[Pete Svarrior]

The only reason the standard FE model places the North Pole at the center is that Rowbotham lived in the UK - the northern hemisphere.

What does Rowbotham's place of residence have to do with a theory that predates him by centuries? Did the ancients just decide that Rowbotham would be significant in the future?

[AATW]

The only reason the standard FE model places the North Pole at the center is that Rowbotham lived in the UK - the northern hemisphere.

What does Rowbotham's place of residence have to do with a theory that predates him by centuries? Did the ancients just decide that Rowbotham would be significant in the future?

Ok, so I will admit some ignorance here. But I would imagine that in the ancient flat earth model they would have thought that the sun went up and over the sky, so day was when the sun was above the earth and night was when it was below. Day was day everywhere, night was night everywhere. They wouldn’t have had the international travel or communication necessary to understand that day in the UK is night in Australia and that the seasons are also opposite. I doubt they would have had much concept of a world map.

The FE idea of a sun which circles above us and the North Pole in the centre is a different FE model. One which is more modern and one which works a lot better for the northern hemisphere than the southern. I thought that model originated with Rowbotham. Maybe not. But given that most of the world population is in the northern hemisphere it’s not a surprise that it works much better in that hemisphere. Isn’t that also why the map is that way up and north is “up”?

[Pete Svarrior]

Ok, so I will admit some ignorance here. But I would imagine that in the ancient flat earth model they would have thought that the sun went up and over the sky, so day was when the sun was above the earth and night was when it was below. Day was day everywhere, night was night everywhere. They wouldn’t have had the international travel or communication necessary to understand that day in the UK is night in Australia and that the seasons are also opposite. I doubt they would have had much concept of a world map.

That relies on the assumption that long-distance trade is a much more recent invention than it really is. I can see why it would be convenient for you to believe this, considering your strong RET bias, but it's pretty much impossible if you consider history, even at a very high level. The concept of local time, long before it was compartmentalised into "timezones", was unavoidable back when sundials were the primary reference frame for time.

Isn’t that also why the map is that way up and north is “up”?

That is a relatively recent invention (that is to say, north wasn't always "up"), and it's purely to do with a combination of convention and the invention of compasses. It also has interesting implications on modern society, because human brains are funny. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160614-maps-have-north-at-the-top-but-it-couldve-been-different

[Kokorikos]

That relies on the assumption that long-distance trade is a much more recent invention than it really is.

It depends on how you define long-distance trade.

[AATW]

That relies on the assumption that long-distance trade is a much more recent invention than it really is. I can see why it would be convenient for you to believe this, considering your strong RET bias, but it's pretty much impossible if you consider history, even at a very high level. The concept of local time, long before it was compartmentalised into "timezones", was unavoidable back when sundials were the primary reference frame for time.

This is nothing to do with convenience. Honestly, I don't know what the ancient flat earth model was in detail and it doesn't actually matter what it was. I Googled it and struggled to find anything much. By ancient I'm talking thousands of years ago, when people probably didn't have much of an idea about how anything worked. From a local perspective the thought that the earth is flat, the sun rises above it and that's day, goes around the sky and then sinks below it and that's night makes some sense. The idea of a flat earth with the north pole in the centre and the sun and moon circling above it is surely a modern FE one. And the fact the earth is a globe is not exactly a new one.

But whether this FE model putting the north pole in the middle is because Rowbotham or anyone else lived in the northern hemisphere, the point I'm trying to make is no flat earth model (or none I've seen) can work equally well for both hemispheres. For the same reason that no world map can accurately represent all land mass shapes and distances. Because it is impossible to perfectly map the surface of a sphere onto a flat plane. Something has to give. In the case of your model what gives is how well it works for the southern hemisphere. You have to deny the entire continent of Antarctica even exists - or does so in the way conventionally claimed, you have problems with distances in the southern hemisphere because on a globe lines of longitude converge to a point at the south pole, in your model they keep diverging. And star trails in the southern hemisphere are problematic.

[Trillion]

And star trails in the southern hemisphere are problematic.

How could you align equatorial mounts in the southern hemisphere according to FET models? As I understand FE models, equatorial mounts could not possibly work in the southern hemisphere if they were true but they do. How could you have a south celestial pole if there is no south geographic pole as such?

[Pete Svarrior]

But whether this FE model putting the north pole in the middle is because Rowbotham or anyone else lived in the northern hemisphere

It is only you who assumes the northern hemiplane has anything to do with the history of the theory. Ancient Egyptians would not be particularly subject to the bias you're so brazenly accusing them of, simply due to their location. Then again, you didn't know who you were accusing, you were just saying it because it made you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

the point I'm trying to make is no flat earth model (or none I've seen) can work equally well for both hemispheres.

The Flat Earth model works perfectly fine. What you're trying to say is that it doesn't match your (ignorant, as you demonstrated) preconceptions. "If the Earth is flat then why do I think it's round?" is what it boils down to. That is where the convenience comes into play. You want the Earth to be round, so you imagine flaws in FET, like the one above. FET is north-centric because Rowbotham would have lived in England thousands of years later - I'm sure you can see why this isn't compelling.

[AATW]

It is only you who assumes the northern hemiplane has anything to do with the history of the theory. Ancient Egyptians would not be particularly subject to the bias you're so brazenly accusing them of, simply due to their location.

I wasn't talking about the ancient Egyptians. They didn't have the global perspective we have. Sure, they traded with other nations but they didn't know about The Americas or Australia, Antarctica or the North Pole. I don't believe there is an ancient Egyptian world map - or it certainly wouldn't be a world map as we know it.

Then again, you didn't know who you were accusing, you were just saying it because it made you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

I was talking specifically about Rowbotham because from what I understand it was his ENaG book which outlined the "modern" FE model.
It wasn't an "accusation" but he was writing at a time when the world had been pretty much mapped out. His model demonstrably works better in the northern hemisphere than it does the southern, my guess is that's because he lived and worked in the northern hemisphere.
In an era when international travel and communication was still slow the problems in the southern hemisphere were less evident.

The Flat Earth model works perfectly fine. What you're trying to say is that it doesn't match your (ignorant, as you demonstrated) preconceptions.

I'm saying it doesn't match observations.
I mean, the simple observation that the sun maintains a consistent angular size through the day demonstrates it must be at a constant distance.
I've outlined the specific problems with the southern hemisphere. What's the FE flight path of the Santiago to Sydney flight, for example?
You have to deny an entire continent exists. Then there's the problem of star trails - if there's a FE explanation for that then I've not seen it.

You want the Earth to be round, so you imagine flaws in FET, like the one above.

Well, for a start these flaws aren't imagined.
And secondly I don't "want" the earth to be any particular shape. If the earth was flat and my GPS worked, international travel still got me where I wanted to go and my satellite TV still worked then the shape of the earth would have no consequence for my life.

FET is north-centric because Rowbotham would have lived in England thousands of years later - I'm sure you can see why this isn't compelling.

No, that thing you said which bears no relation to what I said isn't compelling.
Again, I'm not talking about the ancient FE models. I'm talking about Rowbotham's. Are you suggesting the ancient Egyptians who didn't know the north pole existed had a FE model which placed it at the centre or had a model where the sun goes in circles above the earth and sunset is caused by perspective? Rowbotham's FE model is not the same as the ancient ones.

[Pete Svarrior]

It is only you who assumes the northern hemiplane has anything to do with the history of the theory. Ancient Egyptians would not be particularly subject to the bias you're so brazenly accusing them of, simply due to their location.

I wasn't talking about the ancient Egyptians. They didn't have the global perspective we have. Sure, they traded with other nations but they didn't know about The Americas or Australia, Antarctica or the North Pole. I don't believe there is an ancient Egyptian world map - or it certainly wouldn't be a world map as we know it. [/quote]Entirely irrelevant to your assertion.

I was talking specifically about Rowbotham because from what I understand it was his ENaG book which outlined the "modern" FE model.

Yes - RE'ers babbling away about FET without even a surface-level understanding is a pet peeve of mine.

His model demonstrably works better in the northern hemisphere than it does the southern

You continue to say "works" when you mean "fits my preconceived notions". You're not looking for a model that "works", you're looking for a model that matches RET 1:1, despite RET's internal contradictions.

Well, for a start these flaws aren't imagined.

Of course they are. That's why you end up being off by several millennia and thousands of miles. If you were coming from a place of knowledge, rather than imagination, you wouldn't be quite so far off in everything you say.

And secondly I don't "want" the earth to be any particular shape. If the earth was flat and my GPS worked, international travel still got me where I wanted to go and my satellite TV still worked then the shape of the earth would have no consequence for my life.

That's currently what's occurring, and yet here you are, making things up in the absence of prerequisite knowledge.

No, that thing you said which bears no relation to what I said isn't compelling.

Ah, so now the logical consequences of your imagination "bear no relation" to your warm and fuzzy feelings. Get serious or get the fuck out.

Again, I'm not talking about the ancient FE models. [...] Rowbotham's FE model is not the same as the ancient ones.

You were talking about the reason why FET is north-centric. You claimed it had something to do with Rowbotham. It did not - the north-centric roots of FET predate Rowbotham by millennia. When confronted with new information, the correct move is to adapt your views, not just discard reality in favour of emotion.

[AATW]

You continue to say "works" when you mean "fits my preconceived notions". You're not looking for a model that "works", you're looking for a model that matches RET 1:1, despite RET's internal contradictions.

No. By "works" I mean "matches observations". I'm looking for a model which matches observations - aren't you?

Well, for a start these flaws aren't imagined.

Of course they are.

You were talking about the reason why FET is north-centric. You claimed it had something to do with Rowbotham. It did not - the north-centric roots of FET predate Rowbotham by millennia. When confronted with new information, the correct move is to adapt your views, not just discard reality in favour of emotion.

You have yet to demonstrate this claim. So the correct move is to ask you to evidence the claim.
The ancient FE models did not have the north pole at the centre of a disc or Antarctica as an ice wall around the edge. Because they didn't have any concept of those things.
I'm talking about Rowbotham's model which has those features. If he didn't originate that model then fine, replace Rowbotham with whoever did, but it wasn't the ancient Egyptians or the ancient anyone else.

[Pete Svarrior]

No. By "works" I mean "matches observations". I'm looking for a model which matches observations - aren't you?

Indeed - that's why I abandoned RET so long ago.

Well, for a start these flaws aren't imagined.

Of course they are.

[sudden rambling about midnight sun]

Um, okay. I take it you're ready to withdraw your imagined allegation that north-centric FET originated with Rowbotham, then?

You wonder why I accuse you of being dishonest. It's becuase you pull shit like this. You said something dumb. Your reaction to being corrected should be "whoopsie, my bad, moving on...", but instead you a) try to assert that your imagination stands, b) try to deflect from it any time you get close to having your hand forced, c) waste everyone's time and derail the thread to the point where it's gonna fall apart. Drop it. Be honest instead.

You have yet to demonstrate this claim. So the correct move is to ask you to evidence the claim.

Ah, of course. The classic "I made a bullshit claim that you contradicted, so now I'm going to demand that you evidence your counterclaim, while completely ignoring my own lack of evidence." At least pretend that you understand the burden of proof on your dumb assertions.

Do you really need me to teach you basic history? This is completely out of place for the upper fora, we expect you to understand what you're debating before you make accusations [and no, it doesn't matter that you don't like the word "accusation" - behave or begone].

But hey, here's one. Around 300BC (attributed to Dicaearchus of Messana, hopefully we can agree Rowbotham didn't touch this one!), a reasonably good representation of the then-known lands from a Sicilian perspective, and a remarkably sensible representation of north-centric FET:



It's hopeless. You can't make a coherent argument about something you know nothing about, and you're not interested in learning about it. If you wanna prance arout and ramble about whatever you made up the last time you were on the toilet, please do so in CN.

[AATW]

No. By "works" I mean "matches observations". I'm looking for a model which matches observations - aren't you?

Indeed - that's why I abandoned RET so long ago.

Yes. What a shame you won't explain in detail what observations led you to that conclusion so others can see what mistakes you have made.

[sudden rambling about midnight sun]

You said that I am imagining flaws in FET. I've mentioned several flaws. Those videos illustrate one of them.
Those observations match what I would predict on a spherical earth which rotates and whose axis of rotation is tilted such that in each hemisphere's summer you get 24 hour sun at certain latitudes. And, crucially, the sun would rotate in different directions in the north and south, just as those videos show. The FET presented on this website has the sun rotating around the north pole. How then would it rotate around a point in the south in their summer in the opposite direction to the 24 hour sun in the north?

Um, okay. I take it you're ready to withdraw your imagined allegation that north-centric FET originated with Rowbotham, then?

If the model he presents in ENaG, with the north pole in the middle and a southern ice wall is not his then fine, cheerfully withdrawn.

Drop it. Be honest instead.

See above.
But I'm going to wager that whoever came up with it lived and made observations in the northern hemisphere. In which case that doesn't change the point I'm making which is that the FET presented on this site works a lot better in the northern hemisphere than it does the southern hemisphere because it originated in the northern hemisphere. And did so at a time when long distance travel and communication was, at best, slow which meant the flaws which are more evident in the south were less obvious at the time.

The classic "I made a bullshit claim that you contradicted, so now I'm going to demand that you evidence your counterclaim, while completely ignoring my own lack of evidence."

It's pretty reasonable of me to ask you to evidence your claim - it's pretty reasonable for you to ask me the same.

Around 300BC (attributed to Dicaearchus of Messana, hopefully we can agree Rowbotham didn't touch this one!), a reasonably good representation of the then-known lands from a Sicilian perspective, and a remarkably sensible representation of north-centric FET

So, admittedly my history is terrible. So I had a look in to this and found the map you've posted a picture of and some info about it here:

http://www.myoldmaps.com/maps-from-antiquity-6200-bc/111-dicaearchus-of-messana/111dicaearchus.pdf

So firstly...that's just a map. A map is by definition flat, that doesn't mean it's intended to represent a flat earth.
In fact the above says in the explanation:

Dicaearchus adopted the ratio of 3:2 for the oikoumene’s extent. He reported distances between certain places and
measured the heights of mountains, which he then compared with the size of the oikoumene to show that they did not significantly affect the earth’s sphericity

My emphasis. And this source:

https://www.krcmar.ca/resource-articles/1990_Summer_How%20the%20Flat%20Earth%20Got%20Round_1.pdf

says:

Dicaearchus described his version of the world, and was the first to consider the map of the world as part of a sphere. He built upon the discoveries of some of the explorers of the time, and was able to describe a line of latitude from east to west. This line showed how all points on the line saw the noonday sun at equal angles from the zenith.

My emphasis again.
So...Dicaearchus produced an admittedly impressive map for the time of the known world but it's nothing like a world map as we would know it and it doesn't seem like his map was intended to represent a flat Earth anyway.

[Kokorikos]

A map is by definition flat, that doesn't mean it's intended to represent a flat earth.

Even if this map did represent a flat earth it still is not a north-centric map. I think that it has no relation to any of the FE models proposed in this site, but please correct me if I am wrong.

[Pete Svarrior]

So, in short:

• Observations that disprove RET, despite being readily available, will be discarded by you. After all, you neglected to read them, and that might as well mean they weren't there at all. Maybe if we wrote them down for you just one more time, things would change! Yes, this must be it! Just one more explanation, that'll get through to the Man Who Doesn't Read!
• Maps before the entire Earth was explored will be discarded by you. Damn it if the layout of the continents matches FET and indistinguishably contradicts RET, pattern-recognition can stuff it if it doesn't support your favourite shape of the Earth. After all, they don't show the entire thing, and we couldn't possibly recognise simple facts when they're inconvenient.
• It is "pretty reasonable" of me to demand that you back up your claims... but you've stopped short of actually backing them up. Gee, I wonder why that might be.
• Even though you now know that the actual origins of FET are pretty close to the Equator, you still insist on your imagination. Nay! Forsooth! It must have been in the north! Afrer all, the data points must match your bias! There is no other way.

You're trying very hard to make yourself look dishonest. And then you're gonna complain about me noticing it. Stop. Be honest instead.

[AATW]

Observations that disprove RET, despite being readily available, will be discarded by you. After all, you neglected to read them, and that might as well mean they weren't there at all. Maybe if we wrote them down for you just one more time, things would change! Yes, this must be it! Just one more explanation, that'll get through to the Man Who Doesn't Read!

I have no idea what observations you are referring to here, what haven't I read?
I have repeatedly asked you for details of the observations you have made which led you to FE belief and you have repeatedly demurred.
Piqued by my interest in this place I've seen a load of YouTube videos with "flat earth proofs". They are without exception people not understanding RET, people making mistakes in their method, misidentifying distant landmarks or making calculation errors.
Which isn't to say RET in the wider sense is "complete", there are anomalies, things we don't understand. But that doesn't mean you need to throw the globe baby out with the bath water. The earth can be a globe without us understanding how everything works.

This would also work better as a critique if you weren't discarding several observations I've mentioned in this thread which disprove FET.

Maps before the entire Earth was explored will be discarded by you. Damn it if the layout of the continents matches FET and indistinguishably contradicts RET, pattern-recognition can stuff it if it doesn't support your favourite shape of the Earth. After all, they don't show the entire thing, and we couldn't possibly recognise simple facts when they're inconvenient.

Discarded in what way? I looked into the map you mentioned and found two sources which suggested that the creator of it understood the earth was a globe. This map in particular has the shape of Europe fairly accurate, some of Africa to the south and some of Asia to the east. That's how both FET and RET have it. The map is far from perfect but given the time he was working in, it's a pretty good effort. But the layout of the continents which are shown is reasonably consistent with our modern understanding.
The differences between the RE and FE maps only become really apparent when you have a more global view and look at the shape and relative placement of Australia and the Americas. Those aren't on Dicæarchus' map because they weren't known back then.
And as I've said, every map contradicts RET. Because you can't perfectly map the surface of a sphere on to a plane

It is "pretty reasonable" of me to demand that you back up your claims... but you've stopped short of actually backing them up. Gee, I wonder why that might be.

I guess it's fair to say that my thought that the modern FET works better in the northern hemisphere than the southern one because it was developed in the northern hemisphere is more of an opinion than a fact.

Even though you now know that the actual origins of FET are pretty close to the Equator, you still insist on your imagination.

Are you still talking about ancient Egypt? Are you claiming that's the origin of FET? Honestly, I don't know if that's true. But when I looked into your comments about Dicæarchus I found two sources which claim he knew the earth was a sphere. And I have in this thread consistently talking about the FE model outlined in ENaG which I would suggest is a different FE model than any ancient one.

You're trying very hard to make yourself look dishonest. And then you're gonna complain about me noticing it. Stop. Be honest instead.

I'm going to complain about you trying very hard to think of me as dishonest.

[Pete Svarrior]

This would also work better as a critique if you weren't discarding several observations I've mentioned in this thread which disprove FET.

You've done no such thing. You're rambling because you don't understand basic FET, and I'm not too interested in defending whatever model you've imagined. Learn what you're arguing against before arguing against it.

Discarded in what way?

In this way:

That's how both FET and RET have it.

You know this isn't true. You're a relatively bright guy, and you're capable of observing geometric shapes. This only leaves dishonesty or delusion as possible explanations. Again, wasting everyone's time.

And as I've said, every map contradicts RET. Because you can't perfectly map the surface of a sphere on to a plane

Please allow me to remind you: "But erth rund" is not upper fora material. It's great that you think the Earth is round, and I'm very happy for you; but your conviction alone is not a meaningful argument, and does not merit repeating over and over. We know you're a RE'er. Do not spam the upper with it.

I guess it's fair to say that my thought that the modern FET works better in the northern hemisphere than the southern one because it was developed in the northern hemisphere is more of an opinion than a fact.

Yes, it's an opinion that contradicts facts. It can pretty much only stand as something adjacent to a religion.

Honestly, I don't know if that's true. But when I looked into your comments about Dicæarchus I found two sources which claim he knew the earth was a sphere.

I don't see why evidence for FET produced by RE'ers should be taken any less seriously. If anything, I'd expect you to treat your own camp with some generosity.

I'm going to complain about you trying very hard to think of me as dishonest.

There simply is no other explanation. You can't be corrected on matters of fact and still insist on propagating your untruth, ignoring counter-arguments and refusing to provide any evidence of your own. That's the line between feasibly being mistaken and just being a liar. Stop crossing it. Embrace the liberating feeling of honesty.

[AATW]

This would also work better as a critique if you weren't discarding several observations I've mentioned in this thread which disprove FET.

You've done no such thing. You're rambling because you don't understand basic FET

OK. Well help me out then. Talk me through how the 24 hour sun in the Antarctic works with your FE model. In the model presented in your Wiki the southern region should be outside the circle the sun makes above the earth at all times. How can it circle around you in the South? I only see 3 possibilities:

1) It doesn't, that video is faked in some way
2) Your FET model is wrong
3) I don't understand your FET model

If it's 3 then fine, help me out. And just saying I need to learn what I'm arguing about is a little unfair when I've searched your Wiki and couldn't find anything about the 24 hour sun in the Antarctic. If it's not mentioned there (unless I missed something) then what else do I have to go on?

That's how both FET and RET have it.

You know this isn't true.

OK, so first let's be clear about what the "this" is. I said "some of Africa to the south [of Europe] and some of Asia to the east".
I mean...that is how the continents are positioned...isn't it?
I compared Dicaearchus' map with a modern map and the FE one from your Wiki:



A couple of things here. I'd suggest that Dicaearchus' map is a lot closer to the modern one than it is yours - Spain and India are oriented the same way, for example. In your FE map they are angled about 90 degrees with respect to one another. But in all 3 maps Africa is to the south of Europe, Asia is to the East - in your FE version "East" is defined a little differently.

You called Dicaearchus' map "a remarkably sensible representation of north-centric FET". Am I missing something? His map looks remarkably like a modern map of that part of the world. Obviously I'm making some allowances for the time he was working at, but it's not like he has everything in a completely different place to our current understanding.

There simply is no other explanation. You can't be corrected on matters of fact and still insist on propagating your untruth, ignoring counter-arguments and refusing to provide any evidence of your own.

I haven't ignored any counter argument. I've dealt with everything you've said. I've conceded the point that my thoughts on the FE theory Rowbotham outlines in ENaG being north-centric because of where he lived is more of an opinion than a fact. I have confessed some ignorance about historic FE models but you have yet to provide evidence that they were north-centric in the same way that Rowbotham's is.

There is another explanation other than me being dishonest - you're not correct, or I don't think you are.
You are stating things as fact without providing sources to back them up and expecting me to just accept you are right about everything.
Any push back and you just accuse me of being dishonest.

You mentioned Dicaearchus - who I admittedly hadn't heard of - so I looked in to that, found his map and noted that it looks pretty much like a modern map. And I did provide evidence - 2 sources which claim he knew the earth was a globe. I have no idea how you can claim that his map is "a remarkably sensible representation of north-centric FET" when it looks so similar to a modern map.

[Pete Svarrior]

OK. Well help me out then.

I am asking you, for the third (I think?) time in this thread, to stop trying to derail it. To be clear: my request is that you drop your line of argumentation in this thread so that it can get back on track; not that you go "b-but I am very right and also reasonable, here is an essay on how righteous I am".

Could you please do that for me? I'd really like to be able to get this sorted with polite requests alone. You give the mods a lot of shit for using more direct methods of tidying things up, but you sure don't respond to the less direct ones. Instead, you make things worse, treating every attempt at setting things right as a personal challenge.

So, c'mon. Show me you can do this.

[SteelyBob]

I completely agree on the need to get this back on track. I thought we'd got to an interesting place, particularly with WTF's point on the sun - https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18734.msg251176#msg251176.

I'd be interested to hear Tom or Pete's views on this.

For example, if you consider 12 noon UTC on an equinox (I used next September and timeanddate.com), then we would expect the sun to be directly overhead the point shown by the red cross on this monopole FE map:



The circle is 45 degrees latitude radius - so from the discussion and wiki regarding EA, we would expect all points on the circumference of that circle to observe the sun at 45 degrees elevation at 1200 UTC, and in the direction of the centre of the circle. This is true for the point, for example, at 45N 0W - the sun is indeed around 45 degrees elevation at that time, due south. But it falls apart if you stray from that point. If you go to the point in Africa marked by the green arrow, for example, the sun is at an elevation of around 60 degrees at 1200 UTC, not 45. So the sun isn't where it should be according to EA.

If you extend the circle to 90 degrees radius it gets even worse, because one would expect from EA that nighttime would be the area outside of the circle. But it isn't like that at all - all of South America, for example, should be in daylight, and yet the 90 degree circle excludes half of it.

Thoughts? Tom? Pete?

[Tom Bishop]

Actually the Wiki suggests that this is a better map for the Monopole model in regards to equinox and longitude discussions: