41

Flat Earth Theory / What we can agree on.

« on: July 29, 2017, 05:40:19 AM »

I'd like to attempt to reset the debate.  I have not been involved in the clash of ideology between Flat Earth and Round Earth proponents for very long.  Frankly because I had never realized it was even a thing.
So rather than focus on what we disagree on, let's attempt to compile things we can agree on.
On the wiki, The Bishop Experiment used Google earth to measure the distance between Monterey and Santa Cruz.

Let's begin from there and try and agree on distances between locations?

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle

« on: July 29, 2017, 04:20:43 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?

I had a Rand McNally map that worked well for getting me places in the past. I didn't measure the distances and elevations to confirm, but I don't mind assuming they are reasonably accurate.

Awesome.  I went to their site.  Their stuff looks pretty cool, except the free direction map doesn't even have scale.  I'm gonna start a new thread with an idea, because of this.  Please look for it and let me know what you think. 

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle

« on: July 29, 2017, 12:33:11 AM »

Honestly, I think we should chalk this up as a Global victory.  After looking at that other ridiculous map and destroying it every which way from Sunday Shazam!  There are 2 magnetic poles and 2 celestial poles.     Antarctica is a freaking continent again?  Baby steps....

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset

« on: July 29, 2017, 12:22:46 AM »

You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?

So why, then, should we accept the sun calculators as unquestionable? Claims were made in this thread, and they need to be supported with evidence. The creator of this thread is maintaining that he has posted "facts" with his sun calculator predictions and that everyone reading should accept it without question. If you guys predict that the sun will appear at a particular spot at a certain date and location, then we expect that you will be able to support your prediction. It is not automatically true.

I for one, would absolutely love to see your map.  I however would just say it’s fake.  I would attempt to verify if stands up to measured distances and so on.  Do you guys seriously not even have a map?
I did call the original sunrise time’s facts.  So what?  I immediately offered multiple other options, anything you could agree to just to get to the simple… wait for it…. Fact that the sun rises in the east.  Dun dun dunnnnnnnn!!!!!!
Just out of curiosity, how many times does a utterly simple calculator have to predict the sunrise and sunset (not to mention you can set it to times in the past) before it’s excepted?  Why haven’t you made one based on your theories yet?  Give the formula and I program it for you.

The sun predictions need to be affirmed with actual observations. We have asked for these sun observations on many occasions throughout the years, and after a lot of searching, the Round Earth proponents come up empty again and again, all while still maintaining their vague references that the plethora of data is out there, which they somehow cannot seem to find. It is getting to be quite pathetic.

You can keep saying it and it doesn't change anything.  How can you be so obtuse?  Let's quote YOUR wiki, shall we?

"To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.

That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude."

Just keep reading that until it sinks in or go delete it or prove it wrong.


Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude

The sun being over the equator in the Flat Earth model isn't "impossible". I don't see what point you are making there.

Clearly....  You are the most clear example of Dunning–Kruger I've ever seen.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you act this way as some form of trolling, but that's not the case......Dam......

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset

« on: July 28, 2017, 04:53:44 AM »

You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?

So why, then, should we accept the sun calculators as unquestionable? Claims were made in this thread, and they need to be supported with evidence. The creator of this thread is maintaining that he has posted "facts" with his sun calculator predictions and that everyone reading should accept it without question. If you guys predict that the sun will appear at a particular spot at a certain date and location, then we expect that you will be able to support your prediction. It is not automatically true.

I for one, would absolutely love to see your map.  I however would just say it’s fake.  I would attempt to verify if stands up to measured distances and so on.  Do you guys seriously not even have a map?
I did call the original sunrise time’s facts.  So what?  I immediately offered multiple other options, anything you could agree to just to get to the simple… wait for it…. Fact that the sun rises in the east.  Dun dun dunnnnnnnn!!!!!!
Just out of curiosity, how many times does a utterly simple calculator have to predict the sunrise and sunset (not to mention you can set it to times in the past) before it’s excepted?  Why haven’t you made one based on your theories yet?  Give the formula and I program it for you.

The sun predictions need to be affirmed with actual observations. We have asked for these sun observations on many occasions throughout the years, and after a lot of searching, the Round Earth proponents come up empty again and again, all while still maintaining their vague references that the plethora of data is out there, which they somehow cannot seem to find. It is getting to be quite pathetic.

Here's a direct link to some data supporting the fact the sun will be on the equator on the equinox.  https://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude
I hope your ok with the source?  Many people on this very forum hold it in the highest regard.

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle

« 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?

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle

« 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?

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset

« on: July 27, 2017, 06:47:54 PM »

You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?

So why, then, should we accept the sun calculators as unquestionable? Claims were made in this thread, and they need to be supported with evidence. The creator of this thread is maintaining that he has posted "facts" with his sun calculator predictions and that everyone reading should accept it without question. If you guys predict that the sun will appear at a particular spot at a certain date and location, then we expect that you will be able to support your prediction. It is not automatically true.

I for one, would absolutely love to see your map.  I however would just say it’s fake.  I would attempt to verify if stands up to measured distances and so on.  Do you guys seriously not even have a map?
I did call the original sunrise time’s facts.  So what?  I immediately offered multiple other options, anything you could agree to just to get to the simple… wait for it…. Fact that the sun rises in the east.  Dun dun dunnnnnnnn!!!!!!
Just out of curiosity, how many times does a utterly simple calculator have to predict the sunrise and sunset (not to mention you can set it to times in the past) before it’s excepted?  Why haven’t you made one based on your theories yet?  Give the formula and I program it for you.

The sun predictions need to be affirmed with actual observations. We have asked for these sun observations on many occasions throughout the years, and after a lot of searching, the Round Earth proponents come up empty again and again, all while still maintaining their vague references that the plethora of data is out there, which they somehow cannot seem to find. It is getting to be quite pathetic.

You can keep saying it and it doesn't change anything.  How can you be so obtuse?  Let's quote YOUR wiki, shall we?

"To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.

That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude."

Just keep reading that until it sinks in or go delete it or prove it wrong.


Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset

« on: July 27, 2017, 03:16:49 AM »

It sounds unnecessarily dodgy to me?  If you think those predictions are false, just say so?  If you except them, then we can move on.  I guess I was assuming what time it is around the world was excepted along with our ability to know those times going forward at least a few months.

How about this:
On either equinox, at the equator, when the sun rises, it will be almost directly east of the observer.

Can you get on board with that?  Anyone?

I don't know where the sun will be on the equinox at the equator. We need an actual observation, not a theoretical calculation. There is a complete lack of any effort on your part to provide real actual data. A theoretical calculation starts off as being false. Only once it is affirmed is it true.

You may wish to check the wiki!!!!!
http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude
I gotta say, that is rich. 

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset

« on: July 27, 2017, 01:54:44 AM »

I would attempt to verify if stands up to measured distances and so on.

How would you go about doing that?

Very glad you asked.  Nice to meet you.
Assuming it would be something resembling an azimuthal equidistant projection?
Just use lat and long to figure out how far 2 places south of the equator should be away from each other and see if they are.  Unfortunately an explanation of why the sun isn't where said azimuthal equidistant projection map would seem to imply it should be, was not forthcoming.  That seems the easiest thing to check without having to go anywhere but outside, albeit very early.

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset

« on: July 27, 2017, 01:37:36 AM »

You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?

So why, then, should we accept the sun calculators as unquestionable? Claims were made in this thread, and they need to be supported with evidence. The creator of this thread is maintaining that he has posted "facts" with his sun calculator predictions and that everyone reading should accept it without question. If you guys predict that the sun will appear at a particular spot at a certain date and location, then we expect that you will be able to support your prediction. It is not automatically true.

I for one, would absolutely love to see your map.  I however would (edit - that should be wouldn't - bad error, sorry) just say it’s fake.  I would attempt to verify if stands up to measured distances and so on.  Do you guys seriously not even have a map?
I did call the original sunrise time’s facts.  So what?  I immediately offered multiple other options, anything you could agree to just to get to the simple… wait for it…. Fact that the sun rises in the east.  Dun dun dunnnnnnnn!!!!!!
Just out of curiosity, how many times does a utterly simple calculator have to predict the sunrise and sunset (not to mention you can set it to times in the past) before it’s excepted?  Why haven’t you made one based on your theories yet?  Give the formula and I program it for you. 

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset

« on: July 27, 2017, 01:01:00 AM »

What you posted is not a "fact". A position from a sun calculator is not a "fact". That's called a prediction. There are no factual observations involved there. How old are you?

Hence the offer to let you pick the day or pick a day that already happened or pick no day and just go with what everyone knows, the sun rises in the east.
I'd tell you my birthday, but then you have to use a calculator to find out how old I am.

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset

« on: July 27, 2017, 12:54:50 AM »

You will not get a response unless you have something meaningful to contribute. Stop whining and provide evidence for the topic being discussed.

Yes we will.

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset

« on: July 26, 2017, 07:04:55 PM »

This is how this thread went down.


Me:  Do you agree 2=2 and 3=3 (unless something is added)
TB:  No, 2=2 and 3=3 only when nothing has been added to them.
Me:  So 2+3=5  Any issue with any of these facts?
TB:  Yes, I have an issue with using a calculator for theoretical observations rather than actual observations.
Me:  So you don't agree?  We can use different numbers?  Would you like to pick the numbers?
TB:  If you want to add 2 and 3 go ahead.  We only add our own numbers.
Me:  If you disagree just say so or agree and we can move on?  How about 1+1=2?  Can you get on board with that?
TB:  I don't know if 1+1=2. We need an actual observation, not a theoretical calculation. There is a complete lack of any effort on your part to provide real actual data. A theoretical calculation starts off as being false. Only once it is affirmed is it true.
Me and Others:  WTF?  We put in the only effort?  You don't except anything?  What do you want?
TB:  Spanish explorers know about numbers!  Where's the evidence!?
Me and Others:  We will get a camera and live stream people taking 2 apples and putting them with 3 apples and show you it's 5 apples, or anything YOU want.
TB:  I see by the lengthy attempt at avoidance that you still have no evidence to present, only assertions that if you were to post such evidence that it will not be believed.
Me and Others:  You can literally just add it on your hand!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TB:  When you guys have any sort of evidence you can send me a PM. I am tired of responding to excuses and attempts at avoidence. <-(His misspelling not mine)

Is he at least not American?  Please, at least that.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset

« on: July 26, 2017, 05:41:38 PM »

"Peer review"? Since when has anything FE been peer reviewed? Please, do show me the peer-reviewed FE science. (And when you say Rowbotham, do explain how his flowery, random unfounded assertions-filled rantings about steam holding up the oceans and whatnot, were ever "peer-reviewed".) I thought you guys were anti-peer-review? What with your "sacred text", and massive global scientific conspiracy theory.

Perhaps you missed the journal Earth Not a Globe Review which ran for over 75 issues of 200 to 400 pages each.

So it seems that Mr Bishop will accept the dusty old writings of some explorer in the 16th century - but will not accept any modern information.   This is a very strange position to assume.

I see by the lengthy attempt at avoidance that you still have no evidence to present, only assertions that if you were to post such evidence that it will not be believed. If all of this evidence in favor of the Round Earth Theory is so plentiful and readily available, as we are constantly told, why not simply post it here rather than arguing that it is a waste of your time and that we should go out searching for it?

"I see by the lengthy attempt at avoidance that you still have no evidence to present, only assertions that if you were to post such evidence that it will not be believed."

I posted exactly when and when the sun will rise on a date, YOU didn't believe it.  I offered:
1.  Do you think the sun isn't going to be in these positions in September?  YOU didn't answer.
2.  We can move to 9/21/2016?  YOU Ignored
3.  Picking a time in the near future would allow the possibility of verifying the predictions would it not?  YOU don't want to verify, because IT WILL BE THERE.
4.  Would you like to pick the locations/dates/times?  YOU Ignored

YOU are the one avoiding questions.
YOU don't post evidence, you say read something someone else wrote.
YOU don't even know when the sun rises.  "I don't know where the sun will be on the equinox at the equator."  Why wouldn't YOU want to find out???  How can you proclaim the Earth is flat if you don't even know that? 

WHEN it rises at 6:04AM in Quito, Ecuador, on 9/21/2017 and it's 12:04PM in Makokou, Ogooue-Ivindo, Gabon 9/21/2017 YOUR map and ALL of this NONSENSE will be proved wrong.  Just like every other equinox that has ever been and ever will be.  Just like when the sun rises every single day and isn't in the place it should on your map.  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?

But don't YOU check and don't YOU answer, no, tell me to read the wiki.  Or how about an ad hominem attack?  Yeah, that will do.  That way you can say you don't believe anything you haven't seen and YOU can never bother to see anything at all.

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gleason Map

« on: July 25, 2017, 09:37:21 PM »

Quick Q re Gleason's Map: If, for example, a ship sailed out from the east coast of Africa and headed on 'straight right' correcting to cut across line of latitude and longitude in a 'south easterly' the ship should in theory reach the ice wall that encloses the oceans. This could be repeated from any other position. This would prove flat earth, that all lines of longitude south do not lead to the Antarctic  and that early Antarctic explorers were not merely navigating around a large iced landmass bigger than the whole European/Asia continent.  If this is so, why hasn't anyone tried it?

For reference, to use forum terminology, I am a REer challenged by a FE friend to make reasonable and objective enquiries. As the Gleason map was offered as an example, I have thus raised it here.

I think one of the easiest ways to show the FE map doesn't work is just to walk outside at sunrise.  Use a compass to see what direction you see the sun.  Find out where on the Earth it is 12 noon at the same time as your sunrise.  Now look at the FE map and put a tack in both places.  If at your sunrise the sun is right above the 12 noon location, do the compass readings make any sense?  They can't, because on a FE map the sun is only in the right place if it's above you.  The closer to the equator and an equinox the easier it is to see without using more precise gear, but even without a compass you can just draw a line straight east on a FE map and see if the sun is going around in a circle it isn't going to hit that line.  Simple in your living room with a pizza and a toothpick visual.

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset

« on: July 25, 2017, 09:12:25 PM »

This website is probably the most fun anybody could have on the internet.

Logic is used by both sides of the coin here, but ultimately, the argument you guys are having has nothing to do with logic.

All round earthers, arguing the case on this website, are attracted by the irrational desire to alleviate another's ignorance or the desire to prove their point and expose others as frauds.

The vast majority of flat earthers that have made an account on this website will NEVER accept any evidence contrary to their assertion. If there was a space elevator, leading to an orbital ring, and you were to hold a flat earther's hand all the way up and around the two structures, their imagination would simply conceive a version of events that would allow them to witness the events where trickery was afoot.

The rest of the flat earthers are too far gone, and are actually insane.

Let's not kid ourselves here, we're all trolls. Some of you are trolling flat earthers and some of you are trolling round earthers. I, for one, am planning on trolling both sides.

Back to NOAA and NASA!

"All round earthers, arguing the case on this website, are attracted by the irrational desire to alleviate another's ignorance"  Maybe that's me.  I like debating as well.  This issue is like the greatest topic ever, but only in the sense it should be (IS, IT IS EASY) to get to the bottom of.  I was trying to find out if people are actually serious, or just haven't been told in a way they could follow, or are ill or what.  The immediate elusiveness to just answering a simple question and not agreeing to anything no matter what tells me a lot though.  It sure looks like deceit to me.  I don't answer questions like that on topis I believe in, or any other for that matter.  Now to be fair, it was only one guy, but I assume from his title he's a high muckety muck?
If people can't be talked down from this ledge, why bother trying to convince anyone of anything?  I guess it doesn't matter, hopefully they teach their kids this stuff, my kids will be at the top of the CURVE.     That was a beauty.

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset

« on: July 25, 2017, 08:53:02 PM »

It sounds unnecessarily dodgy to me?  If you think those predictions are false, just say so?  If you except them, then we can move on.  I guess I was assuming what time it is around the world was excepted along with our ability to know those times going forward at least a few months.

How about this:
On either equinox, at the equator, when the sun rises, it will be almost directly east of the observer.

Can you get on board with that?  Anyone?

I don't know where the sun will be on the equinox at the equator. We need an actual observation, not a theoretical calculation. There is a complete lack of any effort on your part to provide real actual data. A theoretical calculation starts off as being false. Only once it is affirmed is it true.

Lack of effort?  I found a city, on the equator, that was in a location so that when the sun was rising there, I could find another city where it would be high noon.  I  found out what time that would happen on a date that will put the sun east.  You dismiss that with one sentence.  Cause you don't like calculators.  Ok, I offer to let you pick any location, time and date.  But you can't be bothered with that.  So you don't like my time/date/location, won't pick your own.  Can't agree the freaking sun rises in the east, seriously wtf?  Why are you even in the debate section?  Are you supposed to be the grand poo-bah here?  I just wanted to see if any of the flat earth people could walk point by point through a debate, I guess at least the guy at the top can't or won't.

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gleason Map

« on: July 25, 2017, 08:02:29 PM »

Quick Q re Gleason's Map: If, for example, a ship sailed out from the east coast of Africa and headed on 'straight right' correcting to cut across line of latitude and longitude in a 'south easterly' the ship should in theory reach the ice wall that encloses the oceans. This could be repeated from any other position. This would prove flat earth, that all line of longitude south lead to the Antarctic  and that early Antarctic explorers were not merely navigating around a large iced landmass bigger than the whole European/Asia continent.  If this is so, why hasn't anyone tried it?

For reference, to use forum terminology, I am a REer challenged by a FE friend to make reasonable and objective enquiries. As the Gleason map was offered as an example, I have thus raised it here.

The stock RE response to this map is to look at the Qantas airlines flight schedule from Sydney Australia to Santiago Chile.   On a "gleason" map (the FE map shown in the Wiki) - their 747-400's would have to fly about three times the distance that Qantas say they do - they'd need to fly more than twice the maximum range for a 747-400, and their speed would have to exceed Mach 2...not something a 747 can do!

The ONLY response I've yet had to this from the FE community is that the Jet Stream speeds them along - but (a) the jet stream isn't that fast and (b) how could Qantas ALSO fly back from Santiago to Sydney against this mach 1.5 jet stream headwind?

Sadly, their experts are oddly quiet about this.   There are MANY other airline timetables you can look at online, and without fail, 100% of them agree perfectly on flight times and distances with the round earth - and unsurprisingly, almost none of them agree perfectly with the FE map...except over ridiculously short trips or predominantly North/South flights.

Once you get into the Southern hemisphere - their model of the world simply doesn't work.

Since then though we have an exciting "NEW" map!   It actually shows Antarctica as a separate continent - and has lines of latitude and longitude that make very exciting curves.    Sadly, these are even more insanely wrong...but in different ways and in different places.

This where I really stop understanding them.  I get how someone who never really gave a crap in school or didn't understand what they were hearing would expect the Earth to look rounder than it does and from there they get swept into they whole thing for awhile.  But...  There are many super easy ways to destroy the whole FE concept, like those flights.  So wtf?  What's the deal with the militant cursing variety?  Or the guys competent enough to launch weather balloons with GPS tracking (which is so rich btw)  I would say they are in it for money from you tube videos, but they don't get the hits.  I don't want to insult, but when they just don't answer what should be easy questions it just looks like they know it can't be, but can't let it go.  Which is either dishonest or a disorder right?

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset

« on: July 25, 2017, 06:30:26 PM »

It sounds unnecessarily dodgy to me?  If you think those predictions are false, just say so?  If you except them, then we can move on.  I guess I was assuming what time it is around the world was excepted along with our ability to know those times going forward at least a few months.

How about this:
On either equinox, at the equator, when the sun rises, it will be almost directly east of the observer.

Can you get on board with that?  Anyone?