[Tom Bishop]

There was equinox nearly ten days ago.
How much would it cost to roughly measure azimuth of sunrise and sunset and compare values with what would be seen on Flat Earth?

Not so easy to compare, for emotional reasons.

http://i63.tinypic.com/2zspc87.png

What Flat Earth? There is NO model. No research has ever been put into a model. We don't know how many poles there are, or what the continental layout looks like. We only have preliminary research on a model that was completed 150 years ago.

[AATW]

You are the one who is interested in it. You make some kind of model. You make some theories.

Wait...you want me to make a model of a flat earth which matches observations...even though that has been shown to be impossible...
It's impossible because the earth is a globe, not flat.
What a strange thing to request.

You're the guys (pretending to) believe in a flat earth.
When you're shown how many ways your current model is wrong and bears no resemblance to reality the onus is on you to either:
1) Alter your model
2) Admit that you're wrong

Your Wiki says:
"A fundamental tenant to the Zetetic philosophy is to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes"

I don't see any searching, examining or inquiring going on.

[Tom Bishop]

You are the one who seems to be really interested in all of this. You are the one who wants it. Its really up to you to make models, theories, and perform research. We have provided a platform to do so. Our users are the resource. You are the resource. You are clearly more interested in maps, continents, and whatever, than I am.

[AATW]

In order for you to be a flat earther you have to think that a flat earth model is possible.
I do not, so I can't make you one.
You as a society are claiming it is possible, the onus is on you to make one.

It's weird that you say above that you don't have a model - that's what I thought a lot of your Wiki was.

I don't understand how you can say that you don't know how many poles there are and that not bother you.

If there's one pole and Antarctica is a wall of ice then there is no way to explain 24 hour sun in Antarctica - something which has been testified to by many people, something you can easily find video of on YouTube. Heck, you can even GO TO ANTARCTICA if you have the money.

If there are two poles and the sun somehow changes from circling one to the other then I can't think of any way that could explain sunlight patterns anywhere else.

When massive gaping flaws are pointed out it would be rational to consider whether the premise of a flat earth is correct given how many empirical observations (something you say is important to you) show it to be impossible.

[inquisitive]

You are the one who seems to be really interested in all of this. You are the one who wants it. Its really up to you to make models, theories, and perform research. We have provided a platform to do so. Our users are the resource. You are the resource. You are clearly more interested in maps, continents, and whatever, than I am.

We have a model, WGS-84.  End of story.

[HorstFue]

And there's a map (WGS84)
Open source, produced by independent, voluntary crowd workers

4.3 millions users (2017-11-08)
4.1 billions nodes (2017-11-08)   (GPS-Coordinates)
3 millions changesets/day (2017-11-08)
1 million contributors (2018-03-18)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats

[Tom Bishop]

In order for you to be a flat earther you have to think that a flat earth model is possible.
I do not, so I can't make you one.
You as a society are claiming it is possible, the onus is on you to make one.

There is no society. Haven't you been listening to what I have been saying? If there were meetings of the Flat Earth Society that talked about Flat Earth science, I would know about it. It's not you vs us. It's mostly just you here.

It's weird that you say above that you don't have a model - that's what I thought a lot of your Wiki was.

The Wiki just gives a basic overview of a few things and mentions that there is no consensus on the map and pole layout.

I don't understand how you can say that you don't know how many poles there are and that not bother you.

Why should it bother me? Our chief concern is whether the earth is flat. The Flat Earth experiments you usually see online are just testing the flatness of the earth.

Magnetic pole theory is less tangible and may come up under a number of different interpretations. Non-local phenomenons are difficult to study; and require a budget.

If there's one pole and Antarctica is a wall of ice then there is no way to explain 24 hour sun in Antarctica - something which has been testified to by many people, something you can easily find video of on YouTube. Heck, you can even GO TO ANTARCTICA if you have the money.

If there are two poles and the sun somehow changes from circling one to the other then I can't think of any way that could explain sunlight patterns anywhere else.

That is not enough. You are going to have to collect or cite the real observations and reports to show what is and isn't possible, and show what the sun actually does, before conclusions can be drawn.

You need to show, not tell, if you want public consensus on what should be changed.

[Frocious]

Public consensus is that the earth is round anf that our current theories are correct.

[Rama Set]

In order for you to be a flat earther you have to think that a flat earth model is possible.
I do not, so I can't make you one.
You as a society are claiming it is possible, the onus is on you to make one.

There is no society. Haven't you been listening to what I have been saying? If there were meetings of the Flat Earth Society that talked about Flat Earth science, I would know about it. It's not you vs us. It's mostly just you here.

There was FE meet up just a few months ago. Didn’t you know about that?  It was discussed on this site.

[jcks]

I don't understand how you can say that you don't know how many poles there are and that not bother you.

Why should it bother me? Our chief concern is whether the earth is flat. The Flat Earth experiments you usually see online are just testing the flatness of the earth.

So are you saying you're unsure of whether the earth is flat or not? I thought one of starting points of FET was the earth being flat is an obvious truth.

Also while I'm at it, if flat earth debates/discussions are just a past time for you all then where does the "promotion of the flat earth theory" come into play? How are you actively promoting something that you spend little time actually researching (other than regarding EnaG as irrefutable evidence) and expecting others to accept it? Unless you all don't really care about pushing the theory of flat earth since it's an obvious truth and whether or not anyone accepts that truth matters not.

I have to say I'm a little disappointed. I've been lurking here for a while trying to figure out what makes every FEr such firm believers in a theory that has yet to make any sense to me. But all I ever see from the FE side is denials, diversion tatics, baseless assumptions, and appeals to authorities who have no authority on the subject matter (Shaq anyone?). And any time effort is put forth to prove a flat earth or refute common round earth theories they are immediately debunked and the there's a attempt to stir the conversation in a completely different direction to avoid answering further questions.

I don't think I'll ever understand this theory, and after this admission it feels like I've wasted my time in trying to understand it.

[Tom Bishop]

There was FE meet up just a few months ago. Didn’t you know about that?  It was discussed on this site.

Sure, that was the second organized meeting between this forum and the other .org forum in about 10 years. Dioysios personally organized it himself and gave a good presentation on the topic of Flat Earth History.

That doesn't mean that this is an organized or funded society, though. I'm just telling you guys how it is.

Also while I'm at it, if flat earth debates/discussions are just a past time for you all then where does the "promotion of the flat earth theory" come into play? How are you actively promoting something that you spend little time actually researching (other than regarding EnaG as irrefutable evidence) and expecting others to accept it? Unless you all don't really care about pushing the theory of flat earth since it's an obvious truth and whether or not anyone accepts that truth matters not.

I'm doing my part to promote it by logging on here every day for a little while and basically just telling you what Earth Not a Globe says, since you guys are so reluctant to read it yourselves.

I have to say I'm a little disappointed. I've been lurking here for a while trying to figure out what makes every FEr such firm believers in a theory that has yet to make any sense to me. But all I ever see from the FE side is denials, diversion tatics, baseless assumptions, and appeals to authorities who have no authority on the subject matter (Shaq anyone?). And any time effort is put forth to prove a flat earth or refute common round earth theories they are immediately debunked and the there's a attempt to stir the conversation in a completely different direction to avoid answering further questions.

I don't think I'll ever understand this theory, and after this admission it feels like I've wasted my time in trying to understand it.

If you are disappointed in whatever it is your are looking at then please either leave or help improve the quality yourself. You are a non-contributing presence.

[Tontogary]

Tom, i must say i am a bit disappointed, I was hoping for some real scientific debate, and exchange of views, and understanding of the reasons why some may believe in FE.

From your recent comments it appears that you are only here to further the EanG writings, with little attempt to engage otherwise.

Surely that is not contributing to the forum in any great way either is it? Repeating the work of an originally 16 page pamphlet? There were many written during that time, with other fanciful ideas.

Surely you must have some ideas of your own, or experiences that you can call upon to try to add something to the debate?

[Tom Bishop]

I believe that what I have been doing has been working. I have been logging in every day doing the same thing since 2007 when the old Flat Earth Society website first appeared online. I have almost 20,000 posts total, in which I am basically doing the same thing. It has attracted world wide attention. Those discussions created the Wiki and have inspired people to look into it themselves.

The Flat Earth Society isn't any bigger (since we are not really organized and don't have real membership). But the world-wide Flat Earth movement is. All of the Flat Earth Youtube channels are based on our initial efforts. It would be nice to bring them all under one umbrella and create a real organization, instead of this flimsy one, but that would take leadership and effort. I only have a limited amount of time.

[Macarios]

There was equinox nearly ten days ago.
How much would it cost to roughly measure azimuth of sunrise and sunset and compare values with what would be seen on Flat Earth?

Not so easy to compare, for emotional reasons.

http://i63.tinypic.com/2zspc87.png

What Flat Earth?

The one with the Sun too close to be seen from all locations under same angle.
Was there ever any Flat Earth model with Sun far enough?
Which one would that be?

There is NO model. No research has ever been put into a model. We don't know how many poles there are, or what the continental layout looks like. We only have preliminary research on a model that was completed 150 years ago.

Exactly.
People tried, saw there was too many discrepancies, and ceased futile attempts.
Globe model has those and other answers.

EDIT: We do know the configuration of longitudes, and places on them.
We know it from reality, not from model.
Places having solar noon at the same time are surely at the same longitude.
Latitude measurement is not disputed in any model, Flat of Globe.

[Tom Bishop]

The one with the Sun too close to be seen from all locations under same angle.
Was there ever any Flat Earth model with Sun far enough?
Which one would that be?

Read Earth Not a Globe for the mechanism of the sun's descent. Youtube author p-brane describes the same mechanism here:

We do know the configuration of longitudes, and places on them.
We know it from reality, not from model.
Places having solar noon at the same time are surely at the same longitude.
Latitude measurement is not disputed in any model, Flat of Globe.

I question it. Where can those observations be found?

[inquisitive]

The one with the Sun too close to be seen from all locations under same angle.
Was there ever any Flat Earth model with Sun far enough?
Which one would that be?

Read Earth Not a Globe for the mechanism of the sun's descent. Youtube author p-brane describes the same mechanism here:

We do know the configuration of longitudes, and places on them.
We know it from reality, not from model.
Places having solar noon at the same time are surely at the same longitude.
Latitude measurement is not disputed in any model, Flat of Globe.

I question it. Where can those observations be found?

Look it up!

As asked before, do you have any issues with the WGS-84 model?

[Macarios]

The one with the Sun too close to be seen from all locations under same angle.
Was there ever any Flat Earth model with Sun far enough?
Which one would that be?

Read Earth Not a Globe for the mechanism of the sun's descent. Youtube author p-brane describes the same mechanism here:

Good example of using partly his version of perspective where needed and discarding the same perspective where it exposes him.
He is showing how gap under the sun shrinks with distance and sweeping under the carpet the fact that the Sun doesn't shrink together with the gap.
Which mechanism filters out part of the image (having Sun in it) while shrinks only the other part (having the gap in it)?

Also, was he the one saying "after vanishing point lines diverge"? LOOOL

We do know the configuration of longitudes, and places on them.
We know it from reality, not from model.
Places having solar noon at the same time are surely at the same longitude.
Latitude measurement is not disputed in any model, Flat of Globe.

I question it. Where can those observations be found?

All around us.
For longitudes see the Flat Earth explanation of Time Zones.
For latitudes, see the same distances from Polaris (places with same latitudes have same Polaris elevation).

Polaris, and stars in general, had much more attention 200 years ago without this much light pollution.

[Tontogary]

Not sure how to put an image in the post, so have attached it.

If the earth is flat the sun can never go below the horizon, just disappear due to perspective as Tom would say.

If that is the case why am i able to take a picture of the sun half below the horizon? This was at sunrise last week, in Australia, with the sun bearing North East.
Refraction is towards the horizon, so in fact the sun is actually below the horizon.

For nautical calculations the sun is said to be on the horizon when the Center is on the horizon. Taking into account dip and refraction that is when the sun has it lower limb at 1/2 its diameter above the horizon.

[Macarios]

Not sure how to put an image in the post, so have attached it.

I hope this explanation can help:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8805.msg145894#msg145894

[AATW]

Read Earth Not a Globe for the mechanism of the sun's descent. Youtube author p-brane describes the same mechanism here:

I've dealt with this in this thread, which you ignored.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8672.msg140039;topicseen#msg140039

One key thing to note from my post in that thread is how you use perspective here (wrongly) to explain sunset but ignore it when reinterpreting the stick experiment to show a close sun.
You can't have it both ways.

I've suggested a simple experiment you could do in your home which would cost approximately 0$ - so all of your annual budget, but I'm sure you'll agree that it will be worth it - to verify what I've said about shadows. You ignored that too. I've also suggested an experiment you could do to verify the distance to the sun and you've ignored that too. This is a key part of your theory, if the sun is distant then it would show your interpretation of the stick experiment wrong, it's strange then that you refuse to do any empirical experiments to test that.