Recent Posts

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problem with Empiricism
« Last post by Treep Ravisarras on Today at 09:59:47 PM »
Again, note the separation between accepting something as likely to be true, and conceding it as an immutable fact. It doesn't have to be a binary yes-no question.
If I may add to that again, please. This is also the reason why we don't have a something called a 'Flat Earth map'. Because if I draw a map of the earth, and someone from another place (say Japan, if it exists) looks at it, how can he accept the map if he doesn't even know if America exists or India or Australia.

I am fortunate enough to live in Australia for a few years now. I've seen a few countries in South East Asia, and Australia, but they are the only ones I accept as true.

So even if Pete drew a map (if he could, because noone seems to have been able to draw a map that matches the empirical evidence of Flat Earth), I could simply not accept it as being true for a fact. Sorry if you don't understand it.
Because we're too lazy to change it.

Are you happy now?  >o<
Do you really not see it as a problem that there are such gaping holes in your "theory"?
You have no idea what a flat earth looks like - in the real world the globe has long since been mapped.
You don't even know if there is one pole or two - in the real world both have been explored, there is a research base at the South Pole which you can pay to visit.

The fact is there is no flat earth map which can match observations. The one in the Wiki doesn't. Either there's one pole in which case there is no way the 24 hour sun in the Antarctic circle can be explained and you're calling every single Antarctic explorer a liar. Or there's 2 in which case your entire model of the sun's movement falls down.

The reason for this is that the premise it is based on - a flat earth - is wrong. It's weird that you never consider this. Instead you start with the premise of a flat earth because of...reasons. You then try and fit everything around that but it doesn't fit. You are trying to fit a too big carpet in a room, soon as you flatten one corner down another one pops up.
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moon Landing?
« Last post by Dither on Today at 09:32:47 PM »
I would worship FEers that believe the Moon Landings were real.
Would you also worship visitors from other galaxies?

The reasons for the moon landing hoax are more complicated than just deceiving the world about the shape of the earth. As with everything in life, there were other factors involved, including a Cold War.
Because we're too lazy to change it.

Are you happy now?  >o<
Why is it in the logo of the Flat Earth Society itself? It's not that this is "just a visualized example," it's clearly and objectively incorrect.

This old chestnut again.

I'm being trolled right now, right? No one could possibly in good faith read that post and think the central point that needed a response was me complaining about the logo.

The longer these constant deflections and straw men and deliberate misrepresentations go on, the more I'm being persuaded that every FES member is just in on the joke and this whole thing is a bit. I just don't want to think people could be so close-minded that they'd fabricate complete non-sequitors just to derail conversations they don't like.

I'll spell out my real question this time for you: if the azimuth projection map doesn't work, then why is it still in the ostensibly educational wiki?
Suggestions & Concerns / Height parameter is broken
« Last post by Baby Thork on Today at 08:39:00 PM »

If I add an image, I can specify its width. I cannot however specify its height.

Exhibit A
An image in its natural form.

Exhibit B
The same image shrunk to a width of 150px

Exhibit C
The same image with me attempting to control the height to 150px using the same technique as exhibit B, but it failing.

Why is it in the logo of the Flat Earth Society itself? It's not that this is "just a visualized example," it's clearly and objectively incorrect.

This old chestnut again.

Do these guys sell half eaten apples?

Is this a company run by a woman who sells sea shells on the sea shore?

Is this cereal for zoos?

We have a logo. Its a very rough representation of a flat earth. McDonald's don't even have a burger in their logo. They have a golden 'm'. It has nothing to do with their product at all. Most logos are like that. Ours is no different. You see it, you think of flat earth ... job done. Have you been writing angry letters to the people below because of their crappy representation of earth?

Let it go. It's just a logo.
Flat Earth Debate / Re: flipping moon
« Last post by 6or1/2Dozen on Today at 08:19:58 PM »
Now you've created an artificial "up" with the vertical horizon. It's called a "horizon" because it's horizontal. Changing the manner it which it is presented on the page doesn't fix that.

Howerer, putting the "hill" between the observers does change the picture substantially, so that you now have two entirely different situations. In the FE situation the observer always has the same orientation with respect to the "top" and the "bottom" of the moon. The RE observer doesn't. Which is my point. Thank you for presenting it graphically.

It would have made an even clearer demonstration if you had used a smaller radius for the earth, allowing even more curvature in the diagram. That would get us even closer to a "Norway" versus "New Zealand" representation, which is where this all began.

With regard to the "doodad taped to the ceiling" demonstration, please think a bit more about that demonstration. I'm hoping that eventually the light bulb will go on and you'll be able to see that it is another repeat of Tom's argument. Maybe do a thought experiment with the card suspended vertically in the air, then you move across a planar surface to any place you choose, then report back on the orientation of the card that you perceive with respect to "top" and "bottom".

I’m not the one having trouble getting the light bulb screwed in.

Look at the Moon, notice the lack of depth perception, it looks like flat disc, because that’s what a sphere looks like from a fair distance away, it has a front that we see and a back that we don’t.

As to your suggestion of taping the card on edge. This would expose the thinnest face of the card, one that has no identifiable features as the face of the Moon. Also, because it’s so thin, it would also be exposing two different faces (the picture on one and the numbers on the other).

Are people in the South looking at a different side of the Moon? No… Do you know why? Because once side of the Moon always faces away from the surface of the Earth, and the other side always faces away. Taping the card on edge would not match any model, FE or RE, so it’s pointless to do it that way.

Again, I failed to realize that difficulty of 3 dimensional spatial relationships was going to be an issue. I’ll redo the observation and pics using a color coded sphere as soon as I get the chance.

So, tell me, is there difference standing to look at the Moon compared to leaning back in a chair to look at it? No?
Like if, lying on back and suddenly jump up to my feet, is this Moon going to flip over? No?
How about if I was lying on my stomach? No?
The position of the observer’s body is irrelevant. The only difference, is the angle the observer has to look up at, that is how far they have to tilt their heads back.

As for the diagram, redone as requested, using Kristiansand, Norway located at 58 degrees N and Campbell Island, New Zealand at 52 degrees S, as reference points and placing the observers at those approximate Latitudes, while extending the visible curvature of the RE to both the N and S pole. The FE model, including lawn chairs, is super imposed in orange.

So, apparently, Flat Earth people are smarter, instead of standing there craning their necks to gaze up at the stars, they recline comfortably in lawn furniture (while possibly sipping on Mai Tais).
Flat Earth General / deGrasse Tyson cashing in on FET again.
« Last post by Baby Thork on Today at 08:10:29 PM »

People often ask us if we make much money out of flat earth. We don't make any. You want to follow the money trail? Look at this guy. He's just written another book, he has an entire chapter on rotundity. So who profits from telling you what shape the earth is?

Where's our royalties, Tyson?  >o<
Short of posts which contain other members' personal information, obscenely NSFW content, outright illegal stuff or which are posted by spambots, we generally don't delete any posts. That's what Complete Nonsense and Angry Ranting are for, and why so many posts get moved into there.

While there is obviously no way for you to personally verify this, you will find it difficult to sell your blockchain on such grounds to a forum where almost nobody has experienced their posts being deleted.