The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Merkava on July 24, 2017, 04:59:03 PM
-
Do Flat Earth believers agree the Sun comes into view basically directly east and sets basically directly west (plus or minus for time of year)?
-
No, the sun does not rise directly east and set directly west. The direction the sun rises from ranges through the year from the North-East to the South-East, and the direction it sets ranges from North-West to South-West.
-
Interesting you would say "rise" and "set" and I was attempting to cover "ranges through the year" with Plus or minus for time of year. But I think that was basically us agreeing?
At any rate, we can just pick an equinox so it's as close to directly East as it can be.
So if your standing on the equator in Quito, Ecuador, on 9/21/2017 at 6:04AM(GMT-5) Sunrise.
Closest city I could find to having the sun at it's zenith, on the equator (64 km = 40 miles away) is Makokou, Ogooue-Ivindo, Gabon (0°34′25″ N, 12°51′51″ E) where it would be 12:04PM
Any issue with any of these facts?
-
Interesting you would say "rise" and "set" and I was attempting to cover "ranges through the year" with Plus or minus for time of year. But I think that was basically us agreeing?
At any rate, we can just pick an equinox so it's as close to directly East as it can be.
So if your standing on the equator in Quito, Ecuador, on 9/21/2017 at 6:04AM(GMT-5) Sunrise.
Closest city I could find to having the sun at it's zenith, on the equator (64 km = 40 miles away) is Makokou, Ogooue-Ivindo, Gabon (0°34′25″ N, 12°51′51″ E) where it would be 12:04PM
Any issue with any of these fagcts?
Yes, I have an issue with using a calculator for theoretical observations rather than actual observations.
-
Do you think the sun isn't going to be in these positions in September? We can move to 9/21/2016? Picking a time in the near future would allow the possibility of verifying the predictions would it not? Would you like to pick the locations/dates/times?
-
If you wish to verify your predictions, fell free. Travel to Makokou on the day of your test and you can verify your prediction for us.
We will be responsible for verifying our own predictions, and you will be responsible for verifying yours. Does that sound fair?
-
It sounds unnecessarily dodgy to me? If you think those predictions are false, just say so? If you except them, then we can move on. I guess I was assuming what time it is around the world was excepted along with our ability to know those times going forward at least a few months.
How about this:
On either equinox, at the equator, when the sun rises, it will be almost directly east of the observer.
Can you get on board with that? Anyone?
-
It sounds unnecessarily dodgy to me? If you think those predictions are false, just say so? If you except them, then we can move on. I guess I was assuming what time it is around the world was excepted along with our ability to know those times going forward at least a few months.
How about this:
On either equinox, at the equator, when the sun rises, it will be almost directly east of the observer.
Can you get on board with that? Anyone?
I don't know where the sun will be on the equinox at the equator. We need an actual observation, not a theoretical calculation. There is a complete lack of any effort on your part to provide real actual data. A theoretical calculation starts off as being false. Only once it is affirmed is it true.
-
It sounds unnecessarily dodgy to me? If you think those predictions are false, just say so? If you except them, then we can move on. I guess I was assuming what time it is around the world was excepted along with our ability to know those times going forward at least a few months.
How about this:
On either equinox, at the equator, when the sun rises, it will be almost directly east of the observer.
Can you get on board with that? Anyone?
I don't know where the sun will be on the equinox at the equator. We need an actual observation, not a theoretical calculation. There is a complete lack of any effort on your part to provide real actual data. A theoretical calculation starts off as being false. Only once it is affirmed is it true.
What evidence would you accept as "real"?
Can I phone someone who lives near there and ask them whether the sun is setting or not? Maybe the British Embassy or the US Embassy - a hotel or someone?
Would you accept that?
What if I go there in person? Would you take my word for it - or would you still say that since YOU hadn't seen it, then you won't accept it.
If you LITERALLY won't accept anything that you PERSONALLY haven't accepted then why the heck should we believe one single thing you say? Firstly because you'd be terminally ill-informed - and secondly because (logically) we should accept the same standards of evidence that you do.
Truthfully, you cannot carry out debates with ANYONE here unless there is some form of practical evidence that you'll accept.
So, I ask again - what are your standards for evidence?
-
This website is probably the most fun anybody could have on the internet.
Logic is used by both sides of the coin here, but ultimately, the argument you guys are having has nothing to do with logic.
All round earthers, arguing the case on this website, are attracted by the irrational desire to alleviate another's ignorance or the desire to prove their point and expose others as frauds.
The vast majority of flat earthers that have made an account on this website will NEVER accept any evidence contrary to their assertion. If there was a space elevator, leading to an orbital ring, and you were to hold a flat earther's hand all the way up and around the two structures, their imagination would simply conceive a version of events that would allow them to witness the events where trickery was afoot.
The rest of the flat earthers are too far gone, and are actually insane.
Let's not kid ourselves here, we're all trolls. Some of you are trolling flat earthers and some of you are trolling round earthers. I, for one, am planning on trolling both sides.
Back to NOAA and NASA!
-
It sounds unnecessarily dodgy to me? If you think those predictions are false, just say so? If you except them, then we can move on. I guess I was assuming what time it is around the world was excepted along with our ability to know those times going forward at least a few months.
How about this:
On either equinox, at the equator, when the sun rises, it will be almost directly east of the observer.
Can you get on board with that? Anyone?
I don't know where the sun will be on the equinox at the equator. We need an actual observation, not a theoretical calculation. There is a complete lack of any effort on your part to provide real actual data. A theoretical calculation starts off as being false. Only once it is affirmed is it true.
Lack of effort? I found a city, on the equator, that was in a location so that when the sun was rising there, I could find another city where it would be high noon. I found out what time that would happen on a date that will put the sun east. You dismiss that with one sentence. Cause you don't like calculators. Ok, I offer to let you pick any location, time and date. But you can't be bothered with that. So you don't like my time/date/location, won't pick your own. Can't agree the freaking sun rises in the east, seriously wtf? Why are you even in the debate section? Are you supposed to be the grand poo-bah here? I just wanted to see if any of the flat earth people could walk point by point through a debate, I guess at least the guy at the top can't or won't.
-
This website is probably the most fun anybody could have on the internet.
Logic is used by both sides of the coin here, but ultimately, the argument you guys are having has nothing to do with logic.
All round earthers, arguing the case on this website, are attracted by the irrational desire to alleviate another's ignorance or the desire to prove their point and expose others as frauds.
The vast majority of flat earthers that have made an account on this website will NEVER accept any evidence contrary to their assertion. If there was a space elevator, leading to an orbital ring, and you were to hold a flat earther's hand all the way up and around the two structures, their imagination would simply conceive a version of events that would allow them to witness the events where trickery was afoot.
The rest of the flat earthers are too far gone, and are actually insane.
Let's not kid ourselves here, we're all trolls. Some of you are trolling flat earthers and some of you are trolling round earthers. I, for one, am planning on trolling both sides.
Back to NOAA and NASA!
"All round earthers, arguing the case on this website, are attracted by the irrational desire to alleviate another's ignorance" Maybe that's me. I like debating as well. This issue is like the greatest topic ever, but only in the sense it should be (IS, IT IS EASY) to get to the bottom of. I was trying to find out if people are actually serious, or just haven't been told in a way they could follow, or are ill or what. The immediate elusiveness to just answering a simple question and not agreeing to anything no matter what tells me a lot though. It sure looks like deceit to me. I don't answer questions like that on topis I believe in, or any other for that matter. Now to be fair, it was only one guy, but I assume from his title he's a high muckety muck?
If people can't be talked down from this ledge, why bother trying to convince anyone of anything? I guess it doesn't matter, hopefully they teach their kids this stuff, my kids will be at the top of the CURVE. ;D That was a beauty.
-
It sounds unnecessarily dodgy to me? If you think those predictions are false, just say so? If you except them, then we can move on. I guess I was assuming what time it is around the world was excepted along with our ability to know those times going forward at least a few months.
How about this:
On either equinox, at the equator, when the sun rises, it will be almost directly east of the observer.
Can you get on board with that? Anyone?
I don't know where the sun will be on the equinox at the equator. We need an actual observation, not a theoretical calculation. There is a complete lack of any effort on your part to provide real actual data. A theoretical calculation starts off as being false. Only once it is affirmed is it true.
What evidence would you accept as "real"?
Can I phone someone who lives near there and ask them whether the sun is setting or not? Maybe the British Embassy or the US Embassy - a hotel or someone?
Would you accept that?
What if I go there in person? Would you take my word for it - or would you still say that since YOU hadn't seen it, then you won't accept it.
If you LITERALLY won't accept anything that you PERSONALLY haven't accepted then why the heck should we believe one single thing you say? Firstly because you'd be terminally ill-informed - and secondly because (logically) we should accept the same standards of evidence that you do.
Truthfully, you cannot carry out debates with ANYONE here unless there is some form of practical evidence that you'll accept.
So, I ask again - what are your standards for evidence?
He has been doing this for at least ten years. I've had that exact debate with him more than once - and never a single answer. He will never commit to honestly answering a straight-up question, and he will certainly never the answer of what specific proof would change his mind. He is intellectually lazy, and most of all, a contemptible intellectual coward. I don't mean that as a personal attack, he seems like a nice fellow - I mean that from an intellectual perspective, based on the merits of his "arguments" (and dodges thereof). He is terrified of saying something that could be nailed down and/or disproven. The most he commits to, is "read the random, disconnected, unfounded, unverifiable, confident-sounding, flowery, rambling assertions made in a two-century old text from a conceited, devastatingly ignorant but charming narcissist". I'm baffled that Tom is still even around, but certainly not surprised that he has never been considered a "leader" in any respect in the corners of the flat earth. The most he appears to have contributed, is to the debate over who should be the Messiah for TFES. (I wish I were kidding.) He's too afraid to commit to anything, preferring instead to safely snipe at others over pedantics.
Wait a minute...what if Tom Bishop isn't a man, but an idea? Like Batman? Different people pick up the mantle, and always use the same 10 to 20 year-old profile pic? That must be what's going on. And if you disagree, it's because you have been brainwashed since childhood as part of a massive global conspiracy.
-
The standard for strong evidence is peer review. If there are multiple sources which tell us that the sun is doing something specific at the equator then that is strong evidence that this is the case. However, if you guys even posted a catalog of observations a single Spanish explorer made, that would be helpful to your cause. That is evidence, even if uncorroborated. Right now we have zero evidence. None. Instead of seeking to provide such evidence we hear ranting that you shouldn't bother because anything you post will not be believed, and still insisting that a calculation based on your model should blindly be believed without any affirming evidence.
If you simply post the evidence it will speak for itself no matter how much anyone would try to deny it.
-
The standard for strong evidence is peer review. If there are multiple sources which tell us that the sun is doing something specific at the equator then that is strong evidence that this is the case. However, if you guys even posted a catalog of observations a single Spanish explorer made, that would be helpful to your cause.
What in gods name are you talking about? "Sun doing something specific at the equator"? "catalog of observations a single Spanish explorer made"? :P
"Peer review"? Since when has anything FE been peer reviewed? Please, do show me the peer-reviewed FE science. (And when you say Rowbotham, do explain how his flowery, random unfounded assertions-filled rantings about steam holding up the oceans and whatnot, were ever "peer-reviewed".) I thought you guys were anti-peer-review? What with your "sacred text", and massive global scientific conspiracy theory.
-
The standard for strong evidence is peer review. If there are multiple sources which tell us that the sun is doing something specific at the equator then that is strong evidence that this is the case. However, if you guys even posted a catalog of observations a single Spanish explorer made, that would be helpful to your cause.
What in gods name are you talking about? "Sun doing something specific at the equator"? "catalog of observations a single Spanish explorer made"? :P
"Peer review"? Since when has anything FE been peer reviewed? Please, do show me the peer-reviewed FE science. (And when you say Rowbotham, do explain how his flowery, random unfounded assertions-filled rantings about steam holding up the oceans and whatnot, were ever "peer-reviewed".) I thought you guys were anti-peer-review? What with your "sacred text", and massive global scientific conspiracy theory.
So it seems that Mr Bishop will accept the dusty old writings of some explorer in the 16th century - but will not accept any modern information. This is a very strange position to assume.
We live in an age where instant communications are available all around the world...heck you can even what online cameras in different places.
So rather than looking for some old books in a museum someplace - why not instead go somewhere online like:
https://www.earthcam.com/
...it shows the outputs from places all over the world:
https://www.earthcam.com/mapsearch/
So - if I want to know whether the sun has risen in (say) Australia - there are about 45 live-feed cameras to choose from - and I'm fairly sure we could figure out the sunrise time by simply watching a few of those cameras at the appropriate time.
We can do this for about 100 different cities around the world - and thereby know (to within reasonable precision) when the sun rose in those cities.
Mr Bishop will now (presumably) find some exceedingly weak reasoning about why this won't work...perhaps he'll blame the transfer time over the Internet - ah - but I have a tool called "ping" which will measure that time quite accurately. Perhaps he'll accuse the webcam operators of introducing delays of tens of minutes to throw off our results - but this requires another HUGE jump in the number of conspirators involved.
We could even eliminate that issue by asking for volunteers in different countries to sign into a group chat on Skype or Google+ so we could interact with them and thereby verify that there are no significant delays (at least not beyond a second or two) in their observations. We could verify that their video feeds are not being faked by asking them to do things like point the camera at today's newspaper or something.
In the modern world, this data is RIDICULOUSLY easy to collect.
But Mr Bishop wants 400 year old writings in Spanish - because he knows that this information is effectively unobtainable.
So...how about it Mr Bishop? Are you up for me to find people living in several different countries and have them show you when the sun rises? Will you accept the evidence of this?
No? Somehow I didn't think so.
This is intellectual dishonesty at its worst. Dismiss any evidence that doesn't suit you. Bah!
-
"Peer review"? Since when has anything FE been peer reviewed? Please, do show me the peer-reviewed FE science. (And when you say Rowbotham, do explain how his flowery, random unfounded assertions-filled rantings about steam holding up the oceans and whatnot, were ever "peer-reviewed".) I thought you guys were anti-peer-review? What with your "sacred text", and massive global scientific conspiracy theory.
Perhaps you missed the journal Earth Not a Globe Review which ran for over 75 issues of 200 to 400 pages each.
So it seems that Mr Bishop will accept the dusty old writings of some explorer in the 16th century - but will not accept any modern information. This is a very strange position to assume.
I see by the lengthy attempt at avoidance that you still have no evidence to present, only assertions that if you were to post such evidence that it will not be believed. If all of this evidence in favor of the Round Earth Theory is so plentiful and readily available, as we are constantly told, why not simply post it here rather than arguing that it is a waste of your time and that we should go out searching for it?
-
"Peer review"? Since when has anything FE been peer reviewed? Please, do show me the peer-reviewed FE science. (And when you say Rowbotham, do explain how his flowery, random unfounded assertions-filled rantings about steam holding up the oceans and whatnot, were ever "peer-reviewed".) I thought you guys were anti-peer-review? What with your "sacred text", and massive global scientific conspiracy theory.
Perhaps you missed the journal Earth Not a Globe Review which ran for over 75 issues of 200 to 400 pages each.
So it seems that Mr Bishop will accept the dusty old writings of some explorer in the 16th century - but will not accept any modern information. This is a very strange position to assume.
I see by the lengthy attempt at avoidance that you still have no evidence to present, only assertions that if you were to post such evidence that it will not be believed. If all of this evidence in favor of the Round Earth Theory is so plentiful and readily available, as we are constantly told, why not simply post it here rather than arguing that it is a waste of your time and that we should go out searching for it?
I've been posting such evidence here - but generally you will not accept it.
So - I'm trying to ascertain what evidence you WILL accept so that I can present it here for all to see - and you would then be accepting of it.
So what EXACTLY is the standard of evidence that YOU, PERSONALLY will accept? Would (for example) a Skype session with someone in Australia with a camera attached to their computer, producing a live feed of a sunrise or sunset be considered evidence of the sunrise/sunset time? I'd be happy to make an effort to set that up with you *IF* you'd agree to accept the results of it as "EVIDENCE".
However, it's unreasonable to expect me to go to all the trouble to do that if you're going to just say that the person we're calling is a conspirator or that they aren't really living where they claim to be.
If you will come up with your standard of evidence (and PLEASE not "I want a book written by a guy 200 years ago") - then I'll make every effort to provide a proof that the world is round that meets those standards.
-
"Peer review"? Since when has anything FE been peer reviewed? Please, do show me the peer-reviewed FE science. (And when you say Rowbotham, do explain how his flowery, random unfounded assertions-filled rantings about steam holding up the oceans and whatnot, were ever "peer-reviewed".) I thought you guys were anti-peer-review? What with your "sacred text", and massive global scientific conspiracy theory.
Perhaps you missed the journal Earth Not a Globe Review which ran for over 75 issues of 200 to 400 pages each.
So it seems that Mr Bishop will accept the dusty old writings of some explorer in the 16th century - but will not accept any modern information. This is a very strange position to assume.
I see by the lengthy attempt at avoidance that you still have no evidence to present, only assertions that if you were to post such evidence that it will not be believed. If all of this evidence in favor of the Round Earth Theory is so plentiful and readily available, as we are constantly told, why not simply post it here rather than arguing that it is a waste of your time and that we should go out searching for it?
"I see by the lengthy attempt at avoidance that you still have no evidence to present, only assertions that if you were to post such evidence that it will not be believed."
I posted exactly when and when the sun will rise on a date, YOU didn't believe it. I offered:
1. Do you think the sun isn't going to be in these positions in September? YOU didn't answer.
2. We can move to 9/21/2016? YOU Ignored
3. Picking a time in the near future would allow the possibility of verifying the predictions would it not? YOU don't want to verify, because IT WILL BE THERE.
4. Would you like to pick the locations/dates/times? YOU Ignored
YOU are the one avoiding questions.
YOU don't post evidence, you say read something someone else wrote.
YOU don't even know when the sun rises. "I don't know where the sun will be on the equinox at the equator." Why wouldn't YOU want to find out??? How can you proclaim the Earth is flat if you don't even know that?
WHEN it rises at 6:04AM in Quito, Ecuador, on 9/21/2017 and it's 12:04PM in Makokou, Ogooue-Ivindo, Gabon 9/21/2017 YOUR map and ALL of this NONSENSE will be proved wrong. Just like every other equinox that has ever been and ever will be. Just like when the sun rises every single day and isn't in the place it should on your map. Is it really too much effort to visualize in your head a light rolling around the middle of a plate isn't going to be "east" or "west" of anything it touches EVER?
But don't YOU check and don't YOU answer, no, tell me to read the wiki. Or how about an ad hominem attack? Yeah, that will do. That way you can say you don't believe anything you haven't seen and YOU can never bother to see anything at all.
-
Hey look, we don't even need to go to the equator to see the sun rise due East, and set due West. http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/everything-you-need-to-know-vernal-or-spring-equinox#rise The second one this year is on September 22nd. Mark your calendar. Find a good place to view the horizon and bring a good compass or direction finder. Check to see if it does so. It should be seen as rising at that spot anywhere in the world. Use the Earthcam site above to watch it in other locations around the globe even. According to RET this happens twice every year. Multiple sites and locations confirm this. No need to go looking for old naval documentation. If you care to know why plenty of resources (http://bfy.tw/D34w) to learn more. How's that for evidence?
-
When you guys have any sort of evidence you can send me a PM. I am tired of responding to excuses and attempts at avoidence.
-
This is how this thread went down.
Me: Do you agree 2=2 and 3=3 (unless something is added)
TB: No, 2=2 and 3=3 only when nothing has been added to them.
Me: So 2+3=5 Any issue with any of these facts?
TB: Yes, I have an issue with using a calculator for theoretical observations rather than actual observations.
Me: So you don't agree? We can use different numbers? Would you like to pick the numbers?
TB: If you want to add 2 and 3 go ahead. We only add our own numbers.
Me: If you disagree just say so or agree and we can move on? How about 1+1=2? Can you get on board with that?
TB: I don't know if 1+1=2. We need an actual observation, not a theoretical calculation. There is a complete lack of any effort on your part to provide real actual data. A theoretical calculation starts off as being false. Only once it is affirmed is it true.
Me and Others: WTF? We put in the only effort? You don't except anything? What do you want?
TB: Spanish explorers know about numbers! Where's the evidence!?
Me and Others: We will get a camera and live stream people taking 2 apples and putting them with 3 apples and show you it's 5 apples, or anything YOU want.
TB: I see by the lengthy attempt at avoidance that you still have no evidence to present, only assertions that if you were to post such evidence that it will not be believed.
Me and Others: You can literally just add it on your hand!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TB: When you guys have any sort of evidence you can send me a PM. I am tired of responding to excuses and attempts at avoidence. <-(His misspelling not mine)
Is he at least not American? Please, at least that.
-
What you posted is not a "fact". A position from a sun calculator is not a "fact". That's called a prediction. There are no factual observations involved there. How old are you?
-
You round earthers simply don't understand why all of your round earth evidence is wrong. At the heart of the issue is the fact that every single scientific study verifying a round earth was manufactured by a cabal of powerful people that proliferate this lie in order to benefit from it.
Some of the items on the list have been mentioned by folks in this thread before, but I am relisting it for clarity:
1. NASA is an organization that promotes the round earth myth.
2. The US government is, either in on it, or is deluded by the "expert" claims of the agencies it relies on for such information.
3. Other governments around the world are also, either in on it, or are in conspiracy for themselves in order to benefit from the hoax (here is a list of some of the space agencies that continue to reap the rewards from a round earth myth and continue to proliferate the lie: BSA, ACAE, CIDA-E, AEM, ASAL, AP-MCSTA, ARPSAF, APSCO, ALR, AMAKA, NSSA, BIRA, ABAE, AEB, UKS, ABE, SRI-BAS, CSA, CNSA, CCE, CRISP, CSIRO, CCSDS, COSPAR, DRC, DRKI, ESA, GISTDA, DLR, HSO, ISRO, ISARS, INTA, ISA, JAXA, SRI, NZSA, KCST, NADA, LSA, ANGKASA, NASA, NARSS, CNES, CONIDA, CNIE).
4. Although there is still much debate amongst the flat earth luminaries, the general consensus is that the edges of our flat earth are surrounded by an ice wall. The multitude of aviation and maritime organizations out there, are forced to use navigation technologies that the round earth cabal makes for them, so no plane or sea-faring craft has ever been able to make contact or breach the edge of our earth. The technology, these industries have, simply simulates a round earth through a series of navigational tricks.
5. Members of the round earth conspiracy have infiltrated every scientific and technological field, and are working around the clock to obfuscate the flat earth fact by steering their respective fields in a direction that retains the wool over the eyes of the general populace.
6. The overwhelming majority of science that supports a round earth is manufactured to conceal and obfuscate the experimental data in a manner that allows the agents of the round earth cabal to draw fraudulent conclusions in support of the myth.
7. The few percent of scientific research that has not been conducted by agents of the round earth cabal, overwhelmingly supports a flat earth, and if you think otherwise, you're wrong.
In Conclusion:
As you can see, when you consider the seven facts that I have laid out for you above, you are forced to face the immutable truth - the earth is flat! If, for some reason, you are not convinced, please list any scientific research you would like, and I will be happy to tell you whether or not it is simply wrong or, alternatively, how it supports a flat earth, instead.
I hope everybody reading this understands, that even though practically the only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead, the Flat Earth Cabal has existed for hundreds of years and employs countless thousands of co-conspirators within its ranks, while never having to cover up even a single catastrophic event that would shed light on its machinations.
Or, maybe the earth is actually round...
-
You will not get a response unless you have something meaningful to contribute. Stop whining and provide evidence for the topic being discussed.
-
The standard for strong evidence is peer review. If there are multiple sources which tell us that the sun is doing something specific at the equator then that is strong evidence that this is the case. However, if you guys even posted a catalog of observations a single Spanish explorer made, that would be helpful to your cause.
What in gods name are you talking about? "Sun doing something specific at the equator"? "catalog of observations a single Spanish explorer made"? :P
"Peer review"? Since when has anything FE been peer reviewed? Please, do show me the peer-reviewed FE science. (And when you say Rowbotham, do explain how his flowery, random unfounded assertions-filled rantings about steam holding up the oceans and whatnot, were ever "peer-reviewed".) I thought you guys were anti-peer-review? What with your "sacred text", and massive global scientific conspiracy theory.
So it seems that Mr Bishop will accept the dusty old writings of some explorer in the 16th century - but will not accept any modern information. This is a very strange position to assume.
We live in an age where instant communications are available all around the world...heck you can even what online cameras in different places.
So rather than looking for some old books in a museum someplace - why not instead go somewhere online like:
https://www.earthcam.com/
...it shows the outputs from places all over the world:
https://www.earthcam.com/mapsearch/
So - if I want to know whether the sun has risen in (say) Australia - there are about 45 live-feed cameras to choose from - and I'm fairly sure we could figure out the sunrise time by simply watching a few of those cameras at the appropriate time.
We can do this for about 100 different cities around the world - and thereby know (to within reasonable precision) when the sun rose in those cities.
Mr Bishop will now (presumably) find some exceedingly weak reasoning about why this won't work...perhaps he'll blame the transfer time over the Internet - ah - but I have a tool called "ping" which will measure that time quite accurately. Perhaps he'll accuse the webcam operators of introducing delays of tens of minutes to throw off our results - but this requires another HUGE jump in the number of conspirators involved.
We could even eliminate that issue by asking for volunteers in different countries to sign into a group chat on Skype or Google+ so we could interact with them and thereby verify that there are no significant delays (at least not beyond a second or two) in their observations. We could verify that their video feeds are not being faked by asking them to do things like point the camera at today's newspaper or something.
In the modern world, this data is RIDICULOUSLY easy to collect.
But Mr Bishop wants 400 year old writings in Spanish - because he knows that this information is effectively unobtainable.
So...how about it Mr Bishop? Are you up for me to find people living in several different countries and have them show you when the sun rises? Will you accept the evidence of this?
No? Somehow I didn't think so.
This is intellectual dishonesty at its worst. Dismiss any evidence that doesn't suit you. Bah!
The video feeds from webcams can be faked - with CGI, or prerecorded acting, footage from somewhere else elaborately decorated to appear somewhere else, time-dalayed, etc.
But the unsupported, unreferenced arrogant ramblings of a snake oil salesman about steam from fires supporting the world's oceans - now THAT'S something that could never be faked.
-
You will not get a response unless you have something meaningful to contribute. Stop whining and provide evidence for the topic being discussed.
Tell you what Tom. I'll stand behind your rebuke of ronniereagan, if you stop whining and provide evidence for the topic being discussed. Starting with, a map that you are willing to say, "this is the one - go ahead and challenge it". Or anything specific, referenced, verifiable, and repeatable. And that isn't a reference to writings about steam holding up the oceans. Hearsay and fantasy is not evidence.
-
You will not get a response unless you have something meaningful to contribute. Stop whining and provide evidence for the topic being discussed.
Tell you what Tom. I'll stand behind your rebuke of ronniereagan, if you stop whining and provide evidence for the topic being discussed. Starting with, a map that you are willing to say, "this is the one - go ahead and challenge it". Or anything specific, referenced, verifiable, and repeatable. And that isn't a reference to writings about steam holding up the oceans. Hearsay and fantasy is not evidence.
We have made no claims for what will happen to the sun at the date and location claimed in this thread. That was not our claim, that was a claim made by you roundies. Put up or shut up.
-
Wow, I didn't realize the comment about whining was directed towards my bullet-proof argument. I wasn't aware because nobody's comments appeared to come off as them whining.
The fact of the matter still stands: round Earth proponents will never succeed in proving a flat Earth member wrong, because a flat Earth member can't even conceive of an experiment, real or imaginary, that would somehow prove them wrong.
-
I will ask you this, Tom - in all of your time posting on this site, have you ever managed to convert a non-believer? Has somebody who was of sound logic (at least in their opinion), come up to make a round earth argument, at the end of which, their reaction was "oh my god, I can't believe I fell for this round earth nonsense!"
-
You will not get a response unless you have something meaningful to contribute. Stop whining and provide evidence for the topic being discussed.
Tell you what Tom. I'll stand behind your rebuke of ronniereagan, if you stop whining and provide evidence for the topic being discussed. Starting with, a map that you are willing to say, "this is the one - go ahead and challenge it". Or anything specific, referenced, verifiable, and repeatable. And that isn't a reference to writings about steam holding up the oceans. Hearsay and fantasy is not evidence.
We have made no claims for what will happen to the sun at the date and location claimed in this thread. That was not our claim, that was a claim made by you roundies. Put up or shut up.
Bold words, from a man stuck inside behind a computer for ten years.
You often make passing (often incoherent) references or allusions to the Scientific Method. (And seem to often betray your own beloved Zetetic Method.) So, how about we follow the long-established and observed conventions of science. The null hypothesis is the the prevailing, most most widely accepted hypothesis among the scientific community. The one that requires the least pretzel-twisting of logic and ad-hoc explanations. The one with the fewest internal inconsistencies. The one with the most concrete and readily available evidence (e.g. how to freaking fly from LAX to SYD), with high-precision maps readily available, testable, and disprovable.
The conjecture requiring the most ad-hoc, free-wheeling, mutually exclusive assertions to support, the one that can't even produce a freaking map to test - is not the null hypothesis.
I'm sure you'll transparently disagree, but the burden of proof is clearly on you.
Put up or shut up.
Starting with a map that you are willing to stand behind, and have empirically verified and picked apart.
-
You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?
So why, then, should we accept the sun calculators as unquestionable? Claims were made in this thread, and they need to be supported with evidence. The creator of this thread is maintaining that he has posted "facts" with his sun calculator predictions and that everyone reading should accept it without question. If you guys predict that the sun will appear at a particular spot at a certain date and location, then we expect that you will be able to support your prediction. It is not automatically true.
-
You will not get a response unless you have something meaningful to contribute. Stop whining and provide evidence for the topic being discussed.
Tell you what Tom. I'll stand behind your rebuke of ronniereagan, if you stop whining and provide evidence for the topic being discussed. Starting with, a map that you are willing to say, "this is the one - go ahead and challenge it". Or anything specific, referenced, verifiable, and repeatable. And that isn't a reference to writings about steam holding up the oceans. Hearsay and fantasy is not evidence.
We have made no claims for what will happen to the sun at the date and location claimed in this thread. That was not our claim, that was a claim made by you roundies. Put up or shut up.
Bold words, from a man stuck inside behind a computer for ten years.
You often make passing (often incoherent) references or allusions to the Scientific Method. (And seem to often betray your own beloved Zetetic Method.) So, how about we follow the long-established and observed conventions of science. The null hypothesis is the the prevailing, most most widely accepted hypothesis among the scientific community. The one that requires the least pretzel-twisting of logic and ad-hoc explanations. The one with the fewest internal inconsistencies. The one with the most concrete and readily available evidence (e.g. how to freaking fly from LAX to SYD), with high-precision maps readily available, testable, and disprovable.
The conjecture requiring the most ad-hoc, free-wheeling, mutually exclusive assertions to support, the one that can't even produce a freaking map to test - is not the null hypothesis.
I'm sure you'll transparently disagree, but the burden of proof is clearly on you.
Put up or shut up.
Starting with a map that you are willing to stand behind, and have empirically verified and picked apart.
The map / LAX to SYD flight time is a good route, Joe. Except what you don't know is that it takes the same exact time to fly, because it's the same exact route, because the earth is flat. It just takes more time to fly East from LAX, because the plane ends up circling at the destination, until the appropriate distance to support the round Earth hoax is flown.
I got this one, Tom! You're not the only man that can make Kool Aid.
-
This is a bit off topic, but I was curious, how does one rationalize the cosmic microwave background map, Tom?
-
You will not get a response unless you have something meaningful to contribute. Stop whining and provide evidence for the topic being discussed.
Yes we will.
-
What you posted is not a "fact". A position from a sun calculator is not a "fact". That's called a prediction. There are no factual observations involved there. How old are you?
Hence the offer to let you pick the day or pick a day that already happened or pick no day and just go with what everyone knows, the sun rises in the east.
I'd tell you my birthday, but then you have to use a calculator to find out how old I am.
-
The map / LAX to SYD flight time is a good route, Joe. Except what you don't know is that it takes the same exact time to fly, because it's the same exact route, because the earth is flat. It just takes more time to fly East from LAX, because the plane ends up circling at the destination, until the appropriate distance to support the round Earth hoax is flown.
I got this one, Tom! You're not the only man that can make Kool Aid.
Good point, I didn't think of that. And the planes are secretly hyper-supersonic, and have huge extra gas tanks, so that they can take a circuitous all-water route to Sydney in the same amount of time what we think a "normal" plane would do on a round Earth. Curse you global conspiracy! >o<
-
You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?
So why, then, should we accept the sun calculators as unquestionable? Claims were made in this thread, and they need to be supported with evidence. The creator of this thread is maintaining that he has posted "facts" with his sun calculator predictions and that everyone reading should accept it without question. If you guys predict that the sun will appear at a particular spot at a certain date and location, then we expect that you will be able to support your prediction. It is not automatically true.
I for one, would absolutely love to see your map. I however would (edit - that should be wouldn't - bad error, sorry) just say it’s fake. I would attempt to verify if stands up to measured distances and so on. Do you guys seriously not even have a map?
I did call the original sunrise time’s facts. So what? I immediately offered multiple other options, anything you could agree to just to get to the simple… wait for it…. Fact that the sun rises in the east. Dun dun dunnnnnnnn!!!!!!
Just out of curiosity, how many times does a utterly simple calculator have to predict the sunrise and sunset (not to mention you can set it to times in the past) before it’s excepted? Why haven’t you made one based on your theories yet? Give the formula and I program it for you.
-
I would attempt to verify if stands up to measured distances and so on.
How would you go about doing that?
-
I would attempt to verify if stands up to measured distances and so on.
How would you go about doing that?
Very glad you asked. Nice to meet you.
Assuming it would be something resembling an azimuthal equidistant projection?
Just use lat and long to figure out how far 2 places south of the equator should be away from each other and see if they are. Unfortunately an explanation of why the sun isn't where said azimuthal equidistant projection map would seem to imply it should be, was not forthcoming. That seems the easiest thing to check without having to go anywhere but outside, albeit very early.
-
The map / LAX to SYD flight time is a good route, Joe. Except what you don't know is that it takes the same exact time to fly, because it's the same exact route, because the earth is flat. It just takes more time to fly East from LAX, because the plane ends up circling at the destination, until the appropriate distance to support the round Earth hoax is flown.
I got this one, Tom! You're not the only man that can make Kool Aid.
Good point, I didn't think of that. And the planes are secretly hyper-supersonic, and have huge extra gas tanks, so that they can take a circuitous all-water route to Sydney in the same amount of time what we think a "normal" plane would do on a round Earth. Curse you global conspiracy! >o<
Oh my God! Joe, if you have the time, you should Google something along the lines of "LA to Sydney flat earth." There are, at least, a hundred pages of debate about this topic, on this website alone. I'm happy to report that my flying-over-the-destination-to-obfuscate-actual-distances argument was mentioned three times, whereas your hypersonic-plane-with-supertanker-for-fuel was nowhere to be found.
You need to work on your implausible plausibility skills, sir!
-
It sounds unnecessarily dodgy to me? If you think those predictions are false, just say so? If you except them, then we can move on. I guess I was assuming what time it is around the world was excepted along with our ability to know those times going forward at least a few months.
How about this:
On either equinox, at the equator, when the sun rises, it will be almost directly east of the observer.
Can you get on board with that? Anyone?
I don't know where the sun will be on the equinox at the equator. We need an actual observation, not a theoretical calculation. There is a complete lack of any effort on your part to provide real actual data. A theoretical calculation starts off as being false. Only once it is affirmed is it true.
You may wish to check the wiki!!!!! ;D
http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude
I gotta say, that is rich.
-
You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?
So why, then, should we accept the sun calculators as unquestionable? Claims were made in this thread, and they need to be supported with evidence. The creator of this thread is maintaining that he has posted "facts" with his sun calculator predictions and that everyone reading should accept it without question. If you guys predict that the sun will appear at a particular spot at a certain date and location, then we expect that you will be able to support your prediction. It is not automatically true.
Still you fail to give examples where eg. sun calculators are shown to be incorrect. Are they correct for your location?
-
You may wish to check the wiki!!!!! ;D
http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude
I gotta say, that is rich.
That's the problem. They keep saying "read the wiki", then - literally every time I've seen it done - you point out something specific from the wiki, they say, "I don't agree with the wiki."
In summary, the Wiki is bullshit, but they'll use it every chance they get to dodge a question.
-
You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?
So why, then, should we accept the sun calculators as unquestionable? Claims were made in this thread, and they need to be supported with evidence. The creator of this thread is maintaining that he has posted "facts" with his sun calculator predictions and that everyone reading should accept it without question. If you guys predict that the sun will appear at a particular spot at a certain date and location, then we expect that you will be able to support your prediction. It is not automatically true.
I for one, would absolutely love to see your map. I however would just say it’s fake. I would attempt to verify if stands up to measured distances and so on. Do you guys seriously not even have a map?
I did call the original sunrise time’s facts. So what? I immediately offered multiple other options, anything you could agree to just to get to the simple… wait for it…. Fact that the sun rises in the east. Dun dun dunnnnnnnn!!!!!!
Just out of curiosity, how many times does a utterly simple calculator have to predict the sunrise and sunset (not to mention you can set it to times in the past) before it’s excepted? Why haven’t you made one based on your theories yet? Give the formula and I program it for you.
The sun predictions need to be affirmed with actual observations. We have asked for these sun observations on many occasions throughout the years, and after a lot of searching, the Round Earth proponents come up empty again and again, all while still maintaining their vague references that the plethora of data is out there, which they somehow cannot seem to find. It is getting to be quite pathetic.
-
For you new RE'ers: "Zetetic" is an obscure, archaic term popularized by 19th-century by (literally) snake-oil conman and human garbage, Samuel Rowbotham. It originated as a latin term. It means, "to proceed by inquiry, unless that inquiry begins to produce cognitive dissonance, then proceed to get angry, respond childishly, and put your fingers in your ears and sing 'la la la la la' so that your beliefs remain intact, and also harrass your opponents until their bankruptcy and your own death.".
Rowbotham himself properly demonstrated Zetetic technique, thusly (so whenever you hear "Zetetic method", think Rowbotham, and his lovely implementation of it):
- He went my many pseudonyms for the purposes of his con-artistry, including conning "good Christians" (who loved him) out of their money.
- He literally ran away from a lecture, after being unable to explain why the hulls of ships disappeared before the masts when sailing out to sea. (A problem he finally remedied later, by just asserting that they don't.)
- He then badly lost a challenge to spot all of a lighthouse from a beach 14 miles away, at which point he just told everyone he won that challenge. (Why didn't I ever think of that?)
- Remember the notorious "Bedford Level Experiment"? Rowbotham had a wealthy and allegedly mentally unstable cohort named John Hampden, pretend to not know him, offer up a bet, and be one of the judges. In the end, except Hampden and his "impartial witness" (an author of a flat-earth book), claimed they had won, when they hadn't. Hampden proceeded to harras his opponent until his death; along the way nearly drove his opponent into bankruptcy, and was himself arrested several times. Yet somehow, Flat-Earthers use the "Bedford Level Experiment" as "proof" for their side! (This is the essence of the Zetetic Method.)
- Rowbotham then proceeded to spend the rest of his life literally as a snake-oil conman, and lecture on his book that asserts all kinds of random made-up shit, like the Oceans are supported by steam, produced from the fires of hell. The fact that certain people keep pointing to this contemptible human being as the ultimate authority on Flat Earth (meanwhile disagreeing with him over anything remotely substantive such as what the fuck the earth looks like), speaks volumes to their own intellectual integrity, and the rigid dogmaticalness of their (ironically stupendously vague and hand-wavey) beliefs.
Seeing as you already made a thread complaining about this topic (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6600.0), I will ask you to keep your posts in this thread on topic so you don't derail the thread. Consider this a warning.
-
You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?
So why, then, should we accept the sun calculators as unquestionable? Claims were made in this thread, and they need to be supported with evidence. The creator of this thread is maintaining that he has posted "facts" with his sun calculator predictions and that everyone reading should accept it without question. If you guys predict that the sun will appear at a particular spot at a certain date and location, then we expect that you will be able to support your prediction. It is not automatically true.
I for one, would absolutely love to see your map. I however would just say it’s fake. I would attempt to verify if stands up to measured distances and so on. Do you guys seriously not even have a map?
I did call the original sunrise time’s facts. So what? I immediately offered multiple other options, anything you could agree to just to get to the simple… wait for it…. Fact that the sun rises in the east. Dun dun dunnnnnnnn!!!!!!
Just out of curiosity, how many times does a utterly simple calculator have to predict the sunrise and sunset (not to mention you can set it to times in the past) before it’s excepted? Why haven’t you made one based on your theories yet? Give the formula and I program it for you.
The sun predictions need to be affirmed with actual observations. We have asked for these sun observations on many occasions throughout the years, and after a lot of searching, the Round Earth proponents come up empty again and again, all while still maintaining their vague references that the plethora of data is out there, which they somehow cannot seem to find. It is getting to be quite pathetic.
As requested, have you made observations and measurements? If www.timeanddate.com was producing incorrect numbers we would know and nobody would be using it.
-
As requested, have you made observations and measurements? If www.timeanddate.com was producing incorrect numbers we would know and nobody would be using it.
You want us to gather your evidence for your claims for you? Why would we do that? Your claim, your burden.
We have no idea how accurate timeanddate.com is. There is no transparency. We have no observational reports of verification and we don't even know how the data is being created. As far as we know that website, or the source it gets its information from, is slightly modifying the sunlight model every time someone reports a discrepancy to the point where it is no longer based on a Round Earth Model.
-
As requested, have you made observations and measurements? If www.timeanddate.com was producing incorrect numbers we would know and nobody would be using it.
You want us to gather your evidence for your claims for you? Why would we do that? Your claim, your burden.
We have no idea how accurate timeanddate.com is. There is no transparency. We have no observational reports of verification and we don't even know how the data is being created. As far as we know that website, or the source it gets its information from, is slightly modifying the sunlight model every time someone reports a discrepancy to the point where it is no longer based on a Round Earth Model.
Do you agree the site is accurate for your location, surely something you would be interested in checking?
Your carefully crafted words like 'slightly modifying the sunlight model' make no sense.
You use the word 'we' a lot, but who are 'you' when the key point is to determine the correct shape etc. of the earth, whatever it is? If 'you' believe eg. the times of sunrise and sunset, which prove a round earth if you do the maths, are wrong you should say where they are incorrect.
All the data we have shows a round earth, if you believe otherwise then why is do difficult for 'you' to provide a few sample measurements to show otherwise?
-
Seeing as you already made a thread complaining about this topic (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6600.0), I will ask you to keep your posts in this thread on topic so you don't derail the thread. Consider this a warning.
This came first, then the expanded topic, but duly noted valid point.
-
As requested, have you made observations and measurements? If www.timeanddate.com was producing incorrect numbers we would know and nobody would be using it.
You want us to gather your evidence for your claims for you? Why would we do that? Your claim, your burden.
We have no idea how accurate timeanddate.com is. There is no transparency. We have no observational reports of verification and we don't even know how the data is being created. As far as we know that website, or the source it gets its information from, is slightly modifying the sunlight model every time someone reports a discrepancy to the point where it is no longer based on a Round Earth Model.
Do you agree the site is accurate for your location, surely something you would be interested in checking?
Your carefully crafted words like 'slightly modifying the sunlight model' make no sense.
You use the word 'we' a lot, but who are 'you' when the key point is to determine the correct shape etc. of the earth, whatever it is? If 'you' believe eg. the times of sunrise and sunset, which prove a round earth if you do the maths, are wrong you should say where they are incorrect.
All the data we have shows a round earth, if you believe otherwise then why is do difficult for 'you' to provide a few sample measurements to show otherwise?
Without transparency for how the data is generated any test I would do is invalid. How do we know that the data is still based on a pure Round Earth model and not the result of years of modifications to match observations?
It is YOUR job to present a transparent and usable model along with the observations to back that model up. The Round Earth model is YOUR claim.
-
As requested, have you made observations and measurements? If www.timeanddate.com was producing incorrect numbers we would know and nobody would be using it.
You want us to gather your evidence for your claims for you? Why would we do that? Your claim, your burden.
We have no idea how accurate timeanddate.com is. There is no transparency. We have no observational reports of verification and we don't even know how the data is being created. As far as we know that website, or the source it gets its information from, is slightly modifying the sunlight model every time someone reports a discrepancy to the point where it is no longer based on a Round Earth Model.
Do you agree the site is accurate for your location, surely something you would be interested in checking?
Your carefully crafted words like 'slightly modifying the sunlight model' make no sense.
You use the word 'we' a lot, but who are 'you' when the key point is to determine the correct shape etc. of the earth, whatever it is? If 'you' believe eg. the times of sunrise and sunset, which prove a round earth if you do the maths, are wrong you should say where they are incorrect.
All the data we have shows a round earth, if you believe otherwise then why is do difficult for 'you' to provide a few sample measurements to show otherwise?
Without transparency for how the data is generated any test I would do is invalid. How do we know that the data is still based on a pure Round Earth model and not the result of years of modifications to match observations?
It is YOUR job to present a transparent and usable model along with the observations to back that model up. The Round Earth model is YOUR claim.
I will ask again. Please just answer the questions with a yes or no.
Is the data in timeanddate.com correct for your location? Do you accept that the calculations for satellite dish angles are correct?
-
It is YOUR job to present a transparent and usable model and observations to back that model up. The Round Earth model is YOUR claim.
No, it is your job to challenge the null hypothesis with testable hypotheses and predictions of your own.
Which is the null hypothesis? The one:
- ...with the fewest untestable assertions immune to disproof.
- ...with the fewest appeals to magical mechanisms (Celestial Gears, The Firmament, etc.).
- ...with the fewest appeals to enormous, global, hundred-years cover-up conspiracies.
- ...with the fewest ad-hoc hypotheses to explain away problems with other ad-hoc hypotheses, rather than just addressing the flaws in the earlier ad-hoc hypotheses
- ...with the least complicated, least hand-wavy explanations to explain observed phenomenon.
- ...with the fewest appeals authority
- ...with the fewest religious elements, e.g. the sacred ancient texts of the con-man/religious figure Rowbotham.
- ...based on the fewest unfalsifiable assertions.
- ...with the most exceedingly well-defined, easily testable details at every level - including shapes and relationships of landmasses down to the meter; the masses, distances, and orbital state vectors of every visible object in the solar system, much of which can be easily observationally verified with a Nikon P900, a logbook, and patience.
- ...And by definition - right or wrong - the one that is overwhelming accepted as the best working theory by the scientific and academic community. Sometimes changing the world is hard work and unfair. So stop whining, accept the world for the way it is rather than complain about it, and get to it!
Since you can't even submit a simple map of even the most roughly approximated size, shape, and relationships of landmasses - to any admitted degree of accuracy - that pretty much rules yours out as the null hypothesis.
Since you use "we" alot, I'm going to lump "you" into "you all": You can't even agree on whether there are two celestial poles instead of one. Dome, or no dome. Antarctica is an ice wall, or continent. The Pacific Ocean surrounds the world, or is just a big ocean. Antarctica is as big as Africa, or as big as Australians think it is. That NZ spends half the year in total darkness, or not. That there is more oceans and continents beyond the ice wall (including Atlantis), or not. Whether there is gravity, or UA.
Etc. Sorry. The RE model is exceedingly internally consistent, extremely detailed and highly specific, every aspect of it is testable, and no part of it is immune to disproof. To suggest it isn't the null hypothesis, is to appear mentally ill. I know you don't believe RE is the null hypothesis. (And via transitive property...)
I'm not suggesting that the RE model is right. I mean I do, elsewhere, but that's not my argument here. It's only to point out that the burden of proof is on FE. (I wouldn't be here if a FE wasn't a fun notion to entertain - I'm certainly not hear to convert the unconvertible. I'm open to conversion.)
RE has a map of the landmasses, shapes, distances, and relationship of whatever it is we live on. A map that can be tested, debated, have holes poked in it, disproven. That is the basis to move forward from, nothing else really matters until you have that.
You don't have that. You don't even have a map.
-
As requested, have you made observations and measurements? If www.timeanddate.com was producing incorrect numbers we would know and nobody would be using it.
You want us to gather your evidence for your claims for you? Why would we do that? Your claim, your burden.
We have no idea how accurate timeanddate.com is. There is no transparency. We have no observational reports of verification and we don't even know how the data is being created. As far as we know that website, or the source it gets its information from, is slightly modifying the sunlight model every time someone reports a discrepancy to the point where it is no longer based on a Round Earth Model.
Do you agree the site is accurate for your location, surely something you would be interested in checking?
Your carefully crafted words like 'slightly modifying the sunlight model' make no sense.
You use the word 'we' a lot, but who are 'you' when the key point is to determine the correct shape etc. of the earth, whatever it is? If 'you' believe eg. the times of sunrise and sunset, which prove a round earth if you do the maths, are wrong you should say where they are incorrect.
All the data we have shows a round earth, if you believe otherwise then why is do difficult for 'you' to provide a few sample measurements to show otherwise?
Without transparency for how the data is generated any test I would do is invalid. How do we know that the data is still based on a pure Round Earth model and not the result of years of modifications to match observations?
It is YOUR job to present a transparent and usable model along with the observations to back that model up. The Round Earth model is YOUR claim.
It is YOUR job to present a transparent and usable model along with the observations to back that model up. The Flat Earth model is YOUR claim.
The Round Earth model has a usable model. Google Earth. Check any distance provided there against the actual distance. You'll find they line up. Flat Earth is not the default stance, as much as you keep trying to cling to it being so. https://explorable.com/null-hypothesis The common stance is that the Earth is a globe. Thus, YOU are required to disprove it. We have hundreds of years of science backing up a Round Earth, in order for many fields that deal with the Earth to have gotten this far. Meteorology on a large scale, tectonic plates, volcanoes, tidal waves, the tides, earthquakes, and others have all been explained, tested, and confirmed to fit with the Round Earth model. If you want to present a compelling Flat Earth model, you need to explain all of those things in a way that doesn't prevent any others from working.
You instead sit and pretend it's on us to show you every single proof on these items, when by and large most are probably in science journals that aren't necessarily publicly accessible, or not even on the internet anywhere. Round Earth has a robust, working model. Flat Earth does not, you have barely the outline of one.
On topic: Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_equation) is provided the equations for how to calculate the sunrise and sunset times. I admit I only barely grasp what all is going on there, but it's also not my field of study. Feel free to check the times given on those websites against the actual equation if you can figure out how to get it working. This (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-07-14/news/8502150709_1_sunrise-and-sunset-minutes-hottest-day) has a slightly less involved answer on the things they use to calculate sunset and sunrise times.
-
On topic: Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_equation) is provided the equations for how to calculate the sunrise and sunset times. I admit I only barely grasp what all is going on there, but it's also not my field of study. Feel free to check the times given on those websites against the actual equation if you can figure out how to get it working. This (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-07-14/news/8502150709_1_sunrise-and-sunset-minutes-hottest-day) has a slightly less involved answer on the things they use to calculate sunset and sunrise times.
FE has a model for how sunset and sunrises work, and how to calculate the times:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/GDaiw-G1VGE/maxresdefault.jpg)
To figure out the sunset time, just calculate when the Sun passes the vanishing point from a convergent line, to divergent.
(That is literally the most comprehensive explanation I've seen.)
-
You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?
So why, then, should we accept the sun calculators as unquestionable? Claims were made in this thread, and they need to be supported with evidence. The creator of this thread is maintaining that he has posted "facts" with his sun calculator predictions and that everyone reading should accept it without question. If you guys predict that the sun will appear at a particular spot at a certain date and location, then we expect that you will be able to support your prediction. It is not automatically true.
I for one, would absolutely love to see your map. I however would just say it’s fake. I would attempt to verify if stands up to measured distances and so on. Do you guys seriously not even have a map?
I did call the original sunrise time’s facts. So what? I immediately offered multiple other options, anything you could agree to just to get to the simple… wait for it…. Fact that the sun rises in the east. Dun dun dunnnnnnnn!!!!!!
Just out of curiosity, how many times does a utterly simple calculator have to predict the sunrise and sunset (not to mention you can set it to times in the past) before it’s excepted? Why haven’t you made one based on your theories yet? Give the formula and I program it for you.
The sun predictions need to be affirmed with actual observations. We have asked for these sun observations on many occasions throughout the years, and after a lot of searching, the Round Earth proponents come up empty again and again, all while still maintaining their vague references that the plethora of data is out there, which they somehow cannot seem to find. It is getting to be quite pathetic.
You can keep saying it and it doesn't change anything. How can you be so obtuse? Let's quote YOUR wiki, shall we?
"To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude."
Just keep reading that until it sinks in or go delete it or prove it wrong.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude
-
Let's quote YOUR wiki, shall we?
"To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude."
Tom will just say he doesn't agree with that part of the Wiki.
He uses "we" or "I" - depending on which is more expedient.
All the long-time FE'ers respond with a trite, "Read the wiki" or "I don't agree with the wiki" - depending on which is more expedient. Over, and over, and over. But never respond with a specific, honest hypothesis which can be nailed down. They are afraid of it being picked apart and potentially debunked. (You know, like a legitimate hypothesis.)
Because they lack intellectual integrity. Or maybe they are just phoning it in by now and don't care (which at least would provide some benefit of doubt.)
How about instead of posting off-topic nonsense, you let Tom reply and not try to reply for him. I've been patient with you, but you just cannot seem to stop your petulant behavior (espcially toward Tom for some reason). I have told you repeatedly to knock it off. Is there something you don't understand about that? Am I not being clear enough? I really am trying to be patient and avoid banning you, but you aren't giving me much choice.
-
Let's quote YOUR wiki, shall we?
"To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude."
Tom will just say he doesn't agree with that part of the Wiki.
He uses "we" or "I" - depending on which is more expedient.
All the long-time FE'ers respond with a trite, "Read the wiki" or "I don't agree with the wiki" - depending on which is more expedient. Over, and over, and over. But never respond with a specific, honest hypothesis which can be nailed down. They are afraid of it being picked apart and potentially debunked. (You know, like a legitimate hypothesis.)
Because they lack intellectual integrity. Or maybe they are just phoning it in by now and don't care (which at least would provide some benefit of doubt.)
How about instead of posting off-topic nonsense, you let Tom reply and not try to reply for him. I've been patient with you, but you just cannot seem to stop your petulant behavior (espcially toward Tom for some reason). I have told you repeatedly to knock it off. Is there something you don't understand about that? Am I not being clear enough? I really am trying to be patient and avoid banning you, but you aren't giving me much choice.
Relax, Francis. You're getting a little trigger-happy and off-topic. That was a perfectly valid response. I made a testable prediction highly pertinent to the topic at hand. Let's see how it pans out. If I'm wrong, it should be obvious and I'll acknowledge it. There's no personal attack here. Only critique of ideas and intellectual approaches.
(Though I'll concede that we could have done without the last two sentences. Fair point on that.)
-
The map / LAX to SYD flight time is a good route, Joe. Except what you don't know is that it takes the same exact time to fly, because it's the same exact route, because the earth is flat. It just takes more time to fly East from LAX, because the plane ends up circling at the destination, until the appropriate distance to support the round Earth hoax is flown.
I got this one, Tom! You're not the only man that can make Kool Aid.
Good point, I didn't think of that. And the planes are secretly hyper-supersonic, and have huge extra gas tanks, so that they can take a circuitous all-water route to Sydney in the same amount of time what we think a "normal" plane would do on a round Earth. Curse you global conspiracy! >o<
Oh my God! Joe, if you have the time, you should Google something along the lines of "LA to Sydney flat earth." There are, at least, a hundred pages of debate about this topic, on this website alone. I'm happy to report that my flying-over-the-destination-to-obfuscate-actual-distances argument was mentioned three times, whereas your hypersonic-plane-with-supertanker-for-fuel was nowhere to be found.
You need to work on your implausible plausibility skills, sir!
I would debate that point. I never see any plausible answers from flat earthers that explain the fight time dilemma of FE. I have posted several actual flights in progress from Flight Track and never a peep. I wonder why?
-
Let's quote YOUR wiki, shall we?
"To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude."
Tom will just say he doesn't agree with that part of the Wiki.
He uses "we" or "I" - depending on which is more expedient.
All the long-time FE'ers respond with a trite, "Read the wiki" or "I don't agree with the wiki" - depending on which is more expedient. Over, and over, and over. But never respond with a specific, honest hypothesis which can be nailed down. They are afraid of it being picked apart and potentially debunked. (You know, like a legitimate hypothesis.)
Because they lack intellectual integrity. Or maybe they are just phoning it in by now and don't care (which at least would provide some benefit of doubt.)
How about instead of posting off-topic nonsense, you let Tom reply and not try to reply for him. I've been patient with you, but you just cannot seem to stop your petulant behavior (espcially toward Tom for some reason). I have told you repeatedly to knock it off. Is there something you don't understand about that? Am I not being clear enough? I really am trying to be patient and avoid banning you, but you aren't giving me much choice.
Relax, Francis. You're getting a little trigger-happy and off-topic. That was a perfectly valid response. I made a testable prediction highly pertinent to the topic at hand. Let's see how it pans out. If I'm wrong, it should be obvious and I'll acknowledge it. There's no personal attack here. Only critique of ideas and intellectual approaches.
(Though I'll concede that we could have done without the last two sentences. Fair point on that.)
Alright, you have had plenty of opportunities. Have a few days off to review the rules. If you decide to come back, I'd suggest refraining from the same behavior.
-
You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?
You got that completely backwards. Your problem is that you DON'T show us a map and proclaim it true (and thus falsifiable), yet do claim it beyond question.
If you would do exactly what you are complaining about - post some theoretical predictions - literally ANYTHING - from your models, that could actually be empirically tested - and confirmed or disconfirmed - you could build a case. Instead your only evidence is from a disgraced charlatan who died in the late 1800s, who only said he proved stuff but according to his contemporaries at the time, lied about it. Maybe they were the liars, but all we have is his own words and nothing else. Not even close to good enough. Instead you refuse to put forth anything that can be independently tested and confirmed or disconfirmed.
Like, a map. You've had at least 170 years to come up with a map.
-
The sun predictions need to be affirmed with actual observations. We have asked for these sun observations on many occasions throughout the years, and after a lot of searching, the Round Earth proponents come up empty again and again, all while still maintaining their vague references that the plethora of data is out there, which they somehow cannot seem to find. It is getting to be quite pathetic.
How do Round Earth proponents show you "actual observations"? Can you be more specific and crisp in what you are asking for, please. Perhaps examples of Flat Earth observations you have submitted, that we can use as a quality and rigorousness reference to aspire to. And then perhaps Round Earth proponents could oblige! How does that sound?
-
You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?
So why, then, should we accept the sun calculators as unquestionable? Claims were made in this thread, and they need to be supported with evidence. The creator of this thread is maintaining that he has posted "facts" with his sun calculator predictions and that everyone reading should accept it without question. If you guys predict that the sun will appear at a particular spot at a certain date and location, then we expect that you will be able to support your prediction. It is not automatically true.
I for one, would absolutely love to see your map. I however would just say it’s fake. I would attempt to verify if stands up to measured distances and so on. Do you guys seriously not even have a map?
I did call the original sunrise time’s facts. So what? I immediately offered multiple other options, anything you could agree to just to get to the simple… wait for it…. Fact that the sun rises in the east. Dun dun dunnnnnnnn!!!!!!
Just out of curiosity, how many times does a utterly simple calculator have to predict the sunrise and sunset (not to mention you can set it to times in the past) before it’s excepted? Why haven’t you made one based on your theories yet? Give the formula and I program it for you.
The sun predictions need to be affirmed with actual observations. We have asked for these sun observations on many occasions throughout the years, and after a lot of searching, the Round Earth proponents come up empty again and again, all while still maintaining their vague references that the plethora of data is out there, which they somehow cannot seem to find. It is getting to be quite pathetic.
Here's a direct link to some data supporting the fact the sun will be on the equator on the equinox. https://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude
I hope your ok with the source? Many people on this very forum hold it in the highest regard.
-
You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?
So why, then, should we accept the sun calculators as unquestionable? Claims were made in this thread, and they need to be supported with evidence. The creator of this thread is maintaining that he has posted "facts" with his sun calculator predictions and that everyone reading should accept it without question. If you guys predict that the sun will appear at a particular spot at a certain date and location, then we expect that you will be able to support your prediction. It is not automatically true.
I for one, would absolutely love to see your map. I however would just say it’s fake. I would attempt to verify if stands up to measured distances and so on. Do you guys seriously not even have a map?
I did call the original sunrise time’s facts. So what? I immediately offered multiple other options, anything you could agree to just to get to the simple… wait for it…. Fact that the sun rises in the east. Dun dun dunnnnnnnn!!!!!!
Just out of curiosity, how many times does a utterly simple calculator have to predict the sunrise and sunset (not to mention you can set it to times in the past) before it’s excepted? Why haven’t you made one based on your theories yet? Give the formula and I program it for you.
The sun predictions need to be affirmed with actual observations. We have asked for these sun observations on many occasions throughout the years, and after a lot of searching, the Round Earth proponents come up empty again and again, all while still maintaining their vague references that the plethora of data is out there, which they somehow cannot seem to find. It is getting to be quite pathetic.
You can keep saying it and it doesn't change anything. How can you be so obtuse? Let's quote YOUR wiki, shall we?
"To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude."
Just keep reading that until it sinks in or go delete it or prove it wrong.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude
The sun being over the equator in the Flat Earth model isn't "impossible". I don't see what point you are making there.
-
You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?
So why, then, should we accept the sun calculators as unquestionable? Claims were made in this thread, and they need to be supported with evidence. The creator of this thread is maintaining that he has posted "facts" with his sun calculator predictions and that everyone reading should accept it without question. If you guys predict that the sun will appear at a particular spot at a certain date and location, then we expect that you will be able to support your prediction. It is not automatically true.
I for one, would absolutely love to see your map. I however would just say it’s fake. I would attempt to verify if stands up to measured distances and so on. Do you guys seriously not even have a map?
I did call the original sunrise time’s facts. So what? I immediately offered multiple other options, anything you could agree to just to get to the simple… wait for it…. Fact that the sun rises in the east. Dun dun dunnnnnnnn!!!!!!
Just out of curiosity, how many times does a utterly simple calculator have to predict the sunrise and sunset (not to mention you can set it to times in the past) before it’s excepted? Why haven’t you made one based on your theories yet? Give the formula and I program it for you.
The sun predictions need to be affirmed with actual observations. We have asked for these sun observations on many occasions throughout the years, and after a lot of searching, the Round Earth proponents come up empty again and again, all while still maintaining their vague references that the plethora of data is out there, which they somehow cannot seem to find. It is getting to be quite pathetic.
You can keep saying it and it doesn't change anything. How can you be so obtuse? Let's quote YOUR wiki, shall we?
"To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude."
Just keep reading that until it sinks in or go delete it or prove it wrong.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude
The sun being over the equator in the Flat Earth model isn't "impossible". I don't see what point you are making there.
How can you say that when you do not have a model? Clearly the path of the sun shows the earth to be round with multiple observations and measurements from different locations.
-
How can you say that when you do not have a model? Clearly the path of the sun shows the earth to be round with multiple observations and measurements from different locations.
Observations such as... ?
-
How can you say that when you do not have a model? Clearly the path of the sun shows the earth to be round with multiple observations and measurements from different locations.
Observations such as... ?
Ones you and the others that you describe as 'we' have made.
-
You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?
So why, then, should we accept the sun calculators as unquestionable? Claims were made in this thread, and they need to be supported with evidence. The creator of this thread is maintaining that he has posted "facts" with his sun calculator predictions and that everyone reading should accept it without question. If you guys predict that the sun will appear at a particular spot at a certain date and location, then we expect that you will be able to support your prediction. It is not automatically true.
I for one, would absolutely love to see your map. I however would just say it’s fake. I would attempt to verify if stands up to measured distances and so on. Do you guys seriously not even have a map?
I did call the original sunrise time’s facts. So what? I immediately offered multiple other options, anything you could agree to just to get to the simple… wait for it…. Fact that the sun rises in the east. Dun dun dunnnnnnnn!!!!!!
Just out of curiosity, how many times does a utterly simple calculator have to predict the sunrise and sunset (not to mention you can set it to times in the past) before it’s excepted? Why haven’t you made one based on your theories yet? Give the formula and I program it for you.
The sun predictions need to be affirmed with actual observations. We have asked for these sun observations on many occasions throughout the years, and after a lot of searching, the Round Earth proponents come up empty again and again, all while still maintaining their vague references that the plethora of data is out there, which they somehow cannot seem to find. It is getting to be quite pathetic.
You can keep saying it and it doesn't change anything. How can you be so obtuse? Let's quote YOUR wiki, shall we?
"To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude."
Just keep reading that until it sinks in or go delete it or prove it wrong.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude
The sun being over the equator in the Flat Earth model isn't "impossible". I don't see what point you are making there.
Clearly.... You are the most clear example of Dunning–Kruger I've ever seen. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you act this way as some form of trolling, but that's not the case......Dam......
-
You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?
So why, then, should we accept the sun calculators as unquestionable? Claims were made in this thread, and they need to be supported with evidence. The creator of this thread is maintaining that he has posted "facts" with his sun calculator predictions and that everyone reading should accept it without question. If you guys predict that the sun will appear at a particular spot at a certain date and location, then we expect that you will be able to support your prediction. It is not automatically true.
I for one, would absolutely love to see your map. I however would just say it’s fake. I would attempt to verify if stands up to measured distances and so on. Do you guys seriously not even have a map?
I did call the original sunrise time’s facts. So what? I immediately offered multiple other options, anything you could agree to just to get to the simple… wait for it…. Fact that the sun rises in the east. Dun dun dunnnnnnnn!!!!!!
Just out of curiosity, how many times does a utterly simple calculator have to predict the sunrise and sunset (not to mention you can set it to times in the past) before it’s excepted? Why haven’t you made one based on your theories yet? Give the formula and I program it for you.
The sun predictions need to be affirmed with actual observations. We have asked for these sun observations on many occasions throughout the years, and after a lot of searching, the Round Earth proponents come up empty again and again, all while still maintaining their vague references that the plethora of data is out there, which they somehow cannot seem to find. It is getting to be quite pathetic.
You can keep saying it and it doesn't change anything. How can you be so obtuse? Let's quote YOUR wiki, shall we?
"To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude."
Just keep reading that until it sinks in or go delete it or prove it wrong.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude
The sun being over the equator in the Flat Earth model isn't "impossible". I don't see what point you are making there.
Clearly.... You are the most clear example of Dunning–Kruger I've ever seen. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you act this way as some form of trolling, but that's not the case......Dam......
Please refrain from personal attacks and off topic posting in the upper fora. Warned.
-
The sun being over the equator in the Flat Earth model isn't "impossible". I don't see what point you are making there.
Tom - you're missing the point. Yes, of course the sun is vertically above the equator twice a year (mid-day in spring and autumn).
The point is this: IF the sun is over the equator (in FET) - then it must be simultaneously directly to the SOUTH of places at the same longitude in the Northern Hemisphere/Hemiplane and directly NORTH of some points in the Southern Hemiplane...and the distance from those points would be enough to ensure that (by your own math) the sun would be setting in those locations.
In RET, the sun is so far away that it never comes anywhere near the horizon at noon in spring and autumn.
Hands up anyone who ever saw the sun setting anywhere other than the West?
-
The sun being over the equator in the Flat Earth model isn't "impossible". I don't see what point you are making there.
Tom - you're missing the point. Yes, of course the sun is vertically above the equator twice a year (mid-day in spring and autumn).
The point is this: IF the sun is over the equator (in FET) - then it must be simultaneously directly to the SOUTH of places at the same longitude in the Northern Hemisphere/Hemiplane and directly NORTH of some points in the Southern Hemiplane...and the distance from those points would be enough to ensure that (by your own math) the sun would be setting in those locations.
In RET, the sun is so far away that it never comes anywhere near the horizon at noon in spring and autumn.
Hands up anyone who ever saw the sun setting anywhere other than the West?
Even more to the point I was trying to get to in the first place. On that day, when it's noon anywhere, the place the sun is rising is going to see a sunrise dew east, but the location where the sun is overhead at that moment IS NOT EAST of there. Hence, that map is impossible.
-
The sun being over the equator in the Flat Earth model isn't "impossible". I don't see what point you are making there.
Tom - you're missing the point. Yes, of course the sun is vertically above the equator twice a year (mid-day in spring and autumn).
The point is this: IF the sun is over the equator (in FET) - then it must be simultaneously directly to the SOUTH of places at the same longitude in the Northern Hemisphere/Hemiplane and directly NORTH of some points in the Southern Hemiplane...and the distance from those points would be enough to ensure that (by your own math) the sun would be setting in those locations.
In RET, the sun is so far away that it never comes anywhere near the horizon at noon in spring and autumn.
Hands up anyone who ever saw the sun setting anywhere other than the West?
Even more to the point I was trying to get to in the first place. On that day, when it's noon anywhere, the place the sun is rising is going to see a sunrise dew east, but the location where the sun is overhead at that moment IS NOT EAST of there. Hence, that map is impossible.
Do you have any source for these observations?
-
The sun being over the equator in the Flat Earth model isn't "impossible". I don't see what point you are making there.
Tom - you're missing the point. Yes, of course the sun is vertically above the equator twice a year (mid-day in spring and autumn).
The point is this: IF the sun is over the equator (in FET) - then it must be simultaneously directly to the SOUTH of places at the same longitude in the Northern Hemisphere/Hemiplane and directly NORTH of some points in the Southern Hemiplane...and the distance from those points would be enough to ensure that (by your own math) the sun would be setting in those locations.
In RET, the sun is so far away that it never comes anywhere near the horizon at noon in spring and autumn.
Hands up anyone who ever saw the sun setting anywhere other than the West?
Even more to the point I was trying to get to in the first place. On that day, when it's noon anywhere, the place the sun is rising is going to see a sunrise dew east, but the location where the sun is overhead at that moment IS NOT EAST of there. Hence, that map is impossible.
Do you have any source for these observations?
dateandtime.com has data that is not disputed, you should use that for your work.
-
The sun being over the equator in the Flat Earth model isn't "impossible". I don't see what point you are making there.
Tom - you're missing the point. Yes, of course the sun is vertically above the equator twice a year (mid-day in spring and autumn).
The point is this: IF the sun is over the equator (in FET) - then it must be simultaneously directly to the SOUTH of places at the same longitude in the Northern Hemisphere/Hemiplane and directly NORTH of some points in the Southern Hemiplane...and the distance from those points would be enough to ensure that (by your own math) the sun would be setting in those locations.
In RET, the sun is so far away that it never comes anywhere near the horizon at noon in spring and autumn.
Hands up anyone who ever saw the sun setting anywhere other than the West?
Even more to the point I was trying to get to in the first place. On that day, when it's noon anywhere, the place the sun is rising is going to see a sunrise dew east, but the location where the sun is overhead at that moment IS NOT EAST of there. Hence, that map is impossible.
Do you have any source for these observations?
dateandtime.com has data that is not disputed, you should use that for your work.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents Is enough of a source to wreck itself. Print the top map as large as you can. Place a tack anywhere on the equator. That's where the Sun is at noon on the equinox in the location you stuck it, also according to the wiki. Draw a line from the "Sun" dew west. That's all you need. The line headed west immediately diverges from the equator. Case closed, that map can't be.
-
The sun being over the equator in the Flat Earth model isn't "impossible". I don't see what point you are making there.
Tom - you're missing the point. Yes, of course the sun is vertically above the equator twice a year (mid-day in spring and autumn).
The point is this: IF the sun is over the equator (in FET) - then it must be simultaneously directly to the SOUTH of places at the same longitude in the Northern Hemisphere/Hemiplane and directly NORTH of some points in the Southern Hemiplane...and the distance from those points would be enough to ensure that (by your own math) the sun would be setting in those locations.
In RET, the sun is so far away that it never comes anywhere near the horizon at noon in spring and autumn.
Hands up anyone who ever saw the sun setting anywhere other than the West?
Even more to the point I was trying to get to in the first place. On that day, when it's noon anywhere, the place the sun is rising is going to see a sunrise dew east, but the location where the sun is overhead at that moment IS NOT EAST of there. Hence, that map is impossible.
Do you have any source for these observations?
dateandtime.com has data that is not disputed, you should use that for your work.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents Is enough of a source to wreck itself. Print the top map as large as you can. Place a tack anywhere on the equator. That's where the Sun is at noon on the equinox in the location you stuck it, also according to the wiki. Draw a line from the "Sun" dew west. That's all you need. The line headed west immediately diverges from the equator. Case closed, that map can't be.
You must provide a source for those observations for that argument to have merit.
-
The sun being over the equator in the Flat Earth model isn't "impossible". I don't see what point you are making there.
Tom - you're missing the point. Yes, of course the sun is vertically above the equator twice a year (mid-day in spring and autumn).
The point is this: IF the sun is over the equator (in FET) - then it must be simultaneously directly to the SOUTH of places at the same longitude in the Northern Hemisphere/Hemiplane and directly NORTH of some points in the Southern Hemiplane...and the distance from those points would be enough to ensure that (by your own math) the sun would be setting in those locations.
In RET, the sun is so far away that it never comes anywhere near the horizon at noon in spring and autumn.
Hands up anyone who ever saw the sun setting anywhere other than the West?
Even more to the point I was trying to get to in the first place. On that day, when it's noon anywhere, the place the sun is rising is going to see a sunrise dew east, but the location where the sun is overhead at that moment IS NOT EAST of there. Hence, that map is impossible.
Do you have any source for these observations?
dateandtime.com has data that is not disputed, you should use that for your work.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents Is enough of a source to wreck itself. Print the top map as large as you can. Place a tack anywhere on the equator. That's where the Sun is at noon on the equinox in the location you stuck it, also according to the wiki. Draw a line from the "Sun" dew west. That's all you need. The line headed west immediately diverges from the equator. Case closed, that map can't be.
You must provide a source for those observations for that argument to have merit.
You and your website are the source, as linked. There is no observation required, logic is based entirely on the assertions in the wiki. You don't understand words. All of your responses make as much sense to what they are in response too as they do to any unrelated sentence. As I'm sure your response will. How about you refrain:
(verb: refrain; 3rd person present: refrains; past tense: refrained; past participle: refrained; gerund or present participle: refraining
stop oneself from doing something.
"she refrained from comment")
Let someone that can at least repeat the premise respond.
-
So I see that after numerous pages of me posting the same request for data that you still have no observations to present for yor claim of where the sun rises or sets on the equinox equator. I guess we are done here.
-
So I see that after numerous pages of me posting the same request for data that you still have no observations to present for yor claim of where the sun rises or sets on the equinox equator. I guess we are done here.
You dispute what is known. As usual, if you are so convinced about the shape of the earth you should do your own measurements instead of complaining it is too difficult.
Alternatively you could just admit you post about the flat earth as a pastime and do believe the earth to be the shape proven by measurements and observations for many years.
Again, do you, yes you, have any evidence that the earth is any other shape?
-
So I see that after numerous pages of me posting the same request for data that you still have no observations to present for your claim of where the sun rises or sets on the equinox equator. I guess we are done here.
Because it's an accepted fact of RE, and can be observed yourself on any Equinox from anywhere in the world (http://earthsky.org/earth/does-the-sun-rise-due-east-and-set-due-west-at-the-equinox). In fact, we've got one coming up in Sept, I believe on the 22nd. How about you watch it do just that, we can do the same, and you'll see it happen with your own eyes. Surely taking a look and showing us we're wrong can't be that hard?
Here's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MSh5y95y18) a video of the Eastern sunrise during the September Equinox last year even. There's plenty more out there too.
-
So I see that after numerous pages of me posting the same request for data that you still have no observations to present for yor claim of where the sun rises or sets on the equinox equator. I guess we are done here.
Sure - I have an observation. I spent nearly two years in Kenya (Nairobi, to be exact) as a young teenager. Nairobi is just 88 miles from the equator. In spring and fall, the sun rose in the East and set in the West and crossed so nearly vertically overhead that shadows disappeared from tall buildings. I vividly recall one time when my mother and I walked to a local swimming pool in the noon-day heat (yeah - "Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun) - it was very noticeable that you could find no shade from tall buildings on either side of the road. She took the trouble to explain why this is, despite the axial tilt of the round earth. In summer and winter, the earth's axial tilt causes the sun to track to the north or south by around 23 degrees from the vertical...just as you'd expect at the equator of a round earth.
-
It appears that there is not really mountains of evidence for these sorts of phenomena, as we are constantly told, and defenders must resort to the "I proved it myself when I was 13 years old" arguments.
-
It appears that there is not really mountains of evidence for these sorts of phenomena, as we are constantly told, and defenders must resort to the "I proved it myself when I was 13 years old" arguments.
Or..."I'm calling you a liar because I have no good answer of my own."
Honestly - we need a list of the kinds of evidence you'll accept. It seems to get smaller and smaller every day.
PRECISELY: What evidence will you accept?
-
Just post the MOUNTAINS of evidence we are being told that exists for this type of phenomena. Go get it and bring it here. Google. GO.
-
Just post the MOUNTAINS of evidence we are being told that exists for this type of phenomena. Go get it and bring it here. Google. GO.
Are you suggesting that those people who use sunrise and sunset data from various sources find it to be incorrect?
-
Just post the MOUNTAINS of evidence we are being told that exists for this type of phenomena. Go get it and bring it here. Google. GO.
Are you suggesting that those people who use sunrise and sunset data from various sources find it to be incorrect?
We have zero data right now to say anything about it. How embarrassing for this millennia old model with mountains of evidence supposedly behind it.
-
Just post the MOUNTAINS of evidence we are being told that exists for this type of phenomena. Go get it and bring it here. Google. GO.
Are you suggesting that those people who use sunrise and sunset data from various sources find it to be incorrect?
We have zero data right now to say anything about it. How embarrassing for this millennia old model with mountains of evidence supposedly behind it.
You could collect data from your location and that of others you describe as 'we' which might prove a flat earth.
-
Just post the MOUNTAINS of evidence we are being told that exists for this type of phenomena. Go get it and bring it here. Google. GO.
Are you suggesting that those people who use sunrise and sunset data from various sources find it to be incorrect?
We have zero data right now to say anything about it. How embarrassing for this millennia old model with mountains of evidence supposedly behind it.
Says the guy with no working map who doesn't know when or where the sun is rises or sets. I've said it, I've linked and I've said it again. The WIKI, YOUR WIKI, THIS WEBSITES WIKI, says equinox overhead noon sun is fact. If you can't comprehend or except evidence you probably had a hand in posting, why bother showing you anything further? Your not a serious opponent.
-
Just post the MOUNTAINS of evidence we are being told that exists for this type of phenomena. Go get it and bring it here. Google. GO.
Are you suggesting that those people who use sunrise and sunset data from various sources find it to be incorrect?
We have zero data right now to say anything about it. How embarrassing for this millennia old model with mountains of evidence supposedly behind it.
Says the guy with no working map who doesn't know when or where the sun is rises or sets. I've said it, I've linked and I've said it again. The WIKI, YOUR WIKI, THIS WEBSITES WIKI, says equinox overhead noon sun is fact. If you can't comprehend or except evidence you probably had a hand in posting, why bother showing you anything further? Your not a serious opponent.
The wiki says that the sun is overhead at the equator on noon equinox day. Where does it say that the sun will set exactly due west from there?
-
Just post the MOUNTAINS of evidence we are being told that exists for this type of phenomena. Go get it and bring it here. Google. GO.
Are you suggesting that those people who use sunrise and sunset data from various sources find it to be incorrect?
We have zero data right now to say anything about it. How embarrassing for this millennia old model with mountains of evidence supposedly behind it.
Says the guy with no working map who doesn't know when or where the sun is rises or sets. I've said it, I've linked and I've said it again. The WIKI, YOUR WIKI, THIS WEBSITES WIKI, says equinox overhead noon sun is fact. If you can't comprehend or except evidence you probably had a hand in posting, why bother showing you anything further? Your not a serious opponent.
The wiki says that the sun is overhead at the equator on noon equinox day. Where does it say that the sun will set exactly due west from there?
Riddle me this Tom:
If:
The Sun's orbit on the Equinox is Directly over the Equator
http://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_you_explain_day.2Fnight_cycles_and_seasons.3F
http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude
and:
How long is a day? 24 hours.
Every point on the Equator is East and West of every other point. (Only on a compass on your map)
http://wiki.tfes.org/Circumnavigation
Also given your assertion:
No, the sun does not rise directly east and set directly west. The direction the sun rises from ranges through the year from the North-East to the South-East, and the direction it sets ranges from North-West to South-West.
Guess what day it transitions from NE-SE and NW-SW?
THEREFORE:
When it's noon at a point on the equator (at least 6 hours into the Equinox) it's also, rising and setting, at another location on the equator.
and right there is where the FE map epic fails. Because you can drive east or west with a compass on the FE map and go in a circle, but you can't look east or west or draw a line east or west OR SHINE A SUN!!! and get a circle.
It can't be any other way. Again, this was just to make it easy to visualize and use THIS sites wiki as a "source". It's just as much of a problem every other day of the year as well.
Easy illustration:
https://ibb.co/ciBkN5
(https://image.ibb.co/mbaC25/Azimuthal_Equidistant_Projection_sun_fail.jpg)
-
And... where are the real world observations to back up your assertions?
-
And... where are the real world observations to back up your assertions?
Please give details of what you would accept as 'real world observations'. Have you made any?
-
And... where are the real world observations to back up your assertions?
Are you suggesting you regularly see the sun setting North of West by roughly 40 degrees? Because that's the only reason we would need to provide observations. You keep doing this, acting as though it's on us to prove certain ideas correct. This is your model we're working with here. You need to explain how, just by placing the sun upon where it should be and locating the sight lines to it from two locations, it doesn't match up with common observations. The sun rises roughly East, and sets roughly West, even your own wiki agrees with that. So how can the positions on your map look to have it set roughly 40 degrees North of an observer looking West?
-
And... where are the real world observations to back up your assertions?
The sun rose here (in the REAL world) at 5:59am, in the East, just like everyday. (Shocking) I know because it shines in my freaking eyes on the way to work. As has been shown, that can't happen on your map.
Burden of proof is on you.
I can't go observe the sun doing whatever the hell yours would be doing, because I'm limited to the real world.
You presented a map and a wiki and a theory. Those don't work with what everyone here including you are seeing, an easterly sunrise. So WHERE ARE YOUR "REAL" WORLD OBSERVATIONS that the sun doesn't rise in the east? Or rebut the logic (for once, this is a debate after all). You won't because you can't.
-
And... where are the real world observations to back up your assertions?
From our experience, its when the results do not agree with your model, you stop posting about it.
-
So there are no observations or evidence for the numerous claims that have been made for this superior globe earth model with tons of supposed evidence behind it, and just excuses and challenges to "prove me wrong". I see.
-
So there are no observations or evidence for the numerous claims that have been made for this superior globe earth model with tons of supposed evidence behind it, and just excuses and challenges to "prove me wrong". I see.
There is obvious evidence that the direction of the sunset in the real world does not match the diagram of the FE map from the fabled WIKI in Merkava's post above. Comment please.
-
So there are no observations or evidence for the numerous claims that have been made for this superior globe earth model with tons of supposed evidence behind it, and just excuses and challenges to "prove me wrong". I see.
There is obvious evidence that the direction of the sunset in the real world does not match the diagram of the FE map from the fabled WIKI in Merkava's post above. Comment please.
I keep asking for these observations but none seem to exist. It seems really hard for you guys to find any. Does this supposed mountain of evidence exist? Is the plethora of evidence for things like this just a myth? Is Round Earth Theory really just based on assumption?
-
So there are no observations or evidence for the numerous claims that have been made for this superior globe earth model with tons of supposed evidence behind it, and just excuses and challenges to "prove me wrong". I see.
There is obvious evidence that the direction of the sunset in the real world does not match the diagram of the FE map from the fabled WIKI in Merkava's post above. Comment please.
This evidence was even presented with statements that support it in your own wiki. If you need documented evidence to back up claims made in your own wiki and your own statements, just because those claims are being used to point out a basic flaw in the FE model, we might have found the real problem.
What needs to be explained is this image (https://image.ibb.co/mbaC25/Azimuthal_Equidistant_Projection_sun_fail.jpg). The orange dot is the sun, at noon, in that location on the equinox. At the yellow dot, the sun should be just setting. The red arrow draws a line pointing directly West from the yellow dot, at where the sun should be visible. As backed up here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MSh5y95y18) the sun should rise/set nearly directly East/West on the equinox. How does the yellow dot see the sun setting in the West, when it's clearly 40 degrees north of West? EDIT: Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW9SScryzaU) is another for you too.
-
So there are no observations or evidence for the numerous claims that have been made for this superior globe earth model with tons of supposed evidence behind it, and just excuses and challenges to "prove me wrong". I see.
There is obvious evidence that the direction of the sunset in the real world does not match the diagram of the FE map from the fabled WIKI in Merkava's post above. Comment please.
I keep asking for these observations but none seem to exist. It seems really hard for you guys to find any. Does this supposed mountain of evidence exist? Is the plethora of evidence for things like this just a myth? Is Round Earth Theory really just based on assumption?
Please confirm dateandtime.com is correct for your location. No excuses please, just tell us. Yes or no.
-
So there are no observations or evidence for the numerous claims that have been made for this superior globe earth model with tons of supposed evidence behind it, and just excuses and challenges to "prove me wrong". I see.
There is obvious evidence that the direction of the sunset in the real world does not match the diagram of the FE map from the fabled WIKI in Merkava's post above. Comment please.
I keep asking for these observations but none seem to exist. It seems really hard for you guys to find any. Does this supposed mountain of evidence exist? Is the plethora of evidence for things like this just a myth? Is Round Earth Theory really just based on assumption?
I know you are not as thick as you pretend to be but yes, I observe the sun rising in the east and setting in the west most days. Not at an odd angle as the fabled WIKI map would have us believe.
Side note, I have asked you many questions over the last few days and you shy away. Why? Surely the self-proclaimed expert in FE could answer a few simple questions.
1. Where is a rough draft map of FE as you think it would look? Surely after all these years, you have a rough idea?
2. Why are flight times in the southern hemisphere consistent with great circle navigation on a globe?
3. Why does the sun not rise and set as described in a post in this very thread using the WIKI map? click here.
Answer those 3 for a start and we can proceed from there.
-
I keep asking for these observations but none seem to exist. It seems really hard for you guys to find any. Does this supposed mountain of evidence exist? Is the plethora of evidence for things like this just a myth? Is Round Earth Theory really just based on assumption?
We give you evidence - then you ignore it - or say it doesn't count. We have unre-touched photos of the very clearly spherical Earth from space. This seems like good evidence - but you simply dismiss it as a conspiracy theory.
We come up with sunrise and sunset times from timeanddate.com - but you say they don't count without proof that timeanddate.com are correct.
We come up with personal observations we can make - and you say that these don't count because they are just personal observations.
We have shown airplane schedules from major airlines that don't work with any of the maps you have of the flat earth, but which fit perfectly the one and only round earth map...but those too are dismissed because you don't appear to have the slightest clue about the nature of your earth (except that you think it's flat).
The problem here isn't finding evidence for our assertions - it's finding evidence THAT YOU WILL ACCEPT.
So - just tell us clearly your standards for acceptable evidence - and we can do our best to meet your standards.
If you think we can just dump ALL of our evidence in your lap and you'll sort through it - then I give you the ENTIRE internet - all of it. All of the evidence is in there. The greatest single repository of the works of mankind - there for the taking.
For sure you can't work though all of it. So evidence needs to be "curated" - to find the juicy bits that give us what we need to know to settle this issue.
But if you'll just dismiss everything we give you (such as the timeanddate.com sunrise/sunset data) - then you are doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "Nah, nah, nah...Not listening".
So one more time Tom: What are your standards of evidence. Tell us what is acceptable and what is not.
-
This evidence was even presented with statements that support it in your own wiki. If you need documented evidence to back up claims made in your own wiki and your own statements, just because those claims are being used to point out a basic flaw in the FE model, we might have found the real problem.
The Wiki only states that on noon equinox the sun will be overhead at the equator. It says nothing about where it sets.
What needs to be explained is this image (https://image.ibb.co/mbaC25/Azimuthal_Equidistant_Projection_sun_fail.jpg). The orange dot is the sun, at noon, in that location on the equinox. At the yellow dot, the sun should be just setting. The red arrow draws a line pointing directly West from the yellow dot, at where the sun should be visible.
How does the yellow dot see the sun setting in the West, when it's clearly 40 degrees north of West?
You will need to provide observations from that yellow dot before your argument has merit.
Secondly, you are mistaken that the sun will set directly west for all locations on a Round Earth on equinox. Consider what an observer near the North Pole will see. The sun only allegedly sets directly west on the equator.
Finally, there is no agreed upon Flat Earth map. You are trying to poke a hole in a map which does not exist. That map you posted is clearly just a projection of a globe, based on how the continents are distorted. It is not an original creation.
As backed up here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MSh5y95y18) the sun should rise/set nearly directly East/West on the equinox. How does the yellow dot see the sun setting in the West, when it's clearly 40 degrees north of West? EDIT: Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW9SScryzaU) is another for you too.
Sure, the sun can rise or set in a generally easterly or westerly direction under Flat Earth models.
Look at the proposed bi-polar model map (http://imgur.com/i9hKrVN) and look at where the direction of "west" and "east" is pointing at from those two locations. The magnetic field lines emanate from the the North and South poles like a bar magnet. The magnetic field lines are curved, and the cardinal directions of west and east, which are always at right angles to North or South on a compass, makes a straight line connection with the latitude the sun is traveling around from those locations.
Also, the sun does not appear to be setting directly "west" in that first link. The sun does not appear to be aligning with the horizontal perspective lines in that westerly built road.
-
This evidence was even presented with statements that support it in your own wiki. If you need documented evidence to back up claims made in your own wiki and your own statements, just because those claims are being used to point out a basic flaw in the FE model, we might have found the real problem.
The Wiki only states that on noon equinox the sun will be overhead at the equator. It says nothing about where it sets.
You'd have to be a spectacular dunce not to understand the sun is ALWAYS and SIMULTANEOUSLY rising/setting and everything in between. So, if it is over the Equator all equinox. It's rising, setting and at its apex on the Equator. All clear from the wiki.
What needs to be explained is this image (https://image.ibb.co/mbaC25/Azimuthal_Equidistant_Projection_sun_fail.jpg). The orange dot is the sun, at noon, in that location on the equinox. At the yellow dot, the sun should be just setting. The red arrow draws a line pointing directly West from the yellow dot, at where the sun should be visible.
How does the yellow dot see the sun setting in the West, when it's clearly 40 degrees north of West?
You will need to provide observations from that yellow dot before your argument has merit.
No we don't. The argument is based %100 on YOUR/WIKI assertions. It stands alone.
Secondly, you are mistaken that the sun will set directly west for all locations on a Round Earth on equinox. Consider what an observer near the North Pole will see. The sun only allegedly sets directly west on the equator.
A straw man. It is CLEARLY stated and shown in the picture the example is only talking about the EQUATOR.
Finally, there is no agreed upon Flat Earth map. You are trying to poke a hole in a map which does not exist. That map you posted is clearly just a projection of a globe, based on how the continents are distorted. It is not an original creation.
That's just desperate. Picture is just for illustration of the problem. Could draw it on the wiki map and change nothing about the facts. I could draw it on a pizza for that matter.
As backed up here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MSh5y95y18) the sun should rise/set nearly directly East/West on the equinox. How does the yellow dot see the sun setting in the West, when it's clearly 40 degrees north of West? EDIT: Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW9SScryzaU) is another for you too.
Sure, the sun can rise or set in a generally easterly or westerly direction under Flat Earth models.
WRONG, produce one.
Look at the proposed bi-polar model map (http://imgur.com/i9hKrVN) and look at where the direction of "west" and "east" is pointing at from those two locations. The magnetic field lines emanate from the the North and South poles like a bar magnet. The magnetic field lines are curved, and the cardinal directions of west and east, which are always at a right angle to the North or South Poles on a compass, makes a straight line connection with the latitude the sun is traveling around from those locations.
This map is even more colossally ridiculous than the first one. What exactly does the sun do when it hits the east edge of the map on the equinox? Wormholes to get back west? Not to mention what it does a few days before and after.
Also, the sun does not appear to be setting directly "west" in that first link. The sun does not appear to be aligning with the horizontal perspective lines in that westerly built road.
-
Look at the proposed bi-polar model map (http://imgur.com/i9hKrVN) and look at where the direction of "west" and "east" is pointing at from those two locations. The magnetic field lines emanate from the the North and South poles like a bar magnet. The magnetic field lines are curved, and the cardinal directions of west and east, which are always at right angles to North or South on a compass, makes a straight line connection with the latitude the sun is traveling around from those locations.
Also, the sun does not appear to be setting directly "west" in that first link. The sun does not appear to be aligning with the horizontal perspective lines in that westerly built road.
Hey Tom - if your lines of latitude and longitude are both curved - how does the pole star stay simultaneously in the North for everyone in the northern hemisphere and the southern cross stay in the south for everyone in the southern hemisphere? Local compass directions wouldn't agree with the direction of the pole star...which I think is an observation that even you'll agree has to work out right for your new map to work.
Seems like you can't curve those lines without making exciting new anomalies...right?
-
Look at the proposed bi-polar model map (http://imgur.com/i9hKrVN) and look at where the direction of "west" and "east" is pointing at from those two locations. The magnetic field lines emanate from the the North and South poles like a bar magnet. The magnetic field lines are curved, and the cardinal directions of west and east, which are always at right angles to North or South on a compass, makes a straight line connection with the latitude the sun is traveling around from those locations.
Also, the sun does not appear to be setting directly "west" in that first link. The sun does not appear to be aligning with the horizontal perspective lines in that westerly built road.
Hey Tom - if your lines of latitude and longitude are both curved - how does the pole star stay simultaneously in the North for everyone in the northern hemisphere and the southern cross stay in the south for everyone in the southern hemisphere? Local compass directions wouldn't agree with the direction of the pole star...which I think is an observation that even you'll agree has to work out right for your new map to work.
Seems like you can't curve those lines without making exciting new anomalies...right?
"Where are your observational proofs of these observations?" - Tom in his attempt to ignore anything that doesn't work. >.>
This evidence was even presented with statements that support it in your own wiki. If you need documented evidence to back up claims made in your own wiki and your own statements, just because those claims are being used to point out a basic flaw in the FE model, we might have found the real problem.
The Wiki only states that on noon equinox the sun will be overhead at the equator. It says nothing about where it sets.
But we know from observations upon the equinox, the sun rises directly East, and sets directly West. It happens all over the globe in fact. I've directly linked you to two observations showing that.
What needs to be explained is this image (https://image.ibb.co/mbaC25/Azimuthal_Equidistant_Projection_sun_fail.jpg). The orange dot is the sun, at noon, in that location on the equinox. At the yellow dot, the sun should be just setting. The red arrow draws a line pointing directly West from the yellow dot, at where the sun should be visible.
How does the yellow dot see the sun setting in the West, when it's clearly 40 degrees north of West?
You will need to provide observations from that yellow dot before your argument has merit.
Secondly, you are mistaken that the sun will set directly west for all locations on a Round Earth on equinox. Consider what an observer near the North Pole will see. The sun only allegedly sets directly west on the equator.
Finally, there is no agreed upon Flat Earth map. You are trying to poke a hole in a map which does not exist. That map you posted is clearly just a projection of a globe, based on how the continents are distorted. It is not an original creation.
Already have provided observations, on the Equinox, that the sun does exactly what RE says it should.
Sorry, I should have been more clear, as my link at the start of this was. It doesn't hold true for (as I recall without looking) anywhere within the Arctic or Antarctic circles. Now stop being pedantic. It sets west all across the globe, this isn't allegedly.
Doesn't matter. Any Earth that has a sun that moves in a circle above it will have this issue, because the sun has to move away from a straight East/West line at some point.
As backed up here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MSh5y95y18) the sun should rise/set nearly directly East/West on the equinox. How does the yellow dot see the sun setting in the West, when it's clearly 40 degrees north of West? EDIT: Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW9SScryzaU) is another for you too.
Sure, the sun can rise or set in a generally easterly or westerly direction under Flat Earth models.
Look at the proposed bi-polar model map (http://imgur.com/i9hKrVN) and look at where the direction of "west" and "east" is pointing at from those two locations. The magnetic field lines emanate from the the North and South poles like a bar magnet. The magnetic field lines are curved, and the cardinal directions of west and east, which are always at right angles to North or South on a compass, makes a straight line connection with the latitude the sun is traveling around from those locations.
Also, the sun does not appear to be setting directly "west" in that first link. The sun does not appear to be aligning with the horizontal perspective lines in that westerly built road.
But the sun doesn't move upon the equatorial line in that model does it? And if it did, even for a day, how does all of Antarctica get sunlight without having it 24 hours at some location, when it's not supposed to? I'm not even going to go into the insanities that result from curving those lines.
So the road isn't oriented, or he has some issue with where he's filming at. There are a LOT of possibilities besides "The Earth is Flat" and that still doesn't explain the second video.
Try harder Tom. Stop deflecting the map issue. The issues' presented here would happen with any map where the sun does a circular orbit over a flat plane. How do you not get that?
-
Hey Tom - if your lines of latitude and longitude are both curved - how does the pole star stay simultaneously in the North for everyone in the northern hemisphere and the southern cross stay in the south for everyone in the southern hemisphere? Local compass directions wouldn't agree with the direction of the pole star...which I think is an observation that even you'll agree has to work out right for your new map to work.
Seems like you can't curve those lines without making exciting new anomalies...right?
I don't see your point. If you are in North America or Europe your compass will align with the magnetic field lines, which are emanating from the North Pole, and therefore North will point to the North Pole. If you are in Australia, the field lines are emanating from the South Pole and your compass will align and South will point to the South Pole.
But we know from observations upon the equinox, the sun rises directly East, and sets directly West. It happens all over the globe in fact. I've directly linked you to two observations showing that.
The sun only rises directly East and sets directly West on the equator during the equinox in the Round Earth model. Again, consider where the sun would set anywhere near the North Pole in RET. It was admitted that the sun doesn't set in the East in the Arctic Circle, and it doesn't just suddenly set in the East just outside of that zone. It is only the equator where the sun, allegedly, sets directly East.
You have not provided any observations from the equator. We cannot say what will happen there.
Already have provided observations, on the Equinox, that the sun does exactly what RE says it should.
None from the equator. RE says that the sun should not set in the east, except for at the equator.
Doesn't matter. Any Earth that has a sun that moves in a circle above it will have this issue, because the sun has to move away from a straight East/West line at some point.
Try harder Tom. Stop deflecting the map issue. The issues' presented here would happen with any map where the sun does a circular orbit over a flat plane. How do you not get that?
Incorrect. The sun can generally rise in the East and set in the West in North America if it is traveling along a circle over a flat plane. The sun rides upon a circle, but from an observer looking at a compass in North America the direction of East is pointing a straight line into infinity. When the sun rises, it is certainly possible to align with the Eastern direction of that compass, and when it sets it is also possible for the sun to align with the Westerly direction of that compass.
The sun's rising over the year will, of course, vary between North-East and South-East, and the setting will vary between North-West and South-West. A simple observation of the sun rising from the East on one of those days is not enough to demonstrate or determine anything.
But the sun doesn't move upon the equatorial line in that model does it? And if it did, even for a day, how does all of Antarctica get sunlight without having it 24 hours at some location, when it's not supposed to? I'm not even going to go into the insanities that result from curving those lines.
So the road isn't oriented, or he has some issue with where he's filming at. There are a LOT of possibilities besides "The Earth is Flat" and that still doesn't explain the second video.
There are a number of books and journals supporting to the bi-polar model, basically anything published by our society in the early 1900's (Then called the Universal Zetetic Society). Lady Blount and Albert Smith (Zetetes) were notable Flat Earth authors supporting the bi-polar model. We were kind enough to provide scanned literature on this website, and on the .org website, for you to pursue if interested in the subject.
-
But we know from observations upon the equinox, the sun rises directly East, and sets directly West. It happens all over the globe in fact. I've directly linked you to two observations showing that.
The sun only rises directly East and sets directly West on the equator during the equinox in the Round Earth model. Again, consider where the sun would set anywhere near the North Pole in RET. It was admitted that the sun doesn't set in the East in the Arctic Circle, and it doesn't just suddenly set in the East just outside of that zone. It is only the equator where the sun, allegedly, sets directly East.
You have not provided any observations from the equator. We cannot say what will happen there.
Already have provided observations, on the Equinox, that the sun does exactly what RE says it should.
None from the equator. RE says that the sun should not set in the east, except for at the equator
So I see that after numerous pages of me posting the same request for data that you still have no observations to present for your claim of where the sun rises or sets on the equinox equator. I guess we are done here.
Because it's an accepted fact of RE, and can be observed yourself on any Equinox from anywhere in the world (http://earthsky.org/earth/does-the-sun-rise-due-east-and-set-due-west-at-the-equinox). In fact, we've got one coming up in Sept, I believe on the 22nd. How about you watch it do just that, we can do the same, and you'll see it happen with your own eyes. Surely taking a look and showing us we're wrong can't be that hard?
My how quickly you forget. Sun rises East and sets West on the Equinox, all over the globe, except at the poles. As I showed you in both of those videos.
I said Sorry, I should have been more clear, as my link at the start of this was. It doesn't hold true for (as I recall without looking) anywhere within the Arctic or Antarctic circles.
and based upon actually looking at the site this time, I was incorrect as the site lists just the poles being exempt from this. My apologies for not remembering what it said correctly.
Once again this image (https://image.ibb.co/mbaC25/Azimuthal_Equidistant_Projection_sun_fail.jpg) is the issue here. Move the dots to any two points along the same latitude and you will get the same problem. The compass will point West, as the arrow shows, but after going a certain distance W would have to change. Thus looking out to the horizon, the setting sun cannot remain directly West while scribing a circle over the plane of the Earth.
But the sun doesn't move upon the equatorial line in that model does it? And if it did, even for a day, how does all of Antarctica get sunlight without having it 24 hours at some location, when it's not supposed to? I'm not even going to go into the insanities that result from curving those lines.
So the road isn't oriented, or he has some issue with where he's filming at. There are a LOT of possibilities besides "The Earth is Flat" and that still doesn't explain the second video.
There are a number of books and journals supporting to the bi-polar model, basically anything published by our society in the early 1900's (Then called the Universal Zetetic Society). Lady Blount and Albert Smith (Zetetes) were notable Flat Earth authors supporting the bi-polar model. We were kind enough to provide scanned literature on this website, and on the .org website, for you to pursue if interested in the subject.
How is it you can't answer a simple question and instead refer me to 'scanned literature on this website' for a question that should be very straightforward for the model that you yourself admit you prefer? Let's try this again.
Does the sun ever follow the line of the equator in the dual pole model? If so, how does the sunlight reach the locations to either side of the pole without bathing parts of the Arctic/Antarctic in a full day/period of sunlight?
Simple questions. If you try and defer me somewhere else I have to assume you don't know anything about how your own preferred model works and can thusly dismiss anything you have to say about it. These should not be hard to answer questions.
-
The sun only rises directly East and sets directly West on the equator during the equinox in the Round Earth model. Again, consider where the sun would set anywhere near the North Pole in RET. It was admitted that the sun doesn't set in the East in the Arctic Circle, and it doesn't just suddenly set in the East just outside of that zone. It is only the equator where the sun, allegedly, sets directly East.
You have not provided any observations from the equator. We cannot say what will happen there.
"The sun only rises directly East and sets directly West on the equator during the equinox in the Round Earth model."
ROFL There's one more place it happens. Reality. What city do you live in, we'll tell when and where the sun is going to rise and set and how that destroys FE.
-
Man your digging a hole so fast now it's hard to even decide which nonsensical statement to go after. Are you seriously going to hang your hat on not being able to determine what direction the Sun rises or sets unless you see it. That is awesome. So the whole FE "model" is now completely reliant on the Sun not rising due East or setting due West EVER. LMAO... So Tom where exactly have you "verified" the Earth is flat? The beach down the street. So it's only "allegedly" flat everywhere you haven't checked out? Even better is you'll never give us a rough location of "Flat Earth Headquarters" because we could prove the map/model is horseshit if you would just look out the window! HaHaHa
Has it really never occurred to any of you that you could disprove the Globe by just tracking the Sun at your own locations? FFS unless you live at one of the poles the Sun is going to Rise directly East on the Equinox and set directly West on Sep 22, 2017. In fact, what the Sun does at all times proves you wrong.
SO
I dare you to watch it. In fact, I dare you to show where the sun rises (accurate direction) on any day show us on a map how that's possible.
-
Nothing from Tom in reply means I have to assume he can't answer my questions. So anything he has to say about his preferred model is suspect in my view from here on out. As for everyone else, I highly encourage you to go watch the sunset and sunrise on the Equinox. It will occur directly West and East on the 22nd of September this year, and will be observable all over the globe (unless you happen to be Santa Claus or an unlucky penguin living on one of the poles) and is a pretty powerful proof against any model the Flat Earth Hypothesis has so far put forward. Take care!
-
I just noticed a strange anomaly on this site. Earlier in this thread the Wiki articlehttp://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude (http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude) was referenced several times in the context of formulating a disproof of a certain aspect of Flat Earth theory. Today, when I access that Wiki page I find it to be empty.
Why would that be? Is it even remotely possible that it has since become an embarrassment to the FE community and was summarily disposed of?
I ask that as the result of what I have come to learn of the machinations of various other groups who are involved in similar fringe activities, such as conspiracy theorists and creationists, to name just two. If it does not coincide with their world view it must be ignored, dismissed or done away with. Given that it is/was part of the FE site, they had the power to do the latter, and, it appears, did so.
Incidentally, I'm not at all in favor of the use of the acronym "FET" for this site as I feel it does a disservice to the Field Effect Transistor.