Explain this to me
« on: July 27, 2017, 03:22:50 AM »
So I was going through the wiki on your page and found it very interesting and informative.

At one point, I ran across the section on day&night and was impressed by the animated diagram illustrating how the sun and moon might travel around the rim of the world, thus creating day and night.

But then I noticed something odd and unexpected. My mouse-cursor (in the shape of a finger) happened to be resting close to the center of the image, and I noticed that as the sun and moon swirled around, darkness never ever touched that part my mouse happened to be on.

There are no points on earth that literally never experience night, nor for whom day and night have equal length year round. How can we explain this rationally?

*

Online junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5457
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: Explain this to me
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2017, 03:43:07 AM »
It can be rationally explained in that it's a rough approximation.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1057
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: Explain this to me
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2017, 07:38:09 AM »

Which to call a lame excuse is to be kind.

With all the resources available on the internet (flight times, myriad maps, other people in different time zones to question) Surely it would be possible to construct something that works, especially as we have people here that are quite happy to set themselves as intellectually above the likes of Newton, Hawkins and Einstein.
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

No one infers a god from the simple, from the known, from what is understood, but from the complex, the unknown, and the incomprehensible. Our ignorance is God; what we know is science. Robert Green Ingersoll

Re: Explain this to me
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2017, 08:57:31 AM »
It can be rationally explained in that it's a rough approximation.

Just as assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, assertions made using "rough approximations" as evidence can be dismissed with rough approximations.

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5820
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Explain this to me
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2017, 10:53:08 AM »
This is addressed directly next to the animation in question. I'm surprised you didn't find out. The Sun's orbit changes with season. The animation focuses on Spring, roughly speaking.
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

*

Online junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5457
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: Explain this to me
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2017, 03:48:40 PM »
It can be rationally explained in that it's a rough approximation.

Just as assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, assertions made using "rough approximations" as evidence can be dismissed with rough approximations.

Was there a point you were trying to make here? Nothing you said runs counter to my reply. Of course it can be dismissed if that is what you prefer. So, thanks for pointing out the obvious I guess.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

Re: Explain this to me
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2017, 04:39:38 PM »
It can be rationally explained in that it's a rough approximation.

Just as assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, assertions made using "rough approximations" as evidence can be dismissed with rough approximations.

Was there a point you were trying to make here? Nothing you said runs counter to my reply. Of course it can be dismissed if that is what you prefer. So, thanks for pointing out the obvious I guess.

Most of FEC is "rough approximation". Your claims seem to fall into three categories: 1) Smallest category: Testable claims about a FE, that are tested, rebutted, but the evidence dismissed or just ignored. 2) There's a massive global conspiracy covering up FE - which renders a huge chunk of FEC immune from disproof. 3) And the biggest bucket: Untestable FE claims involving "rough approximations" - which by definition, are conveniently immune from disproof. Such as, what does the planet we live on - just the parts we can readily travel to - even vaguely look like.

But that would also be stating the obvious, are not new criticisms, and you've already responded with trite, pedantic, non-discussion-oriented responses before ad-nauseum. ::)

Move along, nothing to see here.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2017, 04:41:18 PM by JoeTheToe »

*

Online junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5457
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: Explain this to me
« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2017, 04:55:11 PM »
Most of FEC is "rough approximation". Your claims seem to fall into three categories: 1) Smallest category: Testable claims about a FE, that are tested, rebutted, but the evidence dismissed or just ignored. 2) There's a massive global conspiracy covering up FE - which renders a huge chunk of FEC immune from disproof. 3) And the biggest bucket: Untestable FE claims involving "rough approximations" - which by definition, are conveniently immune from disproof. Such as, what does the planet we live on - just the parts we can readily travel to - even vaguely look like.
Which claims of mine fall under these categories? And please try to stay on topic, you have a tendency to bounce around to other topics on a whim (thereby derailing threads).


But that would also be stating the obvious, are not new criticisms, and you've already responded with trite, pedantic, non-discussion-oriented responses before ad-nauseum. ::)
Oddly enough, my posts tend to relate to the topic, whereas you repeatedly derail threads with off-topic posts (what you were warned to refrain from doing). I would also suggest you look up the term ad nauseam because it is obvious you do not know what it means or how to apply it in discussion.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

Re: Explain this to me
« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2017, 05:10:06 PM »
Most of FEC is "rough approximation". Your claims seem to fall into three categories: 1) Smallest category: Testable claims about a FE, that are tested, rebutted, but the evidence dismissed or just ignored. 2) There's a massive global conspiracy covering up FE - which renders a huge chunk of FEC immune from disproof. 3) And the biggest bucket: Untestable FE claims involving "rough approximations" - which by definition, are conveniently immune from disproof. Such as, what does the planet we live on - just the parts we can readily travel to - even vaguely look like.
Which claims of mine fall under these categories? And please try to stay on topic, you have a tendency to bounce around to other topics on a whim (thereby derailing threads).
The only thing I've seen you reply with, are trivial pedantic arguments, and responses like, "WRONG".

Quote
But that would also be stating the obvious, are not new criticisms, and you've already responded with trite, pedantic, non-discussion-oriented responses before ad-nauseum. ::)
Oddly enough, my posts tend to relate to the topic, whereas you repeatedly derail threads with off-topic posts (what you were warned to refrain from doing). I would also suggest you look up the term ad nauseam because it is obvious you do not know what it means or how to apply it in discussion.

That's funny, because I think ad nauseam means what you don't think it means. Perhaps you should look it up? Pro-tip: Try substituting the the phrase with a literal english translation, and see if the sentence still works. (Hint: It does.)

But nice catch on the spelling error!

Re: Explain this to me
« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2017, 09:06:40 PM »
This is addressed directly next to the animation in question. I'm surprised you didn't find out. The Sun's orbit changes with season. The animation focuses on Spring, roughly speaking.

Right, I get that, yet at no point during the spring on any point on earth is it the case that the sun literally does not set, at least not for more than exactly one day (Midnight Sun)

But by the model I'm seeing there, the sun would drift closer in during the summer months and farther out during the winter, yet that would leave weeks or even months in which parts of the world were in total darkness or total sunlight. Like, when the sun is at it's tightest circle (and I don't fully understand what makes the sun or moon move at all in these models, but more on that later) then the central pole would have 24 hour light for weeks and weeks and weeks as it gradually drifted back out, then the pole would be in total darkness for weeks and weeks and weeks.

Like, we literally know that just doesn't happen. It's something people can witness and confirm or deny year-round, and all deny it happening. Are we to assume they're all brought in on the conspiracy? How do the conspirators know exactly which people have witnessed the truth?

I feel like for all the conjecture in this movement, there seem to be few if any first-hand witnesses to the undeniable phenomena that some would have seen as a result of a flat earth.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Explain this to me
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2017, 11:07:42 PM »
This is addressed directly next to the animation in question. I'm surprised you didn't find out. The Sun's orbit changes with season. The animation focuses on Spring, roughly speaking.

Can you explain how and why the sun drifts by season?
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

I do not have the bandwidth to maintain a conversation with you.

Offline Stu

  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Explain this to me
« Reply #11 on: July 28, 2017, 03:04:23 AM »
Most of FEC is "rough approximation". Your claims seem to fall into three categories: 1) Smallest category: Testable claims about a FE, that are tested, rebutted, but the evidence dismissed or just ignored. 2) There's a massive global conspiracy covering up FE - which renders a huge chunk of FEC immune from disproof. 3) And the biggest bucket: Untestable FE claims involving "rough approximations" - which by definition, are conveniently immune from disproof. Such as, what does the planet we live on - just the parts we can readily travel to - even vaguely look like.
Which claims of mine fall under these categories?
...

I believe the part where you said,

It can be rationally explained in that it's a rough approximation.

in response to

...I noticed that as the sun and moon swirled around, darkness never ever touched that part my mouse happened to be on...There are no points on earth that literally never experience night, nor for whom day and night have equal length year round. How can we explain this rationally?

*

Online junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5457
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: Explain this to me
« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2017, 02:36:11 PM »
Most of FEC is "rough approximation". Your claims seem to fall into three categories: 1) Smallest category: Testable claims about a FE, that are tested, rebutted, but the evidence dismissed or just ignored. 2) There's a massive global conspiracy covering up FE - which renders a huge chunk of FEC immune from disproof. 3) And the biggest bucket: Untestable FE claims involving "rough approximations" - which by definition, are conveniently immune from disproof. Such as, what does the planet we live on - just the parts we can readily travel to - even vaguely look like.
Which claims of mine fall under these categories?
...

I believe the part where you said,

It can be rationally explained in that it's a rough approximation.

in response to

...I noticed that as the sun and moon swirled around, darkness never ever touched that part my mouse happened to be on...There are no points on earth that literally never experience night, nor for whom day and night have equal length year round. How can we explain this rationally?


3) And the biggest bucket: Untestable FE claims involving "rough approximations"

I must be missing something. I can't find where I claimed that my assertion of a "rough approximation" is "untestable." It is almost like JoeTheToe made up some category on his own, which my claim still didn't fall under. Did you actually read the thread before posting?
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: Explain this to me
« Reply #13 on: July 29, 2017, 08:06:57 PM »
So I was going through the wiki on your page and found it very interesting and informative.

At one point, I ran across the section on day&night and was impressed by the animated diagram illustrating how the sun and moon might travel around the rim of the world, thus creating day and night.

But then I noticed something odd and unexpected. My mouse-cursor (in the shape of a finger) happened to be resting close to the center of the image, and I noticed that as the sun and moon swirled around, darkness never ever touched that part my mouse happened to be on.

There are no points on earth that literally never experience night, nor for whom day and night have equal length year round. How can we explain this rationally?

The problem with the "flashlight sun" concept espoused on the Wiki is at least two-fold:

1) Given any of the FET maps that we've seen, it cannot be a circular "beam" because it has to illuminate an entire semi-circular region of the flat earth...SEMI-circular...not "circular".  A circular beam can't illuminate enough around the equator while simultaneously illuminating everywhere from the ice wall to the north pole.

2) With most of the saner versions of FET, (including the version on the Wiki) the phases of the moon are claimed to be due to the light from the Sun...just as in Round Earth theory - but for that to happen, the sun has to also shine onto the moon when it's completely over the far edge of the flat Earth.   If it shines a beam downwards, there is just no way for it to also light up the moon as claimed.

There are other versions of FET that explain the phases of the moon in other ways (it's a hologram, it's lit by it's own light, it's covered with tiny luminious animals like fireflies that migrate across it's surface on a monthly cycle!) - but fortunately, I don't see any proponents of those ideas here!

Offline Smokified

  • *
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Explain this to me
« Reply #14 on: August 03, 2017, 02:36:14 AM »
It can be rationally explained in that it's a rough approximation.

Why would you rely on a rough approximation when all of the real existing information explains this perfectly?

Offline Smokified

  • *
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Explain this to me
« Reply #15 on: August 03, 2017, 02:43:09 AM »
I must be missing something. I can't find where I claimed that my assertion of a "rough approximation" is "untestable." It is almost like JoeTheToe made up some category on his own, which my claim still didn't fall under. Did you actually read the thread before posting?

If it can be tested, it can be either proven or disproven through said testing.  There is no need for approximation...unless of course you need to find some excuse to contradict the clearly obvious test results.

*

Online junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5457
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: Explain this to me
« Reply #16 on: August 06, 2017, 05:39:14 AM »
I must be missing something. I can't find where I claimed that my assertion of a "rough approximation" is "untestable." It is almost like JoeTheToe made up some category on his own, which my claim still didn't fall under. Did you actually read the thread before posting?

If it can be tested, it can be either proven or disproven through said testing.  There is no need for approximation...unless of course you need to find some excuse to contradict the clearly obvious test results.

Have you actually read the thread? You seem confused.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.