2821

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sunrise/Sunset

« on: October 31, 2018, 02:25:33 AM »

If you were to follow Southward it is entirely possible that you will hit an Ice Wall and assume that you are at Antarctica. If you continue following 'South' on the compass it will wrap and curve around along the edge of the map, across tens of thousands of miles of frozen tundra, until it crosses into water again and crosses an ocean to Antarctica and the South Pole.

One other possibility is that the magnetic field lines die off (curve away towards the South) before hitting an Ice Wall, and if you somehow get into an area beyond the field lines, you are left stranded to die without navigation.

This doesn't answer anything.

Look, I'm an airline pilot for EvilGlobe Airways, a company that thinks I can circumnavigate by following the Equator.

I take off in Ecuador to land in Indonesia, making sure that my latitude remains 0°. I set the autopilot to follow a straight line.

What happens to me at 180° longitude?

At 180° longitude you may have have been shot out of the sky by a foreign military because you can't simply cross into foreign airspace as you please.

Many of these questions are merely theoretical. Planes fly on set routes.

If were to follow Southward it is entirely possible that you will hit an Ice Wall and assume that you are at Antarctica. If you continue following 'South' on the compass it will wrap and curve around along the edge of the map, across tens of thousands of miles of frozen tundra, until it crosses into water again and crosses an ocean to Antarctica and the South Pole.

One other possibility is that the magnetic field lines die off (curve away towards the South) before hitting an Ice Wall, and if you somehow get into an area beyond the field lines, you are left stranded to die without navigation.

Much in the way of 'possibility'. Maps aside, for all intents and purposes, if there are many different bi-polar configurations to consider, unobserved ice walls, continent orientation is ambiguous, would it be fair to say that in FET, the sun's path is unknown?

Much about these details are unknown. We do not have the funding to study the matter and rely solely on visitor contributions.

Understood. But in another breath, you'll mention how the 'ancient's' have known and contributed to FET as we know it and how all of modern astronomy is simply based upon patterned ancient FET observations. It's somewhat flummoxing that an argument can be made as to how the FET sun path is when:

A) FET Models are unknown due to modern budgetary constraints
B) FET Models have been around since the ancients

At the end of the day, FET is not aware as to how the sun paths. So literally no argument can made against how RET explains it.

2822

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sunrise/Sunset

« on: October 31, 2018, 01:14:26 AM »

If were to follow Southward it is entirely possible that you will hit an Ice Wall and assume that you are at Antarctica. If you continue following 'South' on the compass it will wrap and curve around along the edge of the map, across tens of thousands of miles of frozen tundra, until it crosses into water again and crosses an ocean to Antarctica and the South Pole.

One other possibility is that the magnetic field lines die off (curve away towards the South) before hitting an Ice Wall, and if you somehow get into an area beyond the field lines, you are left stranded to die without navigation.

Much in the way of 'possibility'. Maps aside, for all intents and purposes, if there are many different bi-polar configurations to consider, unobserved ice walls, continent orientation is ambiguous, would it be fair to say that in FET, the sun's path is unknown?

2823

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sunrise/Sunset

« on: October 30, 2018, 08:03:07 PM »

That video was published on Feb 14, 2015, which is when it is summer for the Southern Hemiplane. The sun is traveling around the South Pole at that time. Looking Westwards, not only is the sun left of the equator, the sun is also curving around the South Pole.

If the sun is curving around the south pole, from this shot on 2/17/2015, I would expect a decidedly southern sunset from this vantage point in Liverpool. Where is the sun in the model you present on this day?

2824

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sunrise/Sunset

« on: October 30, 2018, 06:30:13 PM »

That video was published on Feb 14, 2015, which is when it is summer for the Southern Hemiplane. The sun is traveling around the South Pole at that time. Looking Westwards, not only is the sun left of the equator, the sun is also curving around the South Pole.

Are you referring to the FE bi-pole sun 'figure 8' model? If so, where exactly was the sun on Feb 14, 2015 in this model?

2825

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sunrise/Sunset

« on: October 30, 2018, 06:41:31 AM »

WHY would the Sun go a different direction?  That is easy. The person in the Southern Hemisphere is “upside down” comparatively.  If you are upside down looking at the same object, the object looks different.  If you had a screen, and the left side of it was blinking green, took a picture of it.  That picture shows the left side green right? Now go upside down, take a picture, and the right side of the box is blinking green.   Same thing with directions the sun is moving. If right side up you see an object tracking right, upside down it looks like it’s going left.  It’s the same reason why the moon is “upside down” in the Southern Hemisphere.

The same upside-down difference can be said for FET. See this example of lunar orientation on FET vs RET:

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon

Seems like apples and oranges to me. We're not talking about 'orientation' so much as angular movement. But if we do look at it statically from an orientation perspective, in the image below, the top two images are Hong Kong, bottom two, Perth, same date and time. Orientation is from the left looking at the sunset and then from the right looking at a sunset for each city. From both opposing viewing angles, Hong Kong still sets at the same angle, to the right. As well, both Perth's set at the same angle opposite from Hong Kong, to the left. At a minimum, I should see the left and right Hong Kong's 'flip', oppose each other according to the wiki. Same for the Perth's. I don't see this as being explained by 'The Phases of the Moon' wiki entry.



We can explain this observed behavior in RET. But for FET, we don't know what the model is. Does the sun circle about around a north pole axis? Does is figure 8 or pac-man around a bi-pole model? Or something else entirely? Seemingly, FET doesn't have an answer for this observation.

2826

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Appeal to administration for warning

« on: October 27, 2018, 11:04:04 PM »

"Generally" maybe. Specifically, my experience has been completely counter to that claim.

Can you stop? You are approaching Thork levels at this point. As of now, you are on 6 warnings, and a single 3-day ban. Do you know why that is? Because we view you as a contributing member who typically argues in good faith and contributes to the community. Most people would be on the cusp of a 30-day or a permaban after that many warnings. But you typically respond well and most of it is from a while ago. So, actually, your experience is exactly in line with what we hope and expect.

Hopefully a practical question. If you have a "suggestions & concerns" comment like Bobby's statement, should that just be a new thread in AR as opposed to here? There's no   
"READ BEFORE POSTING" thread here describing what's in or out of "suggestions & concerns".

2827

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 27, 2018, 01:58:44 AM »

Could you react on this quote found in "Earth not a globe"?

"If the truth of the philosophy of the Scriptures can be demonstrated, then, possibly, their spiritual and moral teachings may also be true; and if so, they may, and indeed must, have had a Divine origin; and, therefore, there must exist a Divine Being, a Creator and Ruler of the physical and spiritual worlds; and that, after all, the Christian religion is a grand reality."

You have said repeatedly that this book doesn't proclaim the truth of the Christian god, and this quote seems relevant.

What kind of religious nut says that that the spiritual and moral teachings of religion is "possibly" true? And also encourages us to criticize the Bible?

This is a baloney assassination attempt. It's Rowbotham's chapter about what a Flat Earth might mean on a philophical and religious level, is obiously commentary, and nothing more.

Then all of ENAG is just 'commentary'. Here's this repeated bit of commentary, pretty clear as we've seen before:

"By defending a system which is directly opposed to that which is taught in connection with the Jewish and Christian religion they lead the more critical and daring intellects to question and deride the cosmogony and general philosophy contained in the sacred books. Because the Newtonian theory is held to be true they are led to reject the Scriptures altogether, to ignore the worship, and doubt and deny the existence of a Creator and Supreme Ruler of the world."

Seems like more to the point, if you're not on the bible bus, you're off the bible bus. 

2828

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Appeal to administration for warning

« on: October 27, 2018, 01:18:52 AM »

Got it. Thanks for the explanation. Totally makes sense.

2829

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Appeal to administration for warning

« on: October 26, 2018, 10:26:28 PM »

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I've had some personal things going on recently.

I don't think appealing a warning makes a whole lot of sense -- they're intended as gentle nudges in the right direction, not a punishment. In this case, your response to Pete asking you to stay on topic clearly was not contributing to the thread. I'd suggest taking that on board and remembering to dispute moderation in S&C in future, rather than derailing threads.

I think the appeal to appealing a warning is that they are, in essence, cumulative, leading to potential punishment. After x number of warnings, you get a ban. But if you get a warning, and appeal, and get that warning removed, there are fewer violations in the demerit bucket. Now, perhaps, it's best not to get a warning in the first place, but if one feels it's unwarranted, it seems fruitful to try and appeal.

2830

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 26, 2018, 10:09:10 PM »

Actually, it does say that, right there in black and white. He says, and I'll spell it out again, an atheist or a denier of the Scripture as authority (i.e., non-Jew, Non-christian) has no scientific foundation.

Elsewhere he states, "To say that the Scriptures were not intended to teach science truthfully is, in substance, to declare that God Himself has stated, and commissioned His prophets to teach things which are utterly false!”

 He cites all over Chapter 15 where the scriptures, God, talks of how there is no rotundity to the earth. And, according to him, if you deny the scriptures, you deny God. God is not wrong. Therefore, all who deny the scriptures is denying god and is therefore wrong. It's pretty simple really.

Look. Rowbotham is explaining in that quote that the argument of "Religion and scripture wasn't meant to teach science," an argument many of us have seen in other contexts, is a really dumb argument.

This is equivalent to arguing that the ancients would write things that were false, or that God's would teach false things. This shows the "Religion was never meant to teach science" argument to be a really bad argument which is made without much thought. The truth is that it was their science and it was always meant to be a teaching about how the world is.

You are making many assumptions on what Rowbotham is saying, and the meaning behind his statements. He never makes these wild "religion is irrefutably correct and all else is irrefutably wrong" proclemations that you guys are making.

He's not saying, 'religion' or 'ancients' in that quote, he says 'scriptures'. And says, 'scriptures' all over the place. Much, as clearly he states without interpretation, that if you deny the 'scriptures' you are wrong b/c you are denying God. All of these quotes are profoundly specific to 'scriptures' and all the while citing dozens and dozens of bible verse in support. It's not just, "Hey, there's science in the good book, check it out."

He is quite clear and I am not assuming, literally just reading what he wrote. And you're right, he's not saying 'religion' is irrefutably correct", he is saying that the 'scriptures' are irrefutably correct. He's very specific about that.

"That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen.” If anything is contrary to the scriptures, then it can't be true. Simple as that.

2831

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 26, 2018, 08:54:50 PM »

Nothing here, either. You seem to be posting random commentary.

"...In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation."

Right. You have no foundation to deny what the ancients thought about the world. You are carelessly discarding the study of millions of people and numerous civilizations without cause.

This point says nothing about "all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong".

Hmm, if I'm an atheist, my science has no foundation and if I'm not an atheist but deny Scriptural teachings and authority my science has no foundation. Who is left to have a scientific foundation according to Rowbotham? Only those who do not deny the Scriptural teaching and authority.  Seems pretty clear to me.

It doesn't say that at all. It is a criticism that science has not built up the necessary foundation to tell us the true nature of the world. Rowbotham assets elsewhere that what was taught in Scripture was science at the time. Rowbotham believes that the science is not at the level to totally disregard everything that came before it.

Rowbotham doesn't say anything about how anything contrary to scripture is necessarily wrong. He is asserting that Aristotile and Copernicus never legitimately overshadowed what came before.

Actually, it does say that, right there in black and white. He says, and I'll spell it out again, an atheist or a denier of the Scripture as authority (i.e., non-Jew, Non-christian) has no scientific foundation.

Elsewhere he states, "To say that the Scriptures were not intended to teach science truthfully is, in substance, to declare that God Himself has stated, and commissioned His prophets to teach things which are utterly false!”

 He cites all over Chapter 15 where the scriptures, God, talks of how there is no rotundity to the earth. And, according to him, if you deny the scriptures, you deny God. God is not wrong. Therefore, all who deny the scriptures is denying god and is therefore wrong. It's pretty simple really.

2832

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 26, 2018, 08:29:49 PM »

Nothing here, either. You seem to be posting random commentary.

"...In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation."

Right. You have no foundation to deny what the ancients thought about the world. You are carelessly discarding the study of millions of people and numerous civilizations without cause.

This point says nothing about "all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong".

Hmm, if I'm an atheist, my science has no foundation and if I'm not an atheist but deny Scriptural teachings and authority my science has no foundation. Who is left to have a scientific foundation according to Rowbotham? Only those who do not deny the Scriptural teaching and authority.  Seems pretty clear to me.

2833

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 26, 2018, 08:14:02 PM »

Nothing here, either. You seem to be posting random commentary.

"...In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation."

2834

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 26, 2018, 08:04:37 PM »

Where does Rowbotham say that Flat Earth proves Christ?

He does not say that at all, and unlike Newton, never brings in God to explain anything.

He obviously doesn't say that Flat Earth proves Christ, that would be stupid. He says that his Flat Earth theory is made for Christians to reconcile their beliefs in the Scriptures with modern science. Including the belief in Christ and his Redemption. Many quotes have been cited in this thread already, that are taken directly from "Earth not a globe", stating that all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong. And Flat Earth is supposed to make things right. It's absolutely contingent with the theory.

He does not say any of that.

Where does Earth Not a Globe say that all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong? 

For starters, here:

"Worse than all, it is a prolific source of irreligion and of atheism, of which its advocates are practically supporters. By defending a system which is directly opposed to that which is taught in connection with the Jewish and Christian religion they lead the more critical and daring intellects to question and deride the cosmogony and general philosophy contained in the sacred books.”

"To say that the Scriptures were not intended to teach science truthfully is, in substance, to declare that God Himself has stated, and commissioned His prophets to teach things which are utterly false!”

"That of its diurnal and annual motion, and of its being one of an infinite number of revolving spheres, is equally false; and, therefore, the Scriptures, which negative these notions, and teach expressly the reverse, must in their astronomical philosophy at least be literally true. In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation."

2835

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 26, 2018, 07:53:40 PM »

"Before Christ," "After Christ"... have you never used the terms B.C. and A.D before?

Those are literally the only mentions of "Christ" at all, and it is in a context of talking about religious philosophy. Hardly a message of "this proves Christ!" as you depict in your OP.

Rowbotham does not say that at all. Your depiction of that is either a mistake or a lie, and I am leaning towards the later.

You first wrote:

"Christ" isn't mentioned at all. You are either mistaken, or a liar with other motives.

When the word is mentioned. And you proceeded to imply he is a liar in saying "Christ" is mentioned. And are now further implying it. That's not a very christian thing to do.

And the weak rebuttal was to do a search and find Rowbotham's comments about

- statement about Scripture that was from a period of about "4000 years before the birth of Christ" -- factual statement
- a mention of " the death of Christ, the Day of Judgment, and the final consummation of all things, are, in the Scriptures," -- a factual statement
- a third statement more along the lines of "the bible says that that the earth is 'the' world... did these religious events such as the death of Christ happen on all of the worlds astronomy imagines?" -- more of an allegory

That some words were found, without interpretation of the meaning, still makes it either a mistake or a lie. None of it is about using Flat Earth to prove Christ. None of it at all. Rowbotham does not devote any effort to talk about Christ at all. You are blindly referencing something to 'win' your case without context.

Hey, I'm just saying you implied he was liar for stating that the word "'Christ' isn't mentioned at all" (Your words) in ENAG. You were wrong, it is. Therefore he is not a liar.

I'm not sure this, "...using Flat Earth to prove Christ...." is the argument here at all. The argument is that the founders of modern FET state that believing in the rotundity of earth is going against the scriptures, therefore, going against the word of God.

I mean this basically says it all here - He closes, ends, ENAG with this:

"To truthfully instruct the ingenuous Christian mind, to protect it from the meshes of false philosophy, and the snares of specious but hollow illogical reasoning; to save it from falling into the frigid arms of atheistic science; to convince it that all unscriptural teaching is false and deadly, and to induce great numbers of earnest deep-thinking human beings to desert the rebellious cause of atheism; to return to a full recognition of the beauty and truthfulness of the Scriptures, and to a participation in the joy and satisfaction which the Christian religion alone can supply, is a grand and cheering result, and one which furnishes the noblest possible answer to the ever ready Cui bono."

2836

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 26, 2018, 07:24:59 PM »

"Before Christ," "After Christ"... have you never used the terms B.C. and A.D before?

Those are literally the only mentions of "Christ" at all, and it is in a context of talking about religious philosophy. Hardly a message of "this proves Christ!" as you depict in your OP.

Rowbotham does not say that at all. Your depiction of that is either a mistake or a lie, and I am leaning towards the later.

You first wrote:

"Christ" isn't mentioned at all. You are either mistaken, or a liar with other motives.

When the word is mentioned. And you proceeded to imply he is a liar in saying "Christ" is mentioned. And are now further implying it. That's not a very christian thing to do.

It's not necessarily the word "Christ", the word "scripture" is far more revealing in his writing. From Chapter 15:

"Whence comes this bold and arrogant denial of the value of our senses and judgment and authority of Scripture?"

"To say that the Scriptures were not intended to teach science truthfully is, in substance, to declare that God Himself has stated, and commissioned His prophets to teach things which are utterly false!”

"The following language is quoted as an instance of the manner in which the doctrine of the earth's rotundity and the plurality of worlds interferes with Scriptural teachings…”

I could go on, there are many more.

2837

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 26, 2018, 06:34:14 PM »

Some folks' flat theories are rooted in Christianity (not sure where you got 'Christianism' from). Some are not, and are based upon understanding of a book or interpretation of a few experiments.
Sorry if i didn't cover the spectrum

Regardless, being linked to people that are christians would not make a theory that is necessarily christian. Natural selection and the origin of the species both have roots in christianity (monks and Darwin) but can conflict with most religious dogma.
A lot of historical scientists were very much religious (it was cool back then), a religious link doesn't make a theory religious.

What would make a theory religious to me would be basing it on scripture and attacking anything that is contrary to it's ultimate truth.
Flat theory has this forum, so would fail my imaginary test on at least the second count.

I think the point is that it's clear that Rowbotham, as evidenced by Chapter 15 in ENAG, purports that his theory is in support of and based on scriptural doctrine. Lady Blount and Voliva as well. Steadfastly so.

Whether the christian foundation upon which these founders of modern day flat earth theory still runs through FET today is debatable. The point of fact is that these founders were firmly rooting their theory in support of religious dogma.

Rowbotham mentions both Christian and Jewish religions as supporting Flat Earth, and has several quotes such as "In the religious and mythological poems of all ages and nations the fact of the sun's motion is recognized and declared."

Are these words of a Christian biblical literalist?

No. It shows that your conclusions of bias to be based on ignorance, and your research to be sub-par.

In ENAG, Rowbotham lays out his flat earth theory, findings, experiments, conjecture and otherwise. However, he cleverly leaves the best for last. Chapter 15.

Chapter 15 traces back to 'scripture' as everything he purports in the first 14 chapters with dozens and dozens of scriptural references that either back his claims or he backs into them.

According to Rowbotham, "That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen.” According to his bible interpretation, the scriptures are the hypothesis, the initial theory, that the world is flat. As he continually cites biblical quotes, dozens of them, to prove such.

Lady Blount and her cronies do no better with their society in this regard. From The Universal Zetetic Society founded in 1892:

OUR MOTTO
For God and His truth, as found in Nature and taught in His Word.

OUR OBJECT

The propagation of knowledge relating to Natural Cosmogony in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures, based upon practical investigation.

RULES

1.  Everything extraneous to “Our Object” to be avoided.

2.  The so-called “sciences,” and especially Modern Astronomy, to be dealt with from practical data in connection with the Divine system of Cosmogony revealed by the Creator.

2838

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 26, 2018, 06:25:23 PM »

Some folks' flat theories are rooted in Christianity (not sure where you got 'Christianism' from). Some are not, and are based upon understanding of a book or interpretation of a few experiments.
Sorry if i didn't cover the spectrum

Regardless, being linked to people that are christians would not make a theory that is necessarily christian. Natural selection and the origin of the species both have roots in christianity (monks and Darwin) but can conflict with most religious dogma.
A lot of historical scientists were very much religious (it was cool back then), a religious link doesn't make a theory religious.

What would make a theory religious to me would be basing it on scripture and attacking anything that is contrary to it's ultimate truth.
Flat theory has this forum, so would fail my imaginary test on at least the second count.

I think the point is that it's clear that Rowbotham, as evidenced by Chapter 15 in ENAG, purports that his theory is in support of and based on scriptural doctrine. Lady Blount and Voliva as well. Steadfastly so.

Whether the christian foundation upon which these founders of modern day flat earth theory still runs through FET today is debatable. The point of fact is that these founders were firmly rooting their theory in support of religious dogma.

2839

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moons - How?

« on: October 26, 2018, 06:05:12 PM »

You guys just mumble "refraction" and "patterns" and "gravitational perturbations" or whatever.

For one, I think Rowbotham was 'mumbling' about refraction in Earth Not a Globe long before we were.

Quote from: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm

  If any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.

Yet the question remains, what in FET explain moons predictably, 'patternistically' orbiting planets? So far, from an FET perspective, I would say the explanation is unknown.

2840

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Heliocentric Speed Change Problem

« on: October 26, 2018, 12:44:40 AM »

In the next lesson it states:

"And in accord with Newton's second law of motion, an object which experiences an acceleration must also be experiencing a net force. The direction of the net force is in the same direction as the acceleration. So for an object moving in a circle, there must be an inward force acting upon it in order to cause its inward acceleration."

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/circles/u6l1c.cfm

And the very next three sentences.. "This is sometimes referred to as the centripetal force requirement. The word centripetal (not to be confused with the F-word centrifugal) means center seeking. For object's moving in circular motion, there is a net force acting towards the center which causes the object to seek the center."

Emphasis not mine. "Seeking" the center != additional straight downwards acceleration caused by circular motion. Velocities A and B in the illustration above are deflected towards the center by the circular motion.

Admittedly, I am lost. What is your contention here? Is it the word "pull" versus "seek"?