Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - titidam

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sunrise/Sunset
« on: October 31, 2018, 12:16:34 AM »
I would point out that there is no bi-polar map. There is only a bi-polar model. Literally zero work has gone into creating one. That is just a sample that someone had found. The orientation of the continents is unknown.

Does North point towards the North pole?

Yes, that's the model, except with a disclaimer that the particular map layout illustrated is only an example map and has not been vetted.

Seriously Tom. I know you're in there. You're going to tell me that a globe is too fabricated to match simple empiricism, but this bi-polar stuff makes sense?

The Zetetic societies moved on to the bi-polar model when the South Pole was discovered.

You mean this:

You realize it makes everything worse, right? The small amount of explanations Flat Earthers provided to make sense of their old map just fly out the window.

- Others believe that light curves upwards to limit our vision.

How does light curving upwards explain that the three locations can see the same constellation, Octans, towards South?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« on: October 30, 2018, 03:22:29 PM »
The picture of wave is just for convenience and for visual effect.
The calculation was done according to perspective.

Are you saying that perspective has an opposite effect on buildings and waves, that buildings shrink while waves enlarge?

Such an effect has never been observed. How would perspective differentiate between the two?

Can you provide the calculation?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« on: October 30, 2018, 03:05:34 PM »
The sea is not an ideal plane.
I hope this video would help.

In your video, why doesn't perspective apply to the waves?

Bottom right is not a 1 meter wave, it's a tsunami. Of the 2012 caliber.

Since we can debate, I'd like to offer a globist standpoint.

I was surprised that nobody said it. The zetetic method is the scientific method. There's no difference between them. That's because modern science is based on zetetic.

It started with Descartes, genius mathematician and philosopher, father of rationalism. His main principles were logic and reason. He seeks the truth of knowledge through strict analysis. He rejects all faith and preconceived notions in science, although he is a fervent believer.

The need for a rigorous method to acquire evidence, the falsifiability of hypotheses, the reproductibility of experiments, the skepticism against everything that isn't fully demonstrated: all of this is from Descartes 'Zététique'. Which greatly inspired and allowed Newton to develop mechanics.

His most famous result is probably 'Cogito ergo sum': I think, therefore I am. This single thought experiment kick-started the age of knowledge we live in, by putting doubt at the base of all science.

Recognizing that everything must be doubted, including his own intelligence, his knowledge and his senses, which are mere representations of the world in his brain, he searches for one undeniable truth of fact. This truth should serve as a foundation for a new kind of knowledge, acquired exclusively through reason, after this thought experiment.

And he finds that no matter if his intelligence and sensations are false, he can always feel his own mind talking inside himself, which implies that 'himself' must somehow exist: he thinks, so he exists. From the truth of his own existence, he then goes on to recover knowledge, by analysing his previous ideas and keeping only those rationally demonstrable from the Cogito.

As such, zetetic is an important course taught in many reputable and scientific universities worldwide. It's a tool for mental hygiene. In fact, it should be in the toolbox of every self-respecting scientist to regularly get back on track. What are my assumptions? How strict is my method? Are my results sufficiently demonstrated? Am I not influencing the experience with my own bias?

Flat Earthers don't use the zetetic method but a parody of it. They don't use doubt to gain knowledge. If that was the case, they would perfectly accept scientific findings, precisely because scientists are the most skeptical persons in the world.

Instead, they use doubt to remain forever in doubt. They refuse to leave the Cogito and build further knowledge. Which results in the perpetual demands for more evidence, meanwhile rejecting all evidence presented.

Pseudoscience groups, along with paranormal, spiritual, and all kinds of alternative groups, have appropriated zetetic to mean: 'we doubt science'. Forgetting that science is the method of doubt.

What they mean by zetetic depends on each group. They don't always replace rationalism with empiricism, but this seems to work for Rowbotham's business as a reason to distrust technology.

If proof was needed that Flat Earthers don't practice the zetetic method: they're seldom skeptical of each other. Any evidence against science triggers a confirmation bias, whether the actual belief in this evidence is shared or not. Meanwhile scientists spend their lives attempting to destroy each other's theories.

Whatever definition these modern groups give to zetetic in pop culture has little influence on the academic world, which still relies on the zetetic method.

I know some will disagree and hopefully I don't appear aggressive. It's a shame to read that Occam's Razor isn't a part of zetetic. In the real world, it is.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Irrefutable Proof of Curvature
« on: October 29, 2018, 10:33:40 PM »
I think it has more to do with the PowerPoint than the content. There are multiple arguments that could be more easily explained - and replied to - in separate posts.

Also I'm not sure who you're talking to, is this Degrassi person on this forum?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Re: Help Me debunk this stupid video
« on: October 29, 2018, 05:52:04 PM »
Which is why you take a telescope, so when you see that bright light and then see it through a telescope. You can then see that it exists and also you can confirm what it is through a telescope.
I, as I am sure you would also be, personally incapable of obtaining and maintaining a telescope spotting on an object the size and moving at a speed like the ISS.

You should get a motorized mount for your telescope. Then you could feed it any satellite tracking software.

The ISS is fast but it can take up to 6 minutes to cross the sky. Despite its size it can have an apparent magnitude up to -5 which is brighter than Venus.

Sites like will generate detailed maps of the next sightings at your location, including its position minute by minute:

You could also wait for an ISS transit in front of the Sun or Moon and burst shoot a serie of pictures:

This was shot with an amateur refractor telescope, which is just a glorified field-glass. So yes, the shape of the ISS can be seen with the eye.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Common FE Straw Men
« on: October 29, 2018, 12:11:54 PM »
Common straw man in FE videos: if the Earth was spinning, you could hover with a helicopter and wait for the ground to move below you.
Others say that a plane travelling West should cover less distance than a plane travelling East. Or that pilots could never land safely. Or that you should encounter terrible winds as soon as you step outside.

I'm sure these have been answered a million times, but they're still an entry point for many people into the FE 'common sense'.

The atmosphere as a whole spins along with the globe. The air is subject to inertia and gravity, as much as solids. Just because you take to the air doesn't mean that you're freed from the rotation.
Every air flow that doesn't follow the Earth's rotation, aka wind, is eventually slowed down by friction with the solid surface. This in turn creates friction with higher winds.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Establishing a scientific database of proof
« on: October 29, 2018, 12:17:52 AM »
I'm very interested in these experiments. Please post any result or keep me updated!

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sunrise/Sunset
« on: October 28, 2018, 10:18:02 PM »
I was going off of Bobby's "Longitude isn't the point. Latitude is." It doesn't matter. Rather than pointing out trivialities, how about addressing the substance of the issue?

Is it so trivial that you need to remove your first reply, which consisted in copy/pasting the definition of latitude for me?

I mean it's no big deal, everybody makes that kind of mistakes. Most often those who don't have an interest in astronomical models, though.

Now that it's cleared up and we're all knowledgeable, I too would like the answer to this question. It seems very interesting.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sunrise/Sunset
« on: October 28, 2018, 09:45:54 PM »
With your example of Hong Kong and Perth on the same latitude line the same is seen, as you assert.

*whispers* longitude

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« on: October 28, 2018, 07:25:37 PM »
On a spherical Earth, you could not see anything under 1.242km, yet we can see the full view of the mountains from Lebanon.

You see the top half of the mountains because they are 2500 meters high. That's twice as much as the height hidden by the horizon, 1250 meters.

Your calculations are coherent with a spherical Earth. Thank you for your service.

Great contribution Bobby!

I couldn't find the date of the first Moon picture. M42 was shot on 25th October 2017 at 4:30am GMT.

Here's a half Moon but it was pretty high in the sky:

10th November 2017 at 3:10am GMT. Azimuth 131.4° and Elevation 54.5°. The frame is tilted to fit the Moon.

Latitude still 43.8° North.

A photo of a half moon just before moon set would be perfect then I can measure the angle of the terminator to the horizon.

Not sure what time you mean. Like 1 hour before? Maybe we could set a date to shoot?

weather is a challenge.

Don't tell me  ::)

Edit: resize

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« on: October 28, 2018, 03:31:17 PM »
Clearly the majority don't believe that they exist.  That's a HUGE advantage in business.  You could develop equipment and get some patents.

ONLY the various departments of defense (the military) are allowed to make use of the longitudinal waves: not even Tesla was allowed to make public this kind of knowledge.

You're saying the military is preventing you from opening your business?

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
« on: October 27, 2018, 09:55:26 PM »
The moral pushed by Rowbotham is that everything in the Scriptures is literally true, and everything contrary to Scriptures is necessarily wrong.

Quite incorrect. I have pointed out to you that Rowbotham encourages us to put Scripture under the harshest of criticism and for himself says that the spiritual meaning behind it is "possibly" true.

Yes he exactly states that the Scriptures are literally true, and everything that contradicts Scriptures is wrong.

You have refuted this and you have been proven wrong countless times already. Don't think that our readers have forgotten. You went back on every single statement that you quite hastily made on this question.

First you said that he didn't mention Christ, wrong. Then that "Earth not a globe" didn't endorse Christianism more than Judaism, wrong. Then that he didn't consider false anything that contradicts the Scriptures, wrong. Then that he only declared the facts of Scriptures true, not their spiritual message, wrong again!

But regardless of one's opinion, that is proselytism. "To convince that all unscriptural teaching is false and deadly."

And that criticism of atheism is related to this bit:

Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
It is quite as faulty and unjust for the religious devotee to urge the teaching of Scripture against the theories of the philosopher simply because he believes them to be true, as it is for the philosopher to defend his theories against Scripture for no other reason than that he disbelieves them.

Which part of this do you disagree with? Rowbotham makes an excellent argument.

And yet again, I am not disagreeing with Rowbotham. You are. I am only asking if you have any justification for this position. But it doesn't seem like you're ready to concede the truth. For a truth seeker, I hope the irony isn't lost.

It is not a matter of me burying my head in the sand at all. Words matter. Context matters. Rowbotham is not pushing a religion on us. Quite the contrary. Facts > Beliefs. This is a prime motivating call of Earth Not a Globe, the Zetetic philosophy, everything Rowbotham believes in and upholds.

Yes, words matter, context matters, and Rowbotham's words and context couldn't be made more clear than by reading him.

He constructs a factual theory to support Christian beliefs. He doesn't say that facts are superior to beliefs, as you wish to put in his mouth. He says that beliefs should be justified by facts.

He says that all serious analysis, no matter how harsh, should only lead to conclude the truthness of the facts upon which his beliefs become founded. Else it is unconditionnally wrong.

Both his facts and beliefs go hand in hand to achieve the same goal, to further Christianity. Which is why I'm repeatingly asking you to justify how you can dissociate them.

Rowbotham is a very influential figure, who champions empericism, and who is not only the prime founder of flat earth, concave earth, and skeptical zetetic societies, but also is the founder of the religious zetetic movement which prided themselves on fact-based evidence for religious philosophy; a movement quite unlike any other religious movement ever seen.

Sorry but pretending that I'm attacking him is, quite frankly, a juvenile tactic.

Careful readers note that you're omitting to answer to this:

If you call that truth, it's only because you share those beliefs. In which case TFES could acknowledge that the Flat Earth theory is religious.

It shouldn't be so hard, really.

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
« on: October 27, 2018, 08:29:11 PM »
The moral pushed by Rowbotham is that everything in the Scriptures is literally true, and everything contrary to Scriptures is necessarily wrong.

If you call that truth, it's only because you share those beliefs. In which case TFES could acknowledge that the Flat Earth theory is religious.

But regardless of one's opinion, that is proselytism. "To convince that all unscriptural teaching is false and deadly."

"Earth not a globe" is a book for convincing readers on religious matters, following an empirical basis constructed to allow for these religious beliefs, which is the Flat Earth theory.

You haven't provided a single reason to think that dissociating Rowbotham's theory from its religious grounds is relevant, or even possible. You just bury your head in the sand.

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
« on: October 27, 2018, 05:39:02 PM »
So it's denial and hypocrisy.

"To truthfully instruct the ingenuous Christian mind, to protect it from the meshes of false philosophy, and the snares of specious but hollow illogical reasoning; to save it from falling into the frigid arms of atheistic science; to convince it that all unscriptural teaching is false and deadly, and to induce great numbers of earnest deep-thinking human beings to desert the rebellious cause of atheism; to return to a full recognition of the beauty and truthfulness of the Scriptures, and to a participation in the joy and satisfaction which the Christian religion alone can supply, is a grand and cheering result, and one which furnishes the noblest possible answer to the ever ready Cui bono."

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
« on: October 27, 2018, 03:50:04 PM »
How anyone can think these are words of a religious zealot is beyond me. How many times have you heard a preacher say that the spiritual and moral teachings of the Bible are "possible," while also encouraging the listener to criticize it?

Nobody accused Rowbotham of fanatism. I don't have a problem with Rowbotham being religious. He could be the most pious man and that would only be his right. That would not diminish the value of his work for me. I have a problem with the Flat Earth theory being religious in nature and TFES denying it.

Let's look at another author. Racism is contingent with the work of H.P. Lovecraft. It's impossible to appreciate his literature without being bombarded with racist hypotheses. They're a concrete part of the lore. In his work, there are supernatural creatures such as Cthulhu ; respectable men driven crazy and into submission by the powers of such creatures ; and black people who are seen as a degenerate form, already corrupted by the supernatural, intermediate between man and Cthulhu's servant.

Confronted with this fact, readers can choose to fully reject such literature. One can hold the author accountable for his beliefs, estimate that they are incompatible with any intellectual value, and preemptively discard all the work. You know that some atheists can be as virulent against religiosity as others are against racism. In Rowbotham's case, this attitude would be akin to rejecting his work on the only basis of his Christian beliefs. This is not what I do. In my opinion, thinking that a religious person can't produce a work of any scientific value, is a grave error.

Other Lovecraft's readers, more interested in literature than judging morals, try to make amends with the work. One can estimate that moral flaws don't preclude all intellectual value. You just have to cut through the bad and keep the good. We do that all the time in everyday's life. Given that a vast majority of authors lived under very different times and belief systems than nowadays, cutting through their horrendous mistakes is very often necessary.

However, it's still an intellectual alteration of the work. One can say: "I don't care that the work of Lovecraft is blatantly racist. I forget that, dissociate myself from him, and read for the sci fi."

But if one were to say: "The work of Lovecraft isn't racist," that would only be a lie. This is the fallacy that TFES commits with Rowbotham's "Earth not a globe" and the whole Flat Earth theory.

The book itself is a piece of proselytism to convince people that the Scriptures are true. His goal is written by Rowbotham himself.

The Christian religion, and no other, is contingent with his Flat Earth theory. You can't have one without the other. Just like you can't have Cthulhu without degenerate humans. The contingency is written in both works.

TFES could say: "We know that the Flat Earth theory is religious, but we don't care. We dissociate ourselves from Rowbotham, cut through the religious stuff, and only keep the empirical."

That's not what TFES does, however. Instead it denies the religiosity of the Flat Earth theory:

Is flat earth theory connected to a religion?
Flat earth theory is neither officially nor unofficially associated with any religion. Throughout the ages various religious institutions have championed a flat earth model for the world. Unfortunately this leaves us with the vestigial thought that flat earth theory and religions are symbiotic. They are not, even though many religions today, both mainstream and otherwise, still teach its followers that the world is flat. While they are not incorrect, believing in a flat earth isn't contingent upon believing in a deity or being a part of any religion.

Again, you only have to read "Earth not a globe" to see the contingency of the Christian religion with Rowbotham's theory.

My question was: is the dissociation with Rowbotham's ideas assumed? If not, it's only a hypocrisy.

All the dancing around and making excuses in this thread should be proof enough.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4  Next >