
What you claim in not a projection, is literally known by that very name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
Yes, Round Earthers like to call it that. Your point?

You know that Tom doesn't believe in this map. (Apparently.) He believes the Antarctica is a continent. (Apparently.) How do you reconcile these wildly differing, mutually exclusive hypotheses as to the fundamental shape and form of the Earth? Which one are we to believe, and/or debate?

Tom's "new" map is actually even harder to reconcile with the facts that we know from the real world than the old one.   Consider that in December, the antarctic (which Tom now admits exists) has 24 hours of continuous sunlight.   Which means that sometimes, the sun is somewhere between the "bottom" coast of antarctica and the "bottom" edge of the map.  (Using compass directions on Toms new map hurts my head!).   This would mean that in South America, the sun would be setting on the southern horizon.   Needless to say, this doesn't happen.

So that map is *BUSTED* for sure!

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« Reply #29 on: July 25, 2017, 10:28:37 PM »
What you claim in not a projection, is literally known by that very name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
Yes, Round Earthers like to call it that. Your point?

You know that Tom doesn't believe in this map. (Apparently.) He believes the Antarctica is a continent. (Apparently.) How do you reconcile these wildly differing, mutually exclusive hypotheses as to the fundamental shape and form of the Earth? Which one are we to believe, and/or debate?

Tom's "new" map is actually even harder to reconcile with the facts that we know from the real world than the old one.   Consider that in December, the antarctic (which Tom now admits exists) has 24 hours of continuous sunlight.   Which means that sometimes, the sun is somewhere between the "bottom" coast of antarctica and the "bottom" edge of the map.  (Using compass directions on Toms new map hurts my head!).   This would mean that in South America, the sun would be setting on the southern horizon.   Needless to say, this doesn't happen.

So that map is *BUSTED* for sure!

I'm sure Tom has some hand-wavy ad-hoc explanation for that perpetual antarctic daylight. (And I'm genuinely interested out of morbid anthropological curiousity - unless it's the tired old "massive global conspiracy" one, refitted to antarctica-as-a-continent)

And we know that one of the biggest problems with the azimuthal equidistant projection / ice-wall model, is that in order for the southern hemisphere to see only southern hemisphere constellations, would require that everyone on the outer edge of the disk be able to see the "lower" constellations - including those all the way across the disk - but not the ones in between, in the middle. (The northern hemisphere constellations.) But again, they get around it with nonsensical hand-wavy ad-hoc assertions.

Offline Stu

  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« Reply #30 on: July 28, 2017, 04:06:49 AM »
Last time I checked, this is a forum, not the wiki, and I'm asking YOU.
That's nice, dear. I'm still not here to lecture you. If you'd like to read the basics, read up on them.

That would be a fine response, if every time someone quoted your wiki, you guys didn't dismiss it with, "but I don't believe that part of the wiki". That's what you guys say every time. There is objectively no point in reading your wiki. That is why Just in it for the Lols was "asking YOU". If you don't care to answer, that's your prerogative, but at least be honest about it.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« Reply #31 on: July 28, 2017, 02:52:59 PM »
That would be a fine response, if every time someone quoted your wiki, you guys didn't dismiss it with, "but I don't believe that part of the wiki". That's what you guys say every time.

Nice claim. Please provide evidence to support it.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« Reply #32 on: July 29, 2017, 07:57:26 PM »
That would be a fine response, if every time someone quoted your wiki, you guys didn't dismiss it with, "but I don't believe that part of the wiki". That's what you guys say every time.

Nice claim. Please provide evidence to support it.

So to be clear - do YOU believe everything that's in the Wiki?

Who is responsible for fixing errors in it by the way?
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« Reply #33 on: July 29, 2017, 08:08:19 PM »
Who is responsible for fixing errors in it by the way?
No one is "responsible" for it, but I'm the one that generally does it. Bear in mind that I'm generally uninterested in RE'ers whining about how they don't like FET, but if you've found any clerical errors, hit me up.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« Reply #34 on: July 29, 2017, 08:19:07 PM »
Who is responsible for fixing errors in it by the way?
No one is "responsible" for it, but I'm the one that generally does it. Bear in mind that I'm generally uninterested in RE'ers whining about how they don't like FET, but if you've found any clerical errors, hit me up.

Well, the one error I found (which isn't really that important) is that it says that a photo is of the ice cliff - when in fact it's a photo of a free-floating iceberg.  But it's hardly worth fixing.

My point being that if you personally believe in what it says - then you should be able to explain some of the things that it says that don't match reality.

The difficulty with debate here is that no two FE'ers seem to believe in the exact same set of things - so when an RE'er tries to prove a point - and you say "Go look in the Wiki" - it's typically explaining a point of view that even many FE proponents don't agree with.

For example, the map that's in the Wiki isn't remotely similar to the one that Tom Bishop currently proposes.  Many of the explanations for things such as motion of sun and moon and that kind of thing don't work for Tom's map.

But it's hard to pin these things down when one person (you mostly) say "Look in the Wiki" and other FE'ers are (in effect) saying "The Wiki is wrong".

I myself run a couple of Wiki's (one for a car club) and I know how much work it can be to try to keep everything up to date - and although I mostly disagree about what the Wiki says, it is at least tidy and easy on the eyes...and for that you deserve a degree of respect.

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« Reply #35 on: July 29, 2017, 10:07:41 PM »
That would be a fine response, if every time someone quoted your wiki, you guys didn't dismiss it with, "but I don't believe that part of the wiki". That's what you guys say every time.

Nice claim. Please provide evidence to support it.

So to be clear - do YOU believe everything that's in the Wiki?

Who is responsible for fixing errors in it by the way?

How did you possibly come to that train of thought based on what I said? I literally just asked someone to provide evidence for a pretty absolute claim they made.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« Reply #36 on: July 29, 2017, 10:22:32 PM »
[...] in fact [...] reality [...]
You present opinions as fact. The Ross Ice Wall is often believed to be a floating "ice shelf" by RE'ers, but this does not make it inaccurate within the scope of the Flat Earth Wiki. We are not trying to document the Round Earth model there. Since you (incorrectly) consider "Round Earth Model" and "reality" to be synonymous, nearly anything that you think is "reality" has no place in the FEW.

Yes, there are some FE'ers who are working on alternative models. This is a good thing. If their models become mainstream, we'll make sure that the Wiki reflects that. It's also no secret that some of the articles are simply old and could do with a review. However, rest assured that every time I say "go look at the Wiki", I first take a quick look at the article in question to make sure I'm not directing you to something I believe to be wildly inaccurate. Repeatedly demanding that someone writes the same content out is just a poor attempt at gaming the debate. "Oh, you didn't have the patience to re-explain the same subject for the umpteenth time? That must be because you know you're wrong!"
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« Reply #37 on: July 29, 2017, 11:30:08 PM »
[...] in fact [...] reality [...]
You present opinions as fact. The Ross Ice Wall is often believed to be a floating "ice shelf" by RE'ers, but this does not make it inaccurate within the scope of the Flat Earth Wiki. We are not trying to document the Round Earth model there. Since you (incorrectly) consider "Round Earth Model" and "reality" to be synonymous, nearly anything that you think is "reality" has no place in the FEW.

Yes, there are some FE'ers who are working on alternative models. This is a good thing. If their models become mainstream, we'll make sure that the Wiki reflects that. It's also no secret that some of the articles are simply old and could do with a review. However, rest assured that every time I say "go look at the Wiki", I first take a quick look at the article in question to make sure I'm not directing you to something I believe to be wildly inaccurate. Repeatedly demanding that someone writes the same content out is just a poor attempt at gaming the debate. "Oh, you didn't have the patience to re-explain the same subject for the umpteenth time? That must be because you know you're wrong!"

I absolutely, 100% agree that you should not spend your time reiterating things that are indeed fully explained in the Wiki.

But when someone brings up an interesting point that is clearly NOT covered in the Wiki - and you say "Go look in the Wiki" - that's not a great response.

You then go on to say that it's been mentioned a bunch of times in these forums - but expecting someone to search through thousands of posts for the particular answer YOU had in mind is more or less impossible.

The way to fix that is that when a good argument appears that's not explained in the Wiki - is go update the Wiki.  That's a well-organized body of knowledge that anyone can easily read from beginning to end.   Expecting people to trawl though the forums is not going to work...and expecting you to re-re-re-explain the same point over and over isn't going to work.

But a one-time coherent effort to update the Wiki and distill the wisdom of the forums into an organized body of knowledge would be a very good thing for everyone.  I'd offer to help with that - but somehow I don't think you'd like the results!  :-)


Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« Reply #38 on: July 30, 2017, 11:34:04 AM »
But when someone brings up an interesting point that is clearly NOT covered in the Wiki - and you say "Go look in the Wiki" - that's not a great response.
I can't say I've ever witnessed that happening.

You then go on to say that it's been mentioned a bunch of times in these forums - but expecting someone to search through thousands of posts for the particular answer YOU had in mind is more or less impossible.
It's really not. You type in a couple of keywords in the search bar, and you glance through the posts. It works for most people, bar the extremely lazy and those with entitlement issues.

The way to fix that is that when a good argument appears that's not explained in the Wiki - is go update the Wiki.  That's a well-organized body of knowledge that anyone can easily read from beginning to end.   Expecting people to trawl though the forums is not going to work...and expecting you to re-re-re-explain the same point over and over isn't going to work.

But a one-time coherent effort to update the Wiki and distill the wisdom of the forums into an organized body of knowledge would be a very good thing for everyone.  I'd offer to help with that - but somehow I don't think you'd like the results!  :-)
I don't disagree in principle, but I don't believe there are many subjects that are both:
  • Sufficiently set in stone so that they could be written down in the Wiki as opposed to a discussion thread
  • Not yet described in the Wiki

For issues that break the first condition, it's best that there is a single forum thread, and that others with questions or comments join in there instead of creating multiple redundant threads that dilute communication. That's why we expect people to search first, post later.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« Reply #39 on: July 30, 2017, 02:21:03 PM »
[...] in fact [...] reality [...]
You present opinions as fact. The Ross Ice Wall is often believed to be a floating "ice shelf" by RE'ers, but this does not make it inaccurate within the scope of the Flat Earth Wiki. We are not trying to document the Round Earth model there. Since you (incorrectly) consider "Round Earth Model" and "reality" to be synonymous, nearly anything that you think is "reality" has no place in the FEW.

Yes, there are some FE'ers who are working on alternative models. This is a good thing. If their models become mainstream, we'll make sure that the Wiki reflects that. It's also no secret that some of the articles are simply old and could do with a review. However, rest assured that every time I say "go look at the Wiki", I first take a quick look at the article in question to make sure I'm not directing you to something I believe to be wildly inaccurate. Repeatedly demanding that someone writes the same content out is just a poor attempt at gaming the debate. "Oh, you didn't have the patience to re-explain the same subject for the umpteenth time? That must be because you know you're wrong!"
I find it hard to believe anyone is seriously working on an alternative model.  Alternative to what and based on what data?