1

Flat Earth Theory / Eratosthenes - How Shadows Disprove the "Flat Earth Theory"

« on: December 26, 2017, 03:44:44 AM »

This experiment is 3,000 years old. If the Earth were flat, shadows would be the same length if two points are located on the same longitude (I know FE'rs don't like the term 'longitude', but I'm not sure what else they'd like me to use here to get the point across - two places that are located directly South of one another at any distance, perhaps?)
However, this is not the case. A shadow off an obelisk in Alexandria, Egypt during the summer solstice is consistently in a different position than the shadow off an obelisk in Syene, Egypt (located directly South of Alexandria). This is due to the degree of curvature in the Earth between Alexandria and Syene.

Not only does this experiment prove the Earth is round, it also gives us the tools to determine the size of the Earth - 2.9 thousand years before we went to Space for the first time.

"Syene and Alexandria lie, he says, under the same meridian circle. Since meridian circles are great circles in the universe, the circles of the Earth which lie under them are necessarily also great circles. Thus, of whatever size this method shows the circle on the earth passing through Syene and Alexandria to be, this will be the greater size of the great circle of the earth. Now Eratosthenes asserts, and it is the fact, that Syene lies under the summer tropic. Whenever, therefore, the sun, being in Cancer at the summer solstice, is exactly in the middle of the heaven, the gnomons (pointers) of sundials necessarily throw no shadows, the position of the sun above them being exactly vertical; and
it is said that this is true throughout a space three hundred stades in diameter. But in Alexandria, at the same hour, the pointers of sundials throw shadows, because Alexandria lies further to the north than Syene. The two cities lying under the same meridian great circle, if we draw an arc form the extremity of the shadow to the base of the pointer of the sundial in Alexandria, the arc will be a segment of a great circle in the (hemispherical) bowl of the sundial, since the bowl of the sundial lies under the great circle (of the meridian). If we now conceive straight lines produced from each of the pointers through the earth, they will meet at the center of the earth. Since then the sundial at Syene is vertically under the sun, if we conceive a straight line coming from the sun to the top of the pointer of the sundial, the line reaching from the sun to the center of the earth will be on straight line. If we now conceive another straight line drawn upwards from the extremity of the shadow of the pointer of the sundial in Alexandria, through the top of the pointer to the sun, this straight line and the aforesaid straight line will be parallel, since they are straight lines coming through from different parts of the sun to different parts of the earth. On these straight lines, therefore, which are parallel, there falls the straight line drawn from the center of the earth to the pointer at Alexandria and the straight line drawn from the extremity of its shadow to the sun through the point (the top) where it meets the pointer. Now on this latter angle stands the arc carried round from the extremity of the shadow of the pointer to its base, while on the angle at the center of the earth stands the arc reaching from Syene to Alexandria. But the arcs are similar, since they stand on equal angles. Whatever ratio, therefore, the arc in the bowl of the sundial has to its proper circle, the arc reaching from Syene to Alexandria has that ratio to its proper circle. But the arc in the bowl is found to be one-fiftieth of its proper circle.
Therefore the distance from Syene to Alexandria must necessarily be one-fiftieth part of the great circle of the earth. And the said distance is 5000 stades; therefore the complete great circle measures 250,000 stades. Such is Eratosthenes‘ method."




http://www.academia.edu/27928173/How_the_Ancient_Egyptians_had_Calculated_the_Earths_Circumference_between_3750-1500_BC_a_revision_of_the_method_used_by_Eratosthenes

2

Flat Earth Community / Re: POLL: Dear Flat Earthers, what kind of evidence would convince you the earth is round?

« on: September 21, 2017, 04:03:28 PM »

It seems my comment last time this got brought up was ignored. The ""law of perspectives"" is NOT a FET proof because it has been thoroughly debunked (both on this forum and other places online) by professional scientists and amateurs alike.

Even if you could somehow twist your brain into Tom's crazy-perspective view, it fails for another reason.

If it can moosh the center of the sun to the horizon (from 3,000 miles down to zero) - then how come it doesn't also moosh the TOP of the sun to the horizon (from 3,030 miles down to zero)?

What would happen if the alternate perspective idea was true would be that the Sun (and also the moon) would slowly squish down into an ellipse - and then into a horizontal line as we approached sunset.

A few minutes before sunset, you'd see a thin horizontal bright line lowering towards the horizon.

Since this doesn't happen - we can say that the alternate perspective thing doesn't work without having to go to the trouble of debunking it.

Another problem is that if it's an optical effect, it should operate symmetrically in all axes.   So if I stand on my head and look at a sunset then the sun should be higher in the sky...not lower.   If I lay on my side and watch the sunset - it should move closer to my line of sight in a horizontal direction.

This also doesn't happen.

How come the stars - which are at similar distances to the sun don't get denser around the horizon line as they get further away from us?

The proponents of it can't even draw a simple diagram showing how the rays of sunlight travel from the sun to our eyes.

Even if you fully accept it - it cannot explain how clouds get illuminated from below just as the sun is setting.

The video that everyone seems to use (by Mr P-brane) is just ridiculously wrong.  He says "You can't use this 2D diagram to represent the real world" and then within 30 seconds does exactly that!   He double-counts perspective (so it happens twice) and then he fails to notice how near-to-far distances are compressed as well as vertical distances.

Alternative perspective is busted in so many obvious and silly ways...but for some reason, people seem to simply accept it.

I want to add that the fact that FE'rs keep citing this "law" as a "proof" of FET only lends to their discreditation - citing things that are so thoroughly debunked is counterproductive. I'm looking at you, Pete.

Also, on the point RE: everyone's photos of space needing to be fake for FET to be true... this is what's wrong with almost every conspiracy theory ever. The people who think they've been "red-pilled" presume that there are thousands of people conspiring together to keep the truth from getting out. The logistics of doing this are hard enough for the government on minor issues. I can't imagine how difficult it would be to keep everyone quiet about the Earth actually being flat. Furthermore, why would anyone put forth the effort required to organize such a massive conspiracy, especially regarding the shape of the Earth? This is all a paranoid delusion of kids who didn't get enough hugs growing up, IMO.

3

Flat Earth Community / Re: POLL: Dear Flat Earthers, what kind of evidence would convince you the earth is round?

« on: September 21, 2017, 03:23:18 PM »

3DG, as always, you decided to entirely ignore the point of my words and chose to focus on a strawman instead. I suggested the very opposite of "running my life" through these off-hand, quick-check experiments. We have already tried discussing documented experiments with you, and we both know how that ended.

You also presented a ludicrous hypothetical for the Sinking Ship Experiment - the ship is expected to sink under FET - it's one of the strongest proofs that the Earth is flat when combined with restoration through a telescope.

Stop wasting everyone's time.

It seems my comment last time this got brought up was ignored. The ""law of perspectives"" is NOT a FET proof because it has been thoroughly debunked (both on this forum and other places online) by professional scientists and amateurs alike.


"Here is how 3D perspective works in reality.

Each 3D coordinate is mapped into a 2D planar view using the following relationship:

3D [x,y,z] -> 2D [x/z, y/z] (with 0,0 being the center of our view).
You'll notice that this is exactly the same as our previous formula where the apparent size equals the height (x for horizontal and y for vertical here) divided by the distance (z).

That's ALL that perspective is.  Things get smaller with distance.

Let's say we have a distant building (simplified to just one vertical line here) that goes from [0, 0, 100] to [0, 50, 100] (so it's 50 y units tall, at 100 z units distant) and some water in front of it that covers [0,0,50] to [0,20,50] (so the water is closer to us at z = 50 units and only 20 y units high).

These coordinates map to:
[0, 1/2] << top of building (50/100)
[0, 2/5] << top of water, which begins to hide the more distant building
[0, 0] << bottom of water AND bottom of building

Because the water was closer it will occlude the more distant building.

So we see water up to 2/5 and then building up to 1/2 in our projected view.

But if that water is FLAT then it's ALWAYS at [0,0,*] -- every Z distance is 0, so it's ALWAYS at [0,0] along that line of sight. So now we get a mapping of:

[0, 1/2] << top of building (50/100) -- we see the ENTIRE building - just smaller because it's more distant
[0, 0] << water AND bottom of building

What if we move that building to be ten times further, at 1000 z units away?

[0, 1/20] << top of building (50/1000) -- we STILL see the ENTIRE building - just equally smaller because it's more distant
[0, 0] << water AND bottom of building

No matter how far away you move that building, every single foot of the entire building is going to be the same angular size from our view. You will never see only the top of the building and have the bottom missing due to "perspective" smashing it into the ground.

So this means that otherwise parallel lines receding from our view get closer to together but never actually converge and, AT NO POINT, would an object that is above some line of sight be hidden by an object BELOW it.

So if your eye is above the ground and you are looking straight out, the ground could NEVER hide part of a building at any distance.  That would violate the actual Law of Perspective.   If you change the angles then sure, something closer can hide something further away but it has to be IN your line of sight to do so -- it cannot be a plane that lies BELOW your line of sight."

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=14325.0

https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/10/flat-earth-failures-perspective-and.html

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.

« on: September 20, 2017, 08:23:47 PM »

Tom, in order for the Sun to "see" something on the horizon, the horizon would have to rise to its level. This doesn't happen in the real world, it is an illusion created by your brain.

It also happens to video cameras. Do video cameras have brains?

No, but they do have resolutions.

I am so tired of seeing FET push the law of perspectives when it has been so thoroughly (and easily) debunked. Will post this link for the millionth time leading to the OG thread debunking this "law".

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=14325.0

And in video form:

5

Flat Earth Community / Re: POLL: Dear Flat Earthers, what kind of evidence would convince you the earth is round?

« on: September 19, 2017, 05:51:02 PM »

Please refrain from quoting an entire post if you're only going to respond to one sentence of it. It only serves to reduce the readability of your own post.

the """law of perspectives""" is easily debunked using telescopes or binoculars

Indeed, it is trivially easy to confirm or debunk with a powerful telescope. That's why it's such a strong and easy-to-reproduce proof. I would recommend that you try it one day.

That's funny.   3d's threads (with the exception of the Ping) are full of bulletproof logic.    You seem to be a relatively smart guy.  You should do a point by point rebuttal to this one.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6902.0

Hopefully, you can do better than Tom's "Your disproofs are rubbish." response.

Wow, you guys have been busy. I respond to threads when I see them and when I find them interesting. Most of my work takes place outside of the forum. Plus, as you may have noticed, my recent efforts at talking to 3DG have resulted in nothing but him crying about how much of a professional he is.

That, combined with his complete omission of my responses to the ping thread, his complete misrepresentation of my responses to the tides thread, and whole spate of "nobody responded, THEREFORE I WIN " threads really doesn't make me think that this is a productive use of anyone's time.

Clearly, his purpose here is to claim victory regardless of what's actually happening. Wouldn't you agree it's better for me to talk to people who actually want to re-evaluate their views, or who might inspire me to re-evaluate mine?

EDIT: Having looked through the thread, I agree with Tom's response. A fair few of these have already been discussed to death, and in other threads he simply chose to ignore any and all counter-arguments or strawman them into making himself look like the victor. I am now even more confident than before that 3DG deserves nothing but a healthy dose of ridicule.

Tried it Boston harbor weeks ago - obviously debunked the "law of perspectives." It's absolute nonsense.

6

Flat Earth Community / Re: POLL: Dear Flat Earthers, what kind of evidence would convince you the earth is round?

« on: September 19, 2017, 04:25:00 PM »

1) seeing the sun & moon shrink in size as they move away, as your wonderful youtube videos promise

Just a heads-up: this is inconsistent with FET - it should do the opposite of convincing you if it were shown. YouTube videos are generally a bad source for this stuff, unless you really want to get trolled.

For example, if you flew over Antarctica, would that help?

Potentially.

Or if you went to space?

No.

Maybe seeing a ship disappear behind the horizon, bottom portion first?

That's one of the strongest proofs of FET there are - seeing it (as I have many times before) would only strengthen my conviction.

Overall, I would really recommend that you familiarise yourself with FET before trying to argue about it. And not from the likes of 3DGeek, if I may make a gentle suggestion.

Ships going bottom-first over the horizon is NOT a FET proof - the """law of perspectives""" is easily debunked using telescopes or binoculars. This has been brought up in this forum many times before - you either didn't see the disproofs or are willfully ignoring them. I will post a link to the thread in which it is discussed: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=14325.0

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.

« on: September 14, 2017, 04:07:57 PM »

Your disproofs are rubbish. You aren't winning when we stop responding to you. You are not worth responding to because it has already been covered.

Is this seriously your only response to this post? Not a single counterpoint raised? You really must be stumped. Thanks to 3DGeek for compiling this - very impressive list.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Photographic evidence of Earth's curvature.

« on: September 11, 2017, 03:22:02 PM »

The first photo was taken at 39,000 feet by a teenager last year, and clearly shows the curvature of the Earth (which is clearly visible on cloudless days at 35,000 feet) and the second photo shows the hull of a ship disappearing over the horizon, which proves that the Earth is not flat because if the Earth WERE flat the ship would disappear into the distance in its entirety, not from the bottom-up as it does.

Any FE'ers have explanations for these very clear images?

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Cartography and a flat earth

« on: August 30, 2017, 09:14:20 PM »

I guess Tom didn't know what to say

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory

« on: August 29, 2017, 04:05:53 PM »

Put point A on the North Pole (say the upper left corner), point B on Los Angeles, and point C on the South Pole (say the bottom left corner). The Mercator map is wrong in all stations where Los Angeles is not in alignment with points A and C. The idea that we need to change the orientation of the Mercator map to get the angle we want shows that it does not really represent accurate angles

A) The map is not correct outside of the bounds of 82N to 82S, as mentioned in the link I posted.
B) The other angles you are mentioning are definitely still preserved. Just because you don't seem to grasp the fact that one direction is West and the other is East so they'll obviously have different angles, doesn't make them suddenly not work.
C) Yes, you'll need to shift the center point of the map if you want to find, for example, the Westward angle from Cali to Japan. Any non-continuous map will have such issues. I would presume on a ship or somewhere that need it the map would be repeated so you could simply scroll it to the correct spot to find the angle you want.

LMAO same points RE: non-continuous maps made here.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory

« on: August 29, 2017, 04:05:02 PM »

Put point A on the North Pole (say the upper left corner), point B on Los Angeles, and point C on the South Pole (say the bottom left corner). The Mercator map is wrong in all stations where Los Angeles is not in alignment with points A and C. The idea that we need to change the orientation of the Mercator map to get the angle we want shows that it does not really represent accurate angles

You are misconstruing my point - What I am saying is that the "direct" angle from any point to another is dependent on not requiring crossing over the "tear" in the projection. If we were to look at the mercator map but have the POV be one where we are looking directly at Asia instead of into the Atlantic, then it will be easier to find the "direct" angle between your original points A and C. I'm not saying the Mercator model needs changed, just that the POV required to find the best angle changes depending on your point of origin and your destination.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory

« on: August 29, 2017, 03:47:46 PM »

So how do you suggest we figure out a map then? If ship captains can't properly know their location/how far they have traveled, how should they chart their course?

Why are you assuming that it possible to easily know how far you have traveled on the open ocean?

You could use the altitude of the North Star to get a latitude, but you would need to know what latitudes points mean in regards to the total shape of the earth to get a real meaning.

Also, you don't need to know DISTANCE to travel accurately, but you do need to know ANGLES, which is what the Mercator model is all about - a flat earth model would have the same angles on a map as exist on the flat earth plane, which simply isn't how maps have been proven to work.

What makes you think that an angle is preserved on a flat Mercator map when transmuted into a globe?

Because that's the whole reason it was created! It provides the most reliable (but not fastest) route from point A to point B. A straight line on the Mercator results in a "J" shaped path, even though, when using a compass, it appears that you traveled a straight line along an x degree trajectory.

The angles aren't preserved. Look at the Mercator map:



Use the following three points:

A: The lower-most point in the bottom-left corner of the map. (Antarctica).
B: The bottom tip of Africa.
C: The lower-most point in the bottom-right corner of the map. (Antarctica).

Are you seriously going to tell us that this angle will be preserved on a globe?

For navigational purposes, yes it is! When using a compass to travel from point A from above to point C from above, you only have to follow the angle between the two referenced from a Mercator map in order to make it to the location - it may form a "J" on the globe, but the navigational angle is preserved! That's literally the entire reason it was commissioned!

Points A and C are near the same point in my example, the South Pole, according the Mercator map. How could two points near each other at the South Pole have such a wide angle originating from Africa in the Round Earth model?

Angles are most assuredly not preserved.

They absolutely are, and there are hard mathematics behind it - the reason the angles are so "wide" but so close is because you are going to the west for point A and to the east for point C. If you shifted the viewpoint of the Mercator map by a few miles either direction, points A and C would be next to each other, meaning you could just travel either East or West to reach the midpoint between the two - preserving the angles.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory

« on: August 29, 2017, 03:32:32 PM »

So how do you suggest we figure out a map then? If ship captains can't properly know their location/how far they have traveled, how should they chart their course?

Why are you assuming that it possible to easily know how far you have traveled on the open ocean?

You could use the altitude of the North Star to get a latitude, but you would need to know what latitudes points mean in regards to the total shape of the earth to get a real meaning.

Also, you don't need to know DISTANCE to travel accurately, but you do need to know ANGLES, which is what the Mercator model is all about - a flat earth model would have the same angles on a map as exist on the flat earth plane, which simply isn't how maps have been proven to work.

What makes you think that an angle is preserved on a flat Mercator map when transmuted into a globe?

Because that's the whole reason it was created! It provides the most reliable (but not fastest) route from point A to point B. A straight line on the Mercator results in a "J" shaped path, even though, when using a compass, it appears that you traveled a straight line along an x degree trajectory.

The angles aren't preserved. Look at the Mercator map:



Use the following three points:

A: The lower-most point in the bottom-left corner of the map. (Antarctica).
B: The bottom tip of Africa.
C: The lower-most point in the bottom-right corner of the map. (Antarctica).

Are you seriously going to tell us that this angle will be preserved on a globe?

For navigational purposes, yes it is! When using a compass to travel from point A from above to point C from above, you only have to follow the angle between the two referenced from a Mercator map in order to make it to the location - it may form a "J" on the globe, but the navigational angle is preserved! That's literally the entire reason it was commissioned!

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Cartography and a flat earth

« on: August 29, 2017, 03:22:46 PM »

We know how map projections work.

What is your explanation for why they exist? Why would we need projection for mapping if the earth is flat? Wouldn't we be able to just directly transcribe from one plane to another?

Cartographers were raised to believe that the earth is a globe and experiment with different projections to display that mistaken belief.

Using calculated distances would be as you say, "based on Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices".

But using logged flight times is not calculated at all.  It is very simple, historical data.  It isn't based on a compass or a GPS, it isn't round or flat data. It is just how long it takes to get from place to place.

They also need to know the distance between those points in order to compute their average speed.

Airspeed-only instruments are inaccurate and not used in navigation, as it is difficult to measure the speed of fluids traveling within fluids.

He's not using speed at all though. Miles don't enter into the equation. He's going to use the flight times as an impromptu 'unit of measure' for his wires. I would presume something like 1 inch = 1 hour. Distance is removed entirely from the equation, and since one can reasonably assume all planes of the same type fly the same speed, the proportions will all be the same.

On that note JHelzer, make sure you're pulling all flight times from the same airline, preferably doing your best to double check they are all done with the same plane model. I believe Qantas was used before as their entire intercontinental fleet is the same model of plane.

And how do you know how fast the planes fly?

>>> But you said map projections work! The quote is right up there - map projections wouldn't "work" if the earth were flat, because the projection would require no refraction!

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory

« on: August 29, 2017, 03:12:17 PM »

So how do you suggest we figure out a map then? If ship captains can't properly know their location/how far they have traveled, how should they chart their course?

Why are you assuming that it possible to easily know how far you have traveled on the open ocean?

You could use the altitude of the North Star to get a latitude, but you would need to know what latitudes points mean in regards to the total shape of the earth to get a real meaning.

Also, you don't need to know DISTANCE to travel accurately, but you do need to know ANGLES, which is what the Mercator model is all about - a flat earth model would have the same angles on a map as exist on the flat earth plane, which simply isn't how maps have been proven to work.

What makes you think that an angle is preserved on a flat Mercator map when transmuted into a globe?

Because that's the whole reason it was created! It provides the most reliable (but not fastest) route from point A to point B. A straight line on the Mercator results in a "J" shaped path, even though, when using a compass, it appears that you traveled a straight line along an x degree trajectory.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Cartography and a flat earth

« on: August 29, 2017, 03:00:15 PM »

We know how map projections work.

What is your explanation for why they exist? Why would we need projection for mapping if the earth is flat? Wouldn't we be able to just directly transcribe from one plane to another?

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory

« on: August 29, 2017, 02:57:37 PM »

People travel just fine with a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than Africa and Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents put together. What makes you think that travel would not be possible on another model?

Ah - another "Educating Tom" moment!

The reason Mercator projections are used (they are actually DESIGNED for maritime navigation) is that Mercator projections preserve ANGLES at the price of making DISTANCES appear wildly distorted.   If you're navigating by compass and stars - then angles matter very much to you - but distances less so.

FE maps other than Mercator preserve neither angles nor distances - which makes them "wrong" rather than useful.

In fact, it's impossible to make an FE map that correctly preserves both angles and distances as compared to the RE world.

This results in desperate FE proponents having to argue that headings (compass/astronomical/solar) and distances (GPS, airlines, etc) are somehow being mistaken by all of the professional people who rely on them.

So please don't trot out nonsense you don't understand Tom.  You WILL be called on it from now on.

You don't need to know distances when circumnavigating or navigating with the Mercator map. What nonsense.

People travel just fine with a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than Africa and Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents put together. What makes you think that travel would not be possible on another model?

That is because the Mercator map preserves angles and distance at the expense of relative size of landmasses... a well documented fact about the Mercator model.

A ship captain is hardly in the position to know his true distance traveled independently of his Round Earth lat/lon coordinate device.

>>> So how do you suggest we figure out a map then? If ship captains can't properly know their location/how far they have traveled, how should they chart their course?

Also, you don't need to know DISTANCE to travel accurately, but you do need to know ANGLES, which is what the Mercator model is all about - a flat earth model would have the same angles on a map as exist on the flat earth plane, which simply isn't how maps have been proven to work.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory

« on: August 29, 2017, 02:23:21 PM »

People travel just fine with a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than Africa and Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents put together. What makes you think that travel would not be possible on another model?

That is because the Mercator map preserves angles and distance at the expense of relative size of landmasses... a well documented fact about the Mercator model.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Cartography and a flat earth

« on: August 29, 2017, 02:13:40 PM »

We look for directions to get somewhere through the air, sea or by land and using the coordinate system of Latitude/Longitude works very well for getting us to our destination.

You need to verify that the distances are accurate, not that you can travel from coordinate A to coordinate B.

It has worked so reliably that I can do it with a map and compass or a fancy GPS and I will still get to my destination repeatably.  When the distances of the lines of Latitude and Longitude are plotted on a physical piece of media, they naturally curve and bend to form a sphere.  That sphere is the result of generations of empirical testing repeated with ever increasing degrees of sophistication and yet not once has it been wildly off target.

Please show these "generations of empirical testing"

By comparison, the FE community doesn't have even the most rudimentary map that is capable of being used for navigation over long distance in any southern continent.

Incorrect.

The FE model can't explain flights in half of the known world without resorting to an explanation of magic to explain why the FE flights break the rules of physics.  I thought that the Zetetic Method was all about observable testable hypothesis, but I've yet to see anyone from the FE community even remotely consider testing their hypothesis against a null.  Unless the FE model is capable of physically measuring and plotting out the distances of the southern hemisphere accurately

What are you talking about? The monopole model was phased out after the discovery of the South Pole.

So far there is no solid empirical evidence that the earth is flat so I must revert to the null.  That is the scientific method.

Atually the Scientific Method involves experimentation to confirm your hypothesis. You have provided none of your own, and none of others.

That will answer all points raised.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Stop using God as your reasoning for believing in FE. God isn't real.

« on: August 23, 2017, 09:21:17 PM »

You and your fellow followers spend hours wasting your time on this site to prove what?

Your weapons are meaningless, we have the armor of GOD, the shields of the Spirit and breastplates of righteousness. We can't die, were promised eternal life not damnation. Pretty sweet eh?

To prove that you guys are completely duped and that you can't defend your views from even the most base level scrutiny.

Why can't you just answer for the contradiction I mentioned? I wouldn't have to keep commenting if you would just respond.