For example, if you flew over Antarctica, would that help? Or if you went to space? Maybe seeing a ship disappear behind the horizon, bottom portion first?

Very curious to hear your response.

And I bet you're wondering what would in turn convince me that it's flat - glad you asked!

Here's what would do it for me... pretty much any one of these:

1) seeing the sun & moon shrink in size as they move away, as your wonderful youtube videos promise
2) seeing pictures of "the real" Antarctica, the wall, the edge, the turtle - whatever it is you think is there?
3) seeing a logical explanation of your take on this amazing force called "gravity", which I guess you ignore, or don't believe in, or just use other words like "density" or "acceleration" in its place (w/o really explaining anything)
4) proper FE map with distances -- if your fantasy is indeed real, then why are you taking so long to go outside and map it all out? maybe you'll be the first one to reconcile all the flight time issues that have been pointed out oh so many times!
5) hearing an actual scientist (with like an actual degree in Physics or something, someone who's published real papers, done real research, maybe taught in a university)   come out in favor of FE and explain how it all really works

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • 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
1) seeing the sun & moon shrink in size as they move away, as your wonderful youtube videos promise
It's actually worse than that.  Tom's beloved "alternative perspective" concept would result in them being oval-shaped as well as smaller.
2) seeing pictures of "the real" Antarctica, the wall, the edge, the turtle - whatever it is you think is there?
The photo of the "ice wall" on the Wiki isn't even dry land - it's actually a photo of a large iceberg.
3) seeing a logical explanation of your take on this amazing force called "gravity", which I guess you ignore, or don't believe in, or just use other words like "density" or "acceleration" in its place (w/o really explaining anything)
None of the provided FE explanations cover the reason why gravity is less at the equator and more at the poles.  This rules out universal acceleration - so to fix that, they have to add gravity back in again and hand-wave about multiple effects going on here.
4) proper FE map with distances -- if your fantasy is indeed real, then why are you taking so long to go outside and map it all out? maybe you'll be the first one to reconcile all the flight time issues that have been pointed out oh so many times!
The problem they have is actually worse than that.  It takes a bit of math/geometry skills to understand the problem - but if you accept airline flight distances (or their flight times and airplane cruise speeds) - then there is no possible FE map that can work because the six distances between four cities that lie on the corners of a large quadrilateral can be shown to not be possible in a two-dimensional map.  Their ONLY recourse is to deny those flight distances/times/speeds are correct.
5) hearing an actual scientist (with like an actual degree in Physics or something, someone who's published real papers, done real research, maybe taught in a university)   come out in favor of FE and explain how it all really works
That would be amusing!
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
1) seeing the sun & moon shrink in size as they move away, as your wonderful youtube videos promise
Just a heads-up: this is inconsistent with FET - it should do the opposite of convincing you if it were shown. YouTube videos are generally a bad source for this stuff, unless you really want to get trolled.

For example, if you flew over Antarctica, would that help?
Potentially.

Or if you went to space?
No.

Maybe seeing a ship disappear behind the horizon, bottom portion first?
That's one of the strongest proofs of FET there are - seeing it (as I have many times before) would only strengthen my conviction.

Overall, I would really recommend that you familiarise yourself with FET before trying to argue about it. And not from the likes of 3DGeek, if I may make a gentle suggestion.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume


For example, if you flew over Antarctica, would that help?
Potentially.


Great, that's what I was looking for! Dear RE readers, perhaps we should put together a kickstarter campaign and raise some money to send these poor souls on a trip like this: http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/ I am guessing that many flerfers cannot afford this, or would avoid going at all costs just to make sure their precious belief system is not shattered, but maybe we can find a few who still have their doubts.

Maybe seeing a ship disappear behind the horizon, bottom portion first?
That's one of the strongest proofs of FET there are - seeing it (as I have many times before) would only strengthen my conviction.

Overall, I would really recommend that you familiarise yourself with FET before trying to argue about it. And not from the likes of 3DGeek, if I may make a gentle suggestion.
Huh? How so? I've always seen it is a pretty ambivalent 'proof' for either side. Both claim it supports them, in reality both have put forth a solid enough reason it happens in their version I don't personally see it as a good proof in either direction.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1367
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile

Overall, I would really recommend that you familiarise yourself with FET before trying to argue about it. And not from the likes of 3DGeek, if I may make a gentle suggestion.

That's funny.   3d's threads (with the exception of the Ping) are full of bulletproof logic.    You seem to be a relatively smart guy.  You should do a point by point rebuttal to this one.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6902.0

Hopefully, you can do better than Tom's "Your disproofs are rubbish." response.



Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

Offline zp0okii

  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
1) seeing the sun & moon shrink in size as they move away, as your wonderful youtube videos promise
Just a heads-up: this is inconsistent with FET - it should do the opposite of convincing you if it were shown. YouTube videos are generally a bad source for this stuff, unless you really want to get trolled.

For example, if you flew over Antarctica, would that help?
Potentially.

Or if you went to space?
No.

Maybe seeing a ship disappear behind the horizon, bottom portion first?
That's one of the strongest proofs of FET there are - seeing it (as I have many times before) would only strengthen my conviction.

Overall, I would really recommend that you familiarise yourself with FET before trying to argue about it. And not from the likes of 3DGeek, if I may make a gentle suggestion.

Ships going bottom-first over the horizon is NOT a FET proof - the """law of perspectives""" is easily debunked using telescopes or binoculars. This has been brought up in this forum many times before - you either didn't see the disproofs or are willfully ignoring them. I will post a link to the thread in which it is discussed: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=14325.0

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Please refrain from quoting an entire post if you're only going to respond to one sentence of it. It only serves to reduce the readability of your own post.

the """law of perspectives""" is easily debunked using telescopes or binoculars
Indeed, it is trivially easy to confirm or debunk with a powerful telescope. That's why it's such a strong and easy-to-reproduce proof. I would recommend that you try it one day.

That's funny.   3d's threads (with the exception of the Ping) are full of bulletproof logic.    You seem to be a relatively smart guy.  You should do a point by point rebuttal to this one.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6902.0

Hopefully, you can do better than Tom's "Your disproofs are rubbish." response.
Wow, you guys have been busy. I respond to threads when I see them and when I find them interesting. Most of my work takes place outside of the forum. Plus, as you may have noticed, my recent efforts at talking to 3DG have resulted in nothing but him crying about how much of a professional he is.

That, combined with his complete omission of my responses to the ping thread, his complete misrepresentation of my responses to the tides thread, and whole spate of "nobody responded, THEREFORE I WIN :D" threads really doesn't make me think that this is a productive use of anyone's time.

Clearly, his purpose here is to claim victory regardless of what's actually happening. Wouldn't you agree it's better for me to talk to people who actually want to re-evaluate their views, or who might inspire me to re-evaluate mine?

EDIT: Having looked through the thread, I agree with Tom's response. A fair few of these have already been discussed to death, and in other threads he simply chose to ignore any and all counter-arguments or strawman them into making himself look like the victor. I am now even more confident than before that 3DG deserves nothing but a healthy dose of ridicule.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2017, 05:47:51 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline zp0okii

  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Please refrain from quoting an entire post if you're only going to respond to one sentence of it. It only serves to reduce the readability of your own post.

the """law of perspectives""" is easily debunked using telescopes or binoculars
Indeed, it is trivially easy to confirm or debunk with a powerful telescope. That's why it's such a strong and easy-to-reproduce proof. I would recommend that you try it one day.

That's funny.   3d's threads (with the exception of the Ping) are full of bulletproof logic.    You seem to be a relatively smart guy.  You should do a point by point rebuttal to this one.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6902.0

Hopefully, you can do better than Tom's "Your disproofs are rubbish." response.
Wow, you guys have been busy. I respond to threads when I see them and when I find them interesting. Most of my work takes place outside of the forum. Plus, as you may have noticed, my recent efforts at talking to 3DG have resulted in nothing but him crying about how much of a professional he is.

That, combined with his complete omission of my responses to the ping thread, his complete misrepresentation of my responses to the tides thread, and whole spate of "nobody responded, THEREFORE I WIN :D" threads really doesn't make me think that this is a productive use of anyone's time.

Clearly, his purpose here is to claim victory regardless of what's actually happening. Wouldn't you agree it's better for me to talk to people who actually want to re-evaluate their views, or who might inspire me to re-evaluate mine?

EDIT: Having looked through the thread, I agree with Tom's response. A fair few of these have already been discussed to death, and in other threads he simply chose to ignore any and all counter-arguments or strawman them into making himself look like the victor. I am now even more confident than before that 3DG deserves nothing but a healthy dose of ridicule.

Tried it Boston harbor weeks ago - obviously debunked the "law of perspectives." It's absolute nonsense.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Once again: please refrain from quoting an entire post if you're only going to respond to one sentence of it.

Tried it Boston harbor weeks ago - obviously debunked the "law of perspectives." It's absolute nonsense.
Curious. It would be interesting to see how you managed to botch it. Perhaps you should start a new thread to describe your misadventure? Meanwhile, it's easily accessible to everyone, and will continue to help drive our momentum :)
« Last Edit: September 19, 2017, 05:55:27 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1367
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Once again: please refrain from quoting an entire post if you're only going to respond to one sentence of it.


Are you a mod? 
Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
[...]his complete misrepresentation of my responses to the tides thread,[...]
responses? I don't want to derail the thread, but your comment there was rather short of the whole story, unless we are talking different threads, in which case disregard the following and point me please to the right one... I suspect that you take a certain pleasure in "leaving it there as an exercise for the reader" ;D but you can't fault people for misunderstanding you, then. Saying that it works in the same way in two systems that are supposed to be extremely different, without further qualifications, is not really an answer... 3d might be at fault for not asking follow up questions, but you aren't making anyone's life easier with that style of debate.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Are you a mod?
No, why?

Care to comment on this? http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/ It seemed to be conveniently ignored unless I missed something.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Care to comment on this? http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/ It seemed to be conveniently ignored unless I missed something.
Of course you missed something. The very post the link was provided in response to.

For example, if you flew over Antarctica, would that help?
Potentially.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Care to comment on this? http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/ It seemed to be conveniently ignored unless I missed something.
Of course you missed something. The very post the link was provided in response to.

For example, if you flew over Antarctica, would that help?
Potentially.

I missed nothing. You said a flight over Antarctica would potentially change your mind. A link was then posted showing a company already doing this. I asked for comment because this seems like it could potentially impact your views on a flat Earth.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50


Overall, I would really recommend that you familiarise yourself with FET before trying to argue about it. And not from the likes of 3DGeek, if I may make a gentle suggestion.

That's funny.   3d's threads (with the exception of the Ping) are full of bulletproof logic.

It was disheartening, for me, to see the ping thread being claimed as "proof".  I enjoyed all of his other posts but could only understand in-depth parts of them, and not nearly enough to know with certainty whether or not they were completely accurate.  They are well typed out, full of detail, generally argued well, etc... I really enjoyed reading them.  But the one subject I did know enough about, it was wrong.

I would like to think the other arguments are bulletproof, but I just don't know anymore.  It's too bad, I really did enjoy all the other posts.  It's kind like an athlete you are a fan of testing positive for steroids, it makes you look differently at their other accomplishments.



*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
StinkyOne, please either use quotes appropriately, or not at all.

I missed nothing.
Oh no, you're doing that thing again.

You said a flight over Antarctica would potentially change your mind. A link was then posted showing a company already doing this. I asked for comment because this seems like it could potentially impact your views on a flat Earth.
So you're somehow drawing an equivalency between me personally flying over the Ice Wall and there being a website that claims to let people already do that for extortionate amounts of money. If you expect me to change my views every time someone points out that a website exists, well, that's par for the course for you.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2017, 07:25:06 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

devils advocate


So you're somehow drawing an equivalency between me personally flying over the Ice Wall and there being a website that claims to let people already do that for extortionate amounts of money. If you expect me to change my views every time someone points out that a website exists, well, that's par for the course for you.
[/quote]

To be fair even if a Go Fund Me page was set up and paid for you to take the flight how would you even know then?

I'm sure talk of video's playing in the windows, distrust of all compass and navigation bearings would be used to argue that the path stated was not the actual path flown. Even if you were satisfied that you had flown over the RE Antarctic it would mean nothing as you don't believe that map to be accurate anyway? As FE doesn't have a map it would be a case of saying: I flew over something, we don't know the pattern of the continents thus there would be no reason for you to change your opinion.

When taken further I think that there is absolutely nothing that could change your mind which is the genius of this site and the FE debate.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
To be fair even if a Go Fund Me page was set up and paid for you to take the flight how would you even know then?
Well, I said it could potentially convince me, not that it immediately will. The main reason why it might not convince me is that the Earth is flat.

That said, I am unwilling to set up a GoFundMe. TFES prides itself in the fact that we don't go asking people for money. It makes it easier to defend ourselves from accusations of being a money-making scheme (and we get those a lot)

I'm sure talk of video's playing in the windows, distrust of all compass and navigation bearings would be used to argue that the path stated was not the actual path flown. Even if you were satisfied that you had flown over the RE Antarctic it would mean nothing as you don't believe that map to be accurate anyway? As FE doesn't have a map it would be a case of saying: I flew over something, we don't know the pattern of the continents thus there would be no reason for you to change your opinion.
Hypothetically, any of that could happen, but I doubt it would. I don't believe we'd see a video - that would be trivial to tell apart. I'm also more than happy to trust a simple navigational device, as long as I get to put one together myself. It wouldn't take much - hook up an accelerometer, magnetometer and gyroscope to a Raspberry Pi or Arduino, do a tiny bit of data processing, and you're golden. Maybe throw in GPS for good measure. I already own most of the components and the programming aspect would be trivial.

When taken further I think that there is absolutely nothing that could change your mind which is the genius of this site and the FE debate.
I disagree, but I will admit that it would take an extraordinary piece of evidence to convince someone like myself. This is because I've performed numerous experiments to confirm FET for my own benefit, and continue to do so in my spare time. 
« Last Edit: September 21, 2017, 08:22:23 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume