The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: JL on March 09, 2018, 01:57:39 PM
-
It is not too difficult to find out for any location on Earth the times of sunrise and sundown at any time in the year. This allows to draw the regions of sunlight and darkness.
The patterns this generates are in my mind impossible. So where is the sun above a flat earth, and how does this behave throughout the year? Can anyone explain this?
Look here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEYsgP4CuSA
-
Sorry friend, I've been banging this drum for a while (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8995.0) and have yet to get a response beyond "every local newspaper and weather station that reports daylight hours is either in on the hoax or misinformed." (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9082.msg143412#msg143412)
The problem with this evidence is that it's too good and there's no real counter-argument, so FE believers refuse to engage. It might actually challenge their worldview if they did.
-
Yes this is deadly for the flat earth hoax isn't it?
-
Yes this is deadly for the flat earth hoax isn't it?
It is pretty much a knock out blow.
The one hope for the Flat Earthers is that the above map is wrong and there is a map which can explain the observations of sun I different geographies. The first big problem is the 24 hour sun at the poles in their respective summer. Their model kinda works for the Arctic but it doesn’t work at all for the Antarctic.
-
....but unfortunately for them, the map is not wrong. Anyone can draw this map just by looking up daylight hours across the world.
-
....but unfortunately for them, the map is not wrong. Anyone can draw this map just by looking up daylight hours across the world.
Distances are wrong on that map.
-
....but unfortunately for them, the map is not wrong. Anyone can draw this map just by looking up daylight hours across the world.
Distances are wrong on that map.
The distances are wrong, but just looking at the sunlight it's exactly accurate to what we see on timeanddate.com (as well as local weather stations) for each individual location which is what we're talking about in this thread.
The point is that, even taking the standard FE model on its own terms, we reach a huge contradiction when looking at the length of daylight in the southern hemisphere. Either the "spotlight" sun shines in bizarre non-elliptical shapes (which completely contradict Tom Bishop's hypotheses on perspective required to make the sun set below the horizon) or everyone south of the equator is unable to tell time accurately. The standard FE theory requires you to believe one of these two nonsensical ideas, and therefore should be thrown out as it's unable to accurately describe reality.
-
In my previous answer, by "map" I meant the pattern of sunlight.
The circular map in itself is not 'wrong', as long as one realizes that it is the azimuthal equidistant projection of a spherical earth.
Correct distances in the radial direction, totally wrong distances in any other direction.
-
The pattern of sunlight is correct given that map. And clearly that makes a nonsense of that map - it cannot be correct in that it can't match reality.
The question is...can you move things around so that the sun can be a consistent spotlight and it matches other things like flight times.
The answer, of course, is no.
I'd be interested to hear the FE response to this but am not holding my breath.
-
Maybe now would be a good time to invite any flat earthers here to view these four videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgY8zNZ35uw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgY8zNZ35uw)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeMooNFtFJk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeMooNFtFJk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ0EKJWyl_g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ0EKJWyl_g)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rmXP4Q2ZpI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rmXP4Q2ZpI)
Maybe everyone else here has already seen them but I just discovered them. They are the best, most well developed refutations of FET I've seen, though they are more than a bit condescending (and somewhat humorous, to boot). They deal with the subject at hand in great depth, as well as related subjects. If a flat earther thinks he can refute the math or the geometry, I would invite them to give it a shot.
-
....but unfortunately for them, the map is not wrong. Anyone can draw this map just by looking up daylight hours across the world.
Distances are wrong on that map.
As mentioned in several other threads, the game here is not about believing in one thing or another, it is to pick holes in specific details to create a debate. Play until backed into a corner and then move to another detail. I cannot believe that anyone here who has been in any two different hemispheres could believe in a flat earth. But that would not stop them from debating minute details to create a club. We can argue about flying pegasuses but that does not mean anyone here actually believes they exist.
-
Maybe now would be a good time to invite any flat earthers here to view these four videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgY8zNZ35uw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgY8zNZ35uw)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeMooNFtFJk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeMooNFtFJk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ0EKJWyl_g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ0EKJWyl_g)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rmXP4Q2ZpI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rmXP4Q2ZpI)
Maybe everyone else here has already seen them but I just discovered them. They are the best, most well developed refutations of FET I've seen, though they are more than a bit condescending (and somewhat humorous, to boot). They deal with the subject at hand in great depth, as well as related subjects. If a flat earther thinks he can refute the math or the geometry, I would invite them to give it a shot.
I actually find these videos quite annoying. Aside from the condescending tone, a lot of it is straw man stuff.
He's arguing at times against a position that the FES don't actually take, but there are some good points in there.
-
Very good series of films. Can't wait for number 5.
No flat earther succeeds in refuting any of the arguments made in the films when I read all the comments.
-
I actually find these videos quite annoying. Aside from the condescending tone, a lot of it is straw man stuff.
He's arguing at times against a position that the FES don't actually take, but there are some good points in there.
I'll go along with that - but it doesn't diminish the veracity of his arguments. Possibly he has gotten out of date with the "rapidly changing" world view of the FEers. Which is in favour today, the unipolar or the bipolar map? Both are worth exactly diddly-squat, yet many FEers seem to favour one or the other. (Hint - the more cerebral appearing bipolar map has more problems than does the unipolar map, but then that's not saying much).
-
Maybe now would be a good time to invite any flat earthers here to view these four videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgY8zNZ35uw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgY8zNZ35uw)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeMooNFtFJk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeMooNFtFJk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ0EKJWyl_g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ0EKJWyl_g)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rmXP4Q2ZpI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rmXP4Q2ZpI)
Maybe everyone else here has already seen them but I just discovered them. They are the best, most well developed refutations of FET I've seen, though they are more than a bit condescending (and somewhat humorous, to boot). They deal with the subject at hand in great depth, as well as related subjects. If a flat earther thinks he can refute the math or the geometry, I would invite them to give it a shot.
I actually find these videos quite annoying. Aside from the condescending tone, a lot of it is straw man stuff.
He's arguing at times against a position that the FES don't actually take, but there are some good points in there.
I don't doubt that FE'ers would take offense at the tone, but he makes many valid points. I'm curious specifically which of his arguments you believe aren't actually FE beliefs.
-
I don't doubt that FE'ers would take offense at the tone, but he makes many valid points. I'm curious specifically which of his arguments you believe aren't actually FE beliefs.
Just in the first video he says
"The conspiracy dates back to antiquity but is all due to NASA and the UN"
Actually the "conspiracy" is about faking space travel, not the shape of the earth:
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
So NASA aren't trying to fool you into thinking the earth is round, they think it's round too, they're just faking space travel.
He says that FE is all based on God creating a flat earth with a dome and the entire argument boils down to "But meh Holy Book".
But he then goes on to admit there is some debate amonst flat earthers about whether there is an edge. SOME Flat Earthers do indeed believe what they believe because of a certain (wrong, IMO) interpretation of Scripture, but many on this site do not. Honestly, I don't know what their basis is, seems to be wrapped up in other conspiracy theories.
He states that the FE Map is as shown on the UN Logo - actually there is no agreed map although that is admittedly the one commonly shown.
He states that the UN would stop them exploring Antarctica with patrols the southern seas. Some FErs do seem to believe that there is something actively stopping exploration of Antarctica but it is not a universal FE belief. That is not mentioned here and there is a suggestion of a bi-polar model:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Antarctica
One of the problems with refuding FE is there isn't a coherent flat earth model. There is so much disagreement within the community about their own model it's quite hard knowing what to refute. But in that video series he does make claims for FE Belief which are either wrong or not universally believed within the FE community.
-
Bipolar Model?
Their wiki says:
Another alternative model descripting Antarctica as a distinct continent. There is still an "ice wall" in this model, but it not Antarctica. Beyond the rays of the sun the waters will naturally freeze.
This even crazier. This requires an ice wall in The Pacific ocean!
-
Bipolar Model?
Their wiki says:
Another alternative model descripting Antarctica as a distinct continent. There is still an "ice wall" in this model, but it not Antarctica. Beyond the rays of the sun the waters will naturally freeze.
This even crazier. This requires an ice wall in The Pacific ocean!
And the position of New Zealand is, let's say, interesting.
I'd also like to see how the sun a.k.a. flying spotlight works in that model, given that the equator is just a finite straight line across the map (not that it it made any sense in the "regular" FE map a.k.a. equidistant azimuthal projection of RE to begin with) 🤷♂️
Basically, the bipolar map a.k.a. equal-area azimuthal projection of RE doesn't solve any of FET's issues, it just shifts them. Which is of little surprise, since both maps are projections of the round earth. 🌍
-
Maybe now would be a good time to invite any flat earthers here to view these four videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgY8zNZ35uw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgY8zNZ35uw)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeMooNFtFJk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeMooNFtFJk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ0EKJWyl_g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ0EKJWyl_g)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rmXP4Q2ZpI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rmXP4Q2ZpI)
Maybe everyone else here has already seen them but I just discovered them. They are the best, most well developed refutations of FET I've seen, though they are more than a bit condescending (and somewhat humorous, to boot). They deal with the subject at hand in great depth, as well as related subjects. If a flat earther thinks he can refute the math or the geometry, I would invite them to give it a shot.
I actually find these videos quite annoying. Aside from the condescending tone, a lot of it is straw man stuff.
He's arguing at times against a position that the FES don't actually take, but there are some good points in there.
I don't doubt that FE'ers would take offense at the tone, but he makes many valid points. I'm curious specifically which of his arguments you believe aren't actually FE beliefs.
From video 1: The FES does NOT believe in a global conspiracy to hide the shape of the Earth. They believe in one to fake space travel, which of course started with NASA/Russian equivalent. I'm also unsure on the "Distances on land are accurate" as the only person to comment on them appears to hold we don't actually know any distances for sure. Also as a note, though he's never come out and said it point blank, it's heavily implied that geometry doesn't work at longer distances. We've also been told that no one actually knows how fast planes are flying, and they simply follow their headings as per normal without question.
From video 2: This one seems somewhat accurate, although I think the FES generally uses the catch-all of perspective rather than refraction. But this is generally ignored with a "Have you done these observations personally?" style response in my experience.
From video 3: The 'spotlight sun' is described as being the result of perspective, and not a literal spotlight with some frequency. But really this is something I haven't seen directly addressed too frequently in either FES forum. These particular issues are also avoided (somewhat) with the bipolar model.
From video 4: Once again he is citing an appeal to refraction, when the FES generally appeals to perspective for these sorts of things.
I could be wrong on some of these, and many of the points still stand in some manner, but that would be the misrepresentations to the FES statements as I understand them.
-
I don't doubt that FE'ers would take offense at the tone, but he makes many valid points. I'm curious specifically which of his arguments you believe aren't actually FE beliefs.
Just in the first video he says
"The conspiracy dates back to antiquity but is all due to NASA and the UN"
Actually the "conspiracy" is about faking space travel, not the shape of the earth:
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
So NASA aren't trying to fool you into thinking the earth is round, they think it's round too, they're just faking space travel.
He says that FE is all based on God creating a flat earth with a dome and the entire argument boils down to "But meh Holy Book".
But he then goes on to admit there is some debate amonst flat earthers about whether there is an edge. SOME Flat Earthers do indeed believe what they believe because of a certain (wrong, IMO) interpretation of Scripture, but many on this site do not. Honestly, I don't know what their basis is, seems to be wrapped up in other conspiracy theories.
He states that the FE Map is as shown on the UN Logo - actually there is no agreed map although that is admittedly the one commonly shown.
He states that the UN would stop them exploring Antarctica with patrols the southern seas. Some FErs do seem to believe that there is something actively stopping exploration of Antarctica but it is not a universal FE belief. That is not mentioned here and there is a suggestion of a bi-polar model:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Antarctica
One of the problems with refuding FE is there isn't a coherent flat earth model. There is so much disagreement within the community about their own model it's quite hard knowing what to refute. But in that video series he does make claims for FE Belief which are either wrong or not universally believed within the FE community.
Ok, so you believe NASA is "A" conspiracy, just not "THE" conspiracy. But clearly, you have to believe in another conspiracy since belief in the sun centered solar system started with Copernicus in the 16th century. In our modern times all of science, popular knowledge, school texts, etc. explain this to be correct. FE'ers would have to belief that there is a conspiracy or that every scientist since Copernicus was honestly just wrong. Yes, your FAQ says "conspiracy" just means NASA faking space, but the posts generally talk about how everyone believing in a spinning globe has been fooled. Sorry, that's conspiracy talk.
He says in the FE community some believe in a fixed disc with a dome, and some believe it is infinite. And I have seen comments here from both opinions. So I don't see the objection there.
If you want to see someone tie the image of the UN flag to the flat Earth map, see your own FAQ page where it states: "The United Nations emblem closely resembles the Flat Earth map."
In regards to the UN fleet guarding Antarctica, open a thread asking why FE believers haven't explored to the edge of the world and I am confident you will get a response using that excuse.
I'm sure he does make claims about things that are not "universally believed within the FE community" since there is virtually nothing that is "universally believed within the FE community". Look at the state of "FE theory". The flat Earth is finite, or infinite. There is one pole, or maybe two. Inconsistent diagrams and explanations of how things work, moon phases, eclipses, sunsets, how light travels. Let's look at the map, or wait, there is no agreed map. Let's talk about the distance a plane flies. Well we can't since we don't have a map.
Let's face it. His videos are well done and present many valid points, and your response is basically a way to find complaint about the video in general so that you have an excuse to dismiss it instead of trying to answer any points factually. Because you can't.
-
Maybe now would be a good time to invite any flat earthers here to view these four videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgY8zNZ35uw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgY8zNZ35uw)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeMooNFtFJk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeMooNFtFJk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ0EKJWyl_g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ0EKJWyl_g)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rmXP4Q2ZpI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rmXP4Q2ZpI)
Maybe everyone else here has already seen them but I just discovered them. They are the best, most well developed refutations of FET I've seen, though they are more than a bit condescending (and somewhat humorous, to boot). They deal with the subject at hand in great depth, as well as related subjects. If a flat earther thinks he can refute the math or the geometry, I would invite them to give it a shot.
I actually find these videos quite annoying. Aside from the condescending tone, a lot of it is straw man stuff.
He's arguing at times against a position that the FES don't actually take, but there are some good points in there.
I don't doubt that FE'ers would take offense at the tone, but he makes many valid points. I'm curious specifically which of his arguments you believe aren't actually FE beliefs.
From video 1: I'm also unsure on the "Distances on land are accurate" as the only person to comment on them appears to hold we don't actually know any distances for sure. Also as a note, though he's never come out and said it point blank, it's heavily implied that geometry doesn't work at longer distances. We've also been told that no one actually knows how fast planes are flying, and they simply follow their headings as per normal without question.
I believe CHL says that the "distances must be the same" because distances are distances -- we DO know how long a foot is, or how long a mile is. So long as a FE'r and a RE'r know how long a yard is, they will come up with the same distance for a football field for example. Basically he's giving FE'rs the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their mile-by-mile measurement abilities, which might not be the best choice. It would be great if he would have tackled the whole "we don't know what distances are" argument, though... that probably would have been something!
-
Also as a note, though he's never come out and said it point blank, it's heavily implied that geometry doesn't work at longer distances.
This is a point that could (should?) be laid to rest by the FE community, as they have used that same geometry (at long distances) to "divine" the altitudes and diameters of the sun and moon and were satisfied with the results. Given the minute size of their universe there aren't many distances longer than those in the cosmos.
-
I'm sure he does make claims about things that are not "universally believed within the FE community" since there is virtually nothing that is "universally believed within the FE community". Look at the state of "FE theory". The flat Earth is finite, or infinite. There is one pole, or maybe two. Inconsistent diagrams and explanations of how things work, moon phases, eclipses, sunsets, how light travels. Let's look at the map, or wait, there is no agreed map. Let's talk about the distance a plane flies. Well we can't since we don't have a map.
Well, quite. I said this in my post. There is no coherent flat earth model so in some ways that makes it hard to refute.
But he is making claims about their beliefs which don't actually match the flat earth views - although I would say that their actual beliefs are quite hard to determine. The model outlined in the Wiki is fundamentally flawed and I've always struggled on here to get any coherent responses when those flaws have been pointed out.
Let's face it. His videos are well done and present many valid points, and your response is basically a way to find complaint about the video in general so that you have an excuse to dismiss it instead of trying to answer any points factually. Because you can't.
Dude. Did you even read my last paragraph? The one you quoted? It's pretty clear from that I am not a flat earther.
My complaints about the video are a level of straw man argument and the smug, condescending tone.
That doesn't mean that everything in those videos is wrong, a lot is right.
-
Dude. Did you even read my last paragraph? The one you quoted? It's pretty clear from that I am not a flat earther.
My complaints about the video are a level of straw man argument and the smug, condescending tone.
That doesn't mean that everything in those videos is wrong, a lot is right.
Yes, I read the last paragraph. But must have mistaken your point of view. Thought you were coming from a FE belief standpoint, trying to undermine CHL's arguments.
I used to read and post here quite a bit a few months back, been away for a while and not sure where everyone's coming from. My apologies.