The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: pablozablo on March 16, 2018, 05:09:07 PM
-
Hi,
The Wiki has a nicely detailed page about the Ice Wall, its formation and structure. I was wondering how the FES accept this given the primacy of their demand for empirical evidence. If they are using the quoted source material as their evidence, how can they discount everything in the same source that contradicts their belief in a Flat Earth? (Source: Drewry, D. J., ed. (1983). Antarctica: Glaciological and Geophysical Folio)
-
Hi,
The Wiki has a nicely detailed page about the Ice Wall, its formation and structure. I was wondering how the FES accept this given the primacy of their demand for empirical evidence. If they are using the quoted source material as their evidence, how can they discount everything in the same source that contradicts their belief in a Flat Earth? (Source: Drewry, D. J., ed. (1983). Antarctica: Glaciological and Geophysical Folio)
The Wiki, multiple Flat Earth books, and our posts here on this forum are quite clear in that there are multiple FET models in contention; including one which shows Antarctica as a continent.
-
Hi,
The Wiki has a nicely detailed page about the Ice Wall, its formation and structure. I was wondering how the FES accept this given the primacy of their demand for empirical evidence. If they are using the quoted source material as their evidence, how can they discount everything in the same source that contradicts their belief in a Flat Earth? (Source: Drewry, D. J., ed. (1983). Antarctica: Glaciological and Geophysical Folio)
The Wiki, multiple Flat Earth books, and our posts here on this forum are quite clear in that there are multiple FET models in contention; including one which shows Antarctica as a continent.
Are any of them accurate enough to navigate by?
-
Hi,
The Wiki has a nicely detailed page about the Ice Wall, its formation and structure. I was wondering how the FES accept this given the primacy of their demand for empirical evidence. If they are using the quoted source material as their evidence, how can they discount everything in the same source that contradicts their belief in a Flat Earth? (Source: Drewry, D. J., ed. (1983). Antarctica: Glaciological and Geophysical Folio)
The Wiki, multiple Flat Earth books, and our posts here on this forum are quite clear in that there are multiple FET models in contention; including one which shows Antarctica as a continent.
The Wiki says "images of the two geographic models...", so by "multiple" you mean two, otherwise it would say "images of two potential geographic models". And besides, the two models explicitly and visibly contradict each other. They cannot both be right so you are saying that one is definitely wrong. Theories about the sun, the stars, navigation etc. that support one model contradict the other, and vice versa, therefore the various flat earth theories espoused don't work and are inconsistent by your own admission. Strangely the theories that support round earth are entirely consistent.....
-
Hi,
The Wiki has a nicely detailed page about the Ice Wall, its formation and structure. I was wondering how the FES accept this given the primacy of their demand for empirical evidence. If they are using the quoted source material as their evidence, how can they discount everything in the same source that contradicts their belief in a Flat Earth? (Source: Drewry, D. J., ed. (1983). Antarctica: Glaciological and Geophysical Folio)
The Wiki, multiple Flat Earth books, and our posts here on this forum are quite clear in that there are multiple FET models in contention; including one which shows Antarctica as a continent.
I find it quite telling the there exist different FET models. For example, the problem of distances in the southern half of the earth on the FET unipolar map were addressed with the introduction of the bipolar map, to which a portion of FEers appear to subscribe. Unfortunately, it introduces even greater problems, not the least of which is that it allows no possible way to describe the motion of the sun above the earth.
As I've said before, if the earth were flat, then presently known distances and angles, when reproduced on a planar surface, would create an accurate representation of the surface of the earth.
-
The bipolar model was proposed in 1918 upon discovery of the South Magnetic Pole. Its history and workings are documented in our literature. Feel free to check it out.
-
The bipolar model was proposed in 1918 upon discovery of the South Magnetic Pole. Its history and workings are documented in our literature. Feel free to check it out.
Why did it take some long for FEH to figure out there was a south magnetic pole? The Chinese discovered magnetic fields 2000 years ago. It was known that magnets have a north and south pole as early as 1269. This info was available to Rowbotham in the 1800s.
-
The bipolar model was proposed in 1918 upon discovery of the South Magnetic Pole. Its history and workings are documented in our literature. Feel free to check it out.
I've checked it out. That doesn't make the map any less useless in its ability to depict the earth as it is experienced on a day to day level.
I noticed that you've yet again avoided my mention "that it allows no possible way to describe the motion of the sun above the earth".
No comment on that whatsoever? I would find that telling, as well.
-
The bipolar model was proposed in 1918 upon discovery of the South Magnetic Pole. Its history and workings are documented in our literature. Feel free to check it out.
Why did it take some long for FEH to figure out there was a south magnetic pole? The Chinese discovered magnetic fields 2000 years ago. It was known that magnets have a north and south pole as early as 1269. This info was available to Rowbotham in the 1800s.
The ancient Chinese only knew that the magnetic field lines ran North to South. They didn't have much information about the nature of the South.
Rowbotham knew about magnets, but it did not follow that the southern magnetic field lines intersected at a point on the earth's surface. On a Flat Earth Monopole model the magnetic field lines would look like this (http://i2.tinypic.com/6p63a84.jpg).
The bipolar model was proposed in 1918 upon discovery of the South Magnetic Pole. Its history and workings are documented in our literature. Feel free to check it out.
I've checked it out. That doesn't make the map any less useless in its ability to depict the earth as it is experienced on a day to day level.
I noticed that you've yet again avoided my mention "that it allows no possible way to describe the motion of the sun above the earth".
No comment on that whatsoever? I would find that telling, as well.
Lady Blount does talk about the sun in her bi-polar model. Its not described in the Wiki, but her works are online.
-
Lady Blount does talk about the sun in her bi-polar model. Its not described in the Wiki, but her works are online.
Why don't you go ahead and refresh my memory on what it was that Lady Blount had to say?
Better still, possibly you could add some thoughts of your own. A novel idea, I know, an original Tom Bishop thought, but it could happen...
-
Lady Blount does talk about the sun in her bi-polar model. Its not described in the Wiki, but her works are online.
Why don't you go ahead and refresh my memory on what it was that Lady Blount had to say?
Better still, possibly you could add some thoughts of your own. A novel idea, I know, an original Tom Bishop thought, but it could happen...
Lady Blount and her society of the time wrote their ideas down many times across journals and books for you. It is rude that you are ignoring their efforts and are expecting others to regurgitate it for you. What is the point of us writing studies and books for you if you aren't going to read them?
-
Lady Blount does talk about the sun in her bi-polar model. Its not described in the Wiki, but her works are online.
Why don't you go ahead and refresh my memory on what it was that Lady Blount had to say?
Better still, possibly you could add some thoughts of your own. A novel idea, I know, an original Tom Bishop thought, but it could happen...
Lady Blount and her society of the time wrote their ideas down many times across journals and books for you. It is rude that you are ignoring their efforts and are expecting others to regurgitate it for you. What is the point of us writing studies and books for you if you aren't going to read them?
I didn't ask for a regurgitation, maybe an original Tom Bishop thought, and possibly a pointer to her writing, specifically regarding her bi-polar model. I've read at least one tract by the Lady Blount. It was extremely difficult to wade through the religious trash.
You're too lazy to do much of anything beyond pounding out mythology on a keyboard, so I'll go and have a look around and get back to you.
-
Since we're pointing out works which support one side or the other, I imagine you are quite sure this article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment) is bogus.
What happened to the 3-D mock up of the Neo-Classical model? It was removed - too embarrassing?
It seems to me that FEers should spend more time investigating the Davis Model. It does a wonderful job of obfuscation and bending physical laws to suit his agenda.
The Shifting Constellations section fails to take into account the fact that the distance to the nearest stars was first calculated by the parallax created by observations taken at two opposite points on the earth's orbit, IE, one taken June 21st and another December 21st. But, since FE has no "earth orbit around the sun", this must be ignored.
I see that the "Flat Earth Model" is still a work in progress, with zero information posted. Why would that be? Nobody there has the time? No one knows what to post? No one has anything useful to post? I lean toward the latter.
I really like this line, from Flat Earth Literature: Thomas Winship presents conclusive evidence demonstrating that the world is not a rotating-revolving globe, but a stationary plane circle. If it's so convincing and so conclusive FEers should have it memorized and be quoting it constantly.
Still nothing on Lady Blount and her bipolar model. Now I've lost interest.
Did come across this: "A woman named Lady Blount was among the first to peer review Rowbotham's work". I tried to read that once several months ago. Couldn't get all the way through the religious hype. In retrospect though, I find I must admit that it certainly could be considered a "peer review", as Blount and Rowbotham were definitely peers with respect to their views and their general (lack of) knowledge. I can't fault them, though, since substantially more than half of human knowledge has been achieved since their deaths.
-
Lady Blount and her society of the time wrote their ideas down many times across journals and books for you. It is rude that you are ignoring their efforts and are expecting others to regurgitate it for you. What is the point of us writing studies and books for you if you aren't going to read them?
Nobody is asking you to quote huge parts of it, nor reprint it.
If you're going to say "Lady Blount and her society said/wrote X, Y and Z", then I don't think it's unreasonable for everyone to expect you to indicate where you read X, Y and Z, and where others might look to find such. Name of publication, when published, publisher, etc. Else how are we to know WHICH member of her society wrote it?
Such as;
http://libguides.murdoch.edu.au/footnote/secondary
-
Lady Blount does talk about the sun in her bi-polar model. Its not described in the Wiki, but her works are online.
Why don't you go ahead and refresh my memory on what it was that Lady Blount had to say?
Better still, possibly you could add some thoughts of your own. A novel idea, I know, an original Tom Bishop thought, but it could happen...
Lady Blount and her society of the time wrote their ideas down many times across journals and books for you. It is rude that you are ignoring their efforts and are expecting others to regurgitate it for you. What is the point of us writing studies and books for you if you aren't going to read them?
Are there any studies written in the last 10years?
-
The Wiki, multiple Flat Earth books, and our posts here on this forum are quite clear in that there are multiple FET models in contention; including one which shows Antarctica as a continent.
So what are you actually doing to determine which one is correct?
Can you honestly not see how crazy this sounds?
You think the earth is flat because of...reasons. In the Wiki you declare this as an "obvious truth" which is strange when it flies in the face of 2000+ years of science. Your only basis for this seems to be "the horizon looks flat" although in your "High Altitude Photos" page you "explain" how a curve can be seen at high altitudes. So you DO understand the concept that a large enough curve can appear locally flat. So the horizon looking flat is NOT evidence for a flat earth.
Anyway, whatever. But then you must have some idea of how the flat earth works. A model which matches observations - something you claim is important to you. If you can't make one then the premise of a flat earth must be wrong.
The model as outlined in your Wiki clearly doesn't tick that box. It doesn't match observations. The sun would be visible all the time for one thing. I know you explain this using "perspective". Wrongly, you don't understand perspective, but whatever, you have an explanation at least.
But then how do you explain the 24 hour sun at Antarctica? With the model in your Wiki Antarctica seems to be a ring around the disc so you wouldn't get the 24 hour sun. Your model clearly doesn't work. So your two options now are:
1) Deny that the 24 hour sun occurs - that would be strange given how many people can testify to this, the fact there's a research base at the south pole which you can literally go to if you have the money. You lot have claimed stranger things, but it would be a strange claim.
2) Accept the model as outlined in the Wiki is wrong and Antarctica is indeed a continent. But that creates a bunch of other problems. How does your sun move now which matches observations? I saw one video on YouTube which was all kinds of crazy, the headline was it claimed there are two suns.
Do you really not see how big these problem are?
You can't decide if there's one pole or two - in the real world both have been explored.
You can't agree on a map - in the real world airlines get people around just fine using great circles plotted on a globe.
These are pretty fundamental problems.
Your model is full of desperate rationalisations which you have to make up to try and explain things.
The "shadow object", never been observed but you make it up to fill an otherwise gaping hole in your theory.
The sun has to keep changing height and its orbit and speed above the plane as it's your way of explaining lunar phases and seasons. You have no way of explaining what makes it do that (and actually if there are two poles then your explanation for seasons doesn't work anyway).
You have no understanding of how the sun actually works - what would keep powering a sun that small for as long as it has clearly been working for.
You don't believe in gravity and sneer at the idea of gravitons which are admittedly theoretical but then you rationalise the effect of gravity by making up UA and saying it's powered by "dark energy" - another completely made up concept with no explanation.
There are a bunch of other problems.
A more rational person might consider whether the reason that all these problems exist is that the premise they are based on - a flat earth - is incorrect...
-
This debate pretty much ends as all the others. If you take the stance of Rowbotham and assume that anyone that is not from where you live does not matter, you can build a model that works for you. Whether the south pole exists or is a ring does not matter because anyone living south of the equator is less important and we do not have to consider what they might claim to see, such as a southern cross in the sky. Around people that matter, the south magnetic lines diverge so they can keep diverging or start converging, who cares.
-
The bipolar model was proposed in 1918 upon discovery of the South Magnetic Pole. Its history and workings are documented in our literature. Feel free to check it out.
Why did it take some long for FEH to figure out there was a south magnetic pole? The Chinese discovered magnetic fields 2000 years ago. It was known that magnets have a north and south pole as early as 1269. This info was available to Rowbotham in the 1800s.
The ancient Chinese only knew that the magnetic field lines ran North to South. They didn't have much information about the nature of the South.
Rowbotham knew about magnets, but it did not follow that the southern magnetic field lines intersected at a point on the earth's surface. On a Flat Earth Monopole model the magnetic field lines would look like this (http://i2.tinypic.com/6p63a84.jpg).
A flat earth monopole model, right. This means that any one holding a compass south of the equator say in Chile will have a different heading from any one holding a compass in say Sydney. The fact that people in those 2 cities look in the same direction any time thy look south, see the same stars (more or less) any time they look south, have the heavens rotate around the same south celestial pole totally destroys a flat earth and not just the mono pole bs.
Respond to that, Tom.
-
The bipolar model was proposed in 1918 upon discovery of the South Magnetic Pole. Its history and workings are documented in our literature. Feel free to check it out.
Why did it take some long for FEH to figure out there was a south magnetic pole? The Chinese discovered magnetic fields 2000 years ago. It was known that magnets have a north and south pole as early as 1269. This info was available to Rowbotham in the 1800s.
The ancient Chinese only knew that the magnetic field lines ran North to South. They didn't have much information about the nature of the South.
Rowbotham knew about magnets, but it did not follow that the southern magnetic field lines intersected at a point on the earth's surface. On a Flat Earth Monopole model the magnetic field lines would look like this (http://i2.tinypic.com/6p63a84.jpg).
A flat earth monopole model, right. This means that any one holding a compass south of the equator say in Chile will have a different heading from any one holding a compass in say Sydney. The fact that people in those 2 cities look in the same direction any time thy look south, see the same stars (more or less) any time they look south, have the heavens rotate around the same south celestial pole totally destroys a flat earth and not just the mono pole bs.
Respond to that, Tom.
Have you stood in both Chile and Sydney at the same time and checked that you looked in the same direction when looking south?
-
Have you stood in both Chile and Sydney at the same time and checked that you looked in the same direction when looking south?
It is offensive to suggest that people living south of the equator are confused about the directions they go when they think they are heading south. Two roads heading south get closer together the farther south you go, just like the need for correction lines in the north. As I mentioned many times, the FE model works great if you ignore the fact that there are other people in other countries that matter a little bit. You can distort the map of the southern hemisphere and believe it, so long as you ignore that people live in the areas that are wildly distorted and they do not have to travel great distances to get to their neighbors. They are not all bumbling idiots.
-
Have you stood in both Chile and Sydney at the same time and checked that you looked in the same direction when looking south?
It is offensive to suggest that people living south of the equator are confused about the directions they go when they think they are heading south. Two roads heading south get closer together the farther south you go, just like the need for correction lines in the north. As I mentioned many times, the FE model works great if you ignore the fact that there are other people in other countries that matter a little bit. You can distort the map of the southern hemisphere and believe it, so long as you ignore that people live in the areas that are wildly distorted and they do not have to travel great distances to get to their neighbors. They are not all bumbling idiots.
Don't put words in my mouth! >:( I have never in my life called anyone a bumbling idiot, and I resent the implication. Besides we have members all over the world and since they and I are not distorted, clearly the other hemispheres are also not distorted.
-
Have you stood in both Chile and Sydney at the same time and checked that you looked in the same direction when looking south?
It is offensive to suggest that people living south of the equator are confused about the directions they go when they think they are heading south. Two roads heading south get closer together the farther south you go, just like the need for correction lines in the north. As I mentioned many times, the FE model works great if you ignore the fact that there are other people in other countries that matter a little bit. You can distort the map of the southern hemisphere and believe it, so long as you ignore that people live in the areas that are wildly distorted and they do not have to travel great distances to get to their neighbors. They are not all bumbling idiots.
Don't put words in my mouth! >:( I have never in my life called anyone a bumbling idiot, and I resent the implication. Besides we have members all over the world and since they and I are not distorted, clearly the other hemispheres are also not distorted.
And that's why no flat earth map works out.
-
And that's why no flat earth map works out.
Because people are not distorted? That seems very strange evidence.
-
And that's why no flat earth map works out.
Because people are not distorted? That seems very strange evidence.
Their surroundings, obviously. On a globe, there's no distortion anywhere.
On any flat map, there is. You can't project a spherical surface onto a 2D map without significant distortion.
-
And that's why no flat earth map works out.
Because people are not distorted? That seems very strange evidence.
Their surroundings, obviously. On a globe, there's no distortion anywhere.
On any flat map, there is. You can't project a spherical surface onto a 2D map without significant distortion.
I never said there was any distortion. I asked if SpaceCadet has stood in both Chile and Sydney at the same time to see that he was looking the same way when looking south.
-
To quote the post you were answering to:
Have you stood in both Chile and Sydney at the same time and checked that you looked in the same direction when looking south?
It is offensive to suggest that people living south of the equator are confused about the directions they go when they think they are heading south. Two roads heading south get closer together the farther south you go, just like the need for correction lines in the north. As I mentioned many times, the FE model works great if you ignore the fact that there are other people in other countries that matter a little bit. You can distort the map of the southern hemisphere and believe it, so long as you ignore that people live in the areas that are wildly distorted and they do not have to travel great distances to get to their neighbors. They are not all bumbling idiots.
If earth was flat, it would be easy to just make a flat map of it. Without any distortion. Yet it isn't.
The other way round, if earth wasn't spheroid, you could not make a globe that represents all distances, angles and areas accurately without distortion. Yet you can.
Now guess why.
-
Yet you can.
Any evidence of that? Have you measured the distances between all points on earth?
-
Yet you can.
Any evidence of that? Have you measured the distances between all points on earth?
You don't need to do it personally when there is enough corroborating information. Comparisons of any published intercontinental flight times adhere the distances shown on the globe, weather patterns and forecasts relative to different locations, recorded relative position of the sun in the sky throughout the day from any location, predictable location of the stars at any point in time, fuel calculations used by airlines, navigation of international shipping, journey times for people who go on cruises across the Atlantic or Pacific. All these things perfectly align with the relative distances of locations on the globe. None of them align with any possible FE projections or visualization or whatever excuse for a map is being used. For all the enthusiasm you have for the dimensions of the Earth you show a surprising lack of interest in the geography of it.
-
Yet you can.
Any evidence of that? Have you measured the distances between all points on earth?
You don't need to do it personally when there is enough corroborating information. Comparisons of any published intercontinental flight times adhere the distances shown on the globe, weather patterns and forecasts relative to different locations, recorded relative position of the sun in the sky throughout the day from any location, predictable location of the stars at any point in time, fuel calculations used by airlines, navigation of international shipping, journey times for people who go on cruises across the Atlantic or Pacific. All these things perfectly align with the relative distances of locations on the globe. None of them align with any possible FE projections or visualization or whatever excuse for a map is being used. For all the enthusiasm you have for the dimensions of the Earth you show a surprising lack of interest in the geography of it.
Planes don't take all possible flight routes. Who is traveling between Australia and South America going the "long" way around the earth? No one is.
While I do not subscribe to the Monopole model, using flights as an argument is not conclusive.
-
Yet you can.
Any evidence of that? Have you measured the distances between all points on earth?
You don't need to do it personally when there is enough corroborating information. Comparisons of any published intercontinental flight times adhere the distances shown on the globe, weather patterns and forecasts relative to different locations, recorded relative position of the sun in the sky throughout the day from any location, predictable location of the stars at any point in time, fuel calculations used by airlines, navigation of international shipping, journey times for people who go on cruises across the Atlantic or Pacific. All these things perfectly align with the relative distances of locations on the globe. None of them align with any possible FE projections or visualization or whatever excuse for a map is being used. For all the enthusiasm you have for the dimensions of the Earth you show a surprising lack of interest in the geography of it.
Planes don't take all possible flight routes. Who is traveling between Australia and South America going the "long" way around the earth? No one is.
While I do not subscribe to the Monopole model, using flights as an argument is not conclusive.
I see - so you take the rest as conclusive then. Cool. Or don't you?
-
Tom is claiming that flight arguments are not conclusive simply in denial that they actually are. Look up 3DGeek and Rounder's posts from a few months ago on the subject.
Incidentally, I just looked up flights between Santiago and Sydney. They exist. I'm not sure what Tom means by the long way around, but there isn't reference to a long way in any previous argument that I'm aware of. Strikes me as a potential strawman
-
Yet you can.
Any evidence of that? Have you measured the distances between all points on earth?
You don't need to do it personally when there is enough corroborating information. Comparisons of any published intercontinental flight times adhere the distances shown on the globe, weather patterns and forecasts relative to different locations, recorded relative position of the sun in the sky throughout the day from any location, predictable location of the stars at any point in time, fuel calculations used by airlines, navigation of international shipping, journey times for people who go on cruises across the Atlantic or Pacific. All these things perfectly align with the relative distances of locations on the globe. None of them align with any possible FE projections or visualization or whatever excuse for a map is being used. For all the enthusiasm you have for the dimensions of the Earth you show a surprising lack of interest in the geography of it.
Planes don't take all possible flight routes. Who is traveling between Australia and South America going the "long" way around the earth? No one is.
While I do not subscribe to the Monopole model, using flights as an argument is not conclusive.
Except people that are. Quantas nonstop Sydney to Santiago de Chile (https://www.google.com/flights#flt=SYD.SCL.2018-04-06*SCL.SYD.2018-04-10;c:EUR;e:1;sd:1;t:f), Boeing 747, 12:35 hours.
So there's a pretty conclusive argument against the monopole map since that 747's not going supersonic.
-
Except people that are. Quantas nonstop Sydney to Santiago de Chile (https://www.google.com/flights#flt=SYD.SCL.2018-04-06*SCL.SYD.2018-04-10;c:EUR;e:1;sd:1;t:f), Boeing 747, 12:35 hours.
So there's a pretty conclusive argument against the monopole map since that 747's not going supersonic.
That might tell the monopole map creator (whoever that is) something about how to make his visualization. But what about the flight time going the other long way around the earth between those points?
-
Except people that are. Quantas nonstop Sydney to Santiago de Chile (https://www.google.com/flights#flt=SYD.SCL.2018-04-06*SCL.SYD.2018-04-10;c:EUR;e:1;sd:1;t:f), Boeing 747, 12:35 hours.
So there's a pretty conclusive argument against the monopole map since that 747's not going supersonic.
And what is the flight time going the "long" way around the earth?
What do you mean by "going the 'long' way around the earth"?
That would be around the earth on that flat monopole model, but on a globe that's the direct way.
-
What do you mean by "going the 'long' way around the earth"?
That would be around the earth on that flat monopole model, but on a globe that's the direct way.
When you travel between Los Angeles and New York does the plane go over the continental US or the long way over China?
-
Continental US, I suppose? Will look it up.
EDIT: Well, obviously that's the way. Why should they go over china? That makes absolutely no sense on a globe, so on which flat earth model would it?
-
Continental US, I suppose? Will look it up.
EDIT: Well, obviously that's the way. Why should they go over china? That makes absolutely no sense on a globe, so on which flat earth model would it?
The point is that it would make no sense for the planes to fly the "long way" around the earth between those two southern points. We only have data for that route.
-
Continental US, I suppose? Will look it up.
EDIT: Well, obviously that's the way. Why should they go over china? That makes absolutely no sense on a globe, so on which flat earth model would it?
The point is that it would make no sense for the planes to fly the "long way" around the earth between those two southern points. We only have data for that route.
I don't quite see what you're getting at. Please elaborate.
-
Continental US, I suppose? Will look it up.
EDIT: Well, obviously that's the way. Why should they go over china? That makes absolutely no sense on a globe, so on which flat earth model would it?
The point is that it would make no sense for the planes to fly the "long way" around the earth between those two southern points. We only have data for that route.
But we do have data for LA to China, and China to Europe, and Europe to New York, and New York to LA, and guess what the data for the long way round corroborates?.... I think Tom is making a great case for the globe.
-
This is a terrible argument from Tom. We do have data for going 'the long way around,' and you get it by connecting flights together like pz says. In another current case, Santiago to Cape Town to Sydney. It doesn't help his cause at all; again, the work has been done (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0) and it is a complete debunk of flat Earth belief. He's starting you all on a wild goose chase to retread an argument he already lost. Don't fall for it.
-
This is a terrible argument from Tom. We do have data for going 'the long way around,' and you get it by connecting flights together like pz says. In another current case, Santiago to Cape Town to Sydney. It doesn't help his cause at all; again, the work has been done (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0) and it is a complete debunk of flat Earth belief. He's starting you all on a wild goose chase to retread an argument he already lost. Don't fall for it.
Connecting flights aren't traveling on the same latitude. They travel more northward. We have no idea how big the earth's circumference is at those far southern latitudes in question.
-
This is a terrible argument from Tom. We do have data for going 'the long way around,' and you get it by connecting flights together like pz says. In another current case, Santiago to Cape Town to Sydney. It doesn't help his cause at all; again, the work has been done (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0) and it is a complete debunk of flat Earth belief. He's starting you all on a wild goose chase to retread an argument he already lost. Don't fall for it.
Connecting flights aren't traveling on the same latitude. They travel more northward. We have no idea how big the earth's circumference is at those far southern latitudes in question.
Okay, so you can't argue with the flight times in the northern hemisphere so you've decided we have no data for the southern hemisphere. Except we have plenty of corroborating evidence for flight time there too - Chile to Sydney, Sydney to South Africa, New Zealand to anywhere, Brazil to South Africa. It all adds up. Which is almost a side issue, whether you believe it or not. Cruise ship times across the Pacific or Atlantic, north or south of the equator, the stars, the positions of the planets in the sky relative to anywhere on Earth and so on ad nauseum. They all correspond with distances between locations on the globe. All of them, no matter where you are. They work.
-
To conclude from the points raised in the posts, there is no empirical evidence for the ice-wall, there is no empirical evidence for the alternative contradictory projections of a flat earth, there is plenty of empirical evidence for global distances between cities, and the ice wall wiki page cherry-picks source material for anything that can be misinterpreted as supporting evidence to give the appearance of credence whilst ignoring the huge bulk of the same source material that explicitly rejects the flat earth position. Nice one.
-
To conclude from the points raised in the posts, there is no empirical evidence for the ice-wall, there is no empirical evidence for the alternative contradictory projections of a flat earth, there is plenty of empirical evidence for global distances between cities, and the ice wall wiki page cherry-picks source material for anything that can be misinterpreted as supporting evidence to give the appearance of credence whilst ignoring the huge bulk of the same source material that explicitly rejects the flat earth position. Nice one.
Expanding your comment,
To conclude from the points raised in the posts, there is no empirical evidence for the ice-wall, there is no empirical evidence for the alternative contradictory projections of a flat earth, there is plenty of empirical evidence for global distances between cities but Tom and his flat earthers believe in an ice wall, believe in an infinite plane, believe in a conspiracy, believe in bendy light (no emperical evidence of any of these) but reject distances between cities in both North and South (plenty of corroborated evidence for these)
And you say flat earthism isn't a belief.
-
This is a terrible argument from Tom. We do have data for going 'the long way around,' and you get it by connecting flights together like pz says. In another current case, Santiago to Cape Town to Sydney. It doesn't help his cause at all; again, the work has been done (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0) and it is a complete debunk of flat Earth belief. He's starting you all on a wild goose chase to retread an argument he already lost. Don't fall for it.
Connecting flights aren't traveling on the same latitude. They travel more northward. We have no idea how big the earth's circumference is at those far southern latitudes in question.
I again propose that people that live south of the equator are not stupider than those that happen to be born north of the equator. If we sit in our basements and ignore that the human population is made up of individuals that live pretty much everywhere, we can propose that no one knows what happens in the south. Chile could be a hoax for all we know, based upon having no desire to ever go there.
-
This is a terrible argument from Tom. We do have data for going 'the long way around,' and you get it by connecting flights together like pz says. In another current case, Santiago to Cape Town to Sydney. It doesn't help his cause at all; again, the work has been done (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0) and it is a complete debunk of flat Earth belief. He's starting you all on a wild goose chase to retread an argument he already lost. Don't fall for it.
Connecting flights aren't traveling on the same latitude. They travel more northward. We have no idea how big the earth's circumference is at those far southern latitudes in question.
We do know, as you know. Maybe you could give an example of a distance quoted and then propose how you would check it.
-
Anyone else noticed how Tom has bailed when the RE folk called his bluff? It's almost as if he can't stand being proved wrong and abandons any thread that starts criticizing his views, but of course that can't be right. If you don't want to have this reputation as a flimsy retreater, then maybe present some of the evidence they're asking for and hold your flat ground.
-
This is a terrible argument from Tom. We do have data for going 'the long way around,' and you get it by connecting flights together like pz says. In another current case, Santiago to Cape Town to Sydney. It doesn't help his cause at all; again, the work has been done (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0) and it is a complete debunk of flat Earth belief. He's starting you all on a wild goose chase to retread an argument he already lost. Don't fall for it.
Connecting flights aren't traveling on the same latitude. They travel more northward. We have no idea how big the earth's circumference is at those far southern latitudes in question.
Okay, so you can't argue with the flight times in the northern hemisphere so you've decided we have no data for the southern hemisphere. Except we have plenty of corroborating evidence for flight time there too - Chile to Sydney, Sydney to South Africa, New Zealand to anywhere, Brazil to South Africa. It all adds up. Which is almost a side issue, whether you believe it or not. Cruise ship times across the Pacific or Atlantic, north or south of the equator, the stars, the positions of the planets in the sky relative to anywhere on Earth and so on ad nauseum. They all correspond with distances between locations on the globe. All of them, no matter where you are. They work.
I see words, not demonstration.
Anyone else noticed how Tom has bailed when the RE folk called his bluff? It's almost as if he can't stand being proved wrong and abandons any thread that starts criticizing his views, but of course that can't be right. If you don't want to have this reputation as a flimsy retreater, then maybe present some of the evidence they're asking for and hold your flat ground.
Yes, I usually bail when the response is "the earth is round1!!" and "already proven and settled!"
-
I see words, not demonstration.
That’s all you see from Rowbotham whose words you inexplicably take as gospel.
And when you are shown demonstrations you wilfully misunderstand them, start claiming silly things like planes don’t know how fast they are flying or ships who lay cables don’t know how much they used or just dismiss them as fake.
-
I see words, not demonstration.
That’s all you see from Rowbotham whose words you inexplicably take as gospel.
And when you are shown demonstrations you wilfully misunderstand them, start claiming silly things like planes don’t know how fast they are flying or ships who lay cables don’t know how much they used or just dismiss them as fake.
I don't take Rowbotham's work as gospel. The conclusion in Rowbotham's work is "Earth Not a Globe," not "The Earth is Flat". The work actually just explores one interpretation of the evidence, which is stated numerous times by the author, and we all recognize that.
-
I don't take Rowbotham's work as gospel. The conclusion in Rowbotham's work is "Earth Not a Globe," not "The Earth is Flat". The work actually just explores one interpretation of the evidence, which is stated numerous times by the author, and we all recognize that.
Are there some ideas you take issue with? I've never seen you call anything he says into question, including some blatantly false stuff. (continents floating on water, etc)
-
I don't take Rowbotham's work as gospel. The conclusion in Rowbotham's work is "Earth Not a Globe," not "The Earth is Flat". The work actually just explores one interpretation of the evidence, which is stated numerous times by the author, and we all recognize that.
Are there some ideas you take issue with? I've never seen you call anything he says into question, including some blatantly false stuff. (continents floating on water, etc)
I don't find issues with the conclusions he makes based on the evidence he presented. He is very logical in his determinations.
Later years have provided additional evidence and insight to various phenomena. I think Rowbotham would have made some different conclusions to different evidence.
-
I don't take Rowbotham's work as gospel. The conclusion in Rowbotham's work is "Earth Not a Globe," not "The Earth is Flat". The work actually just explores one interpretation of the evidence, which is stated numerous times by the author, and we all recognize that.
Are there some ideas you take issue with? I've never seen you call anything he says into question, including some blatantly false stuff. (continents floating on water, etc)
I don't find issues with the conclusions he makes based on the evidence he presented. He is very logical in his determinations.
Later years have provided additional evidence and insight to various phenomena. I think Rowbotham would have made some different conclusions to different evidence.
Please give details of where he was mistaken.
-
Later years have provided additional evidence and insight to various phenomena. I think Rowbotham would have made some different conclusions to different evidence.
I agree, he would have decided the world was, in fact, round. It makes no logical sense that gov'ts are lying to us about the shape of the planet nor does it make sense that NASA has pulled the wool over everyone's eyes. Thanks for setting that one up for me. ;)
-
I see words, not demonstration.
How should someone 'demonstrate' something within these forums? What format of demonstration would you find acceptable?
-
I see words, not demonstration.
Sorry - I thought I'd save you the time of looking for the flights yourself. Can't you be bothered to do the most basic research? I can demonstrate how you can book one here: https://www.expedia.co.uk/Flights-Search?mode=search&paandi=true&trip=roundtrip&options=cabinclass%3Aeconomy%2Cnopenalty%3AN%2Csortby%3Aprice&passengers=children%3A0%2Cadults%3A1%2Cseniors%3A0%2Cinfantinlap%3AY&leg1=from%3ASantiago%2C%20Chile%20(SCL-Arturo%20Merino%20Benitez)%2Cto%3ASydney%2C%20NSW%2C%20Australia%20(SYD-Kingsford%20Smith%20Intl.)%2Cdeparture%3A28%2F3%2F2018TANYT&leg2=from%3ASydney%2C%20NSW%2C%20Australia%20(SYD-Kingsford%20Smith%20Intl.)%2Cto%3ASantiago%2C%20Chile%20(SCL-Arturo%20Merino%20Benitez)%2Cdeparture%3A4%2F4%2F2018TANYT
If I did not know better, I'd suspect you were a top class troll who does this just for giggles. I have to commend your stamina to keep this up day-in day-out. Anyway, I refuse to waste any more time on you. Ta' rah!
-
I see words, not demonstration.
Sorry - I thought I'd save you the time of looking for the flights yourself. Can't you be bothered to do the most basic research? I can demonstrate how you can book one here: https://www.expedia.co.uk/Flights-Search?mode=search&paandi=true&trip=roundtrip&options=cabinclass%3Aeconomy%2Cnopenalty%3AN%2Csortby%3Aprice&passengers=children%3A0%2Cadults%3A1%2Cseniors%3A0%2Cinfantinlap%3AY&leg1=from%3ASantiago%2C%20Chile%20(SCL-Arturo%20Merino%20Benitez)%2Cto%3ASydney%2C%20NSW%2C%20Australia%20(SYD-Kingsford%20Smith%20Intl.)%2Cdeparture%3A28%2F3%2F2018TANYT&leg2=from%3ASydney%2C%20NSW%2C%20Australia%20(SYD-Kingsford%20Smith%20Intl.)%2Cto%3ASantiago%2C%20Chile%20(SCL-Arturo%20Merino%20Benitez)%2Cdeparture%3A4%2F4%2F2018TANYT
If I did not know better, I'd suspect you were a top class troll who does this just for giggles. I have to commend your stamina to keep this up day-in day-out. Anyway, I refuse to waste any more time on you. Ta' rah!
I have come to the conclusion, looking at the discussion, threads, lack of replies and when threads are abandoned, that Tom, Pete, Baby thork etc have, in reality, just set themselves a challenge to defend what is a very "undefendable" point regarding the shape of the earth. They dont really believe it, they are just messing with you, deliberately obfuscating the science facts and deliberatley being obtuse. They didnt come foreward when asked to clarify the reasons they believe in a flat earth and obviously wont own up to what I have just said as this will blow there personal challenge. You have to admit they have done a good job at fooling everyone.
-
I see words, not demonstration.
Sorry - I thought I'd save you the time of looking for the flights yourself. Can't you be bothered to do the most basic research? I can demonstrate how you can book one here: https://www.expedia.co.uk/Flights-Search?mode=search&paandi=true&trip=roundtrip&options=cabinclass%3Aeconomy%2Cnopenalty%3AN%2Csortby%3Aprice&passengers=children%3A0%2Cadults%3A1%2Cseniors%3A0%2Cinfantinlap%3AY&leg1=from%3ASantiago%2C%20Chile%20(SCL-Arturo%20Merino%20Benitez)%2Cto%3ASydney%2C%20NSW%2C%20Australia%20(SYD-Kingsford%20Smith%20Intl.)%2Cdeparture%3A28%2F3%2F2018TANYT&leg2=from%3ASydney%2C%20NSW%2C%20Australia%20(SYD-Kingsford%20Smith%20Intl.)%2Cto%3ASantiago%2C%20Chile%20(SCL-Arturo%20Merino%20Benitez)%2Cdeparture%3A4%2F4%2F2018TANYT
If I did not know better, I'd suspect you were a top class troll who does this just for giggles. I have to commend your stamina to keep this up day-in day-out. Anyway, I refuse to waste any more time on you. Ta' rah!
I have come to the conclusion, looking at the discussion, threads, lack of replies and when threads are abandoned, that Tom, Pete, Baby thork etc have, in reality, just set themselves a challenge to defend what is a very "undefendable" point regarding the shape of the earth. They dont really believe it, they are just messing with you, deliberately obfuscating the science facts and deliberatley being obtuse. They didnt come foreward when asked to clarify the reasons they believe in a flat earth and obviously wont own up to what I have just said as this will blow there personal challenge. You have to admit they have done a good job at fooling everyone.
Finally someone brought this up. I love debating as much as the next guy, and I'm somewhat active on these forums, but until we get some changes there's no real progress to make. The round earthers don't have a leg to stand on considering that the proof the flat earthers demand is restricted:
-no nasa, they're liars
-no photos or videos, they're liars
-no astronauts, they're liars
-no satellite tracking, those are weather balloons
-no sunsets, because perspective reasons
-no inconsistencies of the map, it's just a guess
-no math, that's rationalizing and we hate that
-no plane travel times, those are inaccurate
-no showing things disappearing over the curve, that's just waves
-no GPS because eLoran
(though actually I think they have caved on this issue, despite not attempting to explain how it works without satellites)
-no constellation related things, because "aetheric vortex"
-no eclipses, because "shadow object"
-no gravity, because "universal accelerator"
And even if you manage to squeeze your shred of credibility through all that, it's stated right there in the wiki, that you're still a liar:
P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an
obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth
P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that
contradicts the FET
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET
is fabricated evidence
Bravo. This isn't empiricism.
-
I don't find issues with the conclusions he makes based on the evidence he presented. He is very logical in his determinations.
The bit in bold is key here.
Based on the evidence he presented.
And mostly that's him just saying "this is what I saw". It's all words and not demonstration.
But he does draw some strange conclusions. Let's take the thing about ship hulls being "restored". He mixes up two things.
If a ship is a long way away and has a dark hull and a light top then you can probably not easily distinguish the hull from the sea.
So yes, optical zoom will "restore" it in the sense that it will make things clearer so you can distinguish them. But it doesn't make a ship which was behind the horizon "whole" again.
If object A (the horizon in this case, but someone going over a hill gives you the same effect, so the hill) is in front of object B (a ship or the person going over the hill) then you will only see the top part of object B. Optical zoom will do nothing about that because B is physically behind A and if A is opaque then it will occlude it.
He uses the first of these to conclude that ships are not disappearing behind a "hill of water" but then because ships do exactly that he then says that's caused by "waves". There's a lot of this "heads I win, tails you lose" reasoning.
As someone else noted, I'm not 100% sure you really believe this stuff.
-
I see words, not demonstration.
Sorry - I thought I'd save you the time of looking for the flights yourself. Can't you be bothered to do the most basic research? I can demonstrate how you can book one here: https://www.expedia.co.uk/Flights-Search?mode=search&paandi=true&trip=roundtrip&options=cabinclass%3Aeconomy%2Cnopenalty%3AN%2Csortby%3Aprice&passengers=children%3A0%2Cadults%3A1%2Cseniors%3A0%2Cinfantinlap%3AY&leg1=from%3ASantiago%2C%20Chile%20(SCL-Arturo%20Merino%20Benitez)%2Cto%3ASydney%2C%20NSW%2C%20Australia%20(SYD-Kingsford%20Smith%20Intl.)%2Cdeparture%3A28%2F3%2F2018TANYT&leg2=from%3ASydney%2C%20NSW%2C%20Australia%20(SYD-Kingsford%20Smith%20Intl.)%2Cto%3ASantiago%2C%20Chile%20(SCL-Arturo%20Merino%20Benitez)%2Cdeparture%3A4%2F4%2F2018TANYT
If I did not know better, I'd suspect you were a top class troll who does this just for giggles. I have to commend your stamina to keep this up day-in day-out. Anyway, I refuse to waste any more time on you. Ta' rah!
I have come to the conclusion, looking at the discussion, threads, lack of replies and when threads are abandoned, that Tom, Pete, Baby thork etc have, in reality, just set themselves a challenge to defend what is a very "undefendable" point regarding the shape of the earth. They dont really believe it, they are just messing with you, deliberately obfuscating the science facts and deliberatley being obtuse. They didnt come foreward when asked to clarify the reasons they believe in a flat earth and obviously wont own up to what I have just said as this will blow there personal challenge. You have to admit they have done a good job at fooling everyone.
Finally someone brought this up. I love debating as much as the next guy, and I'm somewhat active on these forums, but until we get some changes there's no real progress to make. The round earthers don't have a leg to stand on considering that the proof the flat earthers demand is restricted:
-no nasa, they're liars
-no photos or videos, they're liars
-no astronauts, they're liars
-no satellite tracking, those are weather balloons
-no sunsets, because perspective reasons
-no inconsistencies of the map, it's just a guess
-no math, that's rationalizing and we hate that
-no plane travel times, those are inaccurate
-no showing things disappearing over the curve, that's just waves
-no GPS because eLoran
(though actually I think they have caved on this issue, despite not attempting to explain how it works without satellites)
-no constellation related things, because "aetheric vortex"
-no eclipses, because "shadow object"
-no gravity, because "universal accelerator"
And even if you manage to squeeze your shred of credibility through all that, it's stated right there in the wiki, that you're still a liar:
P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an
obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth
P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that
contradicts the FET
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET
is fabricated evidence
Bravo. This isn't empiricism.
Dont forget, that if we were to know this was a ride we were all being taken on, then it would end. End discussions, end the forum and the FE society. A conspiracy theory? The conspiracy that the tongue in cheek flat earthers have been pulling the round earthers plonkers....step forward and take a bow.
Who is Tom Bishop?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFgo2gQSdtg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFgo2gQSdtg)
Author of the video, the one and only Tom Bishop!.....you got us Tom....hats off to you!
-
Continental US, I suppose? Will look it up.
EDIT: Well, obviously that's the way. Why should they go over china? That makes absolutely no sense on a globe, so on which flat earth model would it?
The point is that it would make no sense for the planes to fly the "long way" around the earth between those two southern points. We only have data for that route.
That sounds awfully close to an admission that the flight data is accurate.