[Yamato]

Hi.

Not sure if this was posted somewhere before, but just want to ask how can you explain for your flat earth model:

1- that I can cross the south pole without falling to the void. Lets say, I walk towards the south pole from the Pacific Ocean, I cross the pole and I reach Atlantic ocean. Your flat earth model is against the own nature of these evident facts at first sight.

2- If the Sun is as small as you state (I cannot remember now the size in your model), its gravity will be so small that gravitational lensing due to the Sun's gravity would be impossible to observ, but in fact, it exists and it can be empirically demonstrated, and even ovsersed with an appropriate telescope during an eclypse. How your flat earth model can demonstrate or explain this?

3- Astronomical objects that "orbyt" the solar system from a far distance, such as comets, have a perion in which they can be seen from the earth with just an optical telescope. During their transit near earth, they are visible only in some parts of the earth, for example, they can be seen the first 50 days in the north hemisphere, and the other 50 days in the south (supposing their transit is 100 days). How can you explain or demonstrate for your flat earth model that such objects from that far distance are hidden from certain regions in the earth?

4- In your model there is a contradiction between sun's size and energy irradiated. How can you explain that such a small sun can irradiate energy to reach the zones that are at down or dusk, without destroying the zones that are at mid-day?

5- when I observe certain planets with any of my telescopes, there are days when they seem bigger during a certain period of the year. This period changes each year (maybe in 2014 is during september but in 2015 is during April).
This is because such planet is closer to the earth due to their eliptycal orbyts around the sun (in a round earth heliocentric model), and this can be seen from everywhere in the Earth during that period, no matter the season or any other factors. In a flat earth model, this cannot happen, since a point in the space can't be equidistant to every point in a flat surface, unless your surface is a concave object, and in this case, the distance to Jupiter or any other planet will greatly and noticeablely vary depending on where in the flat earth surface I am. But according to any common observation, the distance to Jupiter at naked-eye or even using a telescope, looks the same even if I am in the north pole or in the equator.

Thanks in advance.

[Gulliver]

1- that I can cross the south pole without falling to the void. Lets say, I walk towards the south pole from the Pacific Ocean, I cross the pole and I reach Atlantic ocean. Your flat earth model is against the own nature of these evident facts at first sight.

As an REer, let me assist you on this one.

First, FEers like to switch "flavors" when convenient. You may receive a FEer reply that claims that your evident facts don't apply to their "flavor". Tom Bishop, after spending years arguing that Rowbotham had it right: the South Pole is "circumvential" and the an impenetrable "ice wall" surrounds the known Earth, now advocates a "mystic" two-pole model. Please reference the thread I started, "FE Models" now found in "Angry Rantings".

Second, you will still find those that hold conspiracy theories: The "Elite" hide the nature of the South Pole, along with FET in general by fraud. Please see my thread in "Flat Earth General" dealing with conspiracy theories. In summary: Since conspiracy theories are not falsifiable, they are not scientific or debatable. A new "special pleading" will be invoked to explain away any evidence that challenges this conspiracy theory.

[Yamato]

As an REer, let me assist you on this one.

Thanks for your answer.

First, FEers like to switch "flavors" when convenient. You may receive a FEer reply that claims that your evident facts don't apply to their "flavor".

A fact is a "true and empirically demonstrable event or thing", so no one can negate it. No matter how your flat-earth theories are flavored, they can't go against what I (and anyone) can empiricaly demonstrate, in this case, crossing the south pole.

Tom Bishop, after spending years arguing that Rowbotham had it right: the South Pole is "circumvential" and the an impenetrable "ice wall" surrounds the known Earth, now advocates a "mystic" two-pole model. Please reference the thread I started, "FE Models" now found in "Angry Rantings".

I will take a look at that thread.

Second, you will still find those that hold conspiracy theories: The "Elite" hide the nature of the South Pole, along with FET in general by fraud. Please see my thread in "Flat Earth General" dealing with conspiracy theories. In summary: Since conspiracy theories are not falsifiable, they are not scientific or debatable. A new "special pleading" will be invoked to explain away any evidence that challenges this conspiracy theory.

You or anyone are invited to travel to the south pole and try crossing it, knowing that way if the pole is a wall of ice in a plane or a pole in an spheroid body. There can't be conspiracy for something that anyone can check its validity as simple as travelling there.

[Gulliver]

As an REer, let me assist you on this one.

Thanks for your answer.

First, FEers like to switch "flavors" when convenient. You may receive a FEer reply that claims that your evident facts don't apply to their "flavor".

A fact is a "true and empirically demonstrable event or thing", so no one can negate it. No matter how your flat-earth theories are flavored, they can't go against what I (and anyone) can empiricaly demonstrate, in this case, crossing the south pole.

Tom Bishop, after spending years arguing that Rowbotham had it right: the South Pole is "circumvential" and the an impenetrable "ice wall" surrounds the known Earth, now advocates a "mystic" two-pole model. Please reference the thread I started, "FE Models" now found in "Angry Rantings".

I will take a look at that thread.

Second, you will still find those that hold conspiracy theories: The "Elite" hide the nature of the South Pole, along with FET in general by fraud. Please see my thread in "Flat Earth General" dealing with conspiracy theories. In summary: Since conspiracy theories are not falsifiable, they are not scientific or debatable. A new "special pleading" will be invoked to explain away any evidence that challenges this conspiracy theory.

You or anyone are invited to travel to the south pole and try crossing it, knowing that way if the pole is a wall of ice in a plane or a pole in an spheroid body. There can't be conspiracy for something that anyone can check its validity as simple as travelling there.

I should clarify.

See: http://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents. The "two-pole" model avoids the "crossing the South Pole" problem by "mystically" projecting the Flat Earth so it has a South Pole, but does require a meridian (usually at 180^o) to be "missing". So these FEers trade one problem (There is a South Pole.) for another (There is a 180^o meridian.). Both fail, of course.

Also, I'm an REer. I accept the overwhelming evidence that there is a South Pole, and that anyone can cross it as a point.

I hope that helps.

[Yamato]

[...]

And also, this is incompatible with the rotation of the other planets, moon and mostly with the sun.

[Gulliver]

[...]

And also, this is incompatible with the rotation of the other planets, moon and mostly with the sun.

Just to clarify FET's contention on that...

First, a bit pedantically, I suspect your concern is about revolution, not rotation.

Next, This model relies on what I call "mystic" powers. Tom Bishop, for example, argues that the Sun runs on a gear system that has the Sun "loop over" the North Pole in the Northern Hemidisc's summer and the Southern during its summer.

Regarding the other bodies, FET is even inconsistent about what they revolve (the Sun of the magic spot about the North Pole). Tom Bishop, for example, argues that Jupiter's revolution about the Sun every 11.8 years causes the apparent retrograde motion of Jupiter nearly every year.

With such gaping holes in their models, their accusations that we ignore logic or evidence, but not they, amazes me.

[jroa]

When did you cross the south pole?  You make it sound so easy. 

[Gulliver]

When did you cross the south pole?  You make it sound so easy.

When did I say that I crossed the South Pole?

Tom Bishop has posted though that the South Pole (as a point) has been discovered, so I guess at least one long-term FEer thinks it's so easy.

Are you still so unfamiliar with the Scientific Method that you think I can't believe something unless I've experienced it personally? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[joke]Please take immediate steps to verify your belief that drinking a gallon of gasoline is poisonous.[/joke]

[jroa]

I can cross the south pole without falling to the void.

This is what I was referring to. 

[Gulliver]

I can cross the south pole without falling to the void.

This is what I was referring to.

"Can cross" does not mean "did cross".

[Pete Svarrior]

"Can cross" does not mean "did cross".

How, then, have you established that he can cross it?

[Yamato]

"Can cross" does not mean "did cross".

How, then, have you established that he can cross it?

Flat Earth theorists seem to have forgotten how science works:

First: you state an hypothesys. An hypothesys is a fact or event you observe and you give an initial explanation, but it may be false or true.
Second: I say "your hypothesys can't work because this fact, which I or other scientist observed"
Third: you must find a solution or explanation to my criticism.
Fourth: if you can't find a solution to the problem i proposed, your hypothesys is just an hypothesys, not a theory. If you can find a solution, then your hypothesys is a valid theory (until discovered a weak point again).

But the problem is that none of the flat earth supporters seem to reach the 3rd step and beyond. They instead return the problem to us, asking us to demonstrate our theories.
But given this, being our theories/hypothesys wrong, doesn't make your hypothesys correct, so your hypothesys are just hypothesys, not theories that match the reality because there it doesn't solve the problems that me or other scientits can/have observed.

Now, you may say "you were not in the south pole to cross it". Which is true, I was not in the south pole. But other scientists or explorers were. And I (must) trust what they say. Otherwise, I would have to discover the wheel and the fire.
And here you can't also know which of your flat earth hypothesys are truth or fake because if you don't trust what round earth scientists say, why you then trust what flat earth scientists say?

Also, note that we are here to ask you about your hypothesys, not to question our theories.

[jroa]

the·o·ry noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

Apparently, some RE'ers need to read the dictionary more often. 

[Gulliver]

the·o·ry noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

Apparently, some RE'ers need to read the dictionary more often.

Apparently you forgot that your Zertetic Method doesn't even use theories. See Chapter 1 of Enag: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm In particular, read the first sentence  with the phrase:" to take nothing for granted"

Now contrast the Scientific Method and its use of the word, precisely, as Yamato uses it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Definitions_from_scientific_organizations

[Gulliver]

"Can cross" does not mean "did cross".

How, then, have you established that he can cross it?

And just where did I say that I established that he can cross it? Assumptions, assumptions.

Of course his post above does a great job of explaining how the Scientific Method works.

[Yamato]

Let me quote "Hypothesis" for you using your same source of information:
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis)

hy·poth·e·sis
noun \hī-ˈpä-thə-səs\

: an idea or theory that is not proven but that leads to further study or discussion


So the FE model is "hypothesis" not "theory" because: (according to your previous definition of theory)

the·o·ry noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

Flat Earth model fails to explain this or this, and many other events from the nature, which, in fact, Round Earth model can do successfully and without possible further discussion.

So if you cannot explain a fact or event, then you don't have any theory, but an hypothesys, assumption or even faith in your ideas.

Apparently, some RE'ers need to read the dictionary more often.

In either case, no matter how you clasify your ideas. It's doesn't mind if you call them theories, hypothesis or flying giraffes. They are against observed phaenomena and they can't universally and successfully explain the behaviour of the nature.

Also, and again, being my theories/hypothesys/flying giraffes wrong doesn't make yours correct.

[jroa]

From the same site:

the·o·ry
Synonyms
hypothesis, proposition, supposition, thesis

[jroa]

And just where did I say that I established that he can cross it? Assumptions, assumptions.

I can cross the south pole without falling to the void.

"Can cross" does not mean "did cross".

What are we supposed to assume from these statements?

[Gulliver]

And just where did I say that I established that he can cross it? Assumptions, assumptions.

I can cross the south pole without falling to the void.

"Can cross" does not mean "did cross".

What are we supposed to assume from these statements?

Why would ask me what assumptions you are supposed to make? Surely you should be able to make your own decisions about what was said, and what was not.

If you need help understanding basic logic, please post on an educational forum more dedicated to such assistance.

If you're confused about what I said, please do follow up with a more specific question. Thanks.

[jroa]

Why would ask me what assumptions you are supposed to make? Surely you should be able to make your own decisions about what was said, and what was not.

Assumptions, assumptions.

In one sentence, you tell me to make my own decisions, and in the next, you chastise those decisions.  You are a very confusing person.