Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - geckothegeek

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 44  Next >
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If the Earth were really round...
« on: April 15, 2017, 02:49:29 PM »
Just as an example, I checked this forum for the threads under "Flat Earth Debate" where this thread is located. On the first 2 pages of thread, 80-90% of the most recent comments on the various threads were by round earth proponents. Where are all of the flat earthers willing to debate or discuss?


The flat earth proponents here have simply grown tired of having the same debates over and over again. It seems each round of noobs that come by are more entitled with each iteration. Roundies make demands that they can rarely fulfill themselves, so over the years, regulars get tired of it.

Flat earthers simply have no factual information of a flat earth.

2
If yoy guys want new research done, you can paypal your funds into my Paypal account at tombishopenterprises@gmail.com. My time isn't free. I expect to be paid handsomely for this.

So, remember how you tried to invalidate an experiment because of the subject of compensation?
Yeah. That was a thing.

So either put up or shut up, Bish. You have nothing.

Please be kind to Tom Bishop. He is the spokesman for the FES and the authority for the FES.
He is pretty good at "low content", too.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Wall
« on: April 15, 2017, 02:13:32 PM »
There is absolutely neither any evidence nor any proof the former ; but absolutely positive and much evidence and proof of the latter.

Feel free to provide that evidence anytime now.

Once again, the burdening proof lies o  the ones proposing an opposing theory to whatbis considered the established facts.
As has been stated, Antarctica is visible from countless satellite photos, has been reported by thousands of explorers and tourists, and is even incorporated into some flat earth theories like the bipolar map.
The Ice Wall, on the other hand, has no direct proof of any kind whatsoever.

It is you, dear junker, that should feel free to provide something - anything, really - that defends your standpoint.

Otherwise, it would seem that it is your posts that are low in content.


I don't think you understand how burden of proof works, friend. The burden rests with the person making the claim. I know that is a tough concept for round earthers to grasp. All I did was ask someone claiming evidence exists to provide that evidence. I'm really not sure what's hard to understand about that, but I'm sure if you work on it, it'll make sense eventually.

Also, you aren't a moderator. So please stop trying to moderate. If you have an issue, there is a report button. I won't give you anymore warnings about it.

I have supplied  my evidence for Antarctica, Dear Junker.
Now where's the evidence for The Wall  ?
Sorry.....I suppose The National Geographic Society is as much a part of The Conspiracy as anyone ?

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Wall
« on: April 15, 2017, 04:44:27 AM »
There is absolutely neither any evidence nor any proof the former ; but absolutely positive and much evidence and proof of the latter.

Feel free to provide that evidence anytime now.

Just search on Antarctica.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Wall
« on: April 14, 2017, 11:41:53 PM »
Lackey, if you're going to use the "have you seen it yourself?" tactic, it usually works better if the argument you're trying to refute isn't also asking for direct, observational proof - preferably proof that isn't a century and a half old.

So bring something to the table or go back to your corner.

You're right, facts totally have an expiration date. Obviously you don't trust Newton at all, given that his works are several centuries old. And it won't be too long before we can throw Relativity completely out the window too on the same basis!

Newton had years of research and a corpus of work to support his theories, not to mention most of the history of physics and mathematics to build on.
Since then, Newton's theories have been tried, tested and amended as our experience grows. This doesn't change the fact that his laws of motion still hold, just that they are the foundation on which we build newer and better theories.

In the same way, explorers and even tourists have been to and around Antarctica, observed it from space and seen the fact there is no wall - just a shelf of ice that makes part of the coast of a continent. Ross have us a primary observation upon which we built an image of what is really going on in the world. Thats how science works.

When a theory is outdated, it is discarded in the face of new evidence that proposes a new theory, as you say. Perhaps we can use it's original concepts to build a new theory, but if the evidence demands a new perspective then we interpret and go from there.

So if we're going to discard the theory that there is no ice wall, we will need evidence that there is one, right?
Where is it?

To fit the flat earth definition of the ice wall, the earth would have to be a flat disc, Antarctica would have to be a continuous ice wall around the edge of the earth, and it would have to be about 78,500 miles in circumference.

But none of the above is true.

The earth is a globe, Antarctica is a continent, there are several ice shelfs around Antarctica, but none of them continuous, and the coastline is about 17,968 miles in length around Antarctica.

There is absolutely neither any evidence nor any proof the former ; but absolutely positive and much evidence and proof of the latter.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Wall
« on: April 12, 2017, 04:02:27 PM »
There is a 150 foot wall of ice at the coast of Antarcitca in the Round Earth model, too. In the Monopole model the disagreement is merely on the size and shape of Antarcia. In the Bi-Polar model there is no such disagreement.

An article on the Ice Wall: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall

There are Ice Shelfs along the coast of Antarcita but they are not continuous walls.
The Unipolar and Bipolar maps are not accurate "flat earth maps" . They are just common projections made from the globe. Both have distortions in some areas. An accurate flat earth map has never been produced.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Wall
« on: April 12, 2017, 03:30:52 AM »
If you would remove these claims you would destroy the FES.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« on: April 12, 2017, 03:23:22 AM »
The horizon is always seen clearly during clear days.
It doesn't matter how many times you'll state this - it will continue to be a lie, and one that's trivially tested. All you need to do is look at the horizon.

Of the horizon is a vanishing point at which the atmosphere becomes too dense to see through, we should never be able to see anything recede behind it. We would never see buildings or ships disappear from the bottom up, like the sun as it sun is below it at sunset.
It's not a lie - it is a fact observed by billions of people every day.

Quote
Anyone who has ever been to sea has noticed this. The atmosphere has little effect at these distances.
I've been to the sea. The atmoplane's effects are clear even to the naked eye. Again, your lie is laughably easy to verify.

Then verify it.

The horizon is a sharp line between earth/sea and sky obscuring the lower halves of objects that recede behind it, down the curve of the Earth.
If atmospheric density were the cause for it, it would fade out in a measurable way, eventually blurring indistinctly at the limits of perception. Objects approaching this limit would fade like it were moving into a fog bank even in the clearest of conditions.
This is not the case.

If you'd like, I can show you how the phenomenon we are referring to is observable from any point on the ocean looking towards a city with skyscrapers.

https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/07/chicago-skyline-looming-from-mi.html?m=1

In fact, even a cursory Google search will bring up plenty of examples of this - plus the testimony of anyone who has ever stood on a ship watching a city or even another ship.
Yknow, the kind of people you would have met if you'd actually been to sea.

Or maybe you'd like to do this experiment for yourself in a larger scale. Show us all how it's done, Warrior. Bring us some pictures of a city skyline in its entirety, from the top of its tallest tower to the waves lapping at it's lowest docks, from a distance greater than, say, the width of Lake Michigan?
Especially if you can get a series of them showing the city at exactly the same height but fading slowly being the increasing density of the atmosphere.
I think that will suffice to prove your point.


It's either that or admit that the Bishop experiment isn't able to be replicated on sufficiently large scales to prove anything and its results are effectively meaningless.

Novarus makes quite a few good points.
I am in agreement, with most, if not all of them.

I don't know what kind of ship SexWarrior was on, but the horizon could be clearly seen from all the ships on which I sailed.

I will admit that my experiences were few in comparison with more seasoned veterans.
They only included three trips from California to Japan return and return via Hawaii and Guam.

They were on ships of medium size :
A troop transport passenger type ship- USNS General Daniel I. Sultan (TAP-120) - to Japan
An Escort type Aircraft Carrier USS Sicily (CVE-118) - return
Two cruises on a Seaplane Tender USS Kenneth Whiting (AV-14) - to Japan and return

The atmosphere is not so dense as to make land before, on and over or beyond the horizon not visible to the naked eye. This is noticeable as a ship sails out to sea from a seaport such as San Diego or San Francisco.
The beaches are the first to pass from view, and finally the tops of hills or mountains such as Point Loma.
When nearing Honolulu, the peak of Diamond Head is first sighted, and finally the shore when the ship is within a few miles from land.

The ship passing over the horizon is another flat earth fallacy.
Ships gradually pass out of view, hull first.
After the ship has passed over and beyond the horizon, the last parts of the ship to be seen are the tops of the tallest masts on that ship.
And once a ship has passed over the horizon and completely out of view there is no way that it "can be restored to view with a telescope."

Also.If the horizon was obscured by the atmosphere, it would be useless as a reference point.
Lookouts are trained to estimate distances to ships and other objects in relation to their locations from reference to the distance to the horizon.
There is a simple equation to estimate the distance to the  horizon based on the heights of the observer above the sea. The Navy Manual For Lookouts contains a table showing these distances for various heights.

All of these examples are simple evidence of the curvature of the earth which is proof of the earth being spheroid in shape, or a globe.
They are common examples of the way things are actually observed.
I have also observed them personally.
There are possibly those on this form who haven't had the opportunity to see them for themselves, so I am listing them as how things really are.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« on: April 12, 2017, 12:16:09 AM »
The horizon is always seen clearly during clear days.
It doesn't matter how many times you'll state this - it will continue to be a lie, and one that's trivially tested. All you need to do is look at the horizon.

Anyone who has ever been to sea has noticed this. The atmosphere has little effect at these distances.
I've been to the sea. The atmoplane's effects are clear even to the naked eye. Again, your lie is laughably easy to verify.

I was speaking of the relatively  short distances to the horizon as viewed from the decks or crow's nest on the ship.
There are very little atmospheric effects. The horizon is usually seen very clearly .

I took some pictures from the beach at Santa Monica, California, USA. Standing on the beach, the distance at which the horizon appears is about 3 miles. There was a very distinct line where the dark blue of the ocean  appeared to meet the lighter blue of the sky. This was about Noon on a clear, sunny, calm, cloudless day.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« on: April 11, 2017, 10:15:42 PM »
The question of horizon as some sort of vanishing point seems to be one of the most glaring fallacies of flat earth.
This is most evident when on board a ship in the middle of the ocean. The horizon is always seen clearly during clear days. The horizon appears to be only about  3 miles from the water line of the ship and about 12 miles from a person in the crow's nest 100 feet above the water line. Anyone who has ever been to sea has noticed this. The atmosphere has little effect at these distances.

It is a moot point anyway. The earth is not a flat disc. The earth is the globe that it is.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« on: April 11, 2017, 06:51:17 PM »
The fact that they experience no acceleration is the very reason they would be flattened. You both asked and answered your own question.
Also, if you want to discuss this in a spherical context, you have to remember gravity.z

Now stop deflecting and explain why your experiment doesn't hold up to rigour.
Alternatively, go do some actual science by scaling your experiment up like a good scientist.
We can wait.

So because there is no extra force pulling the water at the north pole upwards like there is at the equator, the curvature of the water at the north pole would go flat?  ??? Why not just stay round?

This is not a logical conclusion to draw - remember the scale of the problem you are trying to tackle, and that the direction of rotation is in line with the equator. The poles are also curved, but to a lesser degree - hence the use "flattened" in relative sense.
"Relative" is not a word that enters flat earth theorists' vocabulary much.

The logical conclusion is that the North Pole is regular round and the water at tjhe equator is pulled by the tiny amount of force to be a little extra rounder than what regular Round Earth Theory normally states.

Yes. That doesn't help you.

Quote
Quote
Now, can we please return to your justification of why your experiment won't work on a larger scale?
Or, if it does, your results and documentation from said scaled-up experiment?
We are still waiting.

As previously discussed, the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

 
Plenty of room for you to work, though.
Even on smaller scales than that you can prove your point. And even at the edge of visibility you could use equipment that can get around that.

Excuses - you coild at least try to sound like you are willing to scale up your experiment to meet the requirements of scientific rigour.

If you're going to keep posting, you should concentrate on refuting arguments that you still have no explanation for.

Step up, Bishop - you have work to do.

Not naming names, but IMHO it seems certain persons (plural that is and not singular) are a constant source of embarrassment to TFES. They seem to just dig a deeper and deeper hole that they get into.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Wall
« on: April 09, 2017, 03:39:13 AM »
I was on topic until you guys rolled around - The Wall is an unsubstantiated theory that has no observable evidence that any Flat Earth theorist can put forward.
The Horizon, as brought up by gecko, is in fact perfectly in line with this - With no horizon, the wall should be clearly visible in clear condiitons from the outer latitudes. The atmosphere's transparency or lack thereof would mean the horizon would fade out to nothing before we could ever observe a meeting point between earth and sky. Since this is not the case, the wall should be visible on the horizon.

Where is it?

Here is my analysis of "The Wall".
Since this is the "Debate" section of this forum, it should be open for debate.
In the first place, there is no debate. The earth is a globe.
Antarctica has been explored, surveyed and mapped. It is definitely not a wall but a continent.
The existance of the wall seems to stem from the belief that the Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection is the map of a flat earth.
But this is a two-dimensional map of a three-dimensional object.....the globe.
It is not an accurate map of a flat earth.
Due to the extreme distortion south of the equator, inherent with this projection of the globe, Antarctica is shown as a ring aound the perimeter of this map.
If this ring was a wall which really existed , survey ships would have mapped it as a solid ring around the perimeter of a flat disc, and would be about 80,000 miles in length.
But this has never been done.
These survey ships could have sailed off shore, close enough to the wall to observe it without it being obscured by any "atmoplanic" effects of fog or haze.
But this has never been done.
If this wall really existed it would seem that the only place where a horizon -  in the definition of where earth and sky appear to meet - would be where the flat earth and the sky meet -  if the sky is sort of a dome over the flat disc. In other words, the horizon on a flat earth would be only at the wall, where the bottom of the dome meets the top of the wall.

This is my analysis is why I believe the ice wall is non-existant and just imaginary or the result of faulty reasoning from the interpretation of the Unipolar Azimuthal Projection of the globe.
This may seem a bit lengthy, but I will just present this as my idea as to why "The Wall" is just one more flaw in the  idea of a flat, disc shaped earth.
I'll just leave it up for debate.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Wall
« on: April 08, 2017, 05:19:46 PM »
I asked this question on another thread. :
 Just what and where is the horizon on a flat earth ?

Hi there. Please refrain from off topic posting. You're stilling spamming the same thing. This is the only warning I'll give you, next one is a month ban.

I would just like to get an answer. That's all.
It does have to do with the subject of the wall.
If the wall could or could not be seen if it was or was not beyond the horizon from some point on a flat earth ?

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Wall
« on: April 08, 2017, 04:09:12 PM »
I asked this question on another thread. :
 Just what and where is the horizon on a flat earth ?

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ships, telescopes, the sun and the moon
« on: April 08, 2017, 04:04:04 PM »
Aren't there rules against low content posts on here?

They don't apply to flat earthers and moderators.
They only apply to round earthers.

Ahh! I guess I should have read the fine print :)

And posting round earth facts and figures is "low content."

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ships, telescopes, the sun and the moon
« on: April 08, 2017, 04:00:47 PM »
Just what and where is the horizon on a flat earth ?

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ships, telescopes, the sun and the moon
« on: April 08, 2017, 03:57:23 PM »
Aren't there rules against low content posts on here?

They don't apply to flat earthers and moderators.
They only apply to round earthers.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ships, telescopes, the sun and the moon
« on: April 08, 2017, 03:52:20 PM »
Once a ship passed over the horizon, the last thing that we could see were the tops of the masts of those ships. And we could not bring all of those ships back into view with our telescopes after they had passed over the horizon and out of sight completely.
We could only magnify with our telescopes.

You must have not had much experience observing, then.



You must have never been in the navy.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ships, telescopes, the sun and the moon
« on: April 08, 2017, 03:48:18 PM »
If the horizon's edge is due to atmospheric opacity, then even on the clearest of days it should fade out slowly to a vanishing point line at eye level towards perceivable infinity
Instead, it cuts off cleanly when not obstructed by weather or landmass at an appreciable distance. This is consistent with a surface curving out of sight, not a flat plane. No law of linear perspective can contravene this.

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
I would say that we often can a clearly defined horizon and simultaneously see objects that are still beyond the horizon line.  A great example of this is city scapes around the Great Lakes.

What is the flat earth answer to "where is the horizon on a flat earth ?"
Example: You are a 6 feet tall person standing on the beach, looking out to sea. How far does it appear that the hofr the horizon.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ships, telescopes, the sun and the moon
« on: April 08, 2017, 12:58:33 AM »
I suppose if the flat earth were perfectly flat and the atmoplane were perfectly transparent, you would be able to. I'm not sure why round earthers suddenly forget about elevation and geography when discussing what can and cannot be seen.

Which brings up another question. If the atmoplane was perfectly transparent, where would the horizon be if the earth was perfectly flat ? How do you explain away how it is on a round earth ?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 44  Next >