1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bi-Polar Model: YouTube movement catching on
« on: July 25, 2018, 03:38:51 PM »
Not so much a theory as a diagnosis.
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.
The distances in the video are based on the Latitude/Longitude coordinate system, which is a spherical coordinate system. Of course you will get a sphere.
It's amazing how that works. Right?
...
It's worth noting that it's not always the flat Earthers using the invalid arguments. I've seen, both here and in other places, flawed arguments used against the flat Earth and in favour of the globe. It's not that common, but it does happen. It's important to point out the flaws. No point in relying on the FE people to do it. If they had the ability to spot flawed reasoning...
Oh, I agree, one of the better posters here on the RE side was 3d. He had some amazing threads but his idea of using ping times to various servers to measure distances was very flawed. That does not invalidate his other arguments but some here tried to make it that way. I have been called out by RE'ers on a few flawed logic issues. This place is an amazing thought experiment and forces you to rethink many things you take for granted. It's also very amusing to see Tom come up with new ways to invalidate facts.
Exactly right. There are 2 points that can't be argued with any sanity. One is cruise speeds that are calibrated with radar. Tom admitted radar is accurate. There is an acceptable range of cruise speeds. The other is the clock. Time is easily measured. The data does not lie and the chart in the op shows what is expected and is actual proof of a globe. Any argument about the clock or aircraft speed is pure bunk designed to shift the focus away from facts. Facts that are very inconvenient to the FE mindset.
What is interesting is exactly how the denial works. Clearly, there's no rational way to argue with this overwhelming weight of evidence - so we are left with a variety of irrational rationalisations.Where it gets silly is when claims are made that planes don't know how fast they're going and that other ways of measuring distances across oceans like ships laying cables across the Atlantic aren't valid either because they don't know how much cable they've used.
You have to understand that iamcpc is probably unique in Flat Earth circles in simultaneously holding (i) that distances in Google maps is a totally accurate representation of real distance across the Earth's surface and (ii) that the Earth's surface is flat.
From what I've seen, that isn't really a very unique perspective.
I think many FEs recognize that google maps and indeed google earth works very well to represent the locations and distances between places on Earth - at least any places near enough to drive between in our everyday experience.
From what I've seen, most FEs expect that we should be able to make a flat map with distances that perfectly match the distances reported by airlines and google earth. It is a rather abstract bit of geometry to understand that this cannot be possible, and I think many FEs are simply not willing to make this leap.
I don't know if it is possible to solve all of these problems.
- There is no FE map
- We can't rely on the distances to be accurate because Lat/Lon relies on spherical coordinates
- We can't rely on the flight times to be accurate
On top of all of the above it is also known that on international flights planes regularly use jet streams to quicker get to a destination.
https://books.google.com/books?id=vsodESrwdm4C&lpg=PA183&dq=%22jet%20streams%22%20%22miles%20per%20hour%22&pg=PA183#v=onepage&q&f=true
According to this:
https://books.google.com/books?id=vsodESrwdm4C&lpg=PA183&dq=%22jet%20streams%22%20%22southern%20hemisphere%22%20%22miles%20per%20hour%22&pg=PA183#v=onepage&q=50%20miles%20per%20hour&f=false
"Jet streams are ever-present, relatively narrow, streams of high-speed winds undulating around the Northern and Southern Hemispheres"
The solution to the circumference being one coordinate point on a globe is that the RE coordinate system is incorrect.I don't think so - don't FE and RE agree totally on lat long positions? Long is measured in 15 degrees per hour, since we all agree there are 24 hours in a day, and that there is always high noon somewhere. Latitude, we agree on the angle to the pole star. So the coordinate system exhausts all the points on the earth that there are.
It depends on the FEer and also on the day I think. Tom certainly disputes the validity lat and long as it applies to a FE.
I know what I've seen and I trust that.
The bipolar model just produces the ancient water pouring over the edge model ..
Well not if all the points on the circumference are the very same point in reality. The water will be held up by itself. This of course is no less absurd, if not a lot more.
Tom’s silly caveat to this issue is that although this is a viable map, no one is sure of the actual orientation of the continents under such a model.
The Flat Earth Theory is a relatively new theory that receives zero funding, with hundreds of people like you complaining and refusing to participate. What are you expecting to see?No it isn't. The Flat Earth Theory is a very old theory which was rejected a long time ago because it was found not to match observations.
What I was expecting to see was some kind of coherent FE model or at least some sign you're working towards one.
Now fine, you don't have funding and so on. But Bobby isn't being funded, or sponsored. He just took it upon himself to make some equipment and do his own experiments.
He has proven conclusively that your assertion that the horizon rises to eye level is false. If you dispute his findings then you are free to repeat his experiments, or devise your own.
You're an empiricist aren't you? What empirical measurements have you actually made yourself?
You seem far too reliant on, and willing to accept the written accounts of, some Victorian dude who has found no acceptance in the scientific community and has been largely forgotten by history.
And you're far too dismissive of anything which contradicts those accounts and far too unwilling to do any experiments yourself.
Is it so unreasonable to expect some effort from you guys to test your assertions?
The coordinate system absolutely rests upon the idea that the earth is a globe.
Latitude and Longitude lines are vertical and horizontal circles, usually illustrated as laying upon a spherical surface. The points are equidistant, and must represent spherical geometry. Arguing that the Lat/Lon system has nothing to do with a sphere is clearly incorrect. Any warping of them on a surface of another shape (except maybe a concave hollow earth theory) would create distortions.
isnt this the whole point though? these coordinates for cities (based on round earth model) are used every day by airlines. Inherently, the model is correct by virtue that every single plane is able to fly to the exact location and arrive at a predictable time at that location. if the round earth model and lat/long were not correct this wouldnt happen. How else do you explain the fact that for any given international airport, there are planes arriving correctly from all over the world every day? if the system wasnt 100% accurate (and therefore the globe model itself) wouldnt that be pretty obvious? Also, have you never been on an airplane equipped with the screen that shoes your exact location, and been able to look out the window and verify what is one screen matches what you see below (i.e. major cities, rivers, lakes, etc).
It is frustrating that the FE response so far has been "la, la, la, can't hear you" or just trying to find any tiny seed of doubt to claim your experiments are invalid with no attempt to do any experimenting themselves. But whatever, to pretty much everyone else you have done more than enough to disprove the assertion that the horizon always rises to eye level. Good job, as you Americans say. (English translation: "Well done, old bean" )
[/qu
I think you're missing what the purpose of this experiment was. It wasn't primarily to show that the horizon does not, in fact, rise to eye level. We knew that before, and the claim that it does had no supporting evidence and didn't even make any consistent sense to begin with. We knew what the results of the experiments would be. What was really interesting was to see how the FE proponents would deal with the problem of having one of their beliefs disproved.
I know it seems frustrating to not get any kind of engagement with the argument - but we need to accept that this won't happen, and indeed, it can't. That's not what's going on here. Look at how the perspective thread was moved out of the debate forum because nobody was interested enough to debate it. (Another piece of excellent work which left me a lot better informed.)
I'll add my own congratulations to Bobby Shafto for an excellent piece of work - and he shouldn't feel frustrated at any failure to convince anyone. That's not possible, and thinking it is will just lead to frustration.
Who are you guys talking to? You pretty much joined the the Flat Earth Society when you registered on the forum. You are the "FE enthusiasts." Do you see me making a ton of threads obsessed with the subject? You clearly seem way more interested in some of these topics than I am.
My advice is to research what the YouTube community has to say about the Southern Stars, and what Lady Blount's Bi-Polar model says.
If I may, allow me politely disagree: my comment was to help others see the lack of credibility of the op, which is important when discussing pretty much anything, and thus is very relevant. Plus there’s no way to further derail this topic: the question has been answered and flat-heads have nothing to respond (as usual).Hmm, the OP is a Holocaust denier... As I’ve pointed out before, it seems to be a trend among flat-heads (not all, I know, but a bit too many for it not to be a sign). Just sayin’...
So, I will give you one last warning to refrain from off-topic posting, derailing threads, etc. You are on 3 bans already, next one is permanent.
Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.
Best modding decision ever tbh.And P.S. Using comic Sans because I like it [No, you're not. ~Pete]Sorry, I won't allow that outside of the Complete Nonsense board.
Back to the silly claim about clouds being behind the moon...
Pretty sure that would not be so in FE either, and clearly in that video they have the exposure set to silly levels such that the moon is so bright the light of it completely obliterates the clouds in front of it.
Do the maths.
Now you know that's not going to happen. If this particular poster (the holocaust denier) were able to do the maths, an entire belief system would fall apart.
OK, I shall do them. Let's say ...
Lowest orbit - 180km
Highest orbit - 6950km
(These were the limits of the SpaceX Tesla orbit)
Volume of a sphere, based on each of these, and Earth radius 6971;
(6371+180)cubed * 4/3 * 3.14 = 1,177,039,894,339 cubic km
(6371+6950)cubed * 4/3 * 3.14 = 9,896,437,120,007
Difference = volume available to sats = 8,719,397,225,669
Number of satellites = almost 3000, so space on average per satellite = 9,763,852,461,509 / 3000 =
2,906,465,742 cubic km each
This is part of the original confused thinking going back to Rowbotham. Clinging to this confused thinking is central to the project. Thinking clearly would derail the whole thing.Thing is, if they are going to claim to be empiricists and state how important empirical evidence is then...you know, they could try and make some empirical measurements.
Crazy idea, I know, but it might just work.
It's bizarre that they cite ridiculous write ups from Rowbotham of experiments in a hotel which isn't tall enough to easily measure any difference in horizon tip and then deny the evidence of their own eyes when they're shown photos and video of multiple ways to show horizon dip. Here is another:
Thanks for helping me understand what you meant.