Recent Posts

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Last post by TriangularEarth on April 26, 2017, 04:39:03 PM »
I swear to god, people are like "Where's your evidence for a round earth?" and you show them multiple pictures of a setting sun, pictures from space, pictures at the north pole, the moon, planes, evidence of gravity and all they spurt out is "but you didn't take that photo, CGI, perspective!" even though it makes literally no sense for a community of people to stop people thinking the earth is flat. Like how would it help them? How?

22
Flat Earth Debate / Distances
« Last post by TriangularEarth on April 26, 2017, 04:30:33 PM »
So if the earth is supposedly flat and it is a 'Azimuthal Equidistant projection', yet distances are the same as in real life, then how come a completely horizontal distance across Australia which, in real life, has a distance of 3,687km, according to the proposed map has a distance of 8,886km.

This number is 241% of the actual value. How do you explain that?  ;)
23
Flat Earth General / Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Last post by Rushy on April 26, 2017, 04:15:16 PM »
Who would go through so much trouble just making up a planet?



24
Flat Earth General / Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« Last post by Nirmala on April 26, 2017, 03:24:49 PM »
I addressed how that is explained on that map earlier in this thread when it was brought up. I don't even use that map as my main go-to flat earth map, anyway. I typically use the one where Antarctica is a continent.
Your so-called explanations were refuted.

And what is this map you prefer to use? could you show it?

Similar problems with the areas of daylight and the path of the sun on the alternative bipolar map Tom Bishop is referring to are explored on these threads:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6083.0
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6072.0
25
I just realized that there is an even more ridiculously impossible pattern of daylight on the bipolar map and posted about it here:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6072.msg115532#msg115532

In short, on Dec. 21st, if the sun circles the south pole of the bipolar map, then at certain times of day, the entire northern hemisphere would be in darkness as the sun would be on the other side of the south pole from all land masses in the north (position B on the attached map). However, it is never simultaneously dark in the entire northern hemisphere, even in the depths of winter, so the bipolar map is inherently incorrect.
26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bipolar Model according to Tom Bishop: Clockwork Sun
« Last post by Nirmala on April 26, 2017, 03:10:58 PM »
The flip side is also true. All of these same problems appear in the Southern Hemisphere when the sun circles the north pole in the bipolar model on June 21st.

And to top it all off, if the sun does not light up the north pole on Dec.21st at position A, then most of the west coast of America, and Japan and the Koreas would all be in a constant 24 hours of darkness on Dec. 21st. Again if the sunlight does not reach the north pole, then the same north/south dimensions of sunlight would mean these areas never receive daylight in the depth of winter as the sun moves along the path of the tropic of Capricorn as represented in the bipolar map. After all, Alaska is farther from the equator on this map than the north pole!

Now it has been said that the bipolar map is just an approximation and does not really represent the surface of the earth. But in order for the problem with all areas north of the equator receiving no light at position B to not occur, there would need to be areas of the northern hemisphere on the opposite side of Antarctica along with the sun at position B, so that as the sun reached position B it would still light up some areas of the northern hemisphere (it is always daylight somewhere in the northern hemisphere during the entire day on Dec. 21st...Anchorage, Reykjavik, Stockholm, Moscow and the Kamchatka Peninsula in northeast Russia all receive several hours of daylight on Dec. 21st, just at different times of the day.). Conversely, you would also need to put some land masses in the Southern Hemisphere on the opposite side of the north pole to take care of the daylight patterns in the south in June. There is no way to have the land masses in the north be located on both sides of the south pole and the land masses in the south be on both sides of the north pole, and still have all of the northern hemisphere continents be in the northern hemisphere, and also still have all of the southern hemisphere continents be in the south.....at least not on a bipolar flat earth map.

If you disagree, just show us how the map would look so that some areas in the north were in daylight when the sun is in position B. If you claim the area lit up by the sun in position B changes enough to light up some areas in the north due to changes in the height of the sun or the properties of the atmosphere, then those changes would mean that the area of daylight would have to also be lighting up the entire southern hemisphere, and also many of the areas in the north that are illuminated when the sun is at position A. Neither of those could be true, as it is never daylight simultaneously in the entire southern hemisphere. Also position B is 12 hours or so ahead or behind of position A and there are no areas in the north where daylight lasts more than 12 hours on Dec. 21st, and no areas in the north receive two separate periods of daylight in a single day.

It is easy to arrange the continents on a globe to account for observed patterns of daylight, which is why the areas of daylight on the globe appear just as they are predicted to and there are none of these insurmountable discrepancies in how daylight comes and goes that the flat earth model creates, no matter what flat earth map is referenced.
27
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by SexWarrior on April 26, 2017, 01:39:48 PM »
Stoltenberg didn't change his tune.
You presented sources to the effect of Stoltenberg disagreeing with Trump 10 months ago. I presented sources to the effect of him "totally agreeing" with Trump on the very same issue, shortly before Trump said he's satisfied with the resolution of his complaint.

Trekky. Why do you lie?

Your quote from Stoltenberg from his more recent meeting with Trump only shows he agrees with Trump now
Indeed, this meeting directly preceded Trump saying that he's happier with NATO now. The chronology is trivial here: they meet, they talk, Stoltenberg agrees with Trump and promises to improve matters, Trump withdraws his complaint because it's now being dealt with. Both Stoltenberg and Trump made it abundantly clear that this is the case in separate statements.

So, answer me: what do you gain by lying about this?

Stoltenberg's comments after Trump changed his mind about NATO
Stoltenberg's comments, perhaps unsurprisingly, do not exist in a vacuum. They're responses to very specific questions, and these questions include Trump quotes from months ago. Let's examine an example:

BLITZER: We're back with NATO secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, who just wrapped up his meetings with the president over at the White House.

About a year or so ago, Secretary-General, I interviewed then candidate Donald Trump, and we had this exchange on NATO. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Do you think the United States needs to rethink U.S. involvement in NATO?

TRUMP: Yes, because it's costing us too much money. And frankly they have to put up more money. They're going to have to put some up also. We're playing disproportionately. It's too much. And frankly it's a different world than it was when we originally conceived of the idea. And everybody got together.

But we're taking care of -- as an example, the Ukraine. I mean, the countries over there don't seem to be so interested. We're the ones taking the brunt of it. So I think we have to reconsider keep NATO, but maybe we have to pay a lot less toward the NATO itself.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So, today, the president said he no longer believes NATO is obsolete.

Did you ask him at the White House to make that statement?

STOLTENBERG: I didn't ask him.

But we discussed how NATO is adapting, how NATO is responding and changing, because the world is changing. And I stated clearly that NATO is the most successful alliance in history because we have been able again and again to change when the world was changing.

But I agree with President Trump that European allies and Canada have to invest more in our collective defense. And that's exactly what they have started to do.
So, we've got a Trump quote from "a year or so ago", and we have a direct response from Stoltenberg, saying (j'accuse!) that he agrees with Trump and that they started to work on the issue. Unfathomable, it's almost as if you were lying through your teeth!

as meaning he agreed with Trump throughout the entire campaign
Nobody is claiming that, but kudos on the misdirection attempt. You know, lying about current events is one thing - one has to Google them to find out you're lying. Lying about something posted here is a new low - anyone can simply scroll up and see what's been claimed to date.

But the "if" is obvious. I'm very curious about the "why". Why do you lie, Trekky?
28
In Rounder's comment, you are the random stranger. He is saying that anyone who takes your advice is foolish.
29
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by trekky0623 on April 26, 2017, 11:12:30 AM »
No, that is not what Trekky is doing. The sentence he wrote implies that Trump sought office for financial gain, which is insulting and ridiculous since he already won that game many years ago. Trekky ignores the fact that he was voted into office to lower taxes because that is that the American people wanted, who were all well aware that it would lower Trump's taxes as well.

Given that the plan is to lower the top tier tax rate for owner-operated businesses to 15%, which the majority of businesses pay less than anyway (link), this plan helps large businesses the most. If Trump wanted to help average Americans, he could adjust the lower tiers. It's not really a stretch to come to the conclusion that lowering the top tier tax rate is largely to benefit himself, who pays the top tier tax rate of 39.6%, rather than average Americans who pay below the top tier.


That's great. What about the 10-or-so months between July 2016 and the statement I'm referring to? Do you reckon, oh, I dunno, that the two may have since met and discussed the issue? Could that have anything to do with Stoltenberg's change of tune?

Why do you lie, Trekky? Tell us.

Indeed, the statement where he said he "totally agrees" with Trump was just a bit more recent than July 2016. I'm not surprised you didn't find the relevant quotes in the completely wrong statement. I do wonder what you were trying to demonstrate here, though. You already knew the timeline of events. You already saw the relevant transcripts. And yet you persist in pretending.

Stoltenberg didn't change his tune. Trump did, remember? The whole "NATO was obsolete but now isn't" deal? Your quote from Stoltenberg from his more recent meeting with Trump only shows he agrees with Trump now, after he switched tunes on NATO. The quote from July 2016 I provided shows he didn't agree with him when Trump hadn't changed his mind. If anyone is lying, it's the person trying to sell Stoltenberg's comments after Trump changed his mind about NATO as meaning he agreed with Trump throughout the entire campaign, which is obviously not true.
30
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by SexWarrior on April 26, 2017, 08:25:43 AM »
How can I tell the difference between Trump being wrong and him exaggerating?
If you genuinely find yourself struggling, ask me. I'll help you, free of charge.

Meanwhile, if you'd like to try having a go at it yourself, try reading several media articles around whichever sentence confuses you. Chances are you'll encounter a few accurate paraphrases with some explainers on current events. As I said before, the trick is not to take Trump's words as something that exists in a vacuum; as soon as you acknowledge world news, you'll be A-OK!

Because despite you avoiding actually posting what Trump said during the election
????? I did post what he said during the election. I even provided links. Why do you lie?

So (a) NATO is obsolete, (b) NATO doesn't discuss terrorism, (c) NATO isn't meant for terrorism, and (d) NATO "doesn't have the right countries in it for terrorism."
(a) is the initial claim which he then tries to back up, (b) and (c) were largely accurate at the time (b is arguable and a slight stretch, c is not), (d) is meaningless drivel

If he's exaggerating and instead means NATO should focus more on terrorism, then it's far from clear here.
No, but of course you conveniently ignored the relevant quote which I posted, and which he actually repeated multiple times (as opposed to the less-than-stellar one-off you're trying to misdirect the conversation to)

Trekky. Why do you lie? What do you have to gain from this?

That's simply not true. From July 2016:
That's great. What about the 10-or-so months between July 2016 and the statement I'm referring to? Do you reckon, oh, I dunno, that the two may have since met and discussed the issue? Could that have anything to do with Stoltenberg's change of tune?

Why do you lie, Trekky? Tell us.

That hardly sounds like someone who agrees with Trump that NATO was obsolete.
Indeed, the statement where he said he "totally agrees" with Trump was just a bit more recent than July 2016. I'm not surprised you didn't find the relevant quotes in the completely wrong statement. I do wonder what you were trying to demonstrate here, though. You already knew the timeline of events. You already saw the relevant transcripts. And yet you persist in pretending.

Stoltenberg isn't gonna change his mind just because you link a couple of his old opinions on the Internet. NATO is changing, because the Secretary General "totally agrees" with Trump's team's assessment. If you dislike that fact, tell us why - there might be a meaningful discussion to be had there. If you like it, hey, welcome to not being super-wrong for once. But pretending that it's not happening is really not gonna affect anything or anyone but yourself.

It's not really clear. And if he meant that, he should have said that.
Finally, you admit your issue. I'm afraid this is one I can't help you with. If you want to be wrong about everything all the time, continue to treat Trump's statements as extremely literal, and divorce them from current events. Just, y'know... it's not gonna be very useful for you, or anyone else.

It wasn't a mere statement of fact. Does it appear that we are posting irrelevant statement of facts in this thread? Trump was born on June 14th. Trump has blond hair. Is that what we are doing here?

No, that is not what Trekky is doing. The sentence he wrote implies that Trump sought office for financial gain, which is insulting and ridiculous since he already won that game many years ago. Trekky ignores the fact that he was voted into office to lower taxes because that is that the American people wanted, who were all well aware that it would lower Trump's taxes as well.
Tom is on the money here. Agree with Trump's tax cuts or not (I personally don't), Trekky is clearly on some sort of personal crusade here. His constant attempts to put a spin on things only weakens the anti-Trump message. Hell, I'm surprised he didn't rush to the defence of the "thousands of psychiatrists!!!!" who tried to diagnose Trump with a mental illness without even talking to him.