*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2999
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
« Reply #20 on: August 11, 2017, 05:20:17 AM »
You are the one presenting the FE model as reality. I find it a bit odd that you ask us to do your work for you, when you expect the opposite of us when presented with RE information. When we present something from RE, you always ask for our supporting sources, and often many. But when we ask precisely what your sources are (Even just the book/issue would suffice) you clam up and wave vaguely at your library. As though rather than discussing things as equals, you believe we are students come to take your class.

I don't recall making a claim for the diameter of the bi-polar model. I don't believe it is my burden for providing that.

Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
« Reply #21 on: August 11, 2017, 05:34:52 AM »
You are the one presenting the FE model as reality. I find it a bit odd that you ask us to do your work for you, when you expect the opposite of us when presented with RE information. When we present something from RE, you always ask for our supporting sources, and often many. But when we ask precisely what your sources are (Even just the book/issue would suffice) you clam up and wave vaguely at your library. As though rather than discussing things as equals, you believe we are students come to take your class.

I don't recall making a claim for the diameter of the bi-polar model. I don't believe it is my burden for providing that.
It's your model (your preferred one at that) and you're the one defending it. If you don't know, say so. Say "I don't know the diameter, and I haven't read all of the resources I'm telling you to, so I don't know if they did either" instead of brushing it off. If I don't know something and can't find it, I'm more than happy to admit I don't know and hope someone who does can step in. You obfuscate and throw up an air that is reminiscent of superiority because you know the answer but don't care to provide it. You can't say in one breath "We've put them up there for a wonderful resource go read them" and in the next "Oh I've no idea whats in them, never read them myself" which you are oh so close, but not quite doing here. If you don't know any of the basic facts or information about the model you prefer, then how can you prefer it? Because it looks prettier?
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2999
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
« Reply #22 on: August 11, 2017, 07:04:11 AM »
It's your model (your preferred one at that) and you're the one defending it. If you don't know, say so. Say "I don't know the diameter, and I haven't read all of the resources I'm telling you to, so I don't know if they did either" instead of brushing it off. If I don't know something and can't find it, I'm more than happy to admit I don't know and hope someone who does can step in. You obfuscate and throw up an air that is reminiscent of superiority because you know the answer but don't care to provide it. You can't say in one breath "We've put them up there for a wonderful resource go read them" and in the next "Oh I've no idea whats in them, never read them myself" which you are oh so close, but not quite doing here. If you don't know any of the basic facts or information about the model you prefer, then how can you prefer it? Because it looks prettier?

I don't expect you to back up claims you have never made. I only challenge on the claims given. I expect the same respect.

I do not have this information. If you wish to research this topic I have directed you to the source. That is all I have to say on the matter.

Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
« Reply #23 on: August 11, 2017, 08:37:31 AM »
It's your model (your preferred one at that) and you're the one defending it. If you don't know, say so. Say "I don't know the diameter, and I haven't read all of the resources I'm telling you to, so I don't know if they did either" instead of brushing it off. If I don't know something and can't find it, I'm more than happy to admit I don't know and hope someone who does can step in. You obfuscate and throw up an air that is reminiscent of superiority because you know the answer but don't care to provide it. You can't say in one breath "We've put them up there for a wonderful resource go read them" and in the next "Oh I've no idea whats in them, never read them myself" which you are oh so close, but not quite doing here. If you don't know any of the basic facts or information about the model you prefer, then how can you prefer it? Because it looks prettier?

I don't expect you to back up claims you have never made. I only challenge on the claims given. I expect the same respect.

I do not have this information. If you wish to research this topic I have directed you to the source. That is all I have to say on the matter.
You have no current source.

Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
« Reply #24 on: August 11, 2017, 12:48:07 PM »
It's your model (your preferred one at that) and you're the one defending it. If you don't know, say so. Say "I don't know the diameter, and I haven't read all of the resources I'm telling you to, so I don't know if they did either" instead of brushing it off. If I don't know something and can't find it, I'm more than happy to admit I don't know and hope someone who does can step in. You obfuscate and throw up an air that is reminiscent of superiority because you know the answer but don't care to provide it. You can't say in one breath "We've put them up there for a wonderful resource go read them" and in the next "Oh I've no idea whats in them, never read them myself" which you are oh so close, but not quite doing here. If you don't know any of the basic facts or information about the model you prefer, then how can you prefer it? Because it looks prettier?

I don't expect you to back up claims you have never made. I only challenge on the claims given. I expect the same respect.

I do not have this information. If you wish to research this topic I have directed you to the source. That is all I have to say on the matter.
You have no current source.
It's worse than that (imo), he doesn't even know if the source he's directing us to has the answer to the question. Which suggests he's never actually read it.

Serious question then for you Tom. Why do you prefer the bi-polar model? What lines up with that one that makes you prefer it's idea over the mono-pole one?
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 390
    • View Profile
Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
« Reply #25 on: August 17, 2017, 12:28:17 AM »
Tom Bishop -

That's a bit rude.  If you asked me a question , I would answer if I knew the answer and give it to you. If I didn't have it handy, I would look it up and send you the answer. These are flat earth questions for flat earthers to give flat earth answers.

For example, on another thread , you said "The distance from New York to Paris is unknown."  I looked it up. The distance from NewYork to Paris is 3,625 miles.

You are giving the Flat Earth Society a bad name. If you don't know the answer, just be honest and say so !

I would be glad to give you some real answers to some real questions.
For Example : The circumference of the earth at the equator  is approximately 25,000 miles.

And if 1000 people were asking you the same questions over and over and over you would probably eventually publish your work and direct any and all inquiries to it. That is what we did, over 100 years ago.

It's funny, you'd almost think these ardent adherents to FET would have these answers ready to point out to all skeptics. I read the Wiki and it is full of very obvious errors and omissions. Nothing new in the last 100 years, but real science keeps marching on as we learn new things about the universe. Anyone that believes this stuff when it is so very easily falsifiable is beyond help. FET doesn't even have a map of their flat Earth. I mean c'mon, at least come up with a freaking map!
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 960
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
« Reply #26 on: August 27, 2017, 09:25:49 AM »
It's funny, you'd almost think these ardent adherents to FET would have these answers ready to point out to all skeptics. I read the Wiki and it is full of very obvious errors and omissions. Nothing new in the last 100 years, but real science keeps marching on as we learn new things about the universe. Anyone that believes this stuff when it is so very easily falsifiable is beyond help. FET doesn't even have a map of their flat Earth. I mean c'mon, at least come up with a freaking map!

The problem for the FE'ers (and I'm sure they are acutely aware of it) is that whenever they come up with a concrete statement of an FE fact the RE'ers come along and concretely disprove it.

So throwing doubt and uncertainty in the face of disproof is the best tactic for them.

The point is that ANY FE map is disprovable by trivial means...so their way to avoid disproof until the last few weeks has always been to handwave and say "We don't know the exact map" whenever it's disputed - and tell you to "READ THE WIKI" (which contains a concrete map) whenever it's not.

The way I've found to prevent this tactic is to come up with proofs like the city quadrilateral thing - or the compass versus pole star thing - that don't just prove that some particular map is incorrect - that prove that ALL POSSIBLE FE maps must be incorrect.

That ends this tactic - and it's proving quite effective right now.  The FE community have largely gone silent - and only Tom seems to be frantically trying to keep things nailed down.

But this tactic happens EVERYWHERE here:

Q: "How do FET sunsets work?"
A: "Read the Wiki!"
Q: "The 'Bishop equation' on the Wiki page about how sunsets work...what's the value of that "Bishop constant'?"
A: "We don't know the exact value."
Q: "Hang on - I've just figured out that the equation is wrong no matter what the constant is!  What is going on here?"
A: "It's only an approximation for the 'real' equation."
Q: "Could you please show me the 'real' equation?"
A:  ...silence...
Q: "Here is a proof the no such equation that predicts non-straight light beams can EVER work.  What about that?"
A: "We don't believe in that light bending stuff anymore"
Q: "But you told me to read the wiki!  What *DO* you believe in?"
A: "Light travels in straight lines - but 'perspective' is weird".
Q: "But doesn't this very simple diagram show that perspective isn't weird?"
A: ...random handwaving...appeals to confusing videos...no actual on-point discussion of the very simple diagram...

Just about every thread which raises a serious concern about FET fizzles out before an FE'er can come up with a viable explanation.   Conversations are continually derailed in an effort to throw people off of the logical path.

Clearly the answer is to keep on-topic with the FE'ers.   Insist on answers.

There are now at least a dozen threads out there with dangling ends...we have proof after proof that FET doesn't work - and zero efforts to repair them.  Our proofs are super-simple and rely on very little (if any) external fact.

This approach is making serious inroads here...leaving Tom stuck out on a limb with no supporters cheering him on...so let's keep that up - it's really not very difficult.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?