### 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 - Mock

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
1
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Both the Ice Wall and Bipolar maps are wrong, why don't you think of new models?
« on: August 19, 2017, 12:13:55 AM »
Under the Round Earth model East does not always point East (except at the equator), and Eastwards navigation is possible. Consider where "East" would point 20 feet from the point of Magnetic North in RET. Why must we believe that North always points North?
The needle in a compass is magnetized, as I'm sure you know. North always points North because of magnetic attraction. I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with East?

2
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Both the Ice Wall and Bipolar maps are wrong, why don't you think of new models?
« on: August 19, 2017, 12:10:39 AM »
You can't compare North and South to West and East in this case. North and South always point towards distinct locations, while West and East just go in a direction perpendicular toward the direction of North and South.

Going East until you reach the point you started from again (i.e. one full circle around the Earth), a compass will always show you're going East. Conversely, you can't make a full circle around the Earth by just going North. At some point, your compass needle will spin around and then you'll be going South.

To point to my rough sketch of the bipolar model's magnetic field (which, for the protocol, you have taken no issue with as of now), imagine standing at the position of the far right compass symbol, straight behind the North Pole (but a fair distance away from it). Your compass needle's tip (indicating North) will obviously point at the North Pole, but what about the other directions?

Say you're facing the North Pole. Obviously, North is right in front of you. What about South? Your compass will display South as right behind you - but the magnetic South Pole will, too, be located in the direction you're facing, which is a contradiction.
Imagine going "South" (as read from a compass) from this position - instead of getting closer to the Southern Hemiplane, you would actually be increasing your distance from it. To get to, say, South Africa, you would actually have to travel further North at first.

That's not all, though. If North is straight ahead of you, then East will naturally be to your right and West to your left. Now imagine someone with a compass in the UK, also facing the North Pole. For them, North is also straight ahead, so East will be to their right and West to their left. Since those two observers are looking in opposite directions (facing each other, with the North Pole between them), they can't both be right, though. In this scenario, the Western Hemiplane would become the Eastern Hemiplane after passing the North Pole.

You seem to think that those discrepancies are not observed because one would turn to the right direction while travelling due to curvature of the magnetic field lines. This might be possible for lower longitudes (e.g. travelling from the US to Brazil), where the curvature is not as noticeable and you might not be able to detect the slight shift in direction over the huge distance. But surely a 180 degree turn that is necessary in this case would be noticed? Travelling South, I'm confident you would notice that you are now facing stars that were behind you earlier during the journey.

So by claiming the Bipolar Model can be valid, you are either asserting that
• a standard magnetized needle compass with N and S at a 180° angle displays a wildly incorrect direction for South when facing the North Pole from the side opposite Western Europe
• there are locations on the far side of the poles where the directions of West and East as displayed by a standard magnetized needle compass are inversed, i.e. the shortest way from Berlin to Moscow is to go West
or you are asserting that travelling South from the far side of the North Pole will result in a gradual 180 degree turn that is somehow not noticed despite the existence of navigational devices other than compasses.

While those are really outlandish things to say, if they are actually true they shouldn't be hard to prove at all.

3
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Both the Ice Wall and Bipolar maps are wrong, why don't you think of new models?
« on: August 18, 2017, 10:04:58 PM »
The evidence for your assertion was that it was "common knowledge". I just assumed that you had no further intellectual stimulation to contribute towards the topic.

I've made this clear multiple times now, and I will once more: This is not the case. My two posts and the rather long PM you chose to ignore might have tipped you off. I'm not the one who stopped contributing for a week because of a minor detail. I'm sorry if said minor detail offended you, but had you read the rest of what I wrote and not just those three words, I'm sure that would have saved us lots of drama. The evidence for my assertion was not that it was common knowledge. The evidence was everything I said in the rest of the post, which you decided to disregard.

I've made my point on the topic:

It's common knowledge. Since I assume you don't have a compass handy, unlock your iPhone. Open the Compass app. You'll notice it works just like a real one. You'll also notice that "N" for north is at a 180 degree angle to "S" for south, and they don't change positions. This means that at any given position, if you face North and turn 180 degrees you'll face South. This is clearly not the case in the bipolar FE model, as I have illustrated:

At the position on the left, you actually get a very acute angle from North to South and certainly not 180 degrees. Ask yourself: What direction is West? To assert that the BP model is correct would be to assert there are points on Earth that inherently give inaccurate compass readings because of their position in the geomagnetic field (excluding the Poles, but that should be really obvious). The burden of proof is on you.

Since you seem to be willing to engage in the discussion again (which I am thankful for), by all means go ahead. I'm all ears.

4
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Both the Ice Wall and Bipolar maps are wrong, why don't you think of new models?
« on: August 18, 2017, 06:54:21 PM »
I sent him a PM explaining in detail what I meant by "common knowledge". He's ignored it so far, yet he has obviously been online and active since I sent it almost a week ago. I guess that proves my point?

Hello. To get straight to the point:
It's common knowledge.

I see. Then I suppose that we have nothing further to discuss, since truth is based on popular authority.
I think this is a very bizarre and, to be honest, also an unfair reaction. I made the effort to answer your question with a detailed explanation based on common knowledge (the common knowledge in this case being nothing more than "on a compass, the angle between North and South is 180 degrees, and the two ends of the needle simultaneously point north and south, respectively"). You then proceeded to dismiss my explanation, ignore the rest of the post and leave the thread just because my response is founded on common knowledge. Not all of it is automatically wrong, you know ("the sea is filled with saltwater" is common knowledge and a proven fact), and I NEVER asserted that truth is based on popular authority. That's just you being dishonest and looking for a way out.

[It can be observed that on a normal compass with a magnetized needle, whenever one end points towards the North Pole, the other points towards the South Pole and vice versa.

Who observed that?
I answered your question. Since you're not disputing my claim, until you give a proper answer I'll just assume you acknowledged that I'm right and gave up, and that you're not responding in order to save some face.

5
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about World's End?
« on: August 12, 2017, 09:39:19 PM »
Actually, I take back my statement about you being pleasant to discuss with.
Well that hurt my heart a little.

All I wanted was for you to acknowledge that not everything in Round Earth Theory was straight forward and easy to explain, and that some things are incorrect ... such as full moons. So that you wouldn't hold me to account on every little semantic point, when you don't hold your own beliefs to such scrutiny. You probably never even considered that a full moon is impossible on a round earth, yet you have known about them all your life. And yet 5 mins into Flat Earth theory, you are trying to tear it to bits looking for any tiny flaw in explanation.

Some things you should always consider when asking flat earthers questions ... we don't have a flat earth google, we don't have the weight of the world's scientists to lean on, and we don't know every last piece of physics of the universe any more than round earth scientists do. Regular scientists can't explain gravitons. They can't even isolate them. But yet a flat earther needs to prove in minutia the concepts of universal acceleration. This isn't a forum run by God and His angels. Just people who question what they are told. I'd always rather be one of those people.

Any time the moon is within a few degrees or less of passing into the shadow to create a lunar eclipse is a full moon. You need to look at it from more than a single angle.
In a round earth 'full moon', the moon is said to be 5 degrees off the ecliptic. The very notion that it is a ball and 5 degrees off, means there is no way you could ever view the full shining face of the moon and still be stood on earth. Ergo, there is no such thing as a full moon.

You have yet to produce any explanation for how the moon can possibly appear full on a Flat Earth. I'm waiting.

6
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: (Dis-)proving a FE without using RE distances - here we go
« on: August 12, 2017, 08:42:04 PM »
Thanks for answering. I get why calculating the angles is a good idea, but what do you mean when you say I should calculate the other distances? This is one possible FE layout of many. In this specific one, all the distances are known already. I could make another one (either by tweaking other distances than NY-CT and BA-PA, or by calculating the angle in another corner), but I don't understand how that would help disprove FE theory.

We're having house guests from tomorrow until next weekend, but I'll see if I can find the time to do all the math. If anyone else wants to do it in the meantime, you're welcome to post it here.

7
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about World's End?
« on: August 12, 2017, 05:18:49 PM »
So being as you both say earth and the moon are balls, you are both saying there is no such thing as a full moon. Well there are full moons. My calendar says there are 13 of them this year. So my point, saying the earth is round has a whole bunch of problems that a flat earth doesn't.

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/
There it is. A mathematical calculator using mathematics to tell you when the next full moon occurs. Not the next almost full moon. The next full moon ... which is impossible on a round earth because for the moon to be full, the sun has to be directly behind the earth, and that causes a lunar eclipse instead.
Actually, I take back my statement about you being pleasant to discuss with. It's called a Full Moon because it looks full - you won't be able to tell it's not just from looking at it. It's as full as it will get. We still don't get to see 100% of the illuminated side ever, because obviously it would result in a lunar eclipse.

And the FE model has WAY more problems with moon phases than the RE one - the generally accepted one, I might say - has. Explain to me, how can you see a 100% full moon in your model?

8
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airline flight data - summary.
« on: August 12, 2017, 10:47:21 AM »
Quote
This won't work for the simple fact Tom claims (in effect) that we can't know the true distance between any two points unless we've personally walked the distance with a measure of some kind. That's why he said we don't know the distance from New York to Paris.
Yeah, I got that. My proposed method is:

1. Find any reasonable distances between the four places used in the proof that would work for a Flat Earth.
2. Then calculate the speed at which planes would have to go to travel those distances and be on schedule.
3. See which ones are way too fast, which ones are way too slow and adjust your distances - again so that a FE is possible.
4. Repeat 2 and 3 multiple times.

I think that at some point, we will have reached some kind of equilibrium, where the values for the distances are as accurate as they can get, assuming the cities they connect are located on a Flat Earth. If the times, velocities and distances match up, then we have proof that a Flat Earth is possible. If they don't, we'll have proof it isn't.

I hope I was able to formulate it a bit better this time

EDIT: Could someone please just tell me real quick if it will work? I really want to go to sleep right now, it's 3:06 AM
If you keep the ratios between them the same you will never have the angles work. You would need to drastically adjust the ratios of the distances in order to be able to create a flat pair of triangles that would be able to work in the way the picture says they should.

I made a post about this Could you explain over there what you mean by keeping the ratios the same?

9
##### Flat Earth Debate / (Dis-)proving a FE without using RE distances - here we go
« on: August 12, 2017, 10:44:38 AM »
So, TFES' counter-argument for the Quadrilateral Proof is that we don't know if the distances are correct. All right.
What if we prove that for any FE map configuration that does get the angles right by using other distances, therefore avoiding the proof, those other distances will still not match up with the flight times and speeds?

If the Earth is flat, there MUST be a constellation where BOTH

1.   The Quadrilateral Proof gives identical angles
2.   The times that it would take planes to fly the distances matches those given by airlines like Qantas, calculatable by dividing the distances by the cruise speed of the planes used / Alternatively: The cruising speed the plane would need to have in order to complete its journey in the given time matches the one that is given for each plane type and flight
3.   (optional) The angles between the cities would have to remain roughly the same (not sure, since FET seems to question those angles anyway)

If there is no such constellation, then the Earth cannot be flat. Shouldn't be too hard.

I will be using http://www.calculator.net/triangle-calculator.html for the angles.
Flight distances will be taken from WorldAtlas (all in km). The corner points are New York (NY), Paris (PA), Buenos Aires (BA) and Cape Town (CT).

NY - PA 5919
NY - BA 8383
NY - CT 12472
CT - PA 9148
CT - BA 6938
BA - PA 10930

Result for angle at NY calculated directly: 98.201°
Result for angle at NY calculated by adding: 31.814° + 43.611° = 76° => Difference of ~22°

Okay, so as we all can see, with the data we get from WorldAtlas, Earth cannot be flat. So let’s just change those numbers up a bit. At this point I’m not sure yet, but I think in order for the second angle to get closer to the first one, we’ll have to make NY – CT and BA – PA a bit shorter. Shall we? Let's say NY – CT 10000; BA – PA 8000, the other distance figures stay the same.
Result for angle at NY calculated directly: 65.401°
Result for angle at NY calculated by adding:  43.24° + 64.294° = 108° => Difference of ~43° in the other direction

Okay, seems like I went a little bit overboard, but the angles did go into the direction I wanted them to. We can change the relevant angles by changing those two distances. Let’s try NY – CT 11000 and BA – PA 9500. The rest stays the same.
Result for angle at NY calculated directly: 81.272°
Result for angle at NY calculated by adding: 56.248 + 39.092° = 95°

We’re getting closer to distances that would work on a FE, but NY – CT and PA – BA still seem to be a little too short. Considering the huge effect it had before, let’s just add 500 km to each figure. NY – CT 11500 and BA – PA 10000.
Result for angle at NY calculated directly: 86.993°
Result for angle at NY calculated by adding: 36.8° + 52.115° = 88.915°

We’re getting really close now – so close that the digits after the dot will soon get important, so I stopped rounding the sums out of laziness. Our added angle is two degrees greater than the first one. I’m going to add a smaller bit of length: NY – CT 11550 and BA – PA 10050.
Result for angle at NY calculated directly: 87.513°
Result for angle at NY calculated by adding: 36.561° +  51.695° = 88.256°

The two angles are now less than a degree apart – a mere 0.743°. I’ll try adding just 30 km more to both distances. NY – CT 11580 and BA – PA 10080.
Result for angle at NY calculated directly: 87.862°
Result for angle at NY calculated directly: 36.417° +  51.442° = 87.859°

(I have proof for those angles and distances - 87.862°, 36.417° and 51.442°)

As you can see, the difference between the angle calculated from NY – PA, NY – BA and BA – PA is now only 0.003 degrees smaller than the one added up using the other distances. If the distances were like this in the real world, then mathematically the world could be flat.

Summing the first part up, our distances could be:

NY - PA 5919
NY - BA 8383
NY - CT 11580 – now 892 km less than before
CT - PA 9148
CT - BA 6938
BA - PA 10080 – now 850 km less than before

Note that we could also have done this by increasing the other distances, instead of decreasing those two – or a combination of both, which would probably give more accurate results, but I don’t think it matters. If anyone wants to put in the extra work (I’m looking at you, Flat Earthers – this might actually be a method to create a more or less accurate flat map!), you’re very much welcome to do that. I'll edit my post accordingly.

Now, before I start calculating with the flight times and velocities of the planes, does anyone have objections to how I'm doing this? Because I don’t want to do all that work without making sure it doesn’t get discredited again.

10
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Both the Ice Wall and Bipolar maps are wrong, why don't you think of new models?
« on: August 12, 2017, 01:03:59 AM »
It's common knowledge.

I see. Then I suppose that we have nothing further to discuss, since truth is based on popular authority.
Come on, you just ignored everything else to focus on those three words instead? We have plenty to discuss. Just read the rest of the post and don't run away from the discussion because I assumed you know what a compass looks like and how it works. Excuse me, but that is common knowledge.

11
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airline flight data - summary.
« on: August 12, 2017, 12:56:37 AM »
Quote
This won't work for the simple fact Tom claims (in effect) that we can't know the true distance between any two points unless we've personally walked the distance with a measure of some kind. That's why he said we don't know the distance from New York to Paris.
Yeah, I got that. My proposed method is:

1. Find any reasonable distances between the four places used in the proof that would work for a Flat Earth.
2. Then calculate the speed at which planes would have to go to travel those distances and be on schedule.
3. See which ones are way too fast, which ones are way too slow and adjust your distances - again so that a FE is possible.
4. Repeat 2 and 3 multiple times.

I think that at some point, we will have reached some kind of equilibrium, where the values for the distances are as accurate as they can get, assuming the cities they connect are located on a Flat Earth. If the times, velocities and distances match up, then we have proof that a Flat Earth is possible. If they don't, we'll have proof it isn't.

I hope I was able to formulate it a bit better this time

EDIT: Could someone please just tell me real quick if it will work? I really want to go to sleep right now, it's 3:06 AM

12
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Both the Ice Wall and Bipolar maps are wrong, why don't you think of new models?
« on: August 12, 2017, 12:44:26 AM »
It's common knowledge. Since I assume you don't have a compass handy, unlock your iPhone. Open the Compass app. You'll notice it works just like a real one. You'll also notice that "N" for north is at a 180 degree angle to "S" for south, and they don't change positions. This means that at any given position, if you face North and turn 180 degrees you'll face South. This is clearly not the case in the bipolar FE model, as I have illustrated:

At the position on the left, you actually get a very acute angle from North to South and certainly not 180 degrees. Ask yourself: What direction is West? To assert that the BP model is correct would be to assert there are points on Earth that inherently give inaccurate compass readings because of their position in the geomagnetic field (excluding the Poles, but that should be really obvious). The burden of proof is on you.

13
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about World's End?
« on: August 12, 2017, 12:34:36 AM »
I understand the confusion about the full moon / eclipse thing. I couldn't wrap my head around that either, until I realized that the moon is never 100% full - if in a position where it would be, it is obscured by the Earth, resulting in a lunar eclipse, as you correctly noted. But the moon is on a tilted orbit around the Earth - which means that Sun, Moon and Earth are comparatively seldom in one plane (twice a month - Full and New Moon), let alone in one line (Solar or Lunar eclipse). Considering the tilted axis, a two-dimensional model like the one in your post won't hold up anymore. This has a good explanation on the whole matter - I know it's from NASA, but it's what everyone else agrees upon, too, and it should at least help you understand the matter.

Quote
As for 'weird bullshit', round earth proponents can invoke relativity, dilations of time, singularities, multi-verses, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, invisible forces like gravity and any other kind of intangible magic to explain how the universe works with a round earth, but flat earthers cannot? I think you have a serious case of confirmation bias.
Those things have their foundations in science and are observable, provable, or acknowledged as being just theories. They are certainly more convincing than scientifically unfounded claims like Electromagnetic Acceleration, the Known Magnification Effect and ridiculous perspective tweaks that don't work without weird bendy light.

I'd like to comment on your other points, since you're actually quite pleasant to debate with, but unfortunately it's 2:30 am where I live and I'm growing tired - maybe I'll follow up tomorrow. Good night.

14
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airline flight data - summary.
« on: August 12, 2017, 12:08:32 AM »
I just had an idea, but I don't know if it's feasible, since I'm not that much of a math ace.

Instead of using distances Tom won't believe anyway, why don't we find the limit of at which distances a FE would not be possible anymore? I don't know if it's comprehendable, but there must be a border where for certain distances, a Flat Earth would just barely be possible. Then we can calculate how fast an airplane would have to travel to be on time with the given flight times and distances, and see if that's realistic.

I don't know if that makes sense, but it's what was going through my head

E: Basically we give them as much benefit of the doubt as possible with the distances until a FE becomes possible, then we see how fast a plane would have to fly to be on time (since we know how long any given flight would take). We could even let Tom estimate the distances and see how close to Mach 10 planes would apparently get without noticing.

15
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Both the Ice Wall and Bipolar maps are wrong, why don't you think of new models?
« on: August 11, 2017, 11:55:44 PM »

It can be observed that on a normal compass with a magnetized needle, whenever one end points towards the North Pole, the other points towards the South Pole and vice versa. With the bipolar FE model that gets promoted on here, this is clearly not always the case, as demonstrated by the above image I made using your bar magnet graphic for the field lines. At the bottom left position, for example, one end would clearly be attracted by the nearby South Pole, but the other certainly doesn't point north. Same with the far right position, just the other way around. This doesn't occur in real life.

16
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about World's End?
« on: August 11, 2017, 11:29:45 PM »
Your first point is already a blatant lie. I said there was evidence supporting the Big Bang Theory, not proof.

The rest of your post doesn't make sense either. You're telling me the further I distance myself from the North Pole, the colder it gets? And that I will ultimately be unable to proceed further because at some point the environment will reach a temperature of 0K and that will make time stop? Come on.

Then you just threw some big blue formula at me with no further explanation at all. Oh wait, it's not even a formula - it's some kind of fraction. I know stuff about physics, but I'm not an expert and frankly, if you're not even telling me what the product of that fraction is, you'll have to help me out a bit.

You say an aircraft travelling in the Southern Hemisphere is evidence for a magical time gradient. Well, it's not, because there's a much simpler explanation. The Earth is a globe.

I could just as well assert that the Earth is actually donut-shaped. "Now, donuts have a big hole in the middle - yet you will notice that there is no such hole here on Earth! The explanation? Well, the hole is actually filled with weird "Dark Waves" that mysteriously turn to matter when observed. The fact that we can see no donut hole on Earth obviously proves this!"

It's called circular reasoning. You have an idea (The earth is flat / a donut) with a problem (distances on the Southern Hemiplane not working out in your Flat model / a donut-shaped Earth would have a huge hole), you propose an explanation (the distances are bigger in accordance to your model, but there's the weird time slowing stuff that compensates for it / the bullshit about the dark waves filling the hole when observed), and proceed to use your problem as evidence for the explanation, instead of questioning the original idea like you should.

17
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Both the Ice Wall and Bipolar maps are wrong, why don't you think of new models?
« on: August 11, 2017, 11:04:41 PM »

The magnetic field lines in that model looks like a bar magnet

N is over the North Pole, and S is over the South Pole (It was discovered that the North Pole is technically the South Pole, but that is unimportant). Wherever you are, the compass will align with the field lines. The needle will always point towards the North Pole in the North and it will always point towards the South Pole in the South.
Excuse me, but do you even know how a compass works? The needle doesn't simply point to the nearest magnetic pole. The needle is actually magnetized itself (Proof), so the pointy end (most often red) will ALWAYS point north, unless you're too close to another magnet or are actually standing ON TOP OF one of Earth's magnetic poles. This is an observed fact.

What's true is that in the Southern Hemiplane, the bottom end of the needle would point towards the South Pole due to being magnetically attracted. The front part of the needle wouldn't point to the North Pole, though. This is contradictory to what is actually observed.

Also, it still doesn't solve the problem that there is an area to the south of the South Pole and north of the North Pole. Look at the field lines at the very tips of your bar magnet and imagine a magnetized compass needle a few inches to the right and above the bar magnet's North Pole. Now ask yourself, where would it point? And is this what is observed in our world?

Basically, in your model the s-pole of your compass needle will point north in the Northern Hemiplane, but the other side would at the same time not necessarily point south. This basically renders your compass useless for anything but locating the poles, and that is assuming you know which Hemiplane you are in.

18
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Both the Ice Wall and Bipolar maps are wrong, why don't you think of new models?
« on: August 11, 2017, 10:47:21 PM »
And i've just stumbled upon a video about moon having an overlay of earth's true map... Just imagine if this is true, and if the real map is floating in the sky on the face of the moon, and nobody from flat earthers pays attention to it. Yet we're not even questioning the flat earth map for its flaws.
What the bloody hell is that guy even talking about? Moon doesn't reflect Earth like a mirror - neither in RE, nor in FE theory. This "map" is just the Moon's natural rock formations. You can actually verify this yourself with a telescope.

I just noticed the video's category is Comedy. Explains a lot, doesn't it?

19
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about World's End?
« on: August 11, 2017, 10:33:18 PM »
Yes, I, too, noticed the parallels to relativity. But there is absolutely no reason it should occur here. Just because you are at a greater distance from the center you don't miraculously accelerate close to the speed of light (which would result in a distortion of time similar to what you described). There is not the tiniest bit of evidence to support that this is the case.

(On another note, it's still impossible to make time stop completely. As I said, the only way to accomplish slowing time by means of relativity is moving with a velocity close to c. Time will move slower, but it still won't stand still, because that is only the case when moving not close to, but at the speed of light - which is impossible for anything that has mass afaik.

That means, even if there was a magical border zone where time slowed, since time can't stand still for you, you would have no problem moving forward, since a point where "t=0", as you put it, cannot exist.)

I put all this in brackets because it is irrelevant - time doesn't slow at all under anything but extremely high speeds (0.1c), and relativity clearly does not apply in this case. If you want to assert that there is a zone on Earth where time for some reason flows much, much slower than elsewhere, the burden of proof is entirely on you.

20
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 11, 2017, 06:20:00 PM »
Tom Bishop, now this is just ridiculous.

You. Used. Those. Numbers. For Your Own. Damn. PROOF

I was assuming that the OP had honestly looked into the matter to produce a legitimate source. It appears that he has not. We do not know how that distance figure is generated.
Of course he has. Didn't you read his posts? Half of his proof consisted of making sure the distance figures were all right. He put more effort into producing a legitimate source than any FE-supporter I have ever seen.

You literally get people pulling stories out of their arse about how the moon is a dormant cold sun that symbolizes yang, and you people say it's an interesting idea worth looking into. Then some RE-supporter comes around with a proof derived from sound sources that follows sound logic and sound, universally accepted science and math, and you suddenly have the audacity to assert that his carefully researched numbers, which were good enough for you mere hours ago when you made a futile and pathetic attempt to prove your own theory, do not accurately represent the distances they should.

Well, maybe those discussions would be easier if you actually got things done with your FE theory. You're not even able to make a map - actually you can't even devise a mere model for how your hypothetical map might look that works in accordance with observed phenomena. What distances is he going to use? He already did great work by not just googling the distances, but actually cross-checking with flight times from airlines. If you can come up with a better way to determine the distances in question so you'll finally be happy with them, please enlighten us. Sadly we can't use a Flat Earth Map because - hey, did I mention you still fail to come up with a map of your own?

It's like for some reason you think you know the Earth is flat, but apart from that you really have no idea at all about how it might look. Of course it's not easy to argue about something you consciously refuse to even sufficiently define. God, the hypocrisy.

Pages: [1] 2  Next >