Recent Posts

1
Flat Earth General / Re: Shaquille O'Neal believes that the earth is flat
« Last post by Boots on March 27, 2017, 11:56:01 PM »
It is directly argued here that Shaq likes to make the entire world think that he is a dumb dumb for the lulz. It is argued that he doesn't care about being mocked and ridiculed.

But according to what he says in the second statement, he does care about public opinion. How can that be?

Arguing that Shaq did this for a joke is not the same thing as saying Shaq loves being mocked as a dumb dumb. According to what he says in the second statement it was a joke.


Well, the RE position on this matter seems to be that this was all premeditated and designed by him, to trick the world into thinking that he was an idiot... which he apparently does not like.

It makes a lot more sense if his statements were off the cuff and honest, and this was the unintended result.

An educated celebrity of his superior qualifications should surely be aware of the likely results of making such a statement publicly, even when he's doing it "off the cuff."
2
Flat Earth General / Re: Shaquille O'Neal believes that the earth is flat
« Last post by andruszkow on March 27, 2017, 11:09:26 PM »
Tom, I'm going to do you a favor and link you three videos an acquaintance of mine did. There's no magical flat earth explanations for what you see in these videos.

Filming Turning Torsoe in Malmö from different distances.


Flat surface meets observing from ground level


Proof that the horizon is below eye level


Have fun!
3
Flat Earth General / Re: I'm looking for a volunteer, a true flat earth believer.
« Last post by Nirmala on March 27, 2017, 10:56:37 PM »
I sent another reply before seeing your invitation to discuss it here.

You say, "Mapping the world is a ridiculously simple task?"

Mapping a two dimensional object onto a two dimensional sheet of paper is ridiculously simple....in comparison to mapping a three dimensional object to a two dimensional piece of paper. The latter requires the use of perspective. The former does not. Again, a small enough area makes this obvious, so a blueprint or elevation drawing of a 20,000 square foot building is for all practical purposes completely accurate and does not require the use of perspective techniques. If I want to focus on one corner of the building/blueprint, I just move my eyes over that part of the blueprint to get an accurate sense of the proportions of the rooms in that corner. However an artist's rendering of that same building as it appears from a distance would need to use all of the tricks of perspective to make it look proportional due to the introduction of a third dimension to the drawing (the distance from the artist's eyes to the various parts of the building). So the artist would draw a distant part of the building with smaller dimensions and a nearer part of the building with larger dimensions. If a builder tried to build the building by using the dimensions of the artist's view, the building would be bizarrely proportioned.

Same thing with a map. Any two-dimensional viewpoint of a three dimensional object, like a round planet, will introduce all kinds of distortions. However, a two dimensional drawing of a flat object as seen from above does not have these problems. Even if it is a very large map or drawing, the distances everywhere on the map should correspond to the scale of the map with complete accuracy. No map of the flat earth accomplishes anything close to this simple task. All of the distances are known and have been measured on the surface of the earth or in the air in numerous surveys. All the map maker would need to do if the earth was flat is enter all of those distances. Someone on youtube actually tried to do this with the flat earth map by adjusting it to show distances that correspond to actual flight times:   Unfortunately, he was unable to adjust his map to take into account all of the flight times and distances. To check this,you just need to look at some of the flights I have already mentioned, i.e. Sydney to Johannesburg versus Sydney to Santiago. Or you can just look at the flight from Sydney to Perthand realize his map isgrossly inaccurate. On his map, the distance from Sydney to Perth is much greater than the distance from the Panama Canal to the north pole.

And I notice you did not address the simple fact that all of the distances between any two points on earth correspond exactly and perfectly to scale when using a globe. Why do you suppose that is the case? Do you not find it intriguing at the very least that a ball shaped representation of the earth is completely accurate when any two-dimensional representation is invariably inaccurate? Why would any two dimensional representations of the earth have any distortion if the earth were truly flat (and therefore the earth was two-dimensional for the purposes of map making)? Even a flat representation of the United States incurs these distortions if you use a large enough scale and measure carefully enough. Do you think it should be difficult to show the distances and shape of the United States accurately on a map, even though it has been so carefully measured and mapped? And yet, it is impossible with only two dimensions to show it's shape and all of the distances involved with complete accuracy, even though the map as we know it is accurate enough for most purposes. But if you wanted to accurately compute the flight distance from Seattle to Miami, you better use a spherical model or you will be incorrect in your calculation. You can do this with either a globe, or with a three dimensional calculation that includes the curvature of the earth.

Your response that maps are not accurate is a classic straw man argument. I did not say maps are accurate. I said the globe is accurate. How do you explain that fact?

You also said, "Where is your evidence that the distance between every point on earth is completely accurate? You are just waving your hands around without any real large scale evidence to point to."

The evidence is all of the recorded info throughout history about the distances between two points when traveled by foot, car, ship or airplane. All of these are somewhat affected by the curving nature of roads and mountains, water currents, air currents, etc, but when these are taken into account the distances are just as they appear on a globe. Can you show me one example where with repeated experiments, the actual distance on the surface of the earth was inexplicably different than what is calculated using a globe or three dimensional geometry? All of the flight times and distances I have quoted in this thread and tens of thousands are accurate when plotted on a globe. How much evidence do you need? It is easy to test for yourself. Pick any two cities, say Sydney and Perth. Measure them on a globe with a clearly marked scale and then compare that to a driving map showing distances or a flight path showing distances. Any inaccuracies would be due to the shape of the roads on the ground, but in the air, they will compare to within a small degree. Remember that even airplanes must follow "highways" in the sky, so some inaccuracies would be introduced. But the results will be more accurate and consistent than any two dimensional map ever created. And in the case of the flat earth maps I have seen so far, the consistency and accuracy is many orders of magnitude greater.
4
Flat Earth Information Repository / Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« Last post by Tom Bishop on March 27, 2017, 10:49:18 PM »
When Astronomers are not quoting NASA, they are quoting Aristotle.
Citation needed.

You will have to take my word for it. Over ten years, between this site and the other one, no astronomer has ever done anything to prove his position other than link us to space pictures or quote ancient astronomers who believed that the earth was a globe.
5
Lets just talk here.

Quote
However, that would not happen when you represent a two dimensional object on a two dimensional map. There is absolutely no reason why someone cannot create a two-dimensional map of a flat surface that is completely accurate and to scale. That should be a strong point in favor of a flat earth....except that no one has ever been able to accomplish this ridiculously simple task, probably because the object being represented is not two-dimensional or flat.

Mapping the world is a ridiculously simple task?  ???

So for hundreds of years we have had a map that works perfectly to show the correct distances and now flight times between any two points. It seems fatuous to claim that maps aren't accurate when there is one map that is completely accurate. Unfortunately, it also can be used to prove that the earth is a round ball. Does that seem like a good reason to deny the accuracy of the perfect map? Airlines use this map. Ships use this map. And when I drive across the US, I am actually using the info from the globe to calculate my driving distances, or it would take me much longer than it does in the real world.

If the flat earth was real, there would be a corresponding accurate map. There just is not. Again it seems silly to blame the map makers, when it is the underlying model of reality that is incorrect.

Where is your evidence that the distance between every point on earth is completely accurate? You are just waving your hands around without any real large scale evidence to point to.
6
Flat Earth General / Re: Shaquille O'Neal believes that the earth is flat
« Last post by Tom Bishop on March 27, 2017, 10:30:57 PM »
I'm not sure I understand your sentence correctly, but it seems like you're saying that according to what you're reading here, Shaq loves being mocked as a dumb dumb.

What has anyone written here that implies that Shaq loves being mocked as a dumb dumb?

It is directly argued here that Shaq likes to make the entire world think that he is a dumb dumb for the lulz. It is argued that he doesn't care about being mocked and ridiculed.

But according to what he says in the second statement, he does care about public opinion. How can that be?

Quote
Another question, given Shaq's superior qualifications how is it that he did not foresee what the results of his statements would be?

Well, the RE position on this matter seems to be that this was all premeditated and designed by him, to trick the world into thinking that he was an idiot... which he apparently does not like.

It makes a lot more sense if his statements were off the cuff and honest, and this was the unintended result.
7
Flat Earth General / Re: Shaquille O'Neal believes that the earth is flat
« Last post by Boots on March 27, 2017, 09:55:24 PM »
But according to what I'm reading here I thought he doesn't care about public opinion and loves being mocked as a dumb dumb.  ???
I'm not sure I understand your sentence correctly, but it seems like you're saying that according to what you're reading here, Shaq loves being mocked as a dumb dumb.

What has anyone written here that implies that Shaq loves being mocked as a dumb dumb?

Another question, given Shaq's superior qualifications how is it that he did not foresee what the results of his statements would be?

Intikam foresaw that it would take strength for Shaq to maintain his position. Here is his quote:

Shaq is Strong enough to carry our flag. And it suits him. Go shaq!

I guess he wasn't strong enough after all.  :'(
8
Flat Earth General / Re: I'm looking for a volunteer, a true flat earth believer.
« Last post by Nirmala on March 27, 2017, 09:35:38 PM »
Another response from Tom:

"Maps aren't accurate. Why should we assume that they are? Have you looked at the size of Greenland lately on a Mercator map?"

My reply to him:

No one has ever claimed that a Mercator map was accurate, and in fact it is notoriously inaccurate. That is what happens when you transfer a three dimensional object to two dimensions. It becomes distorted.

However, that would not happen when you represent a two dimensional object on a two dimensional map. There is absolutely no reason why someone cannot create a two-dimensional map of a flat surface that is completely accurate and to scale. That should be a strong point in favor of a flat earth....except that no one has ever been able to accomplish this ridiculously simple task, probably because the object being represented is not two-dimensional or flat.

Distortion matters less in a map of a small area of a sphere, which is why say a map of the state of Florida is pretty accurate in two dimensions. The differences in the third dimension are slight enough to not matter as a practical matter. This is also why Buckminster Fuller's map is roughly accurate in terms of scale

However, there is one form of map that shows a completely accurate representation of the continents, where distances from any two points on earth are completely accurate according to the scale of the map, and according to the observed distance when driving or sailing or flying between those two points. What kind of perfect map is that? It is called a globe! A globe even explains perfectly why in the northern hemisphere, what appears to be a flight path that curves to the north is often the shortest route between two points. Hence the use of northern routes to fly from say Los Angeles to Dubai. If you measure the distance on a globe, the shortest path is over the northern end of Greenland.

So for hundreds of years we have had a map that works perfectly to show the correct distances and now flight times between any two points. It seems fatuous to claim that maps aren't accurate when there is one map that is completely accurate. Unfortunately, it also can be used to prove that the earth is a round ball. Does that seem like a good reason to deny the accuracy of the perfect map? Airlines use this map. Ships use this map. And when I drive across the US, I am actually using the info from the globe to calculate my driving distances, or it would take me much longer than it does in the real world.

If the flat earth was real, there would be a corresponding accurate map. There just is not. Again it seems silly to blame the map makers, when it is the underlying model of reality that is incorrect.
9
Flat Earth General / Re: Shaquille O'Neal believes that the earth is flat
« Last post by Tom Bishop on March 27, 2017, 09:11:51 PM »
So a statement which was made under duress is more credible than one which was not?

I listed to Shaq's second statement again. He clearly communicates that he does not like the criticism and ridicule that is transpiring and that it is a point of contention for him. But according to what I'm reading here I thought he doesn't care about public opinion and loves being mocked as a dumb dumb.  ???
10
Status Notices / Scheduled maintenance, 2017-04-01
« Last post by Parsifal on March 27, 2017, 08:59:57 PM »
The homepage, forum, wiki and IRC will be going offline for about five minutes on 2017-04-01, between 07:00 and 07:15 UTC.

For convenience, this means:

EDT (USA east coast):
2017-04-01, 03:00-03:15

BST (UK):
2017-04-01, 08:00-08:15

AEDT (Australia east coast):
2017-04-01, 18:00-18:15


The intent is to install security updates on the server which hosts the homepage, forum, wiki and IRC. These will be non-disruptive to functionality, as the server is running a stable OS release that gets critical fixes only.