Show Posts

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


Messages - Merkava

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4  Next >
21
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« on: August 08, 2017, 05:53:23 PM »
"The null hypothesis (H0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.

The 'null' often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon."
FE is H1. It is NOT the null hypothesis, as it is not the common view. RE was proven roughly 2k years ago. Sadly much of the specifics of how have been lost, but considering it's been in use since that time, with multiple explanations fitting it, as well as a working model, it's H0. The null. Religion is an entirely different matter than science, don't know why you brought that up. They don't play by the same rules at all.


How is religion an entirely different matter? Are the mechanics of the universe not a scientific concept? Most people believe in a deity of some sort who created/controls the universe. Popular majority wins, according to you. Therefore, if you believe otherwise, it is your burden to "prove them wrong". The popular majority is always correct by default, and burden is definitely not on the claimant of things beyond experience to prove their claim, since clearly, that is not how the burden of proof works.

Science, IMHO, has gone and continues to go out of it's way to disprove a supernatural involvement.  I'd say they have excepted it's the null.  The thing is, science can only operate in the world it exists in.  What I mean is this:  Imagine your a character in a computer simulation, the most complex simulation that has or will ever exist.  You can't know the true nature of the universe, unless that's part of the simulation.  You can only know what the rules of the "game" allow.

Anyway, the point still remains, there is literally NO DOUBT a globe is not only the excepted position of 99% of the population, but the only one that has an absolute, rock solid, working model that you can't touch with a ten foot pole.  You wouldn't dare to try.  You guys walked outside one day, looked at the horizon expecting to see what standing on a cylinder would look like, can't fathom how big a planet is and ran with it.  Most people don't give a crap to even bother with FE'ers after decades of photo's showing exactly what people in the dam dark ages knew, the Earth is round.  Nearly every piece of technology around us wouldn't function if the earth wasn't a globe, the code and physical make-up show it.  Haven't heard back from you on whether you plan to disprove RE by watching the sunrise on the equinox and show us how it didn't rise where we all know it will?  Or if you plan to take a vacation and take a few flights to show us we are full of shit?  Why not?  Superiority complex.

22
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« on: August 08, 2017, 03:22:49 PM »
We don't need to 'debunk' anything. The Flat Earth Hypothesis needs to prove itself. It's not the commonly accepted state of affairs, it's not the null hypothesis, it's the new suggestion. Therefore it's not enough to simply attempt to disprove some of the statements of RE, nor to point at explanations that could work both ways. The FE Hypothesis needs to present a model, equations, and more that can be tested and confirmed accurate. Without these it's just a unproven and untested hypothesis, not a theory. If FE believers want to displace the standard model, that's what's required of them. Seeing as we don't even have a model in over 100 years of recent resurgence, I have my doubts they can provide the rest of what's needed.

Exactly.  Burden of proof is on them.  But we have a problem, they will never lift a finger to check or flesh out their idea.  I've come to the conclusion there is some kind of mental disorder involved.  I mean that with no joking or mean-spiritedness.  I think that's why they hang on to some old book written hundreds of years ago as gospel.  It says what they want to hear.  Anything that doesn't is wrong because they have the truth.  I'm not a doctor so it's just my gut instinct talking, but I think it's along the lines of someone you don't like says something you objectively know is wrong.  The feeling of correcting them is pleasurable, it's just human nature.  But with FE it's a superiority complex (google and read the definition, it's rings true).  FE is perfect for this.  There's just enough pseudoscience on the most basic level to hang on to that they can convince themselves they have the truth.  From there it's conformation bias all the way in.  You can reject anything you haven't personally seen and what you see is completely up to you. 
They don't want to prove the Earth is flat, they already know it is, because it has to be or they're wrong and they're just not ready for that.

23
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 04, 2017, 03:28:22 AM »
Tom, you do understand that calculator will always give you a triangle totaling 180° so long as a+b>c where c is the longest side, right? That doesn't actually show or prove anything, and you claiming it at the start doesn't make it so. That's also not what 3DGeek is looking to show here, although it's a little odd for him to have not shown up for part 2 yet.

The calculator doesn't always make 180 degree triangles. It calculates the angles between three given connected sides. The triangles didn't always total 180 degree. The angles totalled less than 180 degrees with the bigger triangle flight routes. If the earth were a globe the angles between the angles should add up to more than 180 degrees, not equal to 180 degrees, and certainly not less than 180 degrees.

Your the gift that keeps on giving.  You spent the entirety of my first thread hating on calculators.  Now I find you've been off inventing your own new calculators that add the angles of TRIANGLES that don't add to 180°  Wait..... Holy Crap.....  Bro, you have found it........  THE BISHOP CONSTANT.   

24
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« on: August 04, 2017, 03:14:50 AM »

Like I said. It's not even fun anymore. I don't know if you're losing your edge over the years or what - but this is really tedious. It's not even a Tom Bishop post anymore without some cutesy "gotcha", exit plan in case you get cornered, or back door to wiggle out of - and never an intellectual commitment to a single conjecture, lest it have holes poked in it and/or experimentally debunked.

Debating Tom is kind of like showing up to a gentleman's boxing match - rested and prepared, and with well-defined ethical rules of the bout...only to face off with a cowardly little fat little man who gets naked and smears grease all over himself, and does nothing but scurry about putting buckets of paint on top of ladders and lighting bags of dog poop on fire, giggling at his cleverness all the while.

You are pushing it. If you want to bitch about Tom, do it in AR or CN. But you are not going to continue to derail discussions in the upper fora. Warned (again).
#fundthematch
#mymoneyonJoe
Forum needs thumbs up vote.

25
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 03, 2017, 04:02:52 AM »
Surely Tom Bishop has an answer.

Tom never has a real answer, and we all know why these FET nutjobs completely avoided this thread.

I'd sure really like to know why none of them decide:  "Hey, I'll go on a sweet vacation and while I'm at it, just time a flight and find out if billions of people are idiots or if it's just the hundred of us FE'ers."  I mean really, if you thought the world was flat, who wouldn't hop on a plane?

26
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« on: August 03, 2017, 12:52:58 AM »
Man your digging a hole so fast now it's hard to even decide which nonsensical statement to go after.  Are you seriously going to hang your hat on not being able to determine what direction the Sun rises or sets unless you see it.  That is awesome.  So the whole FE "model" is now completely reliant on the Sun not rising due East or setting due West EVER.  LMAO...  So Tom where exactly have you "verified" the Earth is flat?  The beach down the street.  So it's only "allegedly" flat everywhere you haven't checked out?  Even better is you'll never give us a rough location of "Flat Earth Headquarters" because we could prove the map/model is horseshit if you would just look out the window!   HaHaHa

Has it really never occurred to any of you that you could disprove the Globe by just tracking the Sun at your own locations?  FFS unless you live at one of the poles the Sun is going to Rise directly East on the Equinox and set directly West on Sep 22, 2017.  In fact, what the Sun does at all times proves you wrong.

SO

I dare you to watch it.  In fact, I dare you to show where the sun rises (accurate direction) on any day show us on a map how that's possible.


27
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ships disappearing in the horizon
« on: August 02, 2017, 10:48:33 PM »
Welcome Marcel!

This and this are the two most cited 'explanations' for the sinking ship phenomenon on this site. There might be some others, but those are the two I see called upon most often.
In the first link 'Send a young girl, with short garments, from C on towards D; '



I could be reading it wrong, but that is without optics. Of course everything would get smaller and harder to see when its far away.

Just so you can get an idea what your dealing with.  The guy who posted the video below thinks he has ironclad proof of a flat Earth (I think anyway, he seems kinda nutty to me).  He has no affiliation with this site as far as I know, but they seem to think that's what perspective and refraction would do.

28
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« on: August 02, 2017, 09:33:33 PM »
The sun only rises directly East and sets directly West on the equator during the equinox in the Round Earth model. Again, consider where the sun would set anywhere near the North Pole in RET. It was admitted that the sun doesn't set in the East in the Arctic Circle, and it doesn't just suddenly set in the East just outside of that zone. It is only the equator where the sun, allegedly, sets directly East.

You have not provided any observations from the equator. We cannot say what will happen there.

"The sun only rises directly East and sets directly West on the equator during the equinox in the Round Earth model."

ROFL  There's one more place it happens.  Reality.  What city do you live in, we'll tell when and where the sun is going to rise and set and how that destroys FE.

29
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« on: August 01, 2017, 11:30:02 PM »
This evidence was even presented with statements that support it in your own wiki. If you need documented evidence to back up claims made in your own wiki and your own statements, just because those claims are being used to point out a basic flaw in the FE model, we might have found the real problem.

Quote
The Wiki only states that on noon equinox the sun will be overhead at the equator. It says nothing about where it sets.

You'd have to be a spectacular dunce not to understand the sun is ALWAYS and SIMULTANEOUSLY rising/setting and everything in between.  So, if it is over the Equator all equinox.  It's rising, setting and at its apex on the Equator.  All clear from the wiki.

Quote
What needs to be explained is this image. The orange dot is the sun, at noon, in that location on the equinox. At the yellow dot, the sun should be just setting. The red arrow draws a line pointing directly West from the yellow dot, at where the sun should be visible.

How does the yellow dot see the sun setting in the West, when it's clearly 40 degrees north of West?

Quote
You will need to provide observations from that yellow dot before your argument has merit.
 

No we don't.  The argument is based %100 on YOUR/WIKI assertions.  It stands alone.

Quote
Secondly, you are mistaken that the sun will set directly west for all locations on a Round Earth on equinox. Consider what an observer near the North Pole will see. The sun only allegedly sets directly west on the equator.

A straw man.  It is CLEARLY stated and shown in the picture the example is only talking about the EQUATOR. 

Quote
Finally, there is no agreed upon Flat Earth map. You are trying to poke a hole in a map which does not exist. That map you posted is clearly just a projection of a globe, based on how the continents are distorted. It is not an original creation.

That's just desperate.  Picture is just for illustration of the problem.  Could draw it on the wiki map and change nothing about the facts.  I could draw it on a pizza for that matter.

Quote
As backed up here the sun should rise/set nearly directly East/West on the equinox. How does the yellow dot see the sun setting in the West, when it's clearly 40 degrees north of West? EDIT: Here is another for you too.

Quote
Sure, the sun can rise or set in a generally easterly or westerly direction under Flat Earth models.

WRONG, produce one.

Quote
Look at the proposed bi-polar model map and look at where the direction of "west" and "east" is pointing at from those two locations. The magnetic field lines emanate from the the North and South poles like a bar magnet. The magnetic field lines are curved, and the cardinal directions of west and east, which are always at a right angle to the North or South Poles on a compass, makes a straight line connection with the latitude the sun is traveling around from those locations.

This map is even more colossally ridiculous than the first one.  What exactly does the sun do when it hits the east edge of the map on the equinox?  Wormholes to get back west?  Not to mention what it does a few days before and after. 

Quote
Also, the sun does not appear to be setting directly "west" in that first link. The sun does not appear to be aligning with the horizontal perspective lines in that westerly built road.


30
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« on: August 01, 2017, 02:04:33 PM »
And... where are the real world observations to back up your assertions?

The sun rose here (in the REAL world) at 5:59am, in the East, just like everyday.  (Shocking)  I know because it shines in my freaking eyes on the way to work.  As has been shown, that can't happen on your map. 

Burden of proof is on you.
I can't go observe the sun doing whatever the hell yours would be doing, because I'm limited to the real world.
You presented a map and a wiki and a theory.  Those don't work with what everyone here including you are seeing, an easterly sunrise.  So WHERE ARE YOUR "REAL" WORLD OBSERVATIONS that the sun doesn't rise in the east?  Or rebut the logic (for once, this is a debate after all).  You won't because you can't.

31
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« on: August 01, 2017, 02:27:09 AM »
Just post the MOUNTAINS of evidence we are being told that exists for this type of phenomena. Go get it and bring it here. Google. GO.
Are you suggesting that those people who use sunrise and sunset data from various sources find it to be incorrect?

We have zero data right now to say anything about it. How embarrassing for this millennia old model with mountains of evidence supposedly behind it.

Says the guy with no working map who doesn't know when or where the sun is rises or sets.  I've said it, I've linked and I've said it again.  The WIKI, YOUR WIKI, THIS WEBSITES WIKI, says equinox overhead noon sun is fact.  If you can't comprehend or except evidence you probably had a hand in posting, why bother showing you anything further?  Your not a serious opponent.

The wiki says that the sun is overhead at the equator on noon equinox day. Where does it say that the sun will set exactly due west from there?

Riddle me this Tom:

If:

The Sun's orbit on the Equinox is Directly over the Equator
http://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_you_explain_day.2Fnight_cycles_and_seasons.3F
http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude

and:
How long is a day?  24 hours.
Every point on the Equator is East and West of every other point. (Only on a compass on your map)
http://wiki.tfes.org/Circumnavigation
Also given your assertion:
No, the sun does not rise directly east and set directly west. The direction the sun rises from ranges through the year from the North-East to the South-East, and the direction it sets ranges from North-West to South-West.
Guess what day it transitions from NE-SE and NW-SW?

THEREFORE:

When it's noon at a point on the equator (at least 6 hours into the Equinox) it's also, rising and setting, at another location on the equator.

and right there is where the FE map epic fails.  Because you can drive east or west with a compass on the FE map and go in a circle, but you can't look east or west or draw a line east or west OR SHINE A SUN!!!  and get a circle. 

It can't be any other way.  Again, this was just to make it easy to visualize and use THIS sites wiki as a "source".  It's just as much of a problem every other day of the year as well.
Easy illustration:
https://ibb.co/ciBkN5

32
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« on: August 01, 2017, 12:04:02 AM »
Just post the MOUNTAINS of evidence we are being told that exists for this type of phenomena. Go get it and bring it here. Google. GO.
Are you suggesting that those people who use sunrise and sunset data from various sources find it to be incorrect?

We have zero data right now to say anything about it. How embarrassing for this millennia old model with mountains of evidence supposedly behind it.

Says the guy with no working map who doesn't know when or where the sun is rises or sets.  I've said it, I've linked and I've said it again.  The WIKI, YOUR WIKI, THIS WEBSITES WIKI, says equinox overhead noon sun is fact.  If you can't comprehend or except evidence you probably had a hand in posting, why bother showing you anything further?  Your not a serious opponent.

33
I made a few of these observations as an aside on a different post, but it seems like it deserves it's own conversation.

Earth Not a Globe



Certain FE members, notably Tom Bishop, repeatedly reference the writings of Samuel Rowbotham. Many literally refer to his writings as their "sacred texts". (I don't know if Tom actually feels that or has literally said that, but it sure seems to be implied.) If you haven't read it, "Earth Not a Globe" is a stupendously rambling, arrogant, flowery-worded tome - essentially a collection of nonsensical ad-hoc assertions devoid of support, verifiability, and falsifiability - all glued together with the most mind-meltingly preposterous "logic" and analogies you may ever read. You really should read the whole thing - whether you're FE or RE. Reading it word-for-word - and realizing this is literally the best they have and as far as they've progressed - should make a Round Earther out of anyone.

In this stupendous word-salad, Rowbotham asserts all manner of BS - often for no good reason and adding no value - for example, that the Oceans are supported by steam, created by the fires of hades. (The Zetetic Method in action.) And that's just "warming up". (More below. Wait 'till we get to "sinking ships".)

Tom repeatedly links to that work, in a vague and hand-wavy way, as "proof" - of nearly anything and everything (without specifics). Then in the same thread, will - with an apparently straight face - demand "proof" from others. (While rejecting any form of proof that could have possibly ever been associated with NASA, or the military, or any government agency, etc. When presented with direct personal observations - e.g. personal photographic evidence under controlled and documented circumstances - he's nowhere to be found. Consistently. It's the Zetetic Method.)

The notorious Bedford Level scam



For example, Tom offers up the notorious "Bedford Level Experiment", somehow as "proof" of a flat earth. Now, maybe there's legitimate proof of a flat earth, who am I to say otherwise. I'm open to seeing it. But the Bedford Level Experiment is literally the fucking opposite of FE proof, and a demonstration of the utter loathsomeness as human beings that are Rowbotham and his partners-in-fraud. That notorious incident was a contest that Rowbotham lost. (Or at best - a two-vs-two he-said-she-said tie, from his mentally ill cohort's perspective - all under a cloud of fraud and scandal.) The whole seedy and shameful affair turned out to be a rigged game involving an official "witness" that was actually in on the con (and who had written his own flat earth books, unbeknownst to his RE opponent, respected naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace).

Rowbotham's follower, the mentally ill man who set up the bet and perpetrated the con, John Hampden, wound up "going mad" and wound up in jail several times, in the process of nearly driving Wallace into bankruptcy over years of psychotic harassment.

And even though Rowbotham and cohorts lost the bet under a cloud of fraud and controversy, Tom references this criminally fraudulent "contest", as proof - with a straight face.

The Zetetic Method



That, my friends, is the Zetetic Method in a nutshell. Where did that word come from, you ask? Well like any true new-age snake-oil salesman/con-man, Rowbotham just invented it himself, hijacking a then-existing but archaic and obscure phrase to do so. In actual practice it was used to help justify one con-job after another. By Rowbotham's own contemptible actions and behavior in life related to preaching his mad ramblings and grifting, it is correctly defined as "To lie, cheat, invent data out of thin air, connect random ad-hoc together with preposterously inane logical assertions, and harass your opponents - in order to cram your predefined beliefs down the throats of unsuspecting marks."

Perspective lines, disappearing ships, and dirty secrets



Tom has repeatedly (at least in years past) referenced Rowbotham's nonsensical explanation of "Perspective lines" to explain why ships disappear hull-first while receding into the distance, and why the sun appears to "set". Over the span of ten years, I've asked Tom to decode Rowbotham's inscrutable, preposterous explanation and diagrams for me, with the honest plea that I couldn't make heads or tales of it but wanted to understand. Tom would not, still has not. And, it turns out, cannot - but pretends to understand.

Because, I've finally figured out over the years, that the whole thing is one big non-sequitur of a 19th-century con-man who was trying to sound smart, get laid, hustle some scratch, gain a following - and pull the wool over their eyes and rob them blind.

Here's the fundamental error Rowbotham committed, which renders his whole vanishing ship "theory" meaningless: He attempted to overlay first-person "perspective lines" to a "vanishing point", on top of side view elevations.

But it doesn't work that way. It's a meaningless by definition, like multiplying the square root of two by RGB. "Perspective Lines" and "Vanishing Points" are 1) perceptual concepts, not real things, and 2) useful concepts used in art [and, say, first-person video games]. In both cases, they only have meaning when presented from a first-person perspective - not a third-person perspective side-view. The "vanishing point" is an arbitrary, imaginary point inferred by two or more parallel lines, receding infinitely, impossibly, into the distance in front of your own first-person view.

But, it should be noted, Rowbotham presented those as real, tangible, geometric truths that can be (and were) overlaid onto side elevation views.

(He also seems to have thought that vanishing points and the horizon are somehow interconnected. But they aren't necessarily related at all. If an artist draws a cube haphazardly oriented in the sky, for example - using one, two, or three-point perspective - none of the vanishing points will [necessarily] touch the horizon line. Only when an artist [or you] draws perfectly right-angle shapes perfectly oriented to [or sitting on] an infinite plane, do the perspective lines "touch" the horizon.)

Nobody thinks that the parallel lines of a train track magically, literally converge and touch after infinity on a plane. Similarly, nobody should think that first-person perspective lines, overlaying a side-view elevation of a scene, depicts an actual, physical point of convergence and "vanishing point" - that furthermore magically hides the sun, moon, stars, and the bottoms of ships.

Take these images, for example (and the full context):





The whole mashup of unrelated, incompatible concepts is breathtakingly stupid (and/or breathtakingly deceptive...or probably both). No wonder people approaching it with the assumption that it must be rational, can't make a lick of sense out of it.

But some of the true believers...they pretend to understand it.

And now you know their dirty little secret.

Other people have taken this moronic mashup to modern extremes, like this diagram below which attempts to explain that the sun literally sets below the infinite plane of the earth, by continuing down the convergence (then divergence) lines to below the Earth! Just sit for a moment and allow the multiple nested layers of stupid wash over you:



The only way Rowbotham was able to convince anyone of this nonsense, is with the confident, arrogant assertions of a con-artist, combined with layers of ad-hoc assertions on top of ad-hoc assertions, glued together with initially impressive sounding logic that, when you break it down into its core components, is utterly preposterous, circular gibberish, with every logical fallacy in the book committed. (Not to mention, a fair amount of aggressiveness, threats, and sheer con-artistry.)

Was Rowbotham evil, or just stupid - you may ask? Why should that be an either/or proposition? Weren't the most dangerous people in history both?

The Zetetic Method is the history of Samuel Rowbotham

So what else is Rowbotham's Zetetic Method? It is this:
  • Rowbotham went by many pseudonyms for the purposes of his con-artistry, including conning "good Christians" (who loved him) out of their money. You may have heard of the one that became well known, "Parallax"
  • He literally ran away from a lecture, after being unable to explain why the hulls of ships disappeared before the masts when sailing out to sea. (A problem he finally remedied later, by just asserting that they don't. And much later, with said "vanishing points")
  • He badly lost a challenge to spot all of a lighthouse from a beach 14 miles away, at which point he just told everyone he won the challenge! (Why didn't I ever think of that? Zetetic Method.)
  • Rowbotham then proceeded to spend the rest of his life literally as a snake-oil conman, selling cure-all tinctures and lotions to the sick and desperate. He also lectured on his book.
Someone a tad too close for comfort to me in my life, is a low-life, drug-abusing con-artist. He makes a decent living scamming people, and runs with a crowd of similar sociopaths. He also happens to be a hardcore Ufologist with a diagnosed mental illness, and has written voluminously about his schizophrenic episodes / alien encounters. Somehow, improbably, he's become something of a minor "leader" in the field. It's actually surprisingly compelling reading - it's like a glimpse into the mind of madness. You don't want to stay there too long. But his logic is all over the map, full of non-sequiturs, and random ad-hoc assertions, and tons of metaphorical "thought experiments" very much like Robotham's.

I shudder to think that in 170 years or so, long after his inevitably near-future death, some credulous future Tom Bishop is going to be including links to preserved copies of his insane ramblings, as "proof" of alien abductions and meddling in everyday affairs.

Just say no

The fact that people - like Tom - keep pointing to that human parasite and the fraudulent experiment associated with him, as the ultimate authority on the Flat Earth (meanwhile disagreeing with him over anything remotely substantive such as what the fuck the earth looks like), speaks volumes.

I urge you, rational people of all stripes: By all means, entertain the notion of a flat earth. But do not accept 200 year-old piece of human excrement, Samuel Rowbotham - or his idiotic work of con-man fiction "Earth Not A Globe", as "evidence". Ever. For anything. If Tom brings it up, I suggest using the Zetetic Method: ignore everything he said, and con him out of his DL# and SSN.

And remember, Flat Earth - or at least this group's "council", is a self-admitted cult. In 2015, the so-called "Zetetic Council" (uh-oh) of this site, had a discussion that went in part like this: "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." Check it out for yourself in full context.

(But in fairness, as I commented elsewhere, maybe a cult leader wouldn't be a bad thing for them. Maybe it's what the Flat Earth needs for their own good, so they can get out of the ditch they seem to have been stuck in for the last ten - or 150 - years. They have literally made zero progress on any significant question since then, including what the flat Earth even looks like - two poles, or one? An ice wall, or not? Can you fly from LAX to SDY, or not? UA or gravity? What the hell are Celestial Gears and The Firmament? Etc. Believe it or not, I don't want to come back in another ten years, assuming I'm still alive, to see them still spinning their wheels in the same thick mud, with still zero progress made, still just content with making the same smug, dogmatic ad-hoc assertions as if their religion has been offended, to legitimate, honest queries and logical problems. Forever without end. I want them to succeed.)

Their silence is deafening.  Great work.

34
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« on: July 31, 2017, 05:40:26 AM »
Quote from: 3DGeek
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?

35
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« on: July 31, 2017, 05:25:37 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop 8link=topic=6588.msg121378#msg121378 date=1501427725
The sun being over the equator in the Flat Earth model isn't "impossible". I don't see what point you are making there.

Tom - you're missing the point.  Yes, of course the sun is vertically above the equator twice a year (mid-day in spring and autumn).

The point is this:  IF the sun is over the equator (in FET) - then it must be simultaneously directly to the SOUTH of places at the same longitude in the Northern Hemisphere/Hemiplane and directly NORTH of some points in the Southern Hemiplane...and the distance from those points would be enough to ensure that (by your own math) the sun would be setting in those locations.

In RET, the sun is so far away that it never comes anywhere near the horizon at noon in spring and autumn.

Hands up anyone who ever saw the sun setting anywhere other than the West?

Even more to the point I was trying to get to in the first place.  On that day, when it's noon anywhere, the place the sun is rising is going to see a sunrise dew east, but the location where the sun is overhead at that moment IS NOT EAST of there.  Hence, that map is impossible.

Do you have any source for these observations?
dateandtime.com has data that is not disputed, you should use that for your work.

http://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents  Is enough of a source to wreck itself.  Print the top map as large as you can.  Place a tack anywhere on the equator.  That's where the Sun is at noon on the equinox in the location you stuck it, also according to the wiki.  Draw a line from the "Sun" dew west.  That's all you need.  The line headed west immediately diverges from the equator.  Case closed, that map can't be.

You must provide a source for those observations for that argument to have merit.

You and your website are the source, as linked.  There is no observation required, logic is based entirely on the assertions in the wiki.  You don't understand words.  All of your responses make as much sense to what they are in response too as they do to any unrelated sentence.  As I'm sure your response will.  How about you refrain:
(verb: refrain; 3rd person present: refrains; past tense: refrained; past participle: refrained; gerund or present participle: refraining
    stop oneself from doing something.
    "she refrained from comment")
Let someone that can at least repeat the premise respond.


36
Please Please PLEASE tell me this is un-ironic. There is complete, substantial and undeniable evidence to not only suggest, but prove that the earth is a globe.

Some questions for the inevitable anti scientific responses:

If the earth is not a globe, how can it be day in some places, and night in others? In the UK it's day, but in Australia it's night.
If the earth is not a globe, why has no one ever seen or taken a picture of "the end of the earth"? The current population of the earth is over 7b people, surely someone has traveled to the end of the earth, or maybe flown to the end on a plane or something.

Most of them seem to think http://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents Top map is reality.  I think they think the sun is a little "source" of heat and light that is close to us, circling around about the equator varying N/S by time of year.  Gravity is not real.  For that matter space, the moon, planets and who knows what else.

37
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« on: July 30, 2017, 08:13:21 PM »
The sun being over the equator in the Flat Earth model isn't "impossible". I don't see what point you are making there.

Tom - you're missing the point.  Yes, of course the sun is vertically above the equator twice a year (mid-day in spring and autumn).

The point is this:  IF the sun is over the equator (in FET) - then it must be simultaneously directly to the SOUTH of places at the same longitude in the Northern Hemisphere/Hemiplane and directly NORTH of some points in the Southern Hemiplane...and the distance from those points would be enough to ensure that (by your own math) the sun would be setting in those locations.

In RET, the sun is so far away that it never comes anywhere near the horizon at noon in spring and autumn.

Hands up anyone who ever saw the sun setting anywhere other than the West?

Even more to the point I was trying to get to in the first place.  On that day, when it's noon anywhere, the place the sun is rising is going to see a sunrise dew east, but the location where the sun is overhead at that moment IS NOT EAST of there.  Hence, that map is impossible.

Do you have any source for these observations?
dateandtime.com has data that is not disputed, you should use that for your work.

http://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents  Is enough of a source to wreck itself.  Print the top map as large as you can.  Place a tack anywhere on the equator.  That's where the Sun is at noon on the equinox in the location you stuck it, also according to the wiki.  Draw a line from the "Sun" dew west.  That's all you need.  The line headed west immediately diverges from the equator.  Case closed, that map can't be. 

38
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« on: July 29, 2017, 11:06:07 PM »
The sun being over the equator in the Flat Earth model isn't "impossible". I don't see what point you are making there.

Tom - you're missing the point.  Yes, of course the sun is vertically above the equator twice a year (mid-day in spring and autumn).

The point is this:  IF the sun is over the equator (in FET) - then it must be simultaneously directly to the SOUTH of places at the same longitude in the Northern Hemisphere/Hemiplane and directly NORTH of some points in the Southern Hemiplane...and the distance from those points would be enough to ensure that (by your own math) the sun would be setting in those locations.

In RET, the sun is so far away that it never comes anywhere near the horizon at noon in spring and autumn.

Hands up anyone who ever saw the sun setting anywhere other than the West?

Even more to the point I was trying to get to in the first place.  On that day, when it's noon anywhere, the place the sun is rising is going to see a sunrise dew east, but the location where the sun is overhead at that moment IS NOT EAST of there.  Hence, that map is impossible.

39
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What we can agree on.
« on: July 29, 2017, 11:00:35 PM »
I'd like to attempt to reset the debate.  I have not been involved in the clash of ideology between Flat Earth and Round Earth proponents for very long.  Frankly because I had never realized it was even a thing.
So rather than focus on what we disagree on, let's attempt to compile things we can agree on.
On the wiki, The Bishop Experiment used Google earth to measure the distance between Monterey and Santa Cruz.

Let's begin from there and try and agree on distances between locations?

You're heading up a blind alley.

The problem with looking at things disappearing over the horizon is twofold:

* You can't do it over land because terrain is bumpy.
* You can't reliably do it over water because the temperature inversion over the water and rapid changes in humidity with height result in a mirages and other optical phenomena that can never result in a decisive answer without a LOT more science.   Since that science is never going to happen - this is a bust.

If you want to finally come to conclusions, you have to look at the environment around the Earth - the stars, moon and the sun.

* Sunrises and sunsets, moonrises and moonsets.
* Phases of the moon.
* Orientation of the moon.
* Motion of the stars.

...and you have to do these observations at widely separated points on the Earth - especially the southern hemisphere/hemiplane.

I'm only talking about distances between locations.  So, from Monterey, CA to Santa Cruz, CA Roughly 23 miles, as the crow flies I guess.  Or more directly, google maps distance measurement from those 2 locations is accurate enough for us all to agree on.

40
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What we can agree on.
« on: July 29, 2017, 10:57:22 PM »
We can agree that the earth looks flat.

Ok.  Can we also agree looks can be deceiving?

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4  Next >