81

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the flat earth theory explain the moon?

« on: November 28, 2017, 07:01:34 AM »

The Moon is not flat, nor is it round, there is in fact no moon at all. What you're seeing is an incredibly large projection of what you think to be a moon, cast by scientists to try and distract the common populace from the truth of the Earth. Do not be mislead by these other people, have faith in God and put all your trust in the bible, and you will live a life true to yourself. Amen

You don’t really expect us to believe there’s anybody who actually thinks that?  That no modern religious person would overlook the obvious questions: Who were these “scientists” and HOW, exactly, were they casting a projection of the moon while Jesus walked the earth?  Or before that, in the time of King David?  Or all the way back to when the Book of Genesis was written?

Honestly, the Flat Earthers don’t need you coming in here with your false-flag idiotic religious nutball version of what you imagine they believe.

82

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the flat earth theory explain the moon?

« on: November 28, 2017, 01:23:38 AM »

Empirical observation shows that the moon is moving and rotating. Hope this helps 

For example:  The observed phenomenon of nutation is strongly suggestive of non-flatness of the moon.

83

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun Eclipse "Caused & Effects"!

« on: November 27, 2017, 04:18:07 AM »

How do eclipses relate to flat earth theory though? Those explanations seem to be for globes.

Yes, and usually the globe answer is not appropriate for the Q&A forum.  However, in this rare instance the OP specifically asked for it, which made me feel okay to give that answer and the moderators have tolerated it.

84

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Anyone Have Proof

« on: November 27, 2017, 03:43:43 AM »

The Earth is flat because the Lord deemed it so, and no amount of questioning and science can disprove the word of God and the teachings of the Bible.

This is most definitely NOT the accepted position of this website.  Some FE adherents perhaps, but not the typical FE.

This site is for the collaboration of believers, not for the flocking of sheep. Amen

Um, no, it really isn't.
Evidence for my assertion:

• Omission of "The Bible" in the list of Flat Earth Literature (although to be sure, the author of Earth not a Globe does lean heavily into biblical "proof" to support some of his statements)
• The explicit answer to the question "Is flat earth theory connected to a religion?" (TLDR: the answer is NO)

85

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipses/Shortening of Daylight

« on: November 27, 2017, 03:25:20 AM »

That image is not meant to illustrate where the sun and moon are on EVERY day, merely where they are on a PARTICULAR day.  The flat earth belief acknowledges the moon moves different than the sun.

86

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctica Question

« on: November 25, 2017, 01:54:16 AM »

I figured if Antarctica can be disproved, then I figured FET can be more credible....I want to explore Flat Earth Theory more but I seem to be stuck at this point. Am I missing something?

No, I don’t think you’re missing anything.  The existence and the known dimensions of Antarctica are a real problem for the map you’ve included in your post.  One attempted solution is the so-called bi-polar map. 

https://wiki.tfes.org/File:Altmap.png

Of course, that model has even more problems.

87

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 21, 2017, 11:13:11 PM »

This conversation is about straight line paths. The bullet is an allegory to this discussion, obviously.

Sorry, but on a site about flat earth it isn't at all obvious what a participant considers allegory and what a participant claims as fact.

88

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 21, 2017, 12:26:30 AM »

If space is non-euclidean then ALL light rays are curved - including the ones that lead to the tree on the horizon.

Also including the ones used by FE to calculate the height of the sun above the flat earth, as I've pointed out before.  Which means the sun could be at any height.  Which is the same as saying that nobody can know anything about the sun's height, since how would you know how much curvature the light has?

It's much easier to assume the light has NO curvature and see where that takes you.  I seem to recall Tom once saying as much...

89

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: November 19, 2017, 07:21:33 PM »

I'm not the one that flooded the thread with the biggest joke pictures in the world.

Oh goody, J-Child’s mommy gave him/her back his/her internet privileges.

The problem I knew I was facing when I posted those images: that they are not easy for a skeptic to attempt to duplicate.  (Not that J-Child seems likely to try, having rejected them a priori)  The equipment required is not inexpensive, and it requires some effort and planning to be in the right place, at the right time, telescope aimed at the right spot, etc.  Much easier to mock and ridicule.  The strength of those images, however: they come from all over the globe, from people unaffiliated with any of the evil acronyms, and anyone who is honestly seeking the truth CAN duplicate them.  Sure, the required telescope and camera aren’t cheap, but they’re not super expensive either, a couple hundred bucks could set you up.  It’s not like the “lasers off the moon reflector” test, for example, which cannot be done with consumer grade equipment.

90

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 19, 2017, 07:05:39 PM »

Tom, YOU are the one who wants perspective to do something different to the sun and moon than it does for everything else in human experience.  That means YOU have to show that it does.

The rest of us all agree that perspective does TWO things: it makes receding above-ground objects (birds, airplanes, clouds, etc) appear lower in the sky, AND it makes them appear smaller, at the same time and by the same ratio.  You (by your perpetual reference to ENaG) seem to think that for ONLY the sun and moon, perspective can make them appear lower in the sky but preserve their apparent size.  That’s on you to prove. 

“Look at them, they appear to rise and set, the same size as when they’re at zenith, therefore it happens” is not proof.  That’s the same category of “proof” as a magician claiming he ACTUALLY caught between his teeth the bullet ACTUALLY fired from the pistol.  We all know that’s an illusion.  Just like the earth being flat is an illusion, although not a human-devised, attempt-to-deceive illusion.  It’s a matter of sheer size and scale.  On the round earth, we are ever so very slightly closer to the noonday sun then we are to the rising or setting sun, multiples with lots of zeros after the decimal place.  This is not enough different to see a change in apparent size.  On a flat earth, however, we are whole number multiples closer, which would have a huge impact on the apparent size in the sky of the sun. 

91

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 19, 2017, 02:25:04 AM »

I don't see why we should have to disprove perspective rules which were never proven to occur.

You’ve got that backwards.  You don’t need to DISPROVE anything; you need to PROVE that perspective does what is required to make the sun appear to drop to the horizon, then get cut in half by the horizon, then get cut down to just the top sliver and finally go away.  Nobody on the RE side thinks that perspective is magic.

92

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: November 18, 2017, 08:18:37 PM »

Nothing is in orbit ever.  If you can barely see a commercial airliner at 35,000 feet in the air the balloons would be unnoticeable from our point of view on the ground without a form of scoped magnification.

Like a telescope, maybe?  Good thing there are lots of people with telescopes capturing the ISS when it transits in front of the moon.




And other people (well, probably the SAME people) doing the same thing during solar transits.



You know what nobody ever sees?  Balloons!

93

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 17, 2017, 11:10:47 PM »

You do realize that the original query was asking for a Flat Earth explanation, right?

The original query was asking for a Flat Earth explanation. I provided the Flat Earth explanation, and provided the evidence the explanation was based on. I don't see where I wrote in my above messages "and therefore this proves the earth is flat!" We collect evidence empirically and make the best conclusion from the available evidence.

You do realize we all know you think the earth is not a globe, right?  You provide the Flat Earth explanation, we don't have any reason to believe you DON'T think it proves the earth flat.  Quite the contrary in fact.  If you don't believe a piece of evidence is proof of your position....maybe don't present it?

94

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: November 15, 2017, 04:19:24 PM »

How can there be a flat earth route without a map?

Good point.  My statement applies to those folks who hold DO believe one of the flat earth maps.  Those who have no map typically still claim that GPS is lying to us and therefore not useful as proof of anything, even while they also have no opinion on better routes.

95

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An experiment I want every single one of you to explain

« on: November 15, 2017, 04:07:01 PM »

You want proof of the existence of waves? 

Don’t be obtuse. Prove beyond all doubt that the existence of waves give the effect of the sun setting again when you stand up.

It needs to be proven "beyond doubt" that ocean waves are taller than your head when you lay on your belly at the water's edge? Okay...

Sure, waves can be taller than your head.  How about showing us how waves on an obviously calm sea are taller than the height to which a helicopter can fly?

96

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: November 15, 2017, 01:41:12 PM »

Which would be fine if the FE map route was faster!  It's often three times longer.

We don’t know that, as nobody actually travels the flat earth routes.

Actually, I think some of the long flat earth nonstop routes accidentally mimic some multi-leg routes.  I might spend some time looking.

97

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An experiment I want every single one of you to explain

« on: November 15, 2017, 01:35:33 PM »

The average height of ocean waves is pretty widely available.

As are so many of the facts that RE present to you, facts for which you demand ridiculous proof.  How’s that shoe feel on the other foot?

While the burden of proof is on me on this claim, I have more interesting things to do than find a source for you.

Glad I was sitting down, Tom admitted that the burden of proof lies with him?   

98

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: November 13, 2017, 06:36:16 PM »

I wonder how the FE believers who attend those conferences actually find their way to them if they don't trust GPS. RE maps or aircraft route accuracy?

I don't think it's accurate to say they don't trust GPS and aircraft routes, they just don't think those things represent a round earth.  More than once I've seen it suggested that airplanes follow the routes their GPS tell them to without knowing that a better flat-earth route exists.

99

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The sun ?

« on: November 13, 2017, 01:57:14 PM »

The 32 mile figure for the diameter of the sun was empirically determined by a previous generation of Zetetics. Experiments were devised to see what areas of the earth the sunlight was exactly parallel, and it was found to be exactly parallel in a 32 mile area directly beneath the sun.

If round earth proponents are not allowed to use things determined by previous people as evidence, then neither are you.  Someone in FE should do the experiment again; with more modern equipment one could surely expect more accuracy, right?

The actual experiments are probably explained elsewhere in Lady Blount's journal, The Earth.

• Why is “probably” good enough for you?
• More probable: the “actual experiments” never happened at all.

100

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.

« on: November 11, 2017, 11:23:23 PM »

This is PERFECT!   Very clever!   I tip my virtual hat to you!
So now we have EXACTLY the kind of evidence that Tom seems to be demanding.   Actual scientific measurements of when the sun was or was not above the horizon at a bunch of different places.

Proof of the equinox has been delivered, proof that the equinox cannot be explained by either FE map has been delivered so its back to the grindstone FE, find us a map that fits with our empirical observations please.

I am just as impressed with the quality of this evidence as the rest of the RE participants in this thread, but I think celebrations are premature.  The fact that on the day of the equinox one observes equal length day and night periods everywhere in the world has been known for literally thousands of years, but nevertheless that hasn't been enough for Tom.  I don't know why anybody thinks this new evidence will turn the tide. 

All it really does is confirm the RE position to those already on the RE side, and presents new evidence that must be explained away by the FE side.  I look forward to those explanations.