The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Curious Squirrel on July 07, 2017, 03:45:21 PM
-
We have research stations in Antarctica. Just like there are some in the Arctic. How does the FE model explain their summer being continuous daylight, just like what happens in the Arctic region? The models for a flat Earth I've seen has Antarctica as a ring around the Earth, which wouldn't allow this to happen based on the movement of the sun. So how is this accounted for under FET?
-
How does the FE model explain their summer being continuous daylight,
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-MLNm4kI4iw
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-MLNm4kI4iw
Can you answer using your own words rather than linking to a 44-min video?
-
How does the FE model explain their summer being continuous daylight,
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-MLNm4kI4iw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc-WlTaG7WY I can link a simple video showing the opposite. Or how about this one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nc6nhtaEt4 Where does that leave us?
-
Where does that leave us?
It leaves me questioning your curiosity.
-
Where does that leave us?
It leaves me questioning your curiosity.
What does that even mean? How is your video any more valid than the ones I posted? Or than the numerous personal accounts that are easy to dig up from scientists to boat captains?
-
There are two magnetic and celestial poles in the most modern Flat Earth model. See The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions in our literature repository.
-
There are two magnetic and celestial poles in the most modern Flat Earth model. See The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions in our literature repository.
Once again, how is a sun that 'knows' when to move between two different orbits, more plausible than a spinning Earth? I'm also heavily curious how this idea works with the map of the Flat Earth as laid out. There's no way for a figure 8 to lay upon the flat earth map, and provide 24 hour daylight to the arctic circle with one loop, and 24 hour daylight to the Antarctic with the other loop. Not to mention the very idea of it goes against the motion of the sun laid out by FES to model the seasons. Answer is blatantly incorrect, based on your own models in the wiki. Care to try again?
As a reminder, http://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png here is the primary proposed model for the layout of Earth upon a flat disc.
-
There are two magnetic and celestial poles in the most modern Flat Earth model. See The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions in our literature repository.
Once again, how is a sun that 'knows' when to move between two different orbits, more plausible than a spinning Earth? I'm also heavily curious how this idea works with the map of the Flat Earth as laid out.
That's because it doesn't. Antarctica is a continent in this model.
-
That's because it doesn't. Antarctica is a continent in this model.
I may have asked this earlier but don't remember having an answer.
Is there any decent map of the earth that looks like you think it should? The map shown in the faq does not show Antarctica as a continent but rather as a circle around the rest of the earth. It seems to me that you enjoy a certain degree of authority among the flat earth believers on this forum, so it is remarkable if you and the wiki disagree in such an important question.
-
That's because it doesn't. Antarctica is a continent in this model.
I may have asked this earlier but don't remember having an answer.
Is there any decent map of the earth that looks like you think it should? The map shown in the faq does not show Antarctica as a continent but rather as a circle around the rest of the earth. It seems to me that you enjoy a certain degree of authority among the flat earth believers on this forum, so it is remarkable if you and the wiki disagree in such an important question.
The wiki doesn't disagree. It mentions the model. Here is one possible visualization: http://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents
-
That's because it doesn't. Antarctica is a continent in this model.
I may have asked this earlier but don't remember having an answer.
Is there any decent map of the earth that looks like you think it should? The map shown in the faq does not show Antarctica as a continent but rather as a circle around the rest of the earth. It seems to me that you enjoy a certain degree of authority among the flat earth believers on this forum, so it is remarkable if you and the wiki disagree in such an important question.
The wiki doesn't disagree. It mentions the model. Here is one possible visualization: http://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents
The second model has more problems with it than the first though. The distortion on the continents is very noticeable, almost more so on the second one. How does the second model allow an airplane to travel from the West coast USA to Japan without noticing what's going on? What's going on with all of the crossing...are those supposed to be latitude lines?
Just to make sure I'm getting this right. If Antartica has a 24 hour daylight period, the 'standard' model for FE can't exist. Instead we have another proposed model, that appears to have numerous actual visible issues. That relies on some unknown mechanism so the sun can literally change it's orbit, twice a year. This mechanism can't be measured by anything we currently have, and it has to be able to significantly adjust the orbit of an object in the sky. That about sum things up for this question?
-
Especially the shape of Australia differs quite a lot between these two, as well as it does between either of them and the globe model.
Australia has some roads that go through it, west to east as well as south to north, so these could be measurable.
-
The example is for visualization purposes only. The continents are warped because it's just a projection of the globe model. The actual locations of the continents may differ as well (ie. Australia could be on the left side)
-
The example is for visualization purposes only. The continents are warped because it's just a projection of the globe model. The actual locations of the continents may differ as well (ie. Australia could be on the left side)
Why do you not have a map of the flat earth with accurate measurements? Or why do all measurements of the earth prove it to be round?
-
I see.
So, the answer to my question on whether there is a decent map is apparently no.
Also, whatever the layout of the continents may be, there should be something that would keep the oceans from falling off. And still we have had many reports of circumnavigating between all the continents.
-
The example is for visualization purposes only. The continents are warped because it's just a projection of the globe model. The actual locations of the continents may differ as well (ie. Australia could be on the left side)
Why is there not an accurate map then? All of the measurements that have been taken are publicly available. Should be a fairly simple matter for someone to have put one together, instead of stretching a RE image.
How about we simplify the other question down to a simple yes/no though. If Antarctica sees 24 hours of sunlight, as shown in my two videos above, is there any way the ice wall FE model can account for that?
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-MLNm4kI4iw
Can you answer using your own words rather than linking to a 44-min video?
The problem with this video are MANY...but 44 minutes is a lot to watch and comment about.
Firstly - the antarctic treaty - BELOVED by Flat Earthers because they claim that it makes it illegal for ordinary people to go there...conveniently preventing people from reporting back on it's properties. The Antarctic Treaty does NOTHING OF THE SORT! It's actually the exact opposite of that. It GUARANTEES that no one country can 'own' any of the territory - and GUARANTEES scientific access to the entire continent for anyone who wants to go out there and prove that the world is flat...or not. So the "you can't go there" argument is a flat out lie...it only takes you 2 minutes to Google the treat conditions...heck, I'll even do it for you:
Here are the articles of that treaty:
Article 1 – The area is to be used for peaceful purposes only; military activity, such as weapons testing, is prohibited but military personnel and equipment may be used for scientific research or any other peaceful purpose;
Article 2 – Freedom of scientific investigations and cooperation shall continue;
Article 3 – Free exchange of information and personnel in cooperation with the United Nations and other international agencies;
Article 4 – The treaty does not recognise, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;
Article 5 – The treaty prohibits nuclear explosions or disposal of radioactive wastes;
Article 6 – Includes under the treaty all land and ice shelves but not the surrounding waters south of 60 degrees 00 minutes south;
Article 7 – Treaty-state observers have free access, including aerial observation, to any area and may inspect all stations, installations, and equipment; advance notice of all activities and of the introduction of military personnel must be given;
Article 8 – Allows for good jurisdiction over observers and scientists by their own states;
Article 9 – Frequent consultative meetings take place among member nations;
Article 10 – All treaty states will discourage activities by any country in Antarctica that are contrary to the treaty;
Article 11 – All disputes to be settled peacefully by the parties concerned or, ultimately, by the International Court of Justice;
Articles 12, 13, 14 – Deal with upholding, interpreting, and amending the treaty among involved nations.
Now - which one of those says we can't go there? None of them! In fact - it actively allows it. If you say "I want to go to the South Pole to see if the Earth is Flat" - then (as a scientific investigator) - nobody can prevent you from going there. Just don't take any weapons, radioactive waste or atom bombs - and you'll be welcomed. Of course GETTING there - and not dropping dead while you're there - that's a harder problem...it's **NOT** the treaty that stops you going there.
The other issue - of the sun setting or not setting.
The earth's axis is tilted - which mean that the only time the sun goes around in a neat circle (above the horizon) is in mid-summer (December - because it's in the southern hemisphere). In June/July, you get perpetual nighttime - but through the rest of the year, the sun DOES rise and set.
So - all our intrepid videographer did was to set his "astronomy" program to December (note - perpetual sunlight) and pick a time lapse video made...oh! Really? October? Well...guess what...the sun does set in October. Because the Earth's axis is tilted.
Sorry - 3/4's of an hour just to make THAT stupid elementary mistake? Really?
Good grief.
-
Sorry - 3/4's of an hour just to make THAT stupid elementary mistake? Really?
This is why I don't watch these videos at all, unless the person linking them gives some kind of a summary using their own words, or the exact timing to a point that is relevant for the conversation (one or two minutes maximum).
It has always been a waste of time. Apparently it would have been this time, as well.
There are things I do for money. Argumenting in the internet is not one of them. I do it because it is partly interesting and partly fun, but in order for it to be interesting or fun I want to be in control of the speed in which I receive information. When reading text I can scroll as fast as I like, skip parts that seem irrelevant, even search for certain words easily. Video is a format of information that takes this control away from me.
Actually I think videos are a rude form of conversation, especially when they are not being made by the persons themselves. Even if there were one hour of total bullshit, it would only require a few seconds to put a link on it; for the other person it would require at least one hour to watch, and then even more to actually comment it. If the conversation consists of one person only giving links to videos and an another person explaining why those videos are wrong, that is simply not fair. I would still do this if I got paid for it, but otherwise no.
-
So, the answer to my question on whether there is a decent map is apparently no.
This is my favorite map. It makes the southern hemisphere flight times work.
(http://www.mytrexinc.com/g/fe/FlatEarthAccurate.png)
It seems to me that you [Tom Bishop] enjoy a certain degree of authority among the flat earth believers on this forum, so it is remarkable if you and the wiki disagree in such an important question.
It seems to me that the flatness of the Earth is only a secondary concern to Tom - or rather it is merely a consequence of his primary belief. What I have observed Tom's primary argument to be is... The Earth is not a globe. Not exactly sure what it is, but it definitely is not a globe.
(Tom, please correct me where I am wrong)
-
How in the world does that map work? It seems like you could only use up to two adjacent single square sections at any one time. What goes on at the intersections of what I presume is the equator?
-
How in the world does that map work? It seems like you could only use up to two adjacent single square sections at any one time. What goes on at the intersections of what I presume is the equator?
You are exactly right. We have to use our imagination a little bit to make it work.
But that's the same with every FE map.
-
This is my favorite map. It makes the southern hemisphere flight times work.
Eh - no, it doesn't. Some of the distances are better - but no, it doesn't reproduce real world distances to anywhere near a reasonable accuracy.
The mathematics of topology absolutely guarantee that no such map can ever possibly be made...even with cunning tricks like this one.
It would be interesting to know how a compass would work on this map too.
-
Eh - no, it doesn't. Some of the distances are better - but no, it doesn't reproduce real world distances to anywhere near a reasonable accuracy.
Agreed. The only way to make physics work is if the Earth is a globe. (Which it is).
That's still my favorite Flat Earth Map.
-
Sure it must not be a globe otherwise why TFES exists?
And it's not a globe, but a geoid. We all know it's a bit off of ellipsoid so that's fine. It's not a globe, Bishop you are correct.
Any flat map won't work. Any. This is because Earth is geoid. All flat map are approximations. Some approximate better areas near poles some do so in continents. But it is impossible to make a 2D map precisely for all areas. You need a globe for this.
Bishop, if you believe that Earth is not a globe without any sane evidence, it's a paranoia, a religion. It has nothing common with rationalism or science. It's something else...
-
There are two magnetic and celestial poles in the most modern Flat Earth model. See The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions in our literature repository.
So you are saying the sun rotates around both poles? How is that possible?
-
There are two magnetic and celestial poles in the most modern Flat Earth model. See The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions in our literature repository.
So you are saying the sun rotates around both poles? How is that possible?
The midnight sun of the north and south does not occur simultaneously.
-
There are two magnetic and celestial poles in the most modern Flat Earth model. See The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions in our literature repository.
So you are saying the sun rotates around both poles? How is that possible?
The midnight sun of the north and south does not occur simultaneously.
No - but other occasions when the sun is visible from both poles simultaneously DO occur every spring and summer.
Honestly, I thought FET (with the pre-antarctica map) was kinda amusing and was clever enough to reproduce many of the effects we see in the real world...but the version that has antarctica as a separate continent AS WELL AS the ice wall around the entire earth...that version produces VASTLY more anomalies and problems than previously.
So: Mr Bishop.
We're standing in the center of your newly-found continent of Antarctica on midsummer day (Dec 21st) - the sun orbits all around us and is continually visible. At some point therefore, it must be closer to the ice-wall (I want to say the "south" - but in this map, that's tricky terminology) than Antarctica...right?
This happens when it is noon at some point on the planet. Precisely where is hard to say...but it's always noon SOMEWHERE.
So - according to this new and exciting version of FET - the sun is both someplace between the continent of antarctica and the ice wall AND vertically above some place on the equator.
You want to take a shot at where that is?
Maybe get a copy of your map and put a nice red dot where you think the sun must be...I'd love to see that.
-
There are two magnetic and celestial poles in the most modern Flat Earth model. See The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions in our literature repository.
So you are saying the sun rotates around both poles? How is that possible?
The midnight sun of the north and south does not occur simultaneously.
Agree. But please explain how Antarctica could have 24-hour sunlight without messing up the day/night cycle in the rest of the world. Given that FE says the sun revolves around the North Pole.
-
There are two magnetic and celestial poles in the most modern Flat Earth model. See The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions in our literature repository.
So you are saying the sun rotates around both poles? How is that possible?
The midnight sun of the north and south does not occur simultaneously.
Agree. But please explain how Antarctica could have 24-hour sunlight without messing up the day/night cycle in the rest of the world. Given that FE says the sun revolves around the North Pole.
They have a new model (https://sjbaker.org/FlatMap2.jpg) for this, with two distinct poles. Don't know what holds it all on with this model (neither do they to my knowledge) and how the sun moves between an orbit over the North Pole to one over the South Pole is basically described as 'magic' from the one source I was given on here. It also comes with many of it's own issues (flight times still come to mind) but at least it's got the ability to give 24-hour daylight to Antarctica, so it's got that going for it.
-
The trouble with the new map:
(https://sjbaker.org/FlatMap2.jpg)
..is even more severe than with the old one.
Suppose it's summer in Antarctica - and you're standing on the south pole.
At some point during the months of continuous sunlight, the sun is going to be shining from the direction of the Ross Ice Shelf (the "bottom" of the new map). (You want to say "South" - but directions are so screwed up at the poles...!)
So the actual FE sun is somewhere between the Ross Ice Shelf and the "edge of the world" at the Ice Cliff.
Which means that for anyone in (say) South Africa - the sun is setting (or rising?) on the SOUTHERN horizon...yeah - that's a bit odd isn't it.
Then, for NewZealanders - their little islands have been smeared out over some ungodly large distance - which way does a compass point? Both North and South poles are "above" them on the map (again, putting compass directions on things is hard).
I had a small amount of grudging respect for the original FE map - it's not without it's faults, but it's quite a clever interpretation - but this new one is must batshit-crazy!
It's so badly screwy, you can't easily get your head around just how screwy it really is!
-
There are two magnetic and celestial poles in the most modern Flat Earth model. See The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions in our literature repository.
So you are saying the sun rotates around both poles? How is that possible?
The midnight sun of the north and south does not occur simultaneously.
I really wish you wouldn't cut and run from difficult questions.
"Agree. But please explain how Antarctica could have 24-hour sunlight without messing up the day/night cycle in the rest of the world. Given that FE says the sun revolves around the North Pole."
-
There are two magnetic and celestial poles in the most modern Flat Earth model. See The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions in our literature repository.
So you are saying the sun rotates around both poles? How is that possible?
The midnight sun of the north and south does not occur simultaneously.
Agree. But please explain how Antarctica could have 24-hour sunlight without messing up the day/night cycle in the rest of the world. Given that FE says the sun revolves around the North Pole.
You are forgetting that during the time of the midnight sun in the Antarctic summer the Northern Hemiplane is having its longest winter nights.
-
No - but other occasions when the sun is visible from both poles simultaneously DO occur every spring and summer.
Source?
We're standing in the center of your newly-found continent of Antarctica on midsummer day (Dec 21st) - the sun orbits all around us and is continually visible. At some point therefore, it must be closer to the ice-wall (I want to say the "south" - but in this map, that's tricky terminology) than Antarctica...right?
This happens when it is noon at some point on the planet. Precisely where is hard to say...but it's always noon SOMEWHERE.
So - according to this new and exciting version of FET - the sun is both someplace between the continent of antarctica and the ice wall AND vertically above some place on the equator.
You want to take a shot at where that is?
Maybe get a copy of your map and put a nice red dot where you think the sun must be...I'd love to see that.
The sun isn't over the equator on December 21st in Round Earth Theory. How embarrassing for you that you did not know that.
-
The sun being visible from both poles can be explained in RET because in Spring and Autumn the earths tilt is tangential to its orbital path. This means it does not appear tilted relative to the sun and neither pole would be in the earths shadow.
-
The sun being visible from both poles can be explained in RET because in Spring and Autumn the earths tilt is tangential to its orbital path. This means it does not appear tilted relative to the sun and neither pole would be in the earths shadow.
And how is it impossible for the sun to be seen from both poles at some point in the bipolar model?
-
The sun being visible from both poles can be explained in RET because in Spring and Autumn the earths tilt is tangential to its orbital path. This means it does not appear tilted relative to the sun and neither pole would be in the earths shadow.
And how is it impossible for the sun to be seen from both poles at some point in the bipolar model?
If that were the case the sun would be visible from all points on earth all the time... no? In the spot light model painted by the wiki.
-
Which (https://youtu.be/m_TAndu4Oqg?t=67) sun (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sun+flickering) are you talking about?
-
The sun being visible from both poles can be explained in RET because in Spring and Autumn the earths tilt is tangential to its orbital path. This means it does not appear tilted relative to the sun and neither pole would be in the earths shadow.
And how is it impossible for the sun to be seen from both poles at some point in the bipolar model?
If that were the case the sun would be visible from all points on earth all the time... no? In the spot light model painted by the wiki.
Clearly, the sun is not seen at all times. It was agreed that the midnight sun (24-hr sun) did not occur at both the North and South pole simultaneously, but there is no reason that at some point in the year the sun can't be seen from both the North and South pole simultaneously if the area of light contained both those distant locations.
-
The sun being visible from both poles can be explained in RET because in Spring and Autumn the earths tilt is tangential to its orbital path. This means it does not appear tilted relative to the sun and neither pole would be in the earths shadow.
And how is it impossible for the sun to be seen from both poles at some point in the bipolar model?
If that were the case the sun would be visible from all points on earth all the time... no? In the spot light model painted by the wiki.
Clearly, the sun is not seen at all times. It was agreed that the midnight sun (24-hr sun) did not occur at both the North and South pole simultaneously, but there is no reason that at some point in the year the sun can't be seen from both the North and South pole simultaneously if the area of light contained both those distant locations.
As usual, you've grabbed onto some small part of the problem you don't understand.
Stick with this one. On Dec 31st at the center of Antarctica, they have 24 hours of continuous sunlight and the sun makes a complete circle above the horizon.
When the sun appears in the direction of the Ross Ice Shelf (the very bottom of your map) where does it appear to be for people in South Africa?
Please don't dodge this very simple question!
-
Clearly, the sun is not seen at all times. It was agreed that the midnight sun (24-hr sun) did not occur at both the North and South pole simultaneously, but there is no reason that at some point in the year the sun can't be seen from both the North and South pole simultaneously if the area of light contained both those distant locations.
In the bi-polar FE model, how can the sun be seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously, but not also the entire planet within the same diameter as between the two poles (which would only exclude Australia, southeast asia, and some pacific islands)?
(And is Australia really as big as Africa? And how do flights from LA to Sydney work, because I've taken that trip twice [if you count there and back]? I don't recall flying East over the US on the way there, West over Australia on return, or over Africa at any point, or stopping for refueling?)
(http://imgur.com/i9hKrVN.jpg)
Genuinely curious. I don't understand how this model is supposed to work.
-
In the bi-polar FE model, how can the sun be seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously, but not also the entire planet within the same diameter as between the two poles (which would only exclude Australia, southeast asia, and some pacific islands)?
I do not have any information on whether sun is seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously. I was saying that it does not appear to be impossible under that map. That point may as well be fiction, seeing as we were never provided a source for that claim from the person who stated that.
(And is Australia really as big as Africa? And how do flights from LA to Sydney work, because I've taken that trip twice [if you count there and back]? I don't recall flying East over the US on the way there, West over Australia on return, or over Africa at any point, or stopping for refueling?)
That is just a proposed map to showcase the concept of two poles only and nothing more. The person who proposed that map has not claimed to measure the size of continents, or the position or layouts of those landmasses.
-
In the bi-polar FE model, how can the sun be seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously, but not also the entire planet within the same diameter as between the two poles (which would only exclude Australia, southeast asia, and some pacific islands)?
I do not have any information on whether sun is seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously. I was saying that it does not appear to be impossible under that map. That point may as well be fiction, seeing as we were never provided a source for that claim from the person who stated that.
(And is Australia really as big as Africa? And how do flights from LA to Sydney work, because I've taken that trip twice [if you count there and back]? I don't recall flying East over the US on the way there, West over Australia on return, or over Africa at any point, or stopping for refueling?)
That is just a proposed map to showcase the concept of two poles only and nothing more. The person who proposed that map has not claimed to measure the size of continents, or the position or layouts of those landmasses.
So here's the thing Tom. This is not an equal debate. On the one side we have a globe model with precisely defined sizes, distances, angles, and relationships between landmasses - down to the meter. It has been sliced and diced every imaginable way, including gravity maps, ocean currents. It's all very precisely defined and therefor testable. Planetary movements, moon orbits, and the rings of Saturn can be observed with a $600 Nikon P900 - as can a rotating sun with sunspots, with a filter.
Then we have the Flat Earth model - allegedly the "true" model. Yet, you guys can't agree on whether Antarctica is a continent as you seem to believe, or an ice wall with an infinite plane in every direction beyond that (as your lord and savior Rowbotham believed). You can't agree on how the planets move, or even what they are. You invoke words like "Celestial Gears" and "Firmament". The billions of other galaxies in the universe, and the large-scale gravitationally-bound structures they form are...what again? I've heard so many mutually exclusive explanations. And every FE model has serious problems, which I'm sure you're well aware of.
So you can't just say, "maybe this is the map maybe it's not". Because that is intellectually lazy. It prevents your ideas from being specifically tested, and poked with holes. So maybe grow some intellectual balls, and commit to a model. When it is proven wrong, revise it. Rinse lather repeat. Until you find a model that works. Like they do in science. A model where you can fly from LAX to SYD, *and* JFK to LHR, etc. A model that doesn't put NZ in perpetual darkness in their winter. Etc.
Until then, it's not a "Theory". It's not even a testable hypothesis. It is, by definition, immune from disproof. The kindest thing it could be called, is literally a fairy tale.
-
Please post a catalog of these Round Earth logs and tests and observations that verify that the earth is a globe rather than vaguely alluding to their existence and expecting us to take you at your word.
The society has not accepted a map or model yet. There are a range of proposals and an ever growing list of work to do and possibilities to consider. Why would anyone commit to a model or a map which has not been completely investigated or affirmed? What part of under investigation do you not understand?
-
Please post a catalog of these Round Earth logs and tests and observations that verify that the earth is a globe rather than vaguely alluding to their existence and expecting us to take you at your word.
The society has not accepted a map or model yet. There are a range of proposals and an ever growing list of work to do and possibilities to consider. Why would anyone commit to a model or a map which has not been completely investigated or affirmed? What part of under investigation do you not understand?
Clearly any logs and observations are available to all and you must be using them as part of your work to determine a map or model that accurately represents the earth. There is only one answer so we look forward to you concluding your investigation.
Clearly measuring the path of the sun must be a first step, how is that going?
-
The society has not accepted a map or model yet. There are a range of proposals and an ever growing list of work to do and possibilities to consider. Why would anyone commit to a model or a map which has not been completely investigated or affirmed? What part of under investigation do you not understand?
I think you need to look into the definition of "Hypothesis". The whole point is to discuss and debate them among your peers before proving them. If you had to prove every hypothesis before discussing or advocating for it, you'd get nowhere very fast.
...Oh wait... you've had over a decade to nail this stuff down, and have gone literally backwards - with new competing hypothesis that didn't even exist then, and you are no closer to understanding literally any of the big questions you had ten years ago. Your approach clearly isn't working. How long are you going to continue spinning your wheels? Another decade? Two more?
Hell, you haven't even improved on Rowbotham's "steam holds the oceans up" 1860 superstitious, pseudoscientific bullshit. The more you keep referring to him as the gold standard, the more stuck in the past and unable to progress you become.
The only reason no one can poke holes in FE hypotheses, is because as soon as a hole is poked, intellectually dishonest people like you reactively blurt, "I never said I believed in that!". Jesus man, grow a pair, pick a hypothesis, and defend it. When holes are poked, acknowledge it and revise. Rinse, rather, repeat.
FEC (Flat Earth Conjecture) is not supposed to be an infallible religion. ...Right? So why do all of your discussion threads sound like someone is threatening your religion?
The only reason you personally won't advocate for a specific map, is because you're an intellectual coward. I truly don't mean that as a personal attack, and obviously it's just my own Zetetic observations and explanation for them. You seem like a nice guy. But a truly, intellectually contemptible coward. You seem terrified of an imagined "fall from grace" you believe will happen if you have to admit a single error on something - something which I have never seen you do.
No intellectually honest person is never wrong.
Not only are you guys literally looking for a messiah, you guys seem to be trying to act like one, or at least like priests. Infallible. The only way to be infallible, is to never say anything of substance - which you never do. Never advocate something that could have a hole poked in it. How much longer are you going to be alive to promote this? Haven't you already squandered - what, 1/3 of your remaining healthy working years, doing little more than distancing yourself from any and all hypotheses that have even one inescapable hole poked in it? Wouldn't you rather spend the remaining 2/3 of that time actually advancing the understanding of the true nature of the world? By taking risks, admitting errors when you're proven wrong, discarding hypotheses that don't work, and advancing the state of understanding? I mean, the world is counting on you guys to reveal the truth, right? Counting on you. Given those stakes, why are you fucking this up so badly?
Why don't you guys call a big conference with working committees (ideally in Australia), and hammer out a draft of tentative working hypotheses to the most fundamental questions hounding you guys - that various FAQs and wikis are all over the map (no pun intended) on, and you guys constantly, openly discredit your own Wiki. I suggest working subcommittes or subconferences titled:
- The universe: "Ice wall/single pole", "No ice wall/antarctica as a continent/double-poles", or "Double-rimmed ice wall with Atlantis in the outer waters"?
- The plane: Infinite, or finite?
- Dome: Exists or not?
- The LAX-SYD cornundrum: Let's lick this!
- The moon: Looks the same from different locations at the same time, or different?
- Solar eclipses: How do they work?
- Lunar eclipses: ...etc.
- Man-made satellites: Real? Balloons? Don't exist?
- Celestial Gears: How do they work, and how'd they get there?
- The Firmament: What is it?
- Tides and eclipses: Let's figure out how to predict them using the math of our own underlying laws and mechanics! That will shut those RE assholes up once and for all!
- Celestial software: Let's fork the open-source Stellarium to be driven by our own laws of nature and celestial mechanics, open for all to study, test, and critique! Just like RE Stellarium! That will seriously win converts.
- Other galaxies: Do they exist?
- Our sun: What powers it?
- The moon: Self-lit or not?
- Other stars: What powers them?
- Extraterrestrial life: Even theoretically possible?
- Meteorites: what are they?
- Gravity, UA, or fuck it and keep punting?
- Rowbotham: Hey, why don't we eject this supernatural shit-show 19th-century snake-oil salesman from our vocabulary once and for all, to save some face, allow our hypotheses to change and improve, and attract fresh recruits?
I could go on as many others have. This is not a list of criticisms. It's things you obviously need to fix or at least agree on, and move forward with testing. It's time to commit to hypotheses that might be proven wrong or require change, or that you may not even be sure how to test or is even testable. (You can always discard those after exhausting ideas.) It's not a sign of weakness. It's a sign of strength. You can't set the world's experts to conducting experiments to confirm or falsify your hypotheses, and test your predictions - if you have no consistent hypotheses at all.
It's a sign of weakness to continue treating it like some kind of infallible dogmatic truth you just haven't quite nailed the details of down yet.
Finally, you should assemble a permanent working committee tasked with rigorously, openly, and scientifically testing every conjecture in the FE model - with rigorous controls and statistical methods - from biggest to smallest (e.g. disappearing ships), or until it runs out of money. If even just to win new recruits. Surely with the FE belief exploding, you can start a successful GoFundMe campaign. Surely they are willing to put their flat money where their flat beliefs are?
Good luck.
-
You suggest there is a group of identified and known people who form a society and are actively working of proving the shape of the earth.
Clearly this is not true, it is just a bunch of random people posting on forums, each trying to maintain their own scheme for entertainment.
-
Please post a catalog of these Round Earth logs and tests and observations that verify that the earth is a globe rather than vaguely alluding to their existence and expecting us to take you at your word.
- "South! The Story Of Shackleton’s Last Expedition 1914–1917"; Sir Ernest Shackleton C.V.O. (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5199/5199-h/5199-h.htm)
- "Sir Francis Drake: Memoria de la Costa Rica del Mar del Norte" (https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=rbdk&fileName=d001/rbdkd001.db)
- "The Voyage of Captain Don Felipe Gonzalez"; 1722 (https://books.google.com/books?id=tANjAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover)
- "A Voyage to South America: Describing At Large the Spanish Cities, Towns, Provinces, on that Extensive Continent: Undertaken, By Command Of The King Of Spain, By Don George Juan, and Don Antonio De Ulla, Captains of the Spanish Navy"; 1807 (https://books.google.com/books?id=J18BAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover)
- "Excerpts From Christopher Columbus' Log, 1492 A.d. In The Name Of Our Lord Jesus Christ" (http://www.franciscan-archive.org/columbus/opera/excerpts.html)
- "A Treatise On Navigation And Nautical Astronomy"; Staff Commander W.R. Martin; 1899 (http://books.google.com/books?id=msNNAAAAMAAJ&pg=front)
There's gold in there Tom. Lots of first-person round-earth logs and measurements by Spanish voyagers and stuff - and really old, just like you like it. Irrefutable RE evidence by your the standard you apply to yourself for FE evidence.
Now it's your turn to provide RE standard of evidence: Like a fucking map that we can test and poke holes in, that you'll stand by and revise, rather than knee-jerk "I never said I believed that particular one".
-
You suggest there is a group of identified and known people who form a society and are actively working of proving the shape of the earth.
Clearly this is not true, it is just a bunch of random people posting on forums, each trying to maintain their own scheme for entertainment.
I don't know. They seem organized enough to put together a few basic websites and discussion boards. (Though it would seem at least two of them run on the same SMF discussion board software, and three of them have more or less the same members. I wasn't even sure which one to join to see the old gang again. I picked one at random.)
And by their own admission, "Like all cults, we have been waiting for a prophet. A messiah. A new president to lead our society. I believe such a man now exists. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2386.msg59358#msg59358)" Seems like they've identified a couple of promising candidates. (I'd hate to be that guy, "Messiah" seems like a tall order with a usually bad ending.)
But maybe they are right. They are obviously more cult-like than science-minded, and in ten years they've yet to form a coherent, self-consistent umbrella hypothesis. On youtube and these boards, they are all over the map. I don't think any two agree on even the biggest questions. Maybe they do need some charismatic messiah to reign them in. As an RE'er and one who thinks religions and cults are signs of mental illness, I'd applaud that (for their own good). Maybe then they could get on with the business of actually investigating and answering questions.
...As long as this messiah doesn't go overboard and start passing around the Nike shoes.
-
In the bi-polar FE model, how can the sun be seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously, but not also the entire planet within the same diameter as between the two poles (which would only exclude Australia, southeast asia, and some pacific islands)?
I do not have any information on whether sun is seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously. I was saying that it does not appear to be impossible under that map. That point may as well be fiction, seeing as we were never provided a source for that claim from the person who stated that.
(And is Australia really as big as Africa? And how do flights from LA to Sydney work, because I've taken that trip twice [if you count there and back]? I don't recall flying East over the US on the way there, West over Australia on return, or over Africa at any point, or stopping for refueling?)
That is just a proposed map to showcase the concept of two poles only and nothing more. The person who proposed that map has not claimed to measure the size of continents, or the position or layouts of those landmasses.
Those two maps are not "models" . They are just projections of methods to make a 2-dimensional "flat" map from a 3-dimensional "round" object - a globe. They aren't even somethings that were developed by the FES. I think anyone who has any familiarity with maps knows them for what they are. There are simply no accurate flat maps of the entire earth simply because the earth is not flat.There is nothing original about those maps.
-
You suggest there is a group of identified and known people who form a society and are actively working of proving the shape of the earth.
Clearly this is not true, it is just a bunch of random people posting on forums, each trying to maintain their own scheme for entertainment.
I don't know. They seem organized enough to put together a few basic websites and discussion boards. (Though it would seem at least two of them run on the same SMF discussion board software, and three of them have more or less the same members. I wasn't even sure which one to join to see the old gang again. I picked one at random.)
And by their own admission, "Like all cults, we have been waiting for a prophet. A messiah. A new president to lead our society. I believe such a man now exists. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2386.msg59358#msg59358)" Seems like they've identified a couple of promising candidates. (I'd hate to be that guy, "Messiah" seems like a tall order with a usually bad ending.)
But maybe they are right. They are obviously more cult-like than science-minded, and in ten years they've yet to form a coherent, self-consistent umbrella hypothesis. On youtube and these boards, they are all over the map. I don't think any two agree on even the biggest questions. Maybe they do need some charismatic messiah to reign them in. As an RE'er and one who thinks religions and cults are signs of mental illness, I'd applaud that (for their own good). Maybe then they could get on with the business of actually investigating and answering questions.
...As long as this messiah doesn't go overboard and start passing around the Nike shoes.
This is fantastic. You un-ironically quoted a post made by Thork. That exemplifies how willing you are to display your ignorance of the community. You do it so confidently, too.
Also, I am going to have to ask that you refrain from derailing topics in the FE discussion fora. If you want to shitpost and/or complain about FES, we have fora dedicated for that exact purpose. Consider this a warning.
-
In the bi-polar FE model, how can the sun be seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously, but not also the entire planet within the same diameter as between the two poles (which would only exclude Australia, southeast asia, and some pacific islands)?
I do not have any information on whether sun is seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously. I was saying that it does not appear to be impossible under that map. That point may as well be fiction, seeing as we were never provided a source for that claim from the person who stated that.
(And is Australia really as big as Africa? And how do flights from LA to Sydney work, because I've taken that trip twice [if you count there and back]? I don't recall flying East over the US on the way there, West over Australia on return, or over Africa at any point, or stopping for refueling?)
That is just a proposed map to showcase the concept of two poles only and nothing more. The person who proposed that map has not claimed to measure the size of continents, or the position or layouts of those landmasses.
Those two maps are not "models" . They are just projections of methods to make a 2-dimensional "flat" map from a 3-dimensional "round" object - a globe. They aren't even somethings that were developed by the FES. I think anyone who has any familiarity with maps knows them for what they are. There are simply no accurate flat maps of the entire earth simply because the earth is not flat.There is nothing original about those maps.
Good point. FE people say they cannot map the earth or check any models so presumably they do not believe a map of their own town or country.
-
FE people say they cannot map the earth or check any models so presumably they do not believe a map of their own town or country.
This is a fantastic non-sequitur. Well done.
-
FE people say they cannot map the earth or check any models so presumably they do not believe a map of their own town or country.
This is a fantastic non-sequitur. Well done.
Do you know what a non-sequitur is? Because based on that, it appears that you don't.
-
FE people say they cannot map the earth or check any models so presumably they do not believe a map of their own town or country.
This is a fantastic non-sequitur. Well done.
Do you know what a non-sequitur is? Because based on that, it appears that you don't.
Yes, it is a conclusion that doesn't follow the premise. If you are struggling to understand basic comprehension such as that, I don't think I can help. But, if you find yourself continuing to struggle, just ask and I will do my best to help you in any way I can. Take care, friend!
-
FE people say they cannot map the earth or check any models so presumably they do not believe a map of their own town or country.
This is a fantastic non-sequitur. Well done.
Do you know what a non-sequitur is? Because based on that, it appears that you don't.
Yes, it is a conclusion that doesn't follow the premise. If you are struggling to understand basic comprehension such as that, I don't think I can help. But, if you find yourself continuing to struggle, just ask and I will do my best to help you in any way I can. Take care, friend!
Then yes, friend, perhaps you can help. I may be struggling grammatically and could use your best help. Can you break the sentence in question down, and diagram exactly what part is the premise, what part is the conclusion, and in what way you feel that the conclusion doesn't follow the premise?
I love pointless pedantic arguments where the parties play the polite game! I mean, not really. But why not.
-
FE people say they cannot map the earth or check any models so presumably they do not believe a map of their own town or country.
This is a fantastic non-sequitur. Well done.
Do you know what a non-sequitur is? Because based on that, it appears that you don't.
Yes, it is a conclusion that doesn't follow the premise. If you are struggling to understand basic comprehension such as that, I don't think I can help. But, if you find yourself continuing to struggle, just ask and I will do my best to help you in any way I can. Take care, friend!
Then yes, friend, perhaps you can help. I may be struggling grammatically and could use your best help. Can you break the sentence in question down, and diagram exactly what part is the premise, what part is the conclusion, and in what way you feel that the conclusion doesn't follow the premise?
I love pointless pedantic arguments where the parties play the polite game! I mean, not really. But why not.
Sure thing, but not here. We can take discussions about how you fail to understand simple logic to another forum. I know you love derailing threads, and I sometimes engage with entitled users such as yourself, which only further enables it. So, I will not continue to engage you here, which will prevent you from getting another warning for derailment and a subsequent vacation for said warnings. I suggest any further posts you make in this thread pertain at least a little to the topic.
-
FE people say they cannot map the earth or check any models so presumably they do not believe a map of their own town or country.
This is a fantastic non-sequitur. Well done.
Do you know what a non-sequitur is? Because based on that, it appears that you don't.
Yes, it is a conclusion that doesn't follow the premise. If you are struggling to understand basic comprehension such as that, I don't think I can help. But, if you find yourself continuing to struggle, just ask and I will do my best to help you in any way I can. Take care, friend!
Then yes, friend, perhaps you can help. I may be struggling grammatically and could use your best help. Can you break the sentence in question down, and diagram exactly what part is the premise, what part is the conclusion, and in what way you feel that the conclusion doesn't follow the premise?
I love pointless pedantic arguments where the parties play the polite game! I mean, not really. But why not.
Sure thing, but not here. We can take discussions about how you fail to understand simple logic to another forum. I know you love derailing threads, and I sometimes engage with entitled users such as yourself, which only further enables it. So, I will not continue to engage you here, which will prevent you from getting another warning for derailment and a subsequent vacation for said warnings. I suggest any further posts you make in this thread pertain at least a little to the topic.
You offered. On this thread. So where and how to move it? I'm ignorant of your conventions and/or software capabilities on the matter.
-
Clearly, the sun is not seen at all times. It was agreed that the midnight sun (24-hr sun) did not occur at both the North and South pole simultaneously, but there is no reason that at some point in the year the sun can't be seen from both the North and South pole simultaneously if the area of light contained both those distant locations.
In the bi-polar FE model, how can the sun be seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously, but not also the entire planet within the same diameter as between the two poles (which would only exclude Australia, southeast asia, and some pacific islands)?
(And is Australia really as big as Africa? And how do flights from LA to Sydney work, because I've taken that trip twice [if you count there and back]? I don't recall flying East over the US on the way there, West over Australia on return, or over Africa at any point, or stopping for refueling?)
(http://imgur.com/i9hKrVN.jpg)
Genuinely curious. I don't understand how this model is supposed to work.
Not sure if was brought up yet or not, I looked, but didn't see it. Anyone wondering where the sun goes on an equinox? Would it not have to wormhole back to the right side? That is the equator in the center, horizontal right?
-
FE people say they cannot map the earth or check any models so presumably they do not believe a map of their own town or country.
This is a fantastic non-sequitur. Well done.
Let's just see how much of a non-sequitur it is.
Are you willing to name any source for a map of any country that you except as being accurate for distance and elevation?
-
FE people say they cannot map the earth or check any models so presumably they do not believe a map of their own town or country.
This is a fantastic non-sequitur. Well done.
Let's just see how much of a non-sequitur it is.
Are you willing to name any source for a map of any country that you except as being accurate for distance and elevation?
Unless the map or chart reflects the curvature of the earth it will be inaccurate. Every flat piece of paper that attempts to approximate the globe is going to have errors. It is widely accepted that all latitudes converge on the north (and to a lesser degree the south)poles. If the earth were truly flat, one would think that an accurate map would be quite easy, especially near coastlines where elevation is mostly not a factor, by using compass and transit. Surveyors have honed their craft quite well.
That being said, with the advent of worldwide communication, it became undeniable that the original flat maps could not hold water due to sun transit (time zones) and seasons that differ between North and South. The largest number of people, thus communication and travel made it very easy to assume that the FE north pole-centric map would fit all available data, in fact it is quite cleaver how much of the data this works for... especially north of the Equator. Unfortunately with the South Pole exploration of 100 years ago, there has been much data that is largely held in disrepute by FE who hold to this view of the world map because the so called ice wall is not long enough, and places south of 66 degrees S longitude have a nasty habit of more than 24 hours of night or daylight near the solstices.
Of course any who want to stand on the belief if a 2D world have a few choices, discredit any info that does not fit the model, or accept the data and look for a new model.
I see a lot of FE adherents attempting to discredit videos, but I have yet to see anyone attempt to discredit early 20th century explorer journals. And now it looks to me like Tom and others are beginning to concede the point that the South Pole definitely has similar daylight traits as the North Pole... thus the search for a new map model must begin in earnest. I look forward to seeing what other map attempts might be made to see how closely it might fit the data. For now, this old sailor is content to use his charts that while flat are a close approximation to globe representation while using satellite based GPS to get a fix on my location. It may not be 100% accurate but it is a far cry closer than anything I have yet to see from a Flat Earth model to date.
-
And now it looks to me like Tom and others are beginning to concede the point that the South Pole definitely has similar daylight traits as the North Pole... thus the search for a new map model must begin in earnest.
If you read the Flat Earth literature works the bi-polar model (not that specific map, however) has been around since at least 1918, and is said to have been created immediately after the South Pole was discovered as to include that new data into an updated Flat Earth model. Read the book "The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions" by Zetetes. The concept of a South Pole has been accepted in the society since there was a South Pole. It is not some new thing.
-
And now it looks to me like Tom and others are beginning to concede the point that the South Pole definitely has similar daylight traits as the North Pole... thus the search for a new map model must begin in earnest.
If you read the Flat Earth literature works the bi-polar model (not that specific map, however) has been around since at least 1918, and is said to have been created immediately after the South Pole was discovered as to include that new data into an updated Flat Earth model. Read the book "The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions" by Zetetes. The concept of a South Pole has been accepted in the society since there was a South Pole. It is not some new thing.
Please tell us the location of the South Pole, it being a specific location, and distance from Perth in Australia.
-
And now it looks to me like Tom and others are beginning to concede the point that the South Pole definitely has similar daylight traits as the North Pole... thus the search for a new map model must begin in earnest.
If you read the Flat Earth literature works the bi-polar model (not that specific map, however) has been around since at least 1918, and is said to have been created immediately after the South Pole was discovered as to include that new data into an updated Flat Earth model. Read the book "The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions" by Zetetes. The concept of a South Pole has been accepted in the society since there was a South Pole. It is not some new thing.
Ok. I have been exploring both this site as well as others and mostly find those who try to disprove the south pole 24 hour cycle and show that Antarctica is essentially the ice wall. Please forgive my ignorance at this more than confusing development.
-
We're standing in the center of your newly-found continent of Antarctica on midsummer day (Dec 21st) - the sun orbits all around us and is continually visible. At some point therefore, it must be closer to the ice-wall (I want to say the "south" - but in this map, that's tricky terminology) than Antarctica...right?
This happens when it is noon at some point on the planet. Precisely where is hard to say...but it's always noon SOMEWHERE.
So - according to this new and exciting version of FET - the sun is both someplace between the continent of antarctica and the ice wall AND vertically above some place on the equator.
You want to take a shot at where that is?
Maybe get a copy of your map and put a nice red dot where you think the sun must be...I'd love to see that.
The sun isn't over the equator on December 21st in Round Earth Theory. How embarrassing for you that you did not know that.
You might want to rethink this statement for while it is true it shows you, sir do not know when summer starts *hint: think solstice, not equinox* ;)
-
FE people say they cannot map the earth or check any models so presumably they do not believe a map of their own town or country.
This is a fantastic non-sequitur. Well done.
Let's just see how much of a non-sequitur it is.
Are you willing to name any source for a map of any country that you except as being accurate for distance and elevation?
I had a Rand McNally map that worked well for getting me places in the past. I didn't measure the distances and elevations to confirm, but I don't mind assuming they are reasonably accurate.
-
FE people say they cannot map the earth or check any models so presumably they do not believe a map of their own town or country.
This is a fantastic non-sequitur. Well done.
Let's just see how much of a non-sequitur it is.
Are you willing to name any source for a map of any country that you except as being accurate for distance and elevation?
I had a Rand McNally map that worked well for getting me places in the past. I didn't measure the distances and elevations to confirm, but I don't mind assuming they are reasonably accurate.
And similar to assume distances quoted across continents are also reasonably accurate.
-
In the bi-polar FE model, how can the sun be seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously, but not also the entire planet within the same diameter as between the two poles (which would only exclude Australia, southeast asia, and some pacific islands)?
I do not have any information on whether sun is seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously. I was saying that it does not appear to be impossible under that map. That point may as well be fiction, seeing as we were never provided a source for that claim from the person who stated that.
A link to a video showing the sun's position at equinox 2013 as viewed from the south pole.
https://youtu.be/Ig0bVd7tEQQ
A simple search for the date and time of equinox 2013.
https://www.google.com/search?q=when+was+equinox+spring+2013&oq=when+was+equinox+spring+2013&aqs=chrome..69i57.19622j0j4&client=ms-android-att-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
Sunrise on the north pole is more than elusive. Every year since 2002 a private Russian camp is set up near the North Pole. The following is a well written article that describes the difficulties of exploring the North Pole.
http://polarexplorers.com/polarexplorers-media/press-and-news-releases/item/78-adventure-to-the-north-pole
While it ma not be 100% conclusive that the sunrise happens on the North Pole simultaneously with the sunset at the South Pole, it is so widely accepted that Borneo Camp attempts to get established as close to that date as possible due to the short duration of time that the ice can support the camp reliably during the spring.
-
Honestly, I think we should chalk this up as a Global victory. After looking at that other ridiculous map and destroying it every which way from Sunday Shazam! There are 2 magnetic poles and 2 celestial poles. :o Antarctica is a freaking continent again? Baby steps....
-
FE people say they cannot map the earth or check any models so presumably they do not believe a map of their own town or country.
This is a fantastic non-sequitur. Well done.
Let's just see how much of a non-sequitur it is.
Are you willing to name any source for a map of any country that you except as being accurate for distance and elevation?
I had a Rand McNally map that worked well for getting me places in the past. I didn't measure the distances and elevations to confirm, but I don't mind assuming they are reasonably accurate.
Awesome. I went to their site. Their stuff looks pretty cool, except the free direction map doesn't even have scale. I'm gonna start a new thread with an idea, because of this. Please look for it and let me know what you think.
-
In the bi-polar FE model, how can the sun be seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously, but not also the entire planet within the same diameter as between the two poles (which would only exclude Australia, southeast asia, and some pacific islands)?
I do not have any information on whether sun is seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously. I was saying that it does not appear to be impossible under that map. That point may as well be fiction, seeing as we were never provided a source for that claim from the person who stated that.
(And is Australia really as big as Africa? And how do flights from LA to Sydney work, because I've taken that trip twice [if you count there and back]? I don't recall flying East over the US on the way there, West over Australia on return, or over Africa at any point, or stopping for refueling?)
That is just a proposed map to showcase the concept of two poles only and nothing more. The person who proposed that map has not claimed to measure the size of continents, or the position or layouts of those landmasses.
ANY flat map that has both the arctic and antarctic on it will suffer the exact same fate. You can pull and push things around any way you like - but you'll always have an anomaly when the antarctic summer demands that the (flat earth) sun does a complete 360 degree rotation around the continent. At some point in that movement, the sun MUST, for 100% sure be setting in the south or north of some other densely inhabited part of the world. Since we know for 100% sure that this never happens - your efforts to make a flat map that includes both poles antarctica is unquestionably doomed to fail.
This leaves you with the old map - in which antarctica (effectively) encircles the world. I find fault with that one too - but it's actually harder to disprove than the new one and it's ilk.
Here is how you can prove this for yourself. Make paper cutouts of the continents using the accepted data for their sizes. Cut lengths of thread the same scale length for a wide range of different non-stop intercontinental airline routes. Tape the ends of those threads to the appropriate locations on the continents where their start and end cities are.
Now, try to lay this out flat...and...oh dear...you can't! No matter how you arrange the continents - you can never get the intercontinental flight distances to come out right.
Now try the same experiment with a globe - and guess what? It all works out perfectly with exactly the right distances everywhere.
The information you have on airline flight times must either be drastically wrong (which is hard to believe given the MILLIONS of people who fly those routes) - or your continents are the wrong sizes (also hard to believe when people routinely drive across them)....or the Earth isn't flat.
This is a ridiculously easy experiment to do. You just need the freely posted airline timetables and the easily available distances across continents - some paper and some thread.
Anybody can do this test.
-
Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere.
I still don't get the whole meaning of the South pole. What is it? Someone just pointed to a spot on the ground, "hey, let's give this spot a name, what about 'south pole'"?
(On a globe the answer is obvious: it is one end of the earth's rotational axis, the other being the north pole.)
-
At some point in that movement, the sun MUST, for 100% sure be setting in the south or north of some other densely inhabited part of the world. Since we know for 100% sure that this never happens.
How do you know that it never happens? The Sun can set South-West, even in the Round Earth model.
Please provide your source on word-wide observation logs of the sun before continuing your argument. Thanks!
-
At some point in that movement, the sun MUST, for 100% sure be setting in the south or north of some other densely inhabited part of the world. Since we know for 100% sure that this never happens.
How do you know that it never happens? The Sun can set South-West, even in the Round Earth model.
Please provide your source on word-wide observation logs of the sun before continuing your argument. Thanks!
dateandtime.com gives fully accepted data you can use for analysis to produce a model of the earth.
-
At some point in that movement, the sun MUST, for 100% sure be setting in the south or north of some other densely inhabited part of the world. Since we know for 100% sure that this never happens.
How do you know that it never happens? The Sun can set South-West, even in the Round Earth model.
Please provide your source on word-wide observation logs of the sun before continuing your argument. Thanks!
dateandtime.com gives fully accepted data you can use for analysis to produce a model of the earth.
Okay, where are the reported obervations to verify the model predictions on that website?
-
At some point in that movement, the sun MUST, for 100% sure be setting in the south or north of some other densely inhabited part of the world. Since we know for 100% sure that this never happens.
How do you know that it never happens? The Sun can set South-West, even in the Round Earth model.
Please provide your source on word-wide observation logs of the sun before continuing your argument. Thanks!
dateandtime.com gives fully accepted data you can use for analysis to produce a model of the earth.
Okay, where are the reported obervations to verify the model predictions on that website?
Do we need to have someone enter www and .com and hit <enter> for you as well?
-
Please link us to the observations that verify that website, rather than attempting to divert.
-
Please link us to the observations that verify that website, rather than attempting to divert.
How about the fact that if you google for "timeanddate.com is incorrect" - the only hits you get are for things like which cities have daylight savings time - and mundane stuff like that. Nobody seems to be complaining about any of the results about sunrises and sunsets and so forth.
If the underlying math behind that site was as badly wrong as FET predicts - there would be MOUNTAINS of complaints about errors of tens of minutes in sunrise and sunset times. Yet I see almost none of those. If you scroll down the search results far enough, you find an occasional complaint like that - but then if you read the place where the comment is made, it's always some user error like swapping latitude for longitude or forgetting a minus sign or something.
If timeanddate.com were that badly (and systematically) incorrect - there would MILLIONS of people complaining about it.
They don't - it clearly is a good match for the observations of people around the world where it's used.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/timeanddate.com shows that this is the roughly 700'th most visited site on the Internet - they have over 50 million visitors PER DAY. If it didn't work well, either very few people would use it - or the complaint rates would be off the charts...and they're not.
Sure - you'll find a way to weasel out and reject this as evidence...I have popcorn ready.
-
Please link us to the observations that verify that website, rather than attempting to divert.
How about the fact that if you google for "timeanddate.com is incorrect" - the only hits you get are for things like which cities have daylight savings time - and mundane stuff like that. Nobody seems to be complaining about any of the results about sunrises and sunsets and so forth.
If the underlying math behind that site was as badly wrong as FET predicts - there would be MOUNTAINS of complaints about errors of tens of minutes in sunrise and sunset times. Yet I see almost none of those. If you scroll down the search results far enough, you find an occasional complaint like that - but then if you read the place where the comment is made, it's always some user error like swapping latitude for longitude or forgetting a minus sign or something.
If timeanddate.com were that badly (and systematically) incorrect - there would MILLIONS of people complaining about it.
They don't - it clearly is a good match for the observations of people around the world where it's used.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/timeanddate.com shows that this is the roughly 700'th most visited site on the Internet - they have over 50 million visitors PER DAY. If it didn't work well, either very few people would use it - or the complaint rates would be off the charts...and they're not.
Sure - you'll find a way to weasel out and reject this as evidence...I have popcorn ready.
How about providing links to observations that verify the predictions on that website, rather than attempting to divert?
-
Please link us to the observations that verify that website, rather than attempting to divert.
How about the fact that if you google for "timeanddate.com is incorrect" - the only hits you get are for things like which cities have daylight savings time - and mundane stuff like that. Nobody seems to be complaining about any of the results about sunrises and sunsets and so forth.
If the underlying math behind that site was as badly wrong as FET predicts - there would be MOUNTAINS of complaints about errors of tens of minutes in sunrise and sunset times. Yet I see almost none of those. If you scroll down the search results far enough, you find an occasional complaint like that - but then if you read the place where the comment is made, it's always some user error like swapping latitude for longitude or forgetting a minus sign or something.
If timeanddate.com were that badly (and systematically) incorrect - there would MILLIONS of people complaining about it.
They don't - it clearly is a good match for the observations of people around the world where it's used.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/timeanddate.com shows that this is the roughly 700'th most visited site on the Internet - they have over 50 million visitors PER DAY. If it didn't work well, either very few people would use it - or the complaint rates would be off the charts...and they're not.
Sure - you'll find a way to weasel out and reject this as evidence...I have popcorn ready.
How about providing links to observations that verify the predictions on that website, rather than attempting to divert?
Have you undertaken any observations for your own location and do they agree?
-
No, I have not attempted to prove your claims for you.
Please link us to the observations that verify that website, rather than attempting to divert.
-
No, I have not attempted to prove your claims for you.
Please link us to the observations that verify that website, rather than attempting to divert.
I can verify that NOAA (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/) has accurately predicted the sunrise and sunset times for my location every day since Thursday July 27 until sunrise today July 31, 2017. Their site agrees with the information provided by timeanddate. I will continue to look for a location that provides a good photograph of the sun at these times, but my location in a city makes things somewhat difficult.
-
No, I have not attempted to prove your claims for you.
Please link us to the observations that verify that website, rather than attempting to divert.
I can verify that NOAA (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/) has accurately predicted the sunrise and sunset times for my location every day since Thursday July 27 until sunrise today July 31, 2017. Their site agrees with the information provided by timeanddate. I will continue to look for a location that provides a good photograph of the sun at these times, but my location in a city makes things somewhat difficult.
So - to summarize:
Tom will not accept:
* Anything from any government or science institute.
* Anything we have seen from our own personal observations.
* Any data we can collect from public sources such as timeanddate.com and alexia.
...and:
* He refuses to collect any data whatever of his own.
Hmmm - this is starting to look like a coverup to me!
The only acceptable sources seem to be books over 150 years old written by snake-oil salesmen.
-
No, I have not attempted to prove your claims for you.
Please link us to the observations that verify that website, rather than attempting to divert.
I can verify that NOAA (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/) has accurately predicted the sunrise and sunset times for my location every day since Thursday July 27 until sunrise today July 31, 2017. Their site agrees with the information provided by timeanddate. I will continue to look for a location that provides a good photograph of the sun at these times, but my location in a city makes things somewhat difficult.
How do we know that their predictions hold true at all? Is there a report of observations somewhere on that website which affirms the predictions?
How do we know that the model is actually still a Round Earth model and not one which has been modified over the years to meet observation?
You can't simply link to a calculator and declare it all to be true. None of this is transparent or substantive as an acceptable evidence.
-
No, I have not attempted to prove your claims for you.
Please link us to the observations that verify that website, rather than attempting to divert.
I can verify that NOAA (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/) has accurately predicted the sunrise and sunset times for my location every day since Thursday July 27 until sunrise today July 31, 2017. Their site agrees with the information provided by timeanddate. I will continue to look for a location that provides a good photograph of the sun at these times, but my location in a city makes things somewhat difficult.
How do we know that their predictions hold true at all? Is there a report of observations somewhere on that website which affirms the predictions?
How do we know that the model is actually still a Round Earth model and not one which has been modified over the years to meet observation?
You can't simply link to a calculator and declare it all to be true. None of this is transparent or substantive as an acceptable evidence.
I provided you a link to how to calculate sunrise times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_equation) in another thread, which you ignored. If you can follow the math, feel free. But I'm affirming their predictions given in the calculator right now. You seem to be fine with single experiments and observations elsewhere, why is this any different?
You could follow a link on the site (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/calcdetails.html) to find out that NOAA and the US Government don't collect and catalogue observations for legal reasons. Feel free to follow the appropriate link on that page to learn more on why.
You've been asked in other places, but define 'acceptable evidence' to you in this scenario.
-
So there are no reports or sources whatsoever to affirm the predictions the Round Earth model makes and we have to do it ourselves? This strong model of yours seems like it should have something more than zero evidence for these sun predictions. We are told that there are MOUNTAINS of evidence. Why not simply go onto google and bring it here for us?
-
So there are no reports or sources whatsoever to affirm the predictions the Round Earth model makes and we have to do it ourselves? This strong model of yours seems like it should have something more than zero evidence for these sun predictions. We are told that there are MOUNTAINS of evidence. Why not simply go onto google and bring it here for us?
I've done it myself the last few days, as I've mentioned three times now. I'm not sure where you're getting 'mountains' of evidence. I have not said any such thing, only that my own experiences and observations back the date put forth in these calculators. We did experiments like this back in elementary school as well. Why would such a thing be heavily documented on the internet in this period? Especially when variations due to weather can cause differences in what is seen visually?
An answer here (https://www.quora.com/How-is-sunrise-calculated-How-accurate-are-our-predictions#) suggests tests done over a period of time largely coincided with the times given on these sites using the equation above.
Feel free to see if I get any bites (https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Are-there-any-reports-or-logs-of-observation-on-sunrise-and-sunset-times-checking-against-the-accuracy-of-online-calculators-1) on the topic as well. The few links I've found promising so far are part of scientific journals that require a login of some form.
-
So now you are claiming that there is not really a plethora of evidence, as we have been told, and that Round Earth Theory is actually based on the observations of elementary school students?
Can you at least post the observational reports of these elementary school students? That would at least be something. We continue to see nothing!
-
So now you are claiming that there is not really a plethora of evidence, as we have been told, and that Round Earth Theory is actually based on the observations of elementary school students?
Can you at least post the observational reports of these elementary school students? That would at least be something. We continue to see nothing!
I have never claimed there is a plethora of evidence about this phenomena. Do you lack reading comprehension? Or do you just forget what you read that fast? You're attempting to argue a point with someone who never made that point or assertion.
I said (in fewer words earlier), the observations were done largely before the era of the internet. Thus, the record of these experiments is largely not easy to find online, as there has been little reason to transfer those records to a digital and publicly accessible form. Science doesn't usually repeat such experiments every few years for kicks. What I have found in regards to these experiments so far, has been within scientific journals that require a login to access. Pretty standard fare.
I have since asked here (https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Are-there-any-reports-or-logs-of-observation-on-sunrise-and-sunset-times-checking-against-the-accuracy-of-online-calculators-1) (not sure why that link didn't work last time, hoping it does this time) if there are such reports available to peruse, at a location that seems likely to provide such information, as my Google fu is failing.
As for the observational reports of elementary school students, I have doubts these are regularly posted online. I can go looking, but you're demanding more evidence than many of your own experiments/examples provide, especially when the onus is on you to be proving the results as correct with no other explanation.
-
So now you are claiming that there is not really a plethora of evidence, as we have been told, and that Round Earth Theory is actually based on the observations of elementary school students?
Can you at least post the observational reports of these elementary school students? That would at least be something. We continue to see nothing!
If you are given some dates amd times of sunrise at a number of locations how would you use it to verify the shape of the earth?
-
Come on, you can't even come up with elementary school testimonies?
-
Come on, you can't even come up with elementary school testimonies?
You say this as though such things are regularly posted online, outside of perhaps to their FB page if that. Not to mention just because I did it at that age, doesn't mean it's still being done. Curriculum DOES change as they years go by after all. You DO understand what I've said the last 3 times right? On why it will be difficult to find records beyond Youtube videos on this? And even those seem to only cover a single rise/set, usually on the equinox, like the one I posted. I also posted another person speaking up in agreement with the times predicted by the equation.
I will keep poking about, but having found limited sources so far, and nothing currently usable I'm not sure on my odds. As a reminder, I have not said a damn thing about 'mountains' of evidence as you keep putting it. I've offered that my own experience has been concurrent with what is offered, the math behind how the times are derived, and now another person remarking that the times are accurate to within the degrees predicted on the site. Not sure what more you're asking for not already provided by those two accounts.
-
No, I have not attempted to prove your claims for you.
Please link us to the observations that verify that website, rather than attempting to divert.
I can verify that NOAA (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/) has accurately predicted the sunrise and sunset times for my location every day since Thursday July 27 until sunrise today July 31, 2017. Their site agrees with the information provided by timeanddate. I will continue to look for a location that provides a good photograph of the sun at these times, but my location in a city makes things somewhat difficult.
How do we know that their predictions hold true at all? Is there a report of observations somewhere on that website which affirms the predictions?
How do we know that the model is actually still a Round Earth model and not one which has been modified over the years to meet observation?
You can't simply link to a calculator and declare it all to be true. None of this is transparent or substantive as an acceptable evidence.
Here ya go, Tom.
http://www.bfound.net/detail.aspx?jobId=141125&CoId=1582&rq=1
With this job you could take your Zetetic method on the road and do one year of observation for yourself south of the antarctic circle. :-)
Whole there, if you are truly interested in the truth, you could check the date and time Web page for that location, call friends back home and make comparisons and generally discover whether or not there is verifiable data that can be used no matter which model you want to stand upon. If it is verifiable and you continue to stand on the FE model you will at least have data from which to mount a plausible working model for the Zetetic FE map. I wish you all the best in your endeavors!
-
For the record this (http://www.canyons.edu/Faculty/ciardit/Documents/ASTRON%20100/sun_project_color.pdf) are the kind of things I'm finding. This happens to be for an Astronomy 100 class. I see evidence of people doing these exact tests, but the tests are done as homework for young student (or in this case Freshman) and thus are not published. They aren't publicly available online, because it's an introductory study. The science community as a whole isn't interested in proofs for basic equations of the field.
It IS however pretty easy to see that these sorts of observations happen all over. I would think there would be a lot more people asking why things were so off if the online calculators weren't predicting correct times. But I know you like to ignore logic like that for whatever reason.
As a note, you've been given the tools to verify if the online calculators hold up to the equation for sunrise/sunset times created for the RE model, or if they've been adjusted over the years (all in the same exact way) to adjust for something. I would love to run those calculations for you myself, but I don't grok how to make those equations work. With all your study into making FE work, certainly you should have a good idea on how.
-
I think you need to look into the definition of "Hypothesis". The whole point is to discuss and debate them among your peers before proving them. If you had to prove every hypothesis before discussing or advocating for it, you'd get nowhere very fast.
...Oh wait... you've had over a decade to nail this stuff down, and have gone literally backwards - with new competing hypothesis that didn't even exist then, and you are no closer to understanding literally any of the big questions you had ten years ago. Your approach clearly isn't working. How long are you going to continue spinning your wheels? Another decade? Two more?
Hell, you haven't even improved on Rowbotham's "steam holds the oceans up" 1860 superstitious, pseudoscientific bullshit. The more you keep referring to him as the gold standard, the more stuck in the past and unable to progress you become.
The only reason no one can poke holes in FE hypotheses, is because as soon as a hole is poked, intellectually dishonest people like you reactively blurt, "I never said I believed in that!". Jesus man, grow a pair, pick a hypothesis, and defend it. When holes are poked, acknowledge it and revise. Rinse, rather, repeat.
FEC (Flat Earth Conjecture) is not supposed to be an infallible religion. ...Right? So why do all of your discussion threads sound like someone is threatening your religion?
The only reason you personally won't advocate for a specific map, is because you're an intellectual coward. I truly don't mean that as a personal attack, and obviously it's just my own Zetetic observations and explanation for them. You seem like a nice guy. But a truly, intellectually contemptible coward. You seem terrified of an imagined "fall from grace" you believe will happen if you have to admit a single error on something - something which I have never seen you do.
No intellectually honest person is never wrong.
Not only are you guys literally looking for a messiah, you guys seem to be trying to act like one, or at least like priests. Infallible. The only way to be infallible, is to never say anything of substance - which you never do. Never advocate something that could have a hole poked in it. How much longer are you going to be alive to promote this? Haven't you already squandered - what, 1/3 of your remaining healthy working years, doing little more than distancing yourself from any and all hypotheses that have even one inescapable hole poked in it? Wouldn't you rather spend the remaining 2/3 of that time actually advancing the understanding of the true nature of the world? By taking risks, admitting errors when you're proven wrong, discarding hypotheses that don't work, and advancing the state of understanding? I mean, the world is counting on you guys to reveal the truth, right? Counting on you. Given those stakes, why are you fucking this up so badly?
Why don't you guys call a big conference with working committees (ideally in Australia), and hammer out a draft of tentative working hypotheses to the most fundamental questions hounding you guys - that various FAQs and wikis are all over the map (no pun intended) on, and you guys constantly, openly discredit your own Wiki. I suggest working subcommittes or subconferences titled:
- The universe: "Ice wall/single pole", "No ice wall/antarctica as a continent/double-poles", or "Double-rimmed ice wall with Atlantis in the outer waters"?
- The plane: Infinite, or finite?
- Dome: Exists or not?
- The LAX-SYD cornundrum: Let's lick this!
- The moon: Looks the same from different locations at the same time, or different?
- Solar eclipses: How do they work?
- Lunar eclipses: ...etc.
- Man-made satellites: Real? Balloons? Don't exist?
- Celestial Gears: How do they work, and how'd they get there?
- The Firmament: What is it?
- Tides and eclipses: Let's figure out how to predict them using the math of our own underlying laws and mechanics! That will shut those RE assholes up once and for all!
- Celestial software: Let's fork the open-source Stellarium to be driven by our own laws of nature and celestial mechanics, open for all to study, test, and critique! Just like RE Stellarium! That will seriously win converts.
- Other galaxies: Do they exist?
- Our sun: What powers it?
- The moon: Self-lit or not?
- Other stars: What powers them?
- Extraterrestrial life: Even theoretically possible?
- Meteorites: what are they?
- Gravity, UA, or fuck it and keep punting?
- Rowbotham: Hey, why don't we eject this supernatural shit-show 19th-century snake-oil salesman from our vocabulary once and for all, to save some face, allow our hypotheses to change and improve, and attract fresh recruits?
I could go on as many others have. This is not a list of criticisms. It's things you obviously need to fix or at least agree on, and move forward with testing. It's time to commit to hypotheses that might be proven wrong or require change, or that you may not even be sure how to test or is even testable. (You can always discard those after exhausting ideas.) It's not a sign of weakness. It's a sign of strength. You can't set the world's experts to conducting experiments to confirm or falsify your hypotheses, and test your predictions - if you have no consistent hypotheses at all.
It's a sign of weakness to continue treating it like some kind of infallible dogmatic truth you just haven't quite nailed the details of down yet.
Finally, you should assemble a permanent working committee tasked with rigorously, openly, and scientifically testing every conjecture in the FE model - with rigorous controls and statistical methods - from biggest to smallest (e.g. disappearing ships), or until it runs out of money. If even just to win new recruits. Surely with the FE belief exploding, you can start a successful GoFundMe campaign. Surely they are willing to put their flat money where their flat beliefs are?
Good luck.
This goes down as one of the best posts I have ever read on any flat earth forum. I note it was duly ignored by Tom.
Overall, it just amazes me that they accept just about anything as evidence for the flat earth model, yet for something as simple as timeanddate.com they will only accept the result if each sunrise/set prediction is verified. Then if we managed to get thousands of people to post verifications they would claim not to believe them and demand video evidence. Then if the videos were supplied it would be claimed that the videos had been doctored somehow. When it comes down to it you may as well be arguing with the Pope about whether God exists - you are simply never going to convince them.
On this forum and the other one, each thread seems to go the same way +/- a few steps:
- Someone sane posts a query regarding one of the many holes in FET
- A flat earth believer (FEB) will say "that is explained in the FAQ"
- The sane person will point out the inadequacies of the FAQ
- A FEB or two will post attempts to explain away the said holes in their theory
- Sane people will poke holes in the FEBs' explanations
- Some back and forward for a few posts
- A FEB will then attack the grammar of someone's post in a attempt to derail the debate
- A FEB will post some pseudointellectual drivel that has nothing to do with anything being discussed in an attempt to confuse and derail the debate
- Another FEB will attempt to falsely attribute something totally irrelevant to another poster and try to derail the debate using straw-man tactics
- Yet another FEB will highlight a small error in another post and attempt to focus the entire debate on that one narrow part of the problem
- A sane person will finally bring the debate back on track and highlight the holes in the FEBs' explanations up to this point
- FEBs state they don't believe in any of the evidence they have been provided with and desert the thread completely
You could take Tom up to the ISS and he would claim he was drugged, that false images were placed on the memory card in his camera and/or implanted in his brain. Evidence means nothing to round earth deniers and it never will. I believe:
- For some it
borders on is religion - Some have just painted themselves into a corner and stubbornly refuse to give up
- Some have invested so much time and energy into the debate that to admit defeat would create too much dissonance for them
- Some are just the ultimate trollers who sit back and laugh at the fools who believe them and at all of us wasting our time and energy trying to debate them.
Which one is Tom?
-
Mikey
You created an alias to post this drivel?
Well done. I'm sure Tom will be along soon for your amazing efforts.
-
And now it looks to me like Tom and others are beginning to concede the point that the South Pole definitely has similar daylight traits as the North Pole... thus the search for a new map model must begin in earnest.
If you read the Flat Earth literature works the bi-polar model (not that specific map, however) has been around since at least 1918, and is said to have been created immediately after the South Pole was discovered as to include that new data into an updated Flat Earth model. Read the book "The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions" by Zetetes. The concept of a South Pole has been accepted in the society since there was a South Pole. It is not some new thing.
I'm genuinely curious about this. Has the FE community conducted any substantial experiments or produced any substantial writings since the discovery of the atomic bomb? Is the Bishop experiment the only accomplishment of the community since the cold war? New data is gathered and examined daily in modern science, surely there must be something.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
Come on, you can't even come up with elementary school testimonies?
It has been known for MANY thousands of years that the Earth is round. This is the "default hypothesis" for everything that happens on our planet.
Because it's so widely known and accepted, and because it fits 100% of the reliable observations made by ordinary people every day - there is not going to be some majorly funded effort to "Prove That The Earth Is Round"...all of the moderately sane and intelligent people of the world already know this is a fact.
In truth - the burden of proof is on you Flat Earth folks. Your experimental evidence boils down to one snake-oil salesman's poorly conducted experiment - subsequently shown to be (at best) inconclusive by subsequent efforts to repeat it.
That's *IT* that's all of the evidence I've ever seen presented here.
So why you expect there to be armies of scientists out there proving that the Earth is round - I don't know.
Here is experimental evidence:
1) Send a man to the moon with a camera.
2) Ask him to take a photograph of the Earth.
3) Notice that the photograph shows that the Earth is round.
That's EVIDENCE Tom...rock solid EVIDENCE. If you wish to claim that it's NOT evidence then you have to prove that he didn't take that photograph. The man has been interviewed a bazillion times about it. We have a ton of ancillary evidence that he really was there.
You have provided no evidence that it's not true...not one shred! You mindlessly parrot the claim that it was all faked - and if that's your standard of discourse, then you've already lost.
The onus is now on YOU. Go through every single one of my (many) "Disproof" threads (most of which you're too chicken to even reply to) - and tell us why every single one of them is incorrect.
Go do that...we'll wait a month or so.
Truth is - YOU CAN'T DO IT. You know you can't. In your heart of hearts - you must now realize that you've been wrong all of this time...the evidence for the Round Earth is everywhere around you - and your pathetic series of claims simply DO NOT explain the facts. They truly don't.
You say the sun sets because the 2,000 year old rules of perspective are "wrong" - but when I prove that they aren't wrong using the pinhole camera explanation - you don't respond. When I show that clouds are lit from the underside by the light of the sun - you ignore that problem.
ALL of those threads are stuffed full of EVIDENCE...that **IS** the evidence you're demanding here - yet you're very carefully ignoring the bits of it that you don't like.
Pathetic...just pathetic Tom.
It's time you admitted that you're wrong...you have no more avenues of debate to go down.
-
3DGeek, if there was a "like" button our your post, I would click it.
-
Come on, you can't even come up with elementary school testimonies?
It has been known for MANY thousands of years that the Earth is round. This is the "default hypothesis" for everything that happens on our planet.
Because it's so widely known and accepted, and because it fits 100% of the reliable observations made by ordinary people every day - there is not going to be some majorly funded effort to "Prove That The Earth Is Round"...all of the moderately sane and intelligent people of the world already know this is a fact.
In truth - the burden of proof is on you Flat Earth folks. Your experimental evidence boils down to one snake-oil salesman's poorly conducted experiment - subsequently shown to be (at best) inconclusive by subsequent efforts to repeat it.
That's *IT* that's all of the evidence I've ever seen presented here.
So why you expect there to be armies of scientists out there proving that the Earth is round - I don't know.
Here is experimental evidence:
1) Send a man to the moon with a camera.
2) Ask him to take a photograph of the Earth.
3) Notice that the photograph shows that the Earth is round.
That's EVIDENCE Tom...rock solid EVIDENCE. If you wish to claim that it's NOT evidence then you have to prove that he didn't take that photograph. The man has been interviewed a bazillion times about it. We have a ton of ancillary evidence that he really was there.
You have provided no evidence that it's not true...not one shred! You mindlessly parrot the claim that it was all faked - and if that's your standard of discourse, then you've already lost.
The onus is now on YOU. Go through every single one of my (many) "Disproof" threads (most of which you're too chicken to even reply to) - and tell us why every single one of them is incorrect.
Go do that...we'll wait a month or so.
Truth is - YOU CAN'T DO IT. You know you can't. In your heart of hearts - you must now realize that you've been wrong all of this time...the evidence for the Round Earth is everywhere around you - and your pathetic series of claims simply DO NOT explain the facts. They truly don't.
You say the sun sets because the 2,000 year old rules of perspective are "wrong" - but when I prove that they aren't wrong using the pinhole camera explanation - you don't respond. When I show that clouds are lit from the underside by the light of the sun - you ignore that problem.
ALL of those threads are stuffed full of EVIDENCE...that **IS** the evidence you're demanding here - yet you're very carefully ignoring the bits of it that you don't like.
Pathetic...just pathetic Tom.
It's time you admitted that you're wrong...you have no more avenues of debate to go down.
Funny how you are able to write plenty of off topic paragraphs proclaiming yourself to be so superior and correct but that you are unable to meet the simple challenge presented and link to the data showing information which is claimed to exist in favor of your model.
-
Funny how you are able to write plenty of off topic paragraphs proclaiming yourself to be so superior and correct but that you are unable to meet the simple challenge presented and link to the data showing information which is claimed to exist in favor of your model.
You asked:
So there are no reports or sources whatsoever to affirm the predictions the Round Earth model makes and we have to do it ourselves? This strong model of yours seems like it should have something more than zero evidence for these sun predictions. We are told that there are MOUNTAINS of evidence. Why not simply go onto google and bring it here for us?
Yes, there are reports and sources - but you have to follow an appropriate chain of reasoning. The steps are as follows:
STEP 1: Prove (with reports and sources) that the Earth is round. We can do that in many ways - let's just pick a few: The motion of the stars is only consistent with a round earth. The phases and appearance of the moon from widespread places is only consistent with a round earth. We have photos from space of a round earth. That there are two tides per day is only consistent with a round earth. Airline flight times are only consistent with a round earth. The fact of sunsets and sunrises is only consistent with a round earth. That the clouds are illuminated from BELOW at sunset is only consistent with a round earth. We have SOLID evidence for every single one of those claims. You have completely failed to disprove a single one of them.
STEP 2: Prove (with reports and sources) what the size of this round Earth is. We can do this in many ways too - let's just go with the Eratosthenes sticks-and-shadows approach, but there are many others.
STEP 3: Use this knowledge to set up a mathematical model to predict sunrise and sunset times at any point on the surface of the Earth.
STEP 4: Put the model up on a website that gives you a way to use this mathematical model to produce the data you need.
The point is that you're not going to find a website (or a book or a dust old parchment) that has a scientist measuring the sunrise and sunset times - nobody needs to do that because we have concrete proof (see may MANY "Disproof" discussions here) that the Earth is round - and all of the deductions that follow from that turn out to match reality so well that there is no longer any doubt in the minds of roughly 99.9999% of people that it is true.
The original evidence that you seek is the way all of science works. In the words of Sir Isaac Newton: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants".
We investigate something ("Is the Earth Round or Flat?") and having found the answer and demonstrated it comprehensively - we may stand on the shoulder of that giant to calculate it's size. When that number is demonstrated (with evidence and multiple re-tests of that evidence) - we have a yet larger giant shoulder to stand on.
At every step, we test and re-test our findings against reality.
Does the idea that the Earth is round, that it rotates once a day and orbits the sun every 366.2525 days FIT what we can clearly see in terms of phases of the moon? Does it match what we see about the seasons? Does it correctly predict solar and lunar eclipses? Does it explain the tides? Does it allow us to orbit the earth? Do photos we take from out in space match what we see?
When you pile enough evidence onto a theory, it becomes accepted mainstream proof. Now we may build mathematical models of it with increasing confidence that they match reality.
As we use those models (so, for example "TimeAndData.com" is used by millions of people each day) - do we find that it still matches reality? Yes, it does!
If there were a mistake in a website as well-visited as TimeAndDate.com - it would be noticed by a VAST number of people - that problem would be reported - and it would get fixed in short order.
Websites that make predictions that don't work (and I'm thinking of tfes.org here!) are NOT well visited, and many, many people (such as myself) complain that the predictions made by them do not fit reality.
At that point - it's incumbent on the claimant (you) to either fix the errors - or you explain why they aren't errors.
And that's something you're failing MISERABLY at doing.
I'm putting up proof after proof of the round earth and you are neither successfully convincing ANYONE that I'm wrong - or quietly ignoring them because you're not smart enough to come up with an answer - or there isn't an answer because you're wrong, but just too pig-headed to admit it.
Look - I understand - you've made it a huge part of your life that you're a believer in the Flat Earth - and you see legions (in your mind at least) of followers who look up to you as their leader. You can't admit defeat because that leaves you with a gigantic hole in your life. Without flat-earthism - what are you?
Yes - I get that...it's not a comfortable position to be in.
But yet it IS where you're at right now.
If you REALLY want to make a big name for yourself - be the Flat Earth leader who becomes a Round Earth convert and leads all of his former followers to the truth.
-
Funny how you are able to write plenty of off topic paragraphs proclaiming yourself to be so superior and correct but that you are unable to meet the simple challenge presented and link to the data showing information which is claimed to exist in favor of your model.
Funny how I can show you this is a standard assignment for entry level astronomy in college, but there's no forums filled with college kids talking about how wrong sites like timeanddate are with these sunrise and sunset times. Once again, I've given you the equation created to calculate sunrise/set times on a round Earth. Show that it doesn't actually fit for a round Earth or that timeanddate is no longer following it (thereby showing it's been influenced in some manner) and you've got a real case. At present you're asking for proof of something science settled long ago, and that stuff just doesn't exist online other than perhaps in paid digital libraries.
This, as 3DGeek sort of mentioned and I did in another thread, appears to be a major failing with this 'Zeteticism'. This apparent inability to trust those who have come before you. Oh, unless they support your worldview of course. Then they're practically infallible. Not sure how 'Zetetic' that is though. But to be honest, you seem to be trying to 'reinvent the wheel' as it were, and I can't figure out why.