[3DGeek]

I keep asking for these observations but none seem to exist. It seems really hard for you guys to find any. Does this supposed mountain of evidence exist? Is the plethora of evidence for things like this just a myth? Is Round Earth Theory really just based on assumption?

We give you evidence - then you ignore it - or say it doesn't count.   We have unre-touched photos of the very clearly spherical Earth from space.   This seems like good evidence - but you simply dismiss it as a conspiracy theory.

We come up with sunrise and sunset times from timeanddate.com - but you say they don't count without proof that timeanddate.com are correct.

We come up with personal observations we can make - and you say that these don't count because they are just personal observations.

We have shown airplane schedules from major airlines that don't work with any of the maps you have of the flat earth, but which fit perfectly the one and only round earth map...but those too are dismissed because you don't appear to have the slightest clue about the nature of your earth (except that you think it's flat).

The problem here isn't finding evidence for our assertions - it's finding evidence THAT YOU WILL ACCEPT.

So - just tell us clearly your standards for acceptable evidence - and we can do our best to meet your standards.

If you think we can just dump ALL of our evidence in your lap and you'll sort through it - then I give you the ENTIRE internet - all of it.   All of the evidence is in there.   The greatest single repository of the works of mankind - there for the taking.

For sure you can't work though all of it.   So evidence needs to be "curated" - to find the juicy bits that give us what we need to know to settle this issue.

But if you'll just dismiss everything we give you (such as the timeanddate.com sunrise/sunset data) - then you are doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "Nah, nah, nah...Not listening".

So one more time Tom:  What are your standards of evidence.   Tell us what is acceptable and what is not.

[Tom Bishop]

This evidence was even presented with statements that support it in your own wiki. If you need documented evidence to back up claims made in your own wiki and your own statements, just because those claims are being used to point out a basic flaw in the FE model, we might have found the real problem.

The Wiki only states that on noon equinox the sun will be overhead at the equator. It says nothing about where it sets.

What needs to be explained is this image. The orange dot is the sun, at noon, in that location on the equinox. At the yellow dot, the sun should be just setting. The red arrow draws a line pointing directly West from the yellow dot, at where the sun should be visible.

How does the yellow dot see the sun setting in the West, when it's clearly 40 degrees north of West?

You will need to provide observations from that yellow dot before your argument has merit.

Secondly, you are mistaken that the sun will set directly west for all locations on a Round Earth on equinox. Consider what an observer near the North Pole will see. The sun only allegedly sets directly west on the equator.

Finally, there is no agreed upon Flat Earth map. You are trying to poke a hole in a map which does not exist. That map you posted is clearly just a projection of a globe, based on how the continents are distorted. It is not an original creation.

As backed up here the sun should rise/set nearly directly East/West on the equinox. How does the yellow dot see the sun setting in the West, when it's clearly 40 degrees north of West? EDIT: Here is another for you too.

Sure, the sun can rise or set in a generally easterly or westerly direction under Flat Earth models.

Look at the proposed bi-polar model map and look at where the direction of "west" and "east" is pointing at from those two locations. The magnetic field lines emanate from the the North and South poles like a bar magnet. The magnetic field lines are curved, and the cardinal directions of west and east, which are always at right angles to North or South on a compass, makes a straight line connection with the latitude the sun is traveling around from those locations.

Also, the sun does not appear to be setting directly "west" in that first link. The sun does not appear to be aligning with the horizontal perspective lines in that westerly built road.

[Merkava]

This evidence was even presented with statements that support it in your own wiki. If you need documented evidence to back up claims made in your own wiki and your own statements, just because those claims are being used to point out a basic flaw in the FE model, we might have found the real problem.

The Wiki only states that on noon equinox the sun will be overhead at the equator. It says nothing about where it sets.

You'd have to be a spectacular dunce not to understand the sun is ALWAYS and SIMULTANEOUSLY rising/setting and everything in between.  So, if it is over the Equator all equinox.  It's rising, setting and at its apex on the Equator.  All clear from the wiki.

What needs to be explained is this image. The orange dot is the sun, at noon, in that location on the equinox. At the yellow dot, the sun should be just setting. The red arrow draws a line pointing directly West from the yellow dot, at where the sun should be visible.

How does the yellow dot see the sun setting in the West, when it's clearly 40 degrees north of West?

You will need to provide observations from that yellow dot before your argument has merit.

 

No we don't.  The argument is based %100 on YOUR/WIKI assertions.  It stands alone.

Secondly, you are mistaken that the sun will set directly west for all locations on a Round Earth on equinox. Consider what an observer near the North Pole will see. The sun only allegedly sets directly west on the equator.

A straw man.  It is CLEARLY stated and shown in the picture the example is only talking about the EQUATOR. 

Finally, there is no agreed upon Flat Earth map. You are trying to poke a hole in a map which does not exist. That map you posted is clearly just a projection of a globe, based on how the continents are distorted. It is not an original creation.

That's just desperate.  Picture is just for illustration of the problem.  Could draw it on the wiki map and change nothing about the facts.  I could draw it on a pizza for that matter.

As backed up here the sun should rise/set nearly directly East/West on the equinox. How does the yellow dot see the sun setting in the West, when it's clearly 40 degrees north of West? EDIT: Here is another for you too.

Sure, the sun can rise or set in a generally easterly or westerly direction under Flat Earth models.

WRONG, produce one.

Look at the proposed bi-polar model map and look at where the direction of "west" and "east" is pointing at from those two locations. The magnetic field lines emanate from the the North and South poles like a bar magnet. The magnetic field lines are curved, and the cardinal directions of west and east, which are always at a right angle to the North or South Poles on a compass, makes a straight line connection with the latitude the sun is traveling around from those locations.

This map is even more colossally ridiculous than the first one.  What exactly does the sun do when it hits the east edge of the map on the equinox?  Wormholes to get back west?  Not to mention what it does a few days before and after. 

Also, the sun does not appear to be setting directly "west" in that first link. The sun does not appear to be aligning with the horizontal perspective lines in that westerly built road.

[3DGeek]

Look at the proposed bi-polar model map and look at where the direction of "west" and "east" is pointing at from those two locations. The magnetic field lines emanate from the the North and South poles like a bar magnet. The magnetic field lines are curved, and the cardinal directions of west and east, which are always at right angles to North or South on a compass, makes a straight line connection with the latitude the sun is traveling around from those locations.

Also, the sun does not appear to be setting directly "west" in that first link. The sun does not appear to be aligning with the horizontal perspective lines in that westerly built road.

Hey Tom - if your lines of latitude and longitude are both curved - how does the pole star stay simultaneously in the North for everyone in the northern hemisphere and the southern cross stay in the south for everyone in the southern hemisphere?  Local compass directions wouldn't agree with the direction of the pole star...which I think is an observation that even you'll agree has to work out right for your new map to work.

Seems like you can't curve those lines without making exciting new anomalies...right?

[Curious Squirrel]

Look at the proposed bi-polar model map and look at where the direction of "west" and "east" is pointing at from those two locations. The magnetic field lines emanate from the the North and South poles like a bar magnet. The magnetic field lines are curved, and the cardinal directions of west and east, which are always at right angles to North or South on a compass, makes a straight line connection with the latitude the sun is traveling around from those locations.

Also, the sun does not appear to be setting directly "west" in that first link. The sun does not appear to be aligning with the horizontal perspective lines in that westerly built road.

Hey Tom - if your lines of latitude and longitude are both curved - how does the pole star stay simultaneously in the North for everyone in the northern hemisphere and the southern cross stay in the south for everyone in the southern hemisphere?  Local compass directions wouldn't agree with the direction of the pole star...which I think is an observation that even you'll agree has to work out right for your new map to work.

Seems like you can't curve those lines without making exciting new anomalies...right?

"Where are your observational proofs of these observations?" - Tom in his attempt to ignore anything that doesn't work. >.>

This evidence was even presented with statements that support it in your own wiki. If you need documented evidence to back up claims made in your own wiki and your own statements, just because those claims are being used to point out a basic flaw in the FE model, we might have found the real problem.

The Wiki only states that on noon equinox the sun will be overhead at the equator. It says nothing about where it sets.

But we know from observations upon the equinox, the sun rises directly East, and sets directly West. It happens all over the globe in fact. I've directly linked you to two observations showing that.

What needs to be explained is this image. The orange dot is the sun, at noon, in that location on the equinox. At the yellow dot, the sun should be just setting. The red arrow draws a line pointing directly West from the yellow dot, at where the sun should be visible.

How does the yellow dot see the sun setting in the West, when it's clearly 40 degrees north of West?

You will need to provide observations from that yellow dot before your argument has merit.

Secondly, you are mistaken that the sun will set directly west for all locations on a Round Earth on equinox. Consider what an observer near the North Pole will see. The sun only allegedly sets directly west on the equator.

Finally, there is no agreed upon Flat Earth map. You are trying to poke a hole in a map which does not exist. That map you posted is clearly just a projection of a globe, based on how the continents are distorted. It is not an original creation.

Already have provided observations, on the Equinox, that the sun does exactly what RE says it should.

Sorry, I should have been more clear, as my link at the start of this was. It doesn't hold true for (as I recall without looking) anywhere within the Arctic or Antarctic circles. Now stop being pedantic. It sets west all across the globe, this isn't allegedly.

Doesn't matter. Any Earth that has a sun that moves in a circle above it will have this issue, because the sun has to move away from a straight East/West line at some point.

As backed up here the sun should rise/set nearly directly East/West on the equinox. How does the yellow dot see the sun setting in the West, when it's clearly 40 degrees north of West? EDIT: Here is another for you too.

Sure, the sun can rise or set in a generally easterly or westerly direction under Flat Earth models.

Look at the proposed bi-polar model map and look at where the direction of "west" and "east" is pointing at from those two locations. The magnetic field lines emanate from the the North and South poles like a bar magnet. The magnetic field lines are curved, and the cardinal directions of west and east, which are always at right angles to North or South on a compass, makes a straight line connection with the latitude the sun is traveling around from those locations.

Also, the sun does not appear to be setting directly "west" in that first link. The sun does not appear to be aligning with the horizontal perspective lines in that westerly built road.

But the sun doesn't move upon the equatorial line in that model does it? And if it did, even for a day, how does all of Antarctica get sunlight without having it 24 hours at some location, when it's not supposed to? I'm not even going to go into the insanities that result from curving those lines.

So the road isn't oriented, or he has some issue with where he's filming at. There are a LOT of possibilities besides "The Earth is Flat" and that still doesn't explain the second video.

Try harder Tom. Stop deflecting the map issue. The issues' presented here would happen with any map where the sun does a circular orbit over a flat plane. How do you not get that?

[Tom Bishop]

Hey Tom - if your lines of latitude and longitude are both curved - how does the pole star stay simultaneously in the North for everyone in the northern hemisphere and the southern cross stay in the south for everyone in the southern hemisphere?  Local compass directions wouldn't agree with the direction of the pole star...which I think is an observation that even you'll agree has to work out right for your new map to work.

Seems like you can't curve those lines without making exciting new anomalies...right?

I don't see your point. If you are in North America or Europe your compass will align with the magnetic field lines, which are emanating from the North Pole, and therefore North will point to the North Pole. If you are in Australia, the field lines are emanating from the South Pole and your compass will align and South will point to the South Pole.

But we know from observations upon the equinox, the sun rises directly East, and sets directly West. It happens all over the globe in fact. I've directly linked you to two observations showing that.

The sun only rises directly East and sets directly West on the equator during the equinox in the Round Earth model. Again, consider where the sun would set anywhere near the North Pole in RET. It was admitted that the sun doesn't set in the East in the Arctic Circle, and it doesn't just suddenly set in the East just outside of that zone. It is only the equator where the sun, allegedly, sets directly East.

You have not provided any observations from the equator. We cannot say what will happen there.

Already have provided observations, on the Equinox, that the sun does exactly what RE says it should.

None from the equator. RE says that the sun should not set in the east, except for at the equator.

Doesn't matter. Any Earth that has a sun that moves in a circle above it will have this issue, because the sun has to move away from a straight East/West line at some point.

Try harder Tom. Stop deflecting the map issue. The issues' presented here would happen with any map where the sun does a circular orbit over a flat plane. How do you not get that?

Incorrect. The sun can generally rise in the East and set in the West in North America if it is traveling along a circle over a flat plane. The sun rides upon a circle, but from an observer looking at a compass in North America the direction of East is pointing a straight line into infinity. When the sun rises, it is certainly possible to align with the Eastern direction of that compass, and when it sets it is also possible for the sun to align with the Westerly direction of that compass.

The sun's rising over the year will, of course, vary between North-East and South-East, and the setting will vary between North-West and South-West. A simple observation of the sun rising from the East on one of those days is not enough to demonstrate or determine anything.

But the sun doesn't move upon the equatorial line in that model does it? And if it did, even for a day, how does all of Antarctica get sunlight without having it 24 hours at some location, when it's not supposed to? I'm not even going to go into the insanities that result from curving those lines.

So the road isn't oriented, or he has some issue with where he's filming at. There are a LOT of possibilities besides "The Earth is Flat" and that still doesn't explain the second video.

There are a number of books and journals supporting to the bi-polar model, basically anything published by our society in the early 1900's (Then called the Universal Zetetic Society). Lady Blount and Albert Smith (Zetetes) were notable Flat Earth authors supporting the bi-polar model. We were kind enough to provide scanned literature on this website, and on the .org website, for you to pursue if interested in the subject.

[Curious Squirrel]

But we know from observations upon the equinox, the sun rises directly East, and sets directly West. It happens all over the globe in fact. I've directly linked you to two observations showing that.

The sun only rises directly East and sets directly West on the equator during the equinox in the Round Earth model. Again, consider where the sun would set anywhere near the North Pole in RET. It was admitted that the sun doesn't set in the East in the Arctic Circle, and it doesn't just suddenly set in the East just outside of that zone. It is only the equator where the sun, allegedly, sets directly East.

You have not provided any observations from the equator. We cannot say what will happen there.

Already have provided observations, on the Equinox, that the sun does exactly what RE says it should.

None from the equator. RE says that the sun should not set in the east, except for at the equator

So I see that after numerous pages of me posting the same request for data that you still have no observations to present for your claim of where the sun rises or sets on the equinox equator. I guess we are done here.

Because it's an accepted fact of RE, and can be observed yourself on any Equinox from anywhere in the world. In fact, we've got one coming up in Sept, I believe on the 22nd. How about you watch it do just that, we can do the same, and you'll see it happen with your own eyes. Surely taking a look and showing us we're wrong can't be that hard?

My how quickly you forget. Sun rises East and sets West on the Equinox, all over the globe, except at the poles. As I showed you in both of those videos.

I said

Sorry, I should have been more clear, as my link at the start of this was. It doesn't hold true for (as I recall without looking) anywhere within the Arctic or Antarctic circles.

and based upon actually looking at the site this time, I was incorrect as the site lists just the poles being exempt from this. My apologies for not remembering what it said correctly.

Once again this image is the issue here. Move the dots to any two points along the same latitude and you will get the same problem. The compass will point West, as the arrow shows, but after going a certain distance W would have to change. Thus looking out to the horizon, the setting sun cannot remain directly West while scribing a circle over the plane of the Earth.

But the sun doesn't move upon the equatorial line in that model does it? And if it did, even for a day, how does all of Antarctica get sunlight without having it 24 hours at some location, when it's not supposed to? I'm not even going to go into the insanities that result from curving those lines.

So the road isn't oriented, or he has some issue with where he's filming at. There are a LOT of possibilities besides "The Earth is Flat" and that still doesn't explain the second video.

There are a number of books and journals supporting to the bi-polar model, basically anything published by our society in the early 1900's (Then called the Universal Zetetic Society). Lady Blount and Albert Smith (Zetetes) were notable Flat Earth authors supporting the bi-polar model. We were kind enough to provide scanned literature on this website, and on the .org website, for you to pursue if interested in the subject.

How is it you can't answer a simple question and instead refer me to 'scanned literature on this website' for a question that should be very straightforward for the model that you yourself admit you prefer? Let's try this again.

Does the sun ever follow the line of the equator in the dual pole model? If so, how does the sunlight reach the locations to either side of the pole without bathing parts of the Arctic/Antarctic in a full day/period of sunlight?

Simple questions. If you try and defer me somewhere else I have to assume you don't know anything about how your own preferred model works and can thusly dismiss anything you have to say about it. These should not be hard to answer questions.

[Merkava]

The sun only rises directly East and sets directly West on the equator during the equinox in the Round Earth model. Again, consider where the sun would set anywhere near the North Pole in RET. It was admitted that the sun doesn't set in the East in the Arctic Circle, and it doesn't just suddenly set in the East just outside of that zone. It is only the equator where the sun, allegedly, sets directly East.

You have not provided any observations from the equator. We cannot say what will happen there.

"The sun only rises directly East and sets directly West on the equator during the equinox in the Round Earth model."

ROFL  There's one more place it happens.  Reality.  What city do you live in, we'll tell when and where the sun is going to rise and set and how that destroys FE.

[Merkava]

Man your digging a hole so fast now it's hard to even decide which nonsensical statement to go after.  Are you seriously going to hang your hat on not being able to determine what direction the Sun rises or sets unless you see it.  That is awesome.  So the whole FE "model" is now completely reliant on the Sun not rising due East or setting due West EVER.  LMAO...  So Tom where exactly have you "verified" the Earth is flat?  The beach down the street.  So it's only "allegedly" flat everywhere you haven't checked out?  Even better is you'll never give us a rough location of "Flat Earth Headquarters" because we could prove the map/model is horseshit if you would just look out the window!   HaHaHa

Has it really never occurred to any of you that you could disprove the Globe by just tracking the Sun at your own locations?  FFS unless you live at one of the poles the Sun is going to Rise directly East on the Equinox and set directly West on Sep 22, 2017.  In fact, what the Sun does at all times proves you wrong.

SO
I dare you to watch it.  In fact, I dare you to show where the sun rises (accurate direction) on any day show us on a map how that's possible.

[Curious Squirrel]

Nothing from Tom in reply means I have to assume he can't answer my questions. So anything he has to say about his preferred model is suspect in my view from here on out. As for everyone else, I highly encourage you to go watch the sunset and sunrise on the Equinox. It will occur directly West and East on the 22nd of September this year, and will be observable all over the globe (unless you happen to be Santa Claus or an unlucky penguin living on one of the poles) and is a pretty powerful proof against any model the Flat Earth Hypothesis has so far put forward. Take care!

[Scroogie]

I just noticed a strange anomaly on this site. Earlier in this thread the Wiki articlehttp://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude was referenced several times in the context of formulating a disproof of a certain aspect of Flat Earth theory. Today, when I access that Wiki page I find it to be empty.

Why would that be? Is it even remotely possible that it has since become an embarrassment to the FE community and was summarily disposed of?

I ask that as the result of what I have come to learn of the machinations of various other groups who are involved in similar fringe activities, such as conspiracy theorists and creationists, to name just two. If it does not coincide with their world view it must be ignored, dismissed or done away with. Given that it is/was part of the FE site, they had the power to do the latter, and, it appears, did so.

Incidentally, I'm not at all in favor of the use of the acronym "FET" for this site as I feel it does a disservice to the Field Effect Transistor.