7561

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can we debunk this theory?

« on: August 09, 2017, 07:53:58 PM »

Religion implies super natural in most definitions

The people who believe in God don't think that their beliefs are "super natural" or "para-normal. They would describe it as very natural and normal. Those people outnumber you. Therefore the burden of proof is to prove them wrong. You cannot simply redefine their beliefs.

No one on our side would back away from explaining in detail as best they were able ANY "If the Earth is round then how come X......?"

This is incorrect. There are several questions you back away from and cannot explain. For instance, the full moon should be impossible on a Round Earth, but the topic is generally avoided and excuses are given when brought up.

7562

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line

« on: August 09, 2017, 04:50:14 PM »

Actually, the bi-polar model was the official Flat Earth model held by the society after Rowbotham. There is a whole body of research that discusses all of these questions. There are a number of books and journals supporting to the bi-polar model, basically anything published by our society in the early 1900's (Then called the Universal Zetetic Society). Lady Blount and Albert Smith (Zetetes) were notable Flat Earth authors supporting the bi-polar model. We were kind enough to provide scanned literature on this website, and on the .org website, for you to pursue if interested in the subject.

Anything published in the last 30 years?

We have the internet now. Books are no longer necessary, and frankly expensive to produce. We publish our information on this forum, on the other .org forum, as well as the Wiki. Flat Earth information is also published via youtube and reddit as well.

7563

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line

« on: August 09, 2017, 04:42:19 PM »

Actually, the bi-polar model was the official Flat Earth model held by the society after Rowbotham. It was created when the South Pole was discovered, in order to update the model with the latest data. There is a whole body of research that discusses all of your questions. There are a number of books and journals supporting to the bi-polar model, basically anything published by our society in the early 1900's (Then called the Universal Zetetic Society). Lady Blount and Albert Smith (aka Zetetes) were notable Flat Earth authors supporting the bi-polar model. We were kind enough to provide scanned literature on this website, and on the other .org website, for you to pursue if interested in the subject.

7564

Flat Earth Community / Re: I'm calling out Tom Bishop (But in a friendly non-confrontational way)

« on: August 09, 2017, 12:45:16 PM »

I am happy to answer any and all questions. I am actually more of a right brain thinker. I would suggest asking one or two at a time if you would like more thorough answers.

7565

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can we debunk this theory?

« on: August 09, 2017, 12:06:43 PM »

You continue to either not understand or ignore the actual thrust of my argument. Now, I'll admit looking I don't see an official stance from any that God cannot be found with science (at least recently, and digging back further is proving difficult for some reason) but it IS a stance of a not insignificant amount of believers from what I'm seeing. But really, that's neither here nor there.

Again, this isn't about how you feel, or majority in other fields. This is about science, where the commonly accepted theory is the default. The one that has to be disproven. RE did this a few thousand years ago. Now FE is in that position, and it has much larger hurdles to overcome because of scientific advancement. Religion and god are not comparable in this field. RE and FE are not yes/no or existent/nonexistent sides of a coin. They are Option A or Option B. That is why god and religion have no place and can't be compared to this. One side isn't proving or claiming a negative, one side is presenting the arguments held as truth/correct by the scientific community, and the other is attempting to say those are wrong. IN SCIENCE that means the latter have the burden of proof. I don't know how to make that any more clear. This is how the process works, this is how we've had breakthroughs and discoveries for many years now. Scientific progress is about showing how something currently thought correct is incorrect, or only correct to a point. Right now, science says RE is correct. That makes the burden on FE to disprove RE and create a working replacement. Ye god I hope this gets it through to you and you don't just ignore it like you've done multiple times now, but my hopes are low.
[/quote

The existence of a God who created and controls the universe is a scientific concept. How is it purely a religious concept? Religion is making a direct claim about how the universe operates. There are MORE PEOPLE who believe in the existence of God than not, who say that the universe operates in this way. That means that the burden of proof is on you.

If you are unable to cope with the responsibility of disproving God, that just means that you are clearly wrong, and a coward, for walking away from your burden of proving a negative, and we have nothing further to discuss.

7566

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can we debunk this theory?

« on: August 09, 2017, 11:57:39 AM »

Your 'yearly budget' is whatever you guys put into it, which if you actually care about it and making it a valid theory instead of a nonsense hypothesis should be greater than $0.

The timing of the eclipses is corroborated by historic patterns, and where they will be visible is entirely based upon two equations developed within the last 50 years. We've shown that to you, that's the facts and they don't care if you believe them or not.

You guys keep claiming that, but have been unable to provide a model and NASA and various astronomy websites explicitly state on their eclipse predicting websites that they are using cycle charts. This is a topic deserving of its own thread if you would like to discuss further.

Then take some time and corroborate smaller distances. If you look at a Road Atlas or something, pick two points and travel between them. If your results show the same as given for the Atlas, you've validated for yourself the accuracy of that map. Do that with others, and compare. Work with other members of those who believe in FE, or find those willing to assist in this manner (assuming you'll trust them, which seems to be something you can't do) to help verify the accuracy. Verify enough maps and bam. You've got working, known distances to be using, and comparing to what's listed online. Best of all the only cost is a few days of many peoples time, and the cost of a tank of gas for each. "Many hands make light work."

That sounds like a nice project to do. We will add it to the list. Unfortunately, time is money, and resources are limited. It is a shame that people like you are so quick to demand experiments or projects be performed but refuse to investigate and contribute for yourselves.

7567

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 09, 2017, 11:18:30 AM »

Really, you must have a rough idea.  How do ships and planes work out journey times?

There is a theoretical model based on latitudes and longitudes on a Round Earth which supposedly tells us how far away point A should be from point B, and planes use this value in its calculations when guessing its own cruising speed (which may be inaccurate since it is using Round Earth assumptions).

My GPS tells me speed and distance accurately.

And how do you know that the speed and distance is accurate? Even at the scale of a car, the GPS speed is inaccurate when compared to the car's speedometer.

GPS speed is more accurate that a speedometer.  Please give us your method of measurements.

That is what is claimed as an explanation for the difference. But all we really know is that the speeds are different and there are a few explanation floating around to try and explain why. We will need some kind of test independent of looking at your car's speedometer to tell us the accuracy of GPS if a speedometer cannot be relied on at all.

Since the speeds often differ, for whatever reason, the "speed accuracy" argument that GPS is spot-on cannot be used as an argument to say that GPS is correct.

7568

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 09, 2017, 10:41:09 AM »

My GPS tells me speed and distance accurately.

And how do you know that the speed and distance is accurate? Even at the scale of a car, the GPS speed is inaccurate when compared to the car's speedometer.

Really? Because mine is pretty spot on within 1 MPH usually. As long as I'm not changing speeds faster than it's refresh rate. It also does a pretty damn good job at giving arrival times, which means it needs to be fairly accurate for speed, distance, and current location.

The internet is littered with complaints asking why GPS speed differs so drastically from their speedometer.

https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/2sjy8x/which_is_more_accurate_my_factory_speedometer_or/

Which is more accurate? My factory speedometer or my garmin GPS? (self.cars)

I notice a difference in my GPS speed from my factory speedo. At 100kph there is almost a 15kph difference. The vehicle speedo always reads a bit higher. I use the GPS speedo usually because its hard to read the kilo's on my US Spec speedo. Just trying to avoid a possible ticket!

https://en.discussions.tomtom.com/tomtom-traffic-live-and-other-services-47/why-is-my-speed-always-4-5-mph-out-of-sync-272539

WHY IS MY SPEED ALWAYS 4-5 MPH OUT OF SYNC ?

all my TT devices eg: XXL IQ  and recently GO 1005 World`s speed info is always 4-5 MPH out and other people I have met say on a motorway service station are spot on?

Is there a reason for this ... I have tried many positions on my windscreen and its the same and I only have a mondeo and not some strangely obscuring windscreen type of car or truck?

7569

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 09, 2017, 04:57:33 AM »

Really, you must have a rough idea.  How do ships and planes work out journey times?

There is a theoretical model based on latitudes and longitudes on a Round Earth which supposedly tells us how far away point A should be from point B, and planes use this value in its calculations when guessing its own cruising speed .

However, Latitude and Longitude is a spherical coordinate system. The points and the theoretical distance between them depends on the concept that the earth is a sphere.

My GPS tells me speed and distance accurately.

And how do you know that the speed and distance is accurate? Even at the scale of a car, the GPS speed is inaccurate when compared to the car's speedometer.

7570

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 08, 2017, 10:52:15 PM »

The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

7571

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 08, 2017, 10:22:32 PM »

You originally said 8834 km. You "misfingered" three characters. And we are supposed to trust your math now?

Regardless, that website just says "GREAT CIRCLE DISTANCE 5,850 km." How do we know whether that figure on the website is based on a flight log or on a Round Earth theory about how far New York should be from Paris?

7572

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can we debunk this theory?

« on: August 08, 2017, 10:12:26 PM »

FFS Why don't you get together and buy a decent theodolite and just start checking near you?  We have to prove you wrong, but you have no map, no math, no theory, nothing.  Don't you get it?  When you can't come up with a single equation to predict sunrises, sunsets, elevations, eclipses etc......   and WE CAN EVERYDAY, what's left to check?  I can't prove anything wrong you can't even come up with.©

There is a lack of funding to develop such things. Our yearly budget is $0 while Round Earth Theory has had hundreds of years and near endless funding.

Much of our time is dedicated to educating the public that Round Earth Theory isn't as certain as it seems, such as the eclipses and planet predictions being based on using pattern recognition on historic tables of past observations, and not actually predicted in a geometric sense.

7573

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 08, 2017, 09:37:37 PM »

How are we supposed to know if those distances are based on actual flight logs or on calculations which assume a globe if the author neglects to provide his sources?

7574

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can we debunk this theory?

« on: August 08, 2017, 09:30:43 PM »

So you guys are ok with taking the word of one man on his experiments, but you can't trust the distances we've been given for the landmasses of the continents of the Earth and the oceans? Because that's what I'm getting out of this. The numbers for the distances across the states are easy to find. The distances for the width of Australia, Europe, NA, SA, Asia, Africa and Antarctica are easy to find, as well as the distances broken down into smaller chunks. You're telling me that we can't trust any of those distances? That you blanket refuse to use them in an effort to put together a map because...why exactly? If making a map is so hard, how did the map of the globe come about? How is it accurate at the local level for everyone? Where did the distances for the Rand McNally Road Atlas come from? Your claim boils down to "We can't make a map because all the people who created maps and charted distances that are available online are part of the Round Earth conspiracy!!!!1!1!!"

Once again your post contribution in that thread seems to be "Disprove me because that's what you have to do!" rather than understanding it's on you to provide the proof. If you can't make a map that works with known distances (hopefully/potentially corroborated via flight times) you don't have a theory. You have a hypothesis, and a rather poor one at that.

The issue is that no one in the society will give serious consideration to the notion of simply "looking up" distances. Questions will arise on whether it was calculated on the presumption of a globe, and flight logs will be necessary. Then there is a matter that planes do not make direct straight line paths to their destinations, will regularly use jet streams, be delayed, etc.

It is also not a given that taking a flight from location A to location B tells us the distance between those two points based on the time of arrival. One might theorize that an aircraft has a cruising speed of so and so miles per hour, but how was that calculated? Based on assumed Round Earth distances when the plane made a test flight to a "known" location in its development?

As you can see, the matter is all a little more complicated than just needing to Google distances.

7575

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can we debunk this theory?

« on: August 08, 2017, 09:14:24 PM »

But there is no single commonly accepted religion, and nearly every single one says you cannot find a god via science. Or have you had your head in the sand for the last few decades? Also many religions don't claim all of science is false, that's something you literally just made up on the spot. Beyond that, even if it was 'science is true or religion is true' there's no such thing as a null hypothesis in religion. So such a thing wouldn't even exist.

I can't even believe I have to break it down this far, just to try and force you from weaseling out of giving a legitimate answer. Among the scientific community, the commonly accepted theory (used here in the scientific sense, and if you don't know the difference educate yourself please) is the default, the null, and what any new hypothesis must disprove, or be a more accurate fit for. At present, FE can't even put forth a model to test against, or any equations to test. It's a glorified hypotheses. Show me your FE model Tom. Or how about that equation for Electromagnetic Accelerator that you claim to have cut down. At least then we'd have something to test against and you could begin on the path to being a theory. You don't even know the number of the 'constant' in your EA calculation for fuck's sake. You demand incredible amounts of evidence, and don't even hold your own tests to the same standard.

No religion says that it is impossible to find God with science. Which one said that? If God exists or does things in any capacity then it is possible to find evidence for his existence. More people believe in God than those who do not. If you are a non-believer, that makes the burden of proof on you!

If you can lead by example on this matter and prove that God does not exist, I would appreciate it. Let me know by sending me a PM or by creating a new thread that you have disproven the existence of God. The burden of proof is on you, after all. I will then agree with your argument that the burden of proof is not on those who make claims of things beyond experience, and that it is actually based on "majority opinion". I will also reverse all of my criticisms on the concept of proving a negative, which I have shared on this forum, and immediately proceed to answering all of the "prove me wrong" threads.

7576

Flat Earth Community / Re: North pole Sunlight.

« on: August 08, 2017, 09:01:11 PM »

Can you illustrate this question? I am not following along.

7577

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can we debunk this theory?

« on: August 08, 2017, 08:50:12 PM »

Or you could watch the data as commercial airlines fly from point to point using great circle navigation.  Using proven accurate technology no less.  Or is Flight Track data only real when I use it?

I have yet to see an assessment which discounts all possible continental layout and distance configurations.

No shit, you've only seen it discount all of your possible layouts and distance configurations.  Works swimmingly on ours.

The current Flat Earth maps were not created with any attention to continental layouts or distances. They are projections of a globe to showcase a particular concept of navigation or polar layout, and are not original creations.

We have looked into this issue on a number of occasions, and the current opinions seems to be that it is impractical for us to make a map as discussed here.

7578

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 08, 2017, 08:29:52 PM »

If the lines are too long for the triangle, then it is entirely possible for a triangle to have more than 180 degrees.


I can't find any New York to Paris flights, or New York to Buenos Airies flights, or New York to Cape Town flights on https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/route-maps/global/en. Please provide your sources.

7579

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can we debunk this theory?

« on: August 08, 2017, 06:23:57 PM »

It's the one commonly accepted among the world (by a wide margin)

Religion is most commonly accepted among the world. Therefore religion is true and science is false. Burden is on you to disprove religion.

Who says that God is untestable? He exists, He does things, therefore He is testable. Once you are able to disprove God, get back to us, because the burden is on you to disprove this popular null hypothesis and not on its claimants.

7580

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Trip To View Catalina Island for curvature proof

« on: August 08, 2017, 04:52:54 PM »

That's not quite right.  Round Earthers are the ones who point out that IF the earth were flat you SHOULD be able to see the coast of Catalina from anyplace that offers a view of the Catalina peak.  Flat Earthers acknowledge that you cannot see it, and propose various atmospheric and perspective effects to explain why you cannot.

Actually our position is that sometimes you can or cannot see distant bodies at sea, depending on wave conditions, and that this was all documented over 150 years ago. A calmer body of water is a more appropriate location for this experiment. See the chapters Why A Ship's Hull Disappears Before The Mast-Head and Perspective at Sea in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.