81

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Why the swinging Tarzan was I warned & topicanned?

« on: March 04, 2019, 03:11:34 PM »

No one minds round earthers testing their metal and putting forward flat earth arguments on this forum. It is far harder to argue earth is flat after all, when the majority of internet sources aren't on your side. We actively encourage everyone to explore flat earth topics.

But if you are going to do that ... do it well. Make sure the person on the other side of the debate is going to get something out of that. Otherwise it is just shit posting. Think of it as playing the game on 'god-level'.

Hey how good to finally talk with you!
So funny, after numerous interaction on flat earth topics, I hardly seen a post from you. But then when I get CN-Canned, ha! there you are siding with mod! Is that like your job? Did you even read any of my posts?
Why don't some people who interacted with me who were offended come here and side with the mod if I'm such an offensive person?

But seriously, if you have anything against anything I ever said, for Pete's sake (or for your own sake, I don't care) tell me what it is, instead of this generalized nearly boilerplate "The mod is right" post you so carefully crafted just for me!

I believe that everybody in all the debates I was in got a lot out of most of what I said. They obviously didn't always agree but it was still a valid challenge the topic at  hand.


But I mean I guess you have a life too and you helped your friend Pete out to come here and post in his support so thanks for that.

82

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Why the swinging Tarzan was I warned & topicanned?

« on: March 04, 2019, 03:02:44 PM »

It's very simple. Your trolling is extremely transparent,

Please give a single example of where I was trolling.
Or is trolling saying anything that doesn't support FE, even if it's a valid concern?

and multiple members pointed to it.

Just because somebody is uncomfortable with a difficult question doesn't mean I'm a troll for bringing it up.
Unless most flat earthers actually believe FE is a fraud and are afraid of the truth.

I get it, the "I'm totally a FE'er but GA-HYUK whoopsie I've done it again erf rund haha" comedy routine is absolutely stunning and entirely unprecedented.

Please show me how you know I'm any less of a flat earther than anybody else here. The fact that I'm honest about some difficult issues shouldn't be grounds to say I'm not a flat earther.
Unless, of course,  all experienced flat earther's know it's a fraud.
Hey. We always tell people that flat earth makes a lot more sense, and that if we can't demonstrate it we shouldn't believe it!

But it won't have a place in the upper fora.

What rule did I break?
You can't be honest if you're going to just say it can't be in the upper fora because you disagree with it or wish the difficult issues didn't exist.
Especially when the rules clearly state that it's a debate club and we're expected to use our debate skills to poke holes in theories, even if we don't agree with the stance we're taking at that moment!

It's disruptive to actual discussion.

What? That is complete and total nonsense! I was not being disruptive! People were discussing things and more or less even on topic in my threads. My contributions were also by and large on topic and helpful to the point.
In what way was I being disruptive?
Disruptive to what? The only way true statements about flat earth could be "disruptive" is if you're talking about it being disruptive to the effort to deceive people into thinking that flat earth doesn't have any serious unresolved difficulties.

The only thing I regret is that I haven't responded to reports soon enough and allowed you to mislead some newcomers. I'll own that error.

Now that's not nice to accuse me of misleading anybody without providing a link!
Please show me where I mislead some newcomers!

You seem like a smart enough guy, and you clearly have a passion for defending RET.

Is FET your religion where you just defend it even in areas where you know it's got problems?
I have a passion for defending the truth! That's why I spent enormous time and effort defending the fact that a radial magnetic field was entirely possible on a flat earth!
(https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13338.msg183448#msg183448)

Why can't I defend the truth, and when it supports FET great I defend it, but why can I not also search for answers to the tough questions that appear to be impossible situations for FET?

Especially when our rules are so clear that it is a debate club and that we are supposed to use our debate skills to poke holes in theories even if we are representing a position we don't actually believe in!

That's great. Just do sincerely - stating what your position is (or that you don't have one),

What? Where in the rules does it say that I need to state a position or state that I don't have one? And besides, I'm pretty sure I stated my position -- that I was seeking the truth, whatever it is -- several times.
Again, are you just making stuff up? I didn't see anything in the rules about stating a position.
How does not stating a position diminish validity of the questions I raised? They are valid serious questions no matter who raises them from what position.

and explain your reasoning without engaging in underhanded tactics.

What? Underhanded tactics? I don't recall using any underhanded tactics! Could you please show me the evidence? Did some glober complain to you and you didn't even check to see what I did?
That's an awful thing to accuse someone without even showing them the evidence!

Oh, and please do so from a single account.

I have only ever created a single account on this website.
When I first tried to sign up, I tried to use a different email address I had for a long time, and it was blocking the confirmation link email as spam, so I never confirmed that one. Then I used this email address and it worked.
The other account was never activated because I never got the activation confirmation email.
This is the only account I've ever successfully created here and it's the only account I've ever posted from, and you're just making it up.

Why would you even lie about me having multiple accounts? It's entirely within your power to know with absolute certainty that you have no evidence of me using multiple accounts.

But "TomFoolery" is the *only* username I have ever ever posted on here. You're bluffing.

If you can't meet these simple requests, please find somewhere else to troll. There are plenty of forums out there with inactive moderation that will let you roam free for more than a month, and you'll be bound to find it more rewarding.

Meet these simple requests, you say?
You want me to state a position -- I did long ago, I'm seeking the truth whatever it is.
Obey the forum rules? I thought I was! Nobody has pointed out where I wasn't.
Being on topic? I try really hard, and do about as good as anybody here does in that regard.
No underhanded tactics? I am not away of using any.
Single account? That's all I've ever posted from. Seriously.

What makes this all so absurd is you're telling me that I'm not following the rules (or your unwritten personal rules), but you haven't pointed out a single instance where I've violated either kind of rules.
How am I supposed to do differently if I don't know what rule I broke or what I said that broke it?

I want an appeal.
I'm clearly being railroaded because I had the integrity to raise valid questions.
You've accused me of all sorts of things with not a single evidence. That's shameful!

If what I did is against some unwritten rules then for Pete's sake  write the rules down so we all know what rules to go by, let me read them so I can follow them.

But it's totally absurd to have unwritten rules and CN-can all my threads without prior warning when I didn't even violate any rules, just because you are not comfortable with the fact that there are difficulties with FET just like there are difficulties with any set of ideas.

It's only honest of you to show me what crimes I did instead of just making vague references.

I request an appeal. Or an official change in rules that actually outlaws the raising of difficult questions for FE.

As it stands, it's a debate club. We're supposed to use our debate skills to poke holes in theories even if we don't really associate with the side we're taking.
Which makes it utterly absurd to say I somehow transgressed by not stating a position or a non-position -- especially when I did state a position of seeking the truth, whatever it is!

You're just upset because I proved what appears to be gravity, and because I dare ask tough question -- all the same ones that globers already know about and laugh at us for.

It's only by embracing the truth and dealing with the difficult questions that we will arrive at a better position.

Unless all the experienced flat earthers don't have the faith in our own society to believe it's true.

83

Suggestions & Concerns / Why the swinging Tarzan was I warned & topicanned?

« on: March 04, 2019, 06:45:13 AM »

I got my first warning today for "posting patterns" and it looks like all of my threads were moved to CN.

I'm trying to understand why.

I was essentially accused of "pretending to support the FE cause while actively undermining it,"  and of sometimes clever satire.

I was also advised to abide by the forum rules, but no particular rule was mentioned.

(I thought I was abiding by the forum rules.)

I was also cautioned that if I wished to defend the RE side I had to do it openly and sincerely.

Is FE or RE more important than the truth? I'm seeking after the truth. If I have a problem with an RE claim, it's because of an observation that raises a problem.
If I have a problem with an FE claim, it's because of an observation that raises a problem.

Why do I have to take the RE stance just to raise a concern with FE? Do glober's have to take a FE stance to raise an issue with RE?

Do all the long time flat earthers already know there's problems and have a pact to not say anything about them, and since I dared raise valid issues that I must be a glober pretending to be a flatter?

I'm particularly puzzled about the assertion in the warning that I have to take the RE position to question any aspect of FE, because even the "Read me first" header post for the upper fora says:

The top level Flat Earth Discussion Forums are a Debate Club. As in any debate club, the goal is to exercise your ability in debate to poke holes in arguments and expose weaknesses, even if you do not believe in that position yourself.
(https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10086.0)

(Emph mine)

What? How can they complain about what holes I poke in which theory after saying that? How can they say I'm "Undermining FE while pretending to support it?" when they clearly say "...even if you do not believe that position?"

And another thing that confuses me the stated reason that I was being warned because of posting patterns, when our very own manifesto says to moderators:

You shall apply the same rules equivalently to all members on the forum,
without invoking your personal opinion of a member, their posting history
or any factor other than the rules and their behaviour in the situation
at hand.
(https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1219.0)

Emph mine.

And yet I was warned for posting patterns...?
And what was the situation at hand for which I was warned?

And then there's the one odd fact that my first warning came after 257 posts, and it came the very day I questioned the Bishop Experiment which is listed in the wiki.

What's going on? If I poked any holes in FE in my search for truth, then the long time flat earth members could readily patch those holes by explaining the error in my thinking. But they didn't.

Welcome to the debate club where if you make too many points which disagree with the mods you get clubbed. I definitely call that a debate club.

I mean look. It's a private website. If the flat earth society wants to restrict the opinions to that of their website operator, that's fine if they are honest about it.
But pretending like it's a debate club and saying it's OK to poke holes in a theory even if you don't believe that position, and saying things like:

The Flat Earth Society holds that there is a difference between believing and knowing. If you don't know something, and cannot demonstrate it by first principles, then you shouldn't believe it. We must, at the very least, know exactly how conclusions were made about the world, and the strengths and weaknesses behind those deductions. Our society emphasizes the demonstration and explanation of knowledge.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Flat_Earth_Wiki)

And

Flat Earth Theory, and Zeteticism, is a movement of emperical inquiry. We are empericists.
...
In our movement we value demonstration and are generally dismissive of those who make claims without reference to demonstration or the emperical evidence to back up those claims.

We have higher standards for science than most people.

I really don't see why I would be thus treated for anything  I did.

I believe in emperical inquiry and I have a very high standard for science.

That's why I went to all the trouble to test for gravity. It's not my fault that there was some unexplained weak attraction between my lead weights. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13661.msg183961#msg183961)

We present ourselves as very honest and willing to deal with any conundrum but then when someone actually raises issues it's "Put him back in his cage:"

Oh, hey, Treep's back. Let's put you back in your containment cage, shall we?

I have no idea what the Treep thing is about. If it's a reference to another  username, I assure you, this is the only account I ever created on this or any other flat earth website.

Look. The globers already know about the difficulties with flat earth. It's time we acknowledged them and begin to work on a solution.

Right now I'm seriously asking myself if I'm the only one here who isn't afraid to follow the evidence, wherever it leads.

All the globers of course already think they know the answers.

But all the flat earthers seem afraid to even ask the questions, like they are worried that the truth won't be what they thought.

Which is really sad because our whole theme in life is that NASA is lying, and covering up.
And how are we any better?

I do regret questioning the Bishop Experiment though, wish I hadn't done that, but hey I didn't know it was off limits.
And why would I know, when everything indicates that we're open for full debate and poking holes is allowed if we see a problem?

And for the record, I'm really truly looking for the truth. Whatever it is. Wherever it leads. If the truth leads to round earth? Fine. If the truth leads to flat earth? Even more fine. A flat earth is so much easier to deal with when it comes to all sorts of things.
I honestly am completely happy with a flat earth if that's where the evidence leads.

But it has to agree with observable reality.


Because like Dr. Bishop, I have a very high standard for science. I know there is a difference between believing and knowing. I believe in knowing. In testing. In observing.


Look. I'm really trying to make sense of this.


I really don't want to believe that the Moderation is doing exactly what they accuse NASA of doing. I refuse to believe it. But please help  me understand what's going on.

Thank you very much.

84

Flat Earth Community / Re: I want to ask some questions.

« on: March 04, 2019, 05:21:10 AM »

Rowbotham has a diagram of the sun projecting on the atmolayer on Chapter 10 here:



Line AB is where the sun projects onto the atmolayer. It seems like it might also be interpreted as a "dome" of atmosphere rather than an line of atmolayer, since the opacity of the atmolayer is all around us in three dimensions.

We should probably make an article about question number 2, "Why can't we see the sun at all times," specifically.

My interpretation of the larger scene would be a large circle representing the circle of the earth, with a smaller circle or oval of the sun's area of light pivoting around its center. The observer's vision is pretty limited, we can only see maybe 25 miles away depending on conditions? Basically a dot. When the border of the sun's area of light intersects the observer's circle of vision sunrise occurs.

Visualization ideas are appreciated.

I'm trying to understand this 25 mile limit to vision. We can often see mountains that are 75 to 100 miles away.
And during Australia's longest day of the year, the sun is like 10,000 miles away when it sets because that's just how far it has to move in the 7 hours after high solar noon.

85

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Other Planet's Moons?

« on: March 03, 2019, 03:03:39 AM »

I have attempted to replicate this effect but have had no luck .

Not to worry, your flat earth theory is safe . Have a nice day.

Which effect did you try to replicate?
I tried to show that gravity between terrestrial objects did not exist, but I was left with some very weak attraction between my lead weights after eliminating air currents, magnetism, and static attraction.
See my timelapse video here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13661.msg183961#msg183961

How were you able to eliminate the strange attraction between terrestrial masses?
Or were you trying to measure celestial gravitational pull?

86

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Map and compass

« on: March 03, 2019, 01:56:27 AM »

It’s a hard-knock life.
I recommend the wiki or the forum’s search feature if you need any further answers. You’ll have to bare (rarrgh) in mind that there is no unified theory, though. So, if one flat person says something, it is not gospel for all.
Hell, Tom brought up the wall and that’s not in some theories. My favourite non-wall one is the infinite-repeating plane.

The wiki however even confuses the tarzan out of me sometimes. So don't feel bad if you can't make sense of something.

For example, we read about the Equinox:

A Flat Earth Equinox

Q. How can the sun rise from even within two degrees of Due East in the Flat Earth model?

A. This is a popular topic point, but is based on a common misconception. The top down views of the Flat Earth sun models might imply that the observer can see infinitely across the earth, and see the sun at all times. However, we cannot see infinitely into the distance. The distance to the our horizon is limited to a very finite circle around us. We cannot see that far. The distance to the horizon is limited by the thickness of the atmolayer. The atmolayer is not perfectly transparent. At night when we look out at where the sun would be across the plane of the earth we are looking into hundreds of miles of fog, and thus the sun is dark and unseen.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox)

And yet, in Australia, there are 14 hours of sunlight during their longest days.
That means they can see the sun for 7 hours after high noon.
The sun is believed to basically go in a circle around the equatorial line once every 24 hours.
So 7 hours after high noon, when Australians can still see the sun, it is over 10,000 miles away, and still visible. And yet the wiki says we can't see the sun when it's hundreds of miles away.
To add to the confusion, during the peak of Australia's longest days, at sunset, the sun is actually closer to Alaska (USA, the north pole) than it is to Australia.
So theoretically, northern Alaska would have sun during the time Australia is seeing the sun set during their summer.
The problem? Northern Alaska just happens to be going through 69 days of darkness, because it's the shortest days of winter there.

I've been asking about this and so far nobody is helping me understand.

I say all this to say the wiki isn't exactly coherent or unified or fully aware of some of observable reality.

Below is my diagram of the problem with the sun I'm talking about.

87

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Map and compass

« on: March 02, 2019, 10:26:04 PM »

Well, it did seem quite aggressive when you questioned my honesty.

Apologies for that. We get a lot of people who come through here boasting great things about their experience but it turns out they are just making stuff up so make themselves sound believable.
I too have spent considerable time in the wilderness over the years but only as a hobby, so I've used a map and compass some too, but not nearly as much as you,
Your questions just didn't make sense to me considering your experience, that's all. But maybe you hadn't realized that our map was flat with a north pole in the center.

However I am merely trying to wrap my head around the idea of a flat earth. Trying to post a picture, but don't realize how, I'm on a phone. Tips?

Oh yeah pictures have to be under 128kbytes. You could get an app that lets you resize it, or if you email me the photo to the following address I can resize it for you and send it back.
t f s o f l a t @ g m a i l . c o m
(Just delete all the spaces, I don't want a million spam bots to pick it up.)

So if I understand you right. North is the center of our world. And a compass would behave the same way as it would in a spherical scenario, i.e not at all close to the magnetic North pole? It will just spin. Once you pass the pole, the N compass needle will turn as the pole is always North. Continuing in the same direction you are then heading South? (as on a sphere).

If I understand what you're trying to explain, yes. You're on a flat disk about 24000 miles in diameter. The north pole is in the center. The compass will always point there.
If you are someplace and going north, you will arrive at the north pole, and if you keep going straight the compass will swing around because the north poll will now be receding behind you.

But when you then hit the wall, where are you? South?

Exactly. "South" is an ice wall - a perimeter - all the way around the flat earth. That's the "south pole." even though it's a ring, not a pole. It is the magnetic south pole. (Magnets can have a ring for a pole, as my videos above showed.)

Cause if I go straight South from the N. Pole I will also hit the southern wall, right?

Yes, you will hit the southern wall.

But it is not the same location?

The southern wall is very long. There are many places you could hit it that are not all the same location.
If the flat earth is 24000 miles in diameter, it is about 75000 miles in circumference. About 121,000km in circumference.
So there is a lot of area there to explore.

I guess this probably seems stupid to you, but believe me if your not accustumed to the idea of a flat earth its not so easy to understand.

Fair enough.

Trying to process the GPS theory, but no it dosen't make immediate sense. It seems speculative and paranoid. But I will try my best to understand.

Exactly. Speculative and paranoid is not a invalid description.
It is also absolutely vital to the survival of the flat earth theory.
We are all speculative and paranoid in some ways. I mean, you wouldn't go in a car ride with a stranger who stopped you at a cross walk. Not that he ever did anything to you before, but you just don't know who he is or what he's up to, so yeah, you're speculative and paranoid about what he might be up to.
It just happens that the flat earth community is very speculative and paranoid about anything that creates a difficulty for the flat earth belief.

The whole ice wall is what puts me off. Cause I know a few people that have been to Antartica. Both scientists and explorers. And its definitely not impossible to do.

Our response to that is that yeah you can go to near the wall, and their navigational systems may have told them that they were at the geographic north pole, but in reality they weren't actually there. They were still hundreds of miles off from the ice wall.

Its just very very expensive. Heck you  can do cruises there these days. One Norwegian explorer, Borge Ousland crossed it in 1997. He was also the first to do the NW and NE passage in a sailship, actually circumnavigating the North Pole. Also check out Jarle Andhoy. A world sailer, he went to the South pole without any permits. He got into a shitload of trouble, but he didn't get shot. However his sailship with to people on board dissapeared in a storm while he was on his way back from the pole. It pissed of the New Zealanders cause they had to put on a huge s&r.

If the ice wall surrounds our entire world and is guarded by soldiers I find it surprising there is not a single whistleblower. Generally with the whole FE theory I find this interesting, there must have been quite a lot of people in on the secret. However this is a different discussion.

yeah it is quite a feat they have pulled off guarding the edge.

In a few years I am going to citumnavigate the world with my 43ft Colin Archer sailship, I will search for the wall!

I appreciate your answers.

Splendid, I wish you all the best, and I look forward to photos of the ice wall when you return!

88

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Magnetic Field

« on: March 02, 2019, 08:21:15 PM »

Since we're all doing magnetic experiments, and since I still had a string hanging from the ceiling, I couldn't resist the urge.
Here's a little magnet repelling a little block of carbon without touching it.
Nothing new, but still fun to watch and fun to do.

89

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Map and compass

« on: March 02, 2019, 07:52:34 PM »

And what about GPS?

Oh yes I forgot to respond to your question about GPS.

We all agree that GPS is repeatable -- that means that if you take a GPS reading of a certain spot, you or any one else can go back with the same or another GPS to the same spot later and it'll give essentially the same reading.

Most of us agree that it is accurate on civilized land masses, in other words, that the GPS will tell you that it's 45 miles between two points and if you drive that route it'll be very close to 45 miles.

People even seem to be reporting that in Australia, which spans 3 time zones, that the GPS tells them it's around a 2400 mile drive, and the odometers on their cars tell them the same thing.
(This is a challenge for me because the flat earth map shows Australia 4000 miles long, which it has to be to span 3 time zones..)
So there's some disturbing conundrum there which we haven't figured out yet.
There some among us who do believe that Australia really is 4000 miles long and that everybody who claims to have driven it is lying about the time and distance.
(And as a consequence the jetliners flying from end to end in Astralia would have to be flying above the speed of sound.)

What we don't know is whether GPS accurately reports distances correctly when it comes to long journeys over the open oceans.

Obviously if it is reporting that correctly then there's no point in having a flat earth society, so we maintain that the GPSs do not correctly report the distance on transatlantic flights, because we have no way to verify those.
We believe that somehow the data is skewed to make the  earth seem like a globe when in fact it's flat.

This basically requires that if you're flying in a jet with a GPS receiver in your lap, that it's indicating correct speed and distance traveled while you're over land, but as the plane leaves land, the gps gradually shifts into reading high or low as the jet simultaneously speeds up or slows down in order to make the flight take the correct number of hours as if the earth was a globe.

Hope that makes sense.

90

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Map and compass

« on: March 02, 2019, 07:34:06 PM »

So North is always in the centre of the world and "South" is the closest point of the ice wall? Wouldn't that make it a bit complicated to communicate cordinates? And how does GPS fit on this modell?

I don't see anything complicated about polar coordinates.

I'm having a difficult time imaging you spending a lot of your life in the wilderness with  a map and a compass. The questions you're asking seem out of place for such a person.

What shape are the maps you were using? Flat. They work fine with the earth, obviously because it's flat.

Can you give any example where you're trekking around in the wilderness and the map and compass would fail you on a flat earth?

Why the aggressive tone? I am simply trying to understand. I am aking questions, not claiming anything. The map is flat yes, but the longitude and latitude on the maps is created for a spherical globe right? Or is the system appliable for a flat earth too?

I live in Norway, been hiking, hunting, fishing all my life. Do you want photographic evidence?

And what about GPS?

I certainly didn't mean to express any aggressive tone.

But you did ask how the compass and map could work on a flat earth, and if communicating coordinates would be complicated on a flat earth.
I cannot think of any situations where that would be true, but if you can think of any then I would be delighted to consider them.
If neither of us can think of any, then there's probably not a problem. 

A photo would be wonderful!

91

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Map and compass

« on: March 02, 2019, 07:05:51 PM »

So North is always in the centre of the world and "South" is the closest point of the ice wall? Wouldn't that make it a bit complicated to communicate cordinates? And how does GPS fit on this modell?

I don't see anything complicated about polar coordinates.

I'm having a difficult time imaging you spending a lot of your life in the wilderness with  a map and a compass. The questions you're asking seem out of place for such a person.

What shape are the maps you were using? Flat. They work fine with the earth, obviously because it's flat.

Can you give any example where you're trekking around in the wilderness and the map and compass would fail you on a flat earth?

92

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Map and compass

« on: March 02, 2019, 06:13:20 PM »

Hi.

So I have spent a whole lot of my life in the wilderness navigating with map and compass. I always find my way. I am very confident in reading the topography of the maps and comparing it with my visual surroundings. However sometimes there are no visuals, snow, fog heavy rain etc. I also sometimes have a GPS to control my position if I get insecure, escpecially in the wintee. But I have never ever gotten lost. But if the earth is flat, does that mean that my maps are fake? And how does the compass work? Its a bit confusing to me.

Thanks for clarification.

Yeah, a magnetic compass works fine on a flat earth and works with the map so you'd be just fine all over the world with a map and compass.

Well, a magnetic compass (wich we use) needs a magnetic North and South pole to work. How would you explain this? Am I mistanken?

Also a map is more then a topographical drawing. It's creates through a geographical survey. With a map and compass I can pinpoint my location and get the more or less exact cordinates. This I can confirm with my GPS. How is this?

I've shown with an experiment that a radially oriented magnetic field would work fine on a flat earth.

It works just like any other map would. The compass always points between north (center) and south (the nearest point of the ice wall / edge.)

93

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Map and compass

« on: March 02, 2019, 03:52:19 PM »

Hi.

So I have spent a whole lot of my life in the wilderness navigating with map and compass. I always find my way. I am very confident in reading the topography of the maps and comparing it with my visual surroundings. However sometimes there are no visuals, snow, fog heavy rain etc. I also sometimes have a GPS to control my position if I get insecure, escpecially in the wintee. But I have never ever gotten lost. But if the earth is flat, does that mean that my maps are fake? And how does the compass work? Its a bit confusing to me.

Thanks for clarification.

Yeah, a magnetic compass works fine on a flat earth and works with the map so you'd be just fine all over the world with a map and compass.

94

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The sun rising exactly east for all observers on the Earth during the equinoxes

« on: March 01, 2019, 09:38:11 PM »

Actually, we have a Wiki article on the subject of the Equinox.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox

Thanks for the reply Tom but I believe the point still stands. There is no explanation as to why the sun should be viewed east anywhere (even at the equator) on a flat Earth during a sunrise.

The article addresses that here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox#A_Flat_Earth_Equinox

And the article which addresses that says:

Q. How can the sun rise from even within two degrees of Due East in the Flat Earth model?

A. This is a popular topic point, but is based on a common misconception. The top down views of the Flat Earth sun models might imply that the observer can see infinitely across the earth, and see the sun at all times. However, we cannot see infinitely into the distance. The distance to the our horizon is limited to a very finite circle around us. We cannot see that far. The distance to the horizon is limited by the thickness of the atmolayer. The atmolayer is not perfectly transparent. At night when we look out at where the sun would be across the plane of the earth we are looking into hundreds of miles of fog, and thus the sun is dark and unseen.
...

So, Mr. Bishop, if you might be so kind as to explain how that correlates with Australia and their 14 hours of daylight during their summer.

Seeing my attached diagram, you can see that them Australians can see the sun when it is just setting or rising, 7 hours away from high noon.
That distance just happens to be very close to half of the flat earth's diameter - so whatever you pick as the size of the earth, half that diameter is the distance the Australians are seeing the sun at sunset or sunrise.
(As a side note, how can northern Alaska be having 69 days of darkness at this exact season, when it's obviously closer to the sun?)

And does the sun really rise and set 53 degrees North of due east or due west?

I know you said wiki explains it but I'm having a hard time getting everything to jive in my head because well I'm just not that bright and since we know the sun goes around its path every 24 hours, it's plain to see that if them Australians can see the sun 7 hours after high noon during the summer, the sun must have traveled quite some distance, yes?

I would so value your explanation of this because I know you have a very high standard for science and would never believe it if you couldn't demonstrate it, nor would you resort to illusionary solutions.

To recap:
How can Australians see the sun 7 hours after it was directly overhead, even though it's thousands of miles away?
Do they really see it rise and set about 53 degrees north of due east/due west?
How can northern Alaska be suffering from 69 days of plague like darkness when it's closer to the sun then Australia is at sunset?

Thanks!

95

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Electromagnetics Spectrum on a Flat Earth Model - How & Why?

« on: February 28, 2019, 10:35:55 PM »

OK. So my first question to everyone is why do flat earth members not believe in atoms or molecules? Of all the potential scientific claims in existence, the clear observations of molecules and their composition show a predictable sub-molecular structure. These are known as atoms... Furthermore, from my short period of reading through the different threads and youtube videos, I understand that flat earthers do not like to accept the common scientific know-how. However, one of the most observed structures in material science (and is repeatable over and over) is "X-Ray Diffraction". Using this method of investigation you can take various types of crystals or thin-films (e.g. silicon, GaN, AlGaN, InGaN, etc...) and apply high energy particles such as x-ray which will produce a pattern (also known as interference patterns). These patterns provide the structure of the atoms which make up the crystal being observed. There is no other phenomenon for this and can be used to predict the exact type of crystal material.

Additionally, when using certain formats of x-ray diffraction such as high-resolution x-ray diffraction (HRXRD, XANES, XTEM, or even AFM) you can see the density of the electrons and orbitals in the atom. I USE THIS EXAMPLE because we do this type of testing on our semiconductor crystals all the time. We usually take a sample out of every batch of monocrystal wafers and analyze them for QAQC purposes. I will be happy to post images from these test, and hope that with this we can lay an agreed upon foundation that atoms and molecules exist and that is what all matter is composed of. This is important as I want to show more data from some of the long-range RF and EM propagation we have done over long distances (>30 miles) sea and land.

You can also look into this yourselves. It has been used for almost a century... x-ray diffraction "X-Ray Crystallography"

If you have some images that are from your company's own research, please do post a couple. But don't bother just copying junk off the internet. We in the flat earth community have a hard enough time with things we can see, you may overwhelm us with stuff we can't even see!

96

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The sun rising exactly east for all observers on the Earth during the equinoxes

« on: February 28, 2019, 09:20:44 PM »

You can't see for hundreds or thousands of miles through the atmosphere. What are you talking about? You are just making things up about how things should be. Things disappear far closer than that.

This is the crux of your issue for imaging how the sun should look over a Flat Earth. You are imaging that we can see forever into the distance and through the atmosphere. We cannot.

So how far away is the sun when it "sets" ?

If the earth is 24,000 miles across, and you're in Australia during the summer, it sets 7 hours after high noon, when it is about overhead.
The distance from central Australia to the sun just before it sets would be about 12,000 miles.
Too far? Let's make the earth only 8000 miles across.
Then the sun is only 3,800 miles away.
But we don't want to make the earth too small, because Australia is somewhere between 2400 and 5000 miles long, and as we know, it's not the only continent we have.

So depending on the size of the flat earth, then we can see the sun somewhere between at least 4,000 miles, maybe up to 12,000 miles.

And the crux of this is that regardless of the size of the earth, 7 hours after high noon in central Australia during the longest day of the year there, the sun's actual Azimuth will be about 53 degrees to the right of due west.

Am I totally confused or what's going on here?

97

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New to FE theories and have some questions

« on: February 28, 2019, 07:22:08 PM »

Not all 200 of these i would consider real "evidence" (some suffer from conformation bias) but there are several in this video:

That's pretty interesting. What would you consider some of the best ones out of the 200?

98

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New to FE theories and have some questions

« on: February 28, 2019, 04:33:12 PM »

See the Cavendish Experiment page in the General Physics section of the Wiki. The laboratories are getting inconsistent results when trying to measure gravity and admit that there are many effects that need to be accounted for, such as the electrostatic force.

Mr. Bishop:

Are you saying then that there *is* an attraction between terrestrial weights that is *nearly* equal to gravity, but because two laboratory tests showed a reading that was more than 0.045 percent different from eachother?

Just how closely would they have to match for you to consider them valid? 0.0045%? 0.000045%? or would they have to have absolutely zero difference to a thousand decimal places?

And why did someone tell me this:

... all you have to do is to show that terrestrial gravity cannot be attractive: ...

99

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Measuring the azimuth of sun rise - Flat Earth vs Globe Earth

« on: February 28, 2019, 03:34:55 PM »

One could argue a simulation as illusion

Yes that is technically true but given how much time and money airlines invest a lot in training pilots using simulators these days, that is a major reliance on an 'illusion'. I guess it depends on how you distinguish between the definitions of simulation and illusion.  I agree that a simulator is essentially creating an illusion of sorts but an illusion that is pretty damn close to real world experience.  It has to be for obvious reasons.

And I guess an important question is whether the customers know it's a simulation. In the case of flight training, the people inside the dome know it's a training simulator. There's no intent to deceive the observers, only their senses for the purpose of practicing those reflexes.

100

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Measuring the azimuth of sun rise - Flat Earth vs Globe Earth

« on: February 28, 2019, 08:03:24 AM »

Here's a debunk model that presents a bunch of conundrums:

Yeah, that's why Mark Sargent says:

"A basic dome structure, made up of advanced high density material, thousands of miles wide, and at least a hundred miles in height, the ceiling of said structure, being projected upon, by an ultra high definition system, using super LED technology, and a combination of 2D and 3D imaging, to simulate all celestial bodies, including sun, moon, stars, and so on."

But wait, is a simulation sort of an illusion?