Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« Reply #40 on: July 26, 2017, 05:45:48 AM »
Clearly, the sun is not seen at all times. It was agreed that the midnight sun (24-hr sun) did not occur at both the North and South pole simultaneously, but there is no reason that at some point in the year the sun can't be seen from both the North and South pole simultaneously if the area of light contained both those distant locations.

In the bi-polar FE model, how can the sun be seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously, but not also the entire planet within the same diameter as between the two poles (which would only exclude Australia, southeast asia, and some pacific islands)?

(And is Australia really as big as Africa? And how do flights from LA to Sydney work, because I've taken that trip twice [if you count there and back]? I don't recall flying East over the US on the way there, West over Australia on return, or over Africa at any point, or stopping for refueling?)



Genuinely curious. I don't understand how this model is supposed to work.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« Reply #41 on: July 26, 2017, 08:36:39 PM »
In the bi-polar FE model, how can the sun be seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously, but not also the entire planet within the same diameter as between the two poles (which would only exclude Australia, southeast asia, and some pacific islands)?

I do not have any information on whether sun is seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously. I was saying that it does not appear to be impossible under that map. That point may as well be fiction, seeing as we were never provided a source for that claim from the person who stated that.

Quote
(And is Australia really as big as Africa? And how do flights from LA to Sydney work, because I've taken that trip twice [if you count there and back]? I don't recall flying East over the US on the way there, West over Australia on return, or over Africa at any point, or stopping for refueling?)

That is just a proposed map to showcase the concept of two poles only and nothing more. The person who proposed that map has not claimed to measure the size of continents, or the position or layouts of those landmasses.

Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« Reply #42 on: July 26, 2017, 10:44:41 PM »
In the bi-polar FE model, how can the sun be seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously, but not also the entire planet within the same diameter as between the two poles (which would only exclude Australia, southeast asia, and some pacific islands)?

I do not have any information on whether sun is seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously. I was saying that it does not appear to be impossible under that map. That point may as well be fiction, seeing as we were never provided a source for that claim from the person who stated that.

Quote
(And is Australia really as big as Africa? And how do flights from LA to Sydney work, because I've taken that trip twice [if you count there and back]? I don't recall flying East over the US on the way there, West over Australia on return, or over Africa at any point, or stopping for refueling?)

That is just a proposed map to showcase the concept of two poles only and nothing more. The person who proposed that map has not claimed to measure the size of continents, or the position or layouts of those landmasses.

So here's the thing Tom. This is not an equal debate. On the one side we have a globe model with precisely defined sizes, distances, angles, and relationships between landmasses - down to the meter. It has been sliced and diced every imaginable way, including gravity maps, ocean currents. It's all very precisely defined and therefor testable. Planetary movements, moon orbits, and the rings of Saturn can be observed with a $600 Nikon P900 - as can a rotating sun with sunspots, with a filter.

Then we have the Flat Earth model - allegedly the "true" model. Yet, you guys can't agree on whether Antarctica is a continent as you seem to believe, or an ice wall with an infinite plane in every direction beyond that (as your lord and savior Rowbotham believed). You can't agree on how the planets move, or even what they are. You invoke words like "Celestial Gears" and "Firmament". The billions of other galaxies in the universe, and the large-scale gravitationally-bound structures they form are...what again? I've heard so many mutually exclusive explanations. And every FE model has serious problems, which I'm sure you're well aware of.

So you can't just say, "maybe this is the map maybe it's not". Because that is intellectually lazy. It prevents your ideas from being specifically tested, and poked with holes. So maybe grow some intellectual balls, and commit to a model. When it is proven wrong, revise it. Rinse lather repeat. Until you find a model that works. Like they do in science. A model where you can fly from LAX to SYD, *and* JFK to LHR, etc. A model that doesn't put NZ in perpetual darkness in their winter. Etc.

Until then, it's not a "Theory". It's not even a testable hypothesis. It is, by definition, immune from disproof. The kindest thing it could be called, is literally a fairy tale.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2017, 10:46:30 PM by JoeTheToe »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« Reply #43 on: July 27, 2017, 12:25:14 AM »
Please post a catalog of these Round Earth logs and tests and observations that verify that the earth is a globe rather than vaguely alluding to their existence and expecting us to take you at your word.

The society has not accepted a map or model yet. There are a range of proposals and an ever growing list of work to do and possibilities to consider. Why would anyone commit to a model or a map which has not been completely investigated or affirmed? What part of under investigation do you not understand?

Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« Reply #44 on: July 27, 2017, 03:59:37 AM »
Please post a catalog of these Round Earth logs and tests and observations that verify that the earth is a globe rather than vaguely alluding to their existence and expecting us to take you at your word.

The society has not accepted a map or model yet. There are a range of proposals and an ever growing list of work to do and possibilities to consider. Why would anyone commit to a model or a map which has not been completely investigated or affirmed? What part of under investigation do you not understand?
Clearly any logs and observations are available to all and you must be using them as part of your work to determine a map or model that accurately represents the earth.  There is only one answer so we look forward to you concluding your investigation.

Clearly measuring the path of the sun must be a first step, how is that going?

Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« Reply #45 on: July 27, 2017, 04:13:39 AM »
The society has not accepted a map or model yet. There are a range of proposals and an ever growing list of work to do and possibilities to consider. Why would anyone commit to a model or a map which has not been completely investigated or affirmed? What part of under investigation do you not understand?

I think you need to look into the definition of "Hypothesis". The whole point is to discuss and debate them among your peers before proving them. If you had to prove every hypothesis before discussing or advocating for it, you'd get nowhere very fast.

...Oh wait... you've had over a decade to nail this stuff down, and have gone literally backwards - with new competing hypothesis that didn't even exist then, and you are no closer to understanding literally any of the big questions you had ten years ago. Your approach clearly isn't working. How long are you going to continue spinning your wheels? Another decade? Two more?

Hell, you haven't even improved on Rowbotham's "steam holds the oceans up" 1860 superstitious, pseudoscientific bullshit. The more you keep referring to him as the gold standard, the more stuck in the past and unable to progress you become.

The only reason no one can poke holes in FE hypotheses, is because as soon as a hole is poked, intellectually dishonest people like you reactively blurt, "I never said I believed in that!". Jesus man, grow a pair, pick a hypothesis, and defend it. When holes are poked, acknowledge it and revise. Rinse, rather, repeat.

FEC (Flat Earth Conjecture) is not supposed to be an infallible religion. ...Right? So why do all of your discussion threads sound like someone is threatening your religion?

The only reason you personally won't advocate for a specific map, is because you're an intellectual coward. I truly don't mean that as a personal attack, and obviously it's just my own Zetetic observations and explanation for them. You seem like a nice guy. But a truly, intellectually contemptible coward. You seem terrified of an imagined "fall from grace" you believe will happen if you have to admit a single error on something - something which I have never seen you do.

No intellectually honest person is never wrong.

Not only are you guys literally looking for a messiah, you guys seem to be trying to act like one, or at least like priests. Infallible. The only way to be infallible, is to never say anything of substance - which you never do. Never advocate something that could have a hole poked in it. How much longer are you going to be alive to promote this? Haven't you already squandered - what, 1/3 of your remaining healthy working years, doing little more than distancing yourself from any and all hypotheses that have even one inescapable hole poked in it? Wouldn't you rather spend the remaining 2/3 of that time actually advancing the understanding of the true nature of the world? By taking risks, admitting errors when you're proven wrong, discarding hypotheses that don't work, and advancing the state of understanding? I mean, the world is counting on you guys to reveal the truth, right? Counting on you. Given those stakes, why are you fucking this up so badly?

Why don't you guys call a big conference with working committees (ideally in Australia), and hammer out a draft of tentative working hypotheses to the most fundamental questions hounding you guys - that various FAQs and wikis are all over the map (no pun intended) on, and you guys constantly, openly discredit your own Wiki. I suggest working subcommittes or subconferences titled:
  • The universe: "Ice wall/single pole", "No ice wall/antarctica as a continent/double-poles", or "Double-rimmed ice wall with Atlantis in the outer waters"?
  • The plane: Infinite, or finite?
  • Dome: Exists or not?
  • The LAX-SYD cornundrum: Let's lick this!
  • The moon: Looks the same from different locations at the same time, or different?
  • Solar eclipses: How do they work?
  • Lunar eclipses: ...etc.
  • Man-made satellites: Real? Balloons? Don't exist?
  • Celestial Gears: How do they work, and how'd they get there?
  • The Firmament: What is it?
  • Tides and eclipses: Let's figure out how to predict them using the math of our own underlying laws and mechanics! That will shut those RE assholes up once and for all!
  • Celestial software: Let's fork the open-source Stellarium to be driven by our own laws of nature and celestial mechanics, open for all to study, test, and critique! Just like RE Stellarium! That will seriously win converts.
  • Other galaxies: Do they exist?
  • Our sun: What powers it?
  • The moon: Self-lit or not?
  • Other stars: What powers them?
  • Extraterrestrial life: Even theoretically possible?
  • Meteorites: what are they?
  • Gravity, UA, or fuck it and keep punting?
  • Rowbotham: Hey, why don't we eject this supernatural shit-show 19th-century snake-oil salesman from our vocabulary once and for all, to save some face, allow our hypotheses to change and improve, and attract fresh recruits?
I could go on as many others have. This is not a list of criticisms. It's things you obviously need to fix or at least agree on, and move forward with testing. It's time to commit to hypotheses that might be proven wrong or require change, or that you may not even be sure how to test or is even testable. (You can always discard those after exhausting ideas.) It's not a sign of weakness. It's a sign of strength. You can't set the world's experts to conducting experiments to confirm or falsify your hypotheses, and test your predictions - if you have no consistent hypotheses at all.

It's a sign of weakness to continue treating it like some kind of infallible dogmatic truth you just haven't quite nailed the details of down yet.

Finally, you should assemble a permanent working committee tasked with rigorously, openly, and scientifically testing every conjecture in the FE model - with rigorous controls and statistical methods - from biggest to smallest (e.g. disappearing ships), or until it runs out of money. If even just to win new recruits. Surely with the FE belief exploding, you can start a successful GoFundMe campaign. Surely they are willing to put their flat money where their flat beliefs are?

Good luck.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2017, 04:18:40 AM by JoeTheToe »

Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« Reply #46 on: July 27, 2017, 04:21:11 AM »
You suggest there is a group of identified and known people who form a society and are actively working of proving the shape of the earth.

Clearly this is not true, it is just a bunch of random people posting on forums, each trying to maintain their own scheme for entertainment.

Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« Reply #47 on: July 27, 2017, 04:23:23 AM »
Please post a catalog of these Round Earth logs and tests and observations that verify that the earth is a globe rather than vaguely alluding to their existence and expecting us to take you at your word.

There's gold in there Tom. Lots of first-person round-earth logs and measurements by Spanish voyagers and stuff - and really old, just like you like it. Irrefutable RE evidence by your the standard you apply to yourself for FE evidence.

Now it's your turn to provide RE standard of evidence: Like a fucking map that we can test and poke holes in, that you'll stand by and revise, rather than knee-jerk "I never said I believed that particular one".
« Last Edit: July 27, 2017, 04:28:26 AM by JoeTheToe »

Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« Reply #48 on: July 27, 2017, 04:41:32 AM »
You suggest there is a group of identified and known people who form a society and are actively working of proving the shape of the earth.

Clearly this is not true, it is just a bunch of random people posting on forums, each trying to maintain their own scheme for entertainment.

I don't know. They seem organized enough to put together a few basic websites and discussion boards. (Though it would seem at least two of them run on the same SMF discussion board software, and three of them have more or less the same members. I wasn't even sure which one to join to see the old gang again. I picked one at random.)

And by their own admission, "Like all cults, we have been waiting for a prophet. A messiah. A new president to lead our society. I believe such a man now exists." Seems like they've identified a couple of promising candidates. (I'd hate to be that guy, "Messiah" seems like a tall order with a usually bad ending.)

But maybe they are right. They are obviously more cult-like than science-minded, and in ten years they've yet to form a coherent, self-consistent umbrella hypothesis. On youtube and these boards, they are all over the map. I don't think any two agree on even the biggest questions. Maybe they do need some charismatic messiah to reign them in. As an RE'er and one who thinks religions and cults are signs of mental illness, I'd applaud that (for their own good). Maybe then they could get on with the business of actually investigating and answering questions.

...As long as this messiah doesn't go overboard and start passing around the Nike shoes.

geckothegeek

Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« Reply #49 on: July 27, 2017, 03:45:27 PM »
In the bi-polar FE model, how can the sun be seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously, but not also the entire planet within the same diameter as between the two poles (which would only exclude Australia, southeast asia, and some pacific islands)?

I do not have any information on whether sun is seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously. I was saying that it does not appear to be impossible under that map. That point may as well be fiction, seeing as we were never provided a source for that claim from the person who stated that.

Quote
(And is Australia really as big as Africa? And how do flights from LA to Sydney work, because I've taken that trip twice [if you count there and back]? I don't recall flying East over the US on the way there, West over Australia on return, or over Africa at any point, or stopping for refueling?)

That is just a proposed map to showcase the concept of two poles only and nothing more. The person who proposed that map has not claimed to measure the size of continents, or the position or layouts of those landmasses.

Those two maps are not "models" . They are just projections of methods to make a 2-dimensional "flat" map from a 3-dimensional "round" object - a globe. They aren't even somethings that were developed by the FES. I think anyone who has any familiarity with maps knows them for what they are. There are simply no accurate flat maps of the entire earth simply because the earth is not flat.There is nothing original about those maps.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10174
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« Reply #50 on: July 27, 2017, 03:53:04 PM »
You suggest there is a group of identified and known people who form a society and are actively working of proving the shape of the earth.

Clearly this is not true, it is just a bunch of random people posting on forums, each trying to maintain their own scheme for entertainment.

I don't know. They seem organized enough to put together a few basic websites and discussion boards. (Though it would seem at least two of them run on the same SMF discussion board software, and three of them have more or less the same members. I wasn't even sure which one to join to see the old gang again. I picked one at random.)

And by their own admission, "Like all cults, we have been waiting for a prophet. A messiah. A new president to lead our society. I believe such a man now exists." Seems like they've identified a couple of promising candidates. (I'd hate to be that guy, "Messiah" seems like a tall order with a usually bad ending.)

But maybe they are right. They are obviously more cult-like than science-minded, and in ten years they've yet to form a coherent, self-consistent umbrella hypothesis. On youtube and these boards, they are all over the map. I don't think any two agree on even the biggest questions. Maybe they do need some charismatic messiah to reign them in. As an RE'er and one who thinks religions and cults are signs of mental illness, I'd applaud that (for their own good). Maybe then they could get on with the business of actually investigating and answering questions.

...As long as this messiah doesn't go overboard and start passing around the Nike shoes.

This is fantastic. You un-ironically quoted a post made by Thork. That exemplifies how willing you are to display your ignorance of the community. You do it so confidently, too.

Also, I am going to have to ask that you refrain from derailing topics in the FE discussion fora. If you want to shitpost and/or complain about FES, we have fora dedicated for that exact purpose. Consider this a warning.

Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« Reply #51 on: July 27, 2017, 03:59:00 PM »
In the bi-polar FE model, how can the sun be seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously, but not also the entire planet within the same diameter as between the two poles (which would only exclude Australia, southeast asia, and some pacific islands)?

I do not have any information on whether sun is seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously. I was saying that it does not appear to be impossible under that map. That point may as well be fiction, seeing as we were never provided a source for that claim from the person who stated that.

Quote
(And is Australia really as big as Africa? And how do flights from LA to Sydney work, because I've taken that trip twice [if you count there and back]? I don't recall flying East over the US on the way there, West over Australia on return, or over Africa at any point, or stopping for refueling?)

That is just a proposed map to showcase the concept of two poles only and nothing more. The person who proposed that map has not claimed to measure the size of continents, or the position or layouts of those landmasses.

Those two maps are not "models" . They are just projections of methods to make a 2-dimensional "flat" map from a 3-dimensional "round" object - a globe. They aren't even somethings that were developed by the FES. I think anyone who has any familiarity with maps knows them for what they are. There are simply no accurate flat maps of the entire earth simply because the earth is not flat.There is nothing original about those maps.
Good point.  FE people say they cannot map the earth or check any models so presumably they do not believe a map of their own town or country.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10174
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« Reply #52 on: July 27, 2017, 04:01:05 PM »
FE people say they cannot map the earth or check any models so presumably they do not believe a map of their own town or country.

This is a fantastic non-sequitur. Well done.

Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« Reply #53 on: July 27, 2017, 05:02:34 PM »
FE people say they cannot map the earth or check any models so presumably they do not believe a map of their own town or country.

This is a fantastic non-sequitur. Well done.

Do you know what a non-sequitur is? Because based on that, it appears that you don't.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10174
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« Reply #54 on: July 27, 2017, 05:09:44 PM »
FE people say they cannot map the earth or check any models so presumably they do not believe a map of their own town or country.

This is a fantastic non-sequitur. Well done.

Do you know what a non-sequitur is? Because based on that, it appears that you don't.

Yes, it is a conclusion that doesn't follow the premise. If you are struggling to understand basic comprehension such as that, I don't think I can help. But, if you find yourself continuing to struggle, just ask and I will do my best to help you in any way I can. Take care, friend!

Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« Reply #55 on: July 27, 2017, 05:14:21 PM »
FE people say they cannot map the earth or check any models so presumably they do not believe a map of their own town or country.

This is a fantastic non-sequitur. Well done.

Do you know what a non-sequitur is? Because based on that, it appears that you don't.

Yes, it is a conclusion that doesn't follow the premise. If you are struggling to understand basic comprehension such as that, I don't think I can help. But, if you find yourself continuing to struggle, just ask and I will do my best to help you in any way I can. Take care, friend!

Then yes, friend, perhaps you can help. I may be struggling grammatically and could use your best help. Can you break the sentence in question down, and diagram exactly what part is the premise, what part is the conclusion, and in what way you feel that the conclusion doesn't follow the premise?

I love pointless pedantic arguments where the parties play the polite game! I mean, not really. But why not.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10174
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« Reply #56 on: July 27, 2017, 05:27:29 PM »
FE people say they cannot map the earth or check any models so presumably they do not believe a map of their own town or country.

This is a fantastic non-sequitur. Well done.

Do you know what a non-sequitur is? Because based on that, it appears that you don't.

Yes, it is a conclusion that doesn't follow the premise. If you are struggling to understand basic comprehension such as that, I don't think I can help. But, if you find yourself continuing to struggle, just ask and I will do my best to help you in any way I can. Take care, friend!

Then yes, friend, perhaps you can help. I may be struggling grammatically and could use your best help. Can you break the sentence in question down, and diagram exactly what part is the premise, what part is the conclusion, and in what way you feel that the conclusion doesn't follow the premise?

I love pointless pedantic arguments where the parties play the polite game! I mean, not really. But why not.

Sure thing, but not here. We can take discussions about how you fail to understand simple logic to another forum. I know you love derailing threads, and I sometimes engage with entitled users such as yourself, which only further enables it. So, I will not continue to engage you here, which will prevent you from getting another warning for derailment and a subsequent vacation for said warnings. I suggest any further posts you make in this thread pertain at least a little to the topic.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2017, 05:30:21 PM by junker »

Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« Reply #57 on: July 27, 2017, 07:14:05 PM »
FE people say they cannot map the earth or check any models so presumably they do not believe a map of their own town or country.

This is a fantastic non-sequitur. Well done.

Do you know what a non-sequitur is? Because based on that, it appears that you don't.

Yes, it is a conclusion that doesn't follow the premise. If you are struggling to understand basic comprehension such as that, I don't think I can help. But, if you find yourself continuing to struggle, just ask and I will do my best to help you in any way I can. Take care, friend!

Then yes, friend, perhaps you can help. I may be struggling grammatically and could use your best help. Can you break the sentence in question down, and diagram exactly what part is the premise, what part is the conclusion, and in what way you feel that the conclusion doesn't follow the premise?

I love pointless pedantic arguments where the parties play the polite game! I mean, not really. But why not.

Sure thing, but not here. We can take discussions about how you fail to understand simple logic to another forum. I know you love derailing threads, and I sometimes engage with entitled users such as yourself, which only further enables it. So, I will not continue to engage you here, which will prevent you from getting another warning for derailment and a subsequent vacation for said warnings. I suggest any further posts you make in this thread pertain at least a little to the topic.

You offered. On this thread. So where and how to move it? I'm ignorant of your conventions and/or software capabilities on the matter.

*

Offline Merkava

  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Masterdebater
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« Reply #58 on: July 27, 2017, 11:34:36 PM »
Clearly, the sun is not seen at all times. It was agreed that the midnight sun (24-hr sun) did not occur at both the North and South pole simultaneously, but there is no reason that at some point in the year the sun can't be seen from both the North and South pole simultaneously if the area of light contained both those distant locations.

In the bi-polar FE model, how can the sun be seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously, but not also the entire planet within the same diameter as between the two poles (which would only exclude Australia, southeast asia, and some pacific islands)?

(And is Australia really as big as Africa? And how do flights from LA to Sydney work, because I've taken that trip twice [if you count there and back]? I don't recall flying East over the US on the way there, West over Australia on return, or over Africa at any point, or stopping for refueling?)



Genuinely curious. I don't understand how this model is supposed to work.

Not sure if was brought up yet or not, I looked, but didn't see it.  Anyone wondering where the sun goes on an equinox?  Would it not have to wormhole back to the right side? That is the equator in the center, horizontal right?
Is it really too much effort to visualize in your head a light rolling around the middle of a plate isn't going to be "east" or "west" of anything it touches EVER?

*

Offline Merkava

  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Masterdebater
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« Reply #59 on: July 28, 2017, 04:09:09 AM »
FE people say they cannot map the earth or check any models so presumably they do not believe a map of their own town or country.

This is a fantastic non-sequitur. Well done.

Let's just see how much of a non-sequitur it is.

Are you willing to name any source for a map of any country that you except as being accurate for distance and elevation?
Is it really too much effort to visualize in your head a light rolling around the middle of a plate isn't going to be "east" or "west" of anything it touches EVER?