The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2017, 01:09:26 AM
-
I don't know about any one else on this forum, but I do not really have the bandwidth to maintain 20 different conversations. These are subjects that deserve more than a few sentence explanations. I have a proposal. We will pick a topic and talk about it in depth over one entire week in Flat Earth Debate. We will discuss and discuss and once the week is over we will compile that information and create Wiki articles out of it. I see three main topics that are brought up over and over:
Perspective - If we choose will talk about perspective we will spend the week talking about the disappearance of the sun, why the moon does not turn, the distance to the vanishing point, as well as the mechanics of perspective.
Distance discrepancies - If we choose to talk about this subject, we will talk about flight times, GPS, Latitude and Longitude, and navigation.
Conspiracy - If we choose to talk about this subject we will discuss evidence, motive, and intricacies which go beyond the Wiki.
Other - List any other subject you might feel important.
Please cast your votes or make your comment. Voting will end on Thursday the 17th. Once we have come to a consensus we will agree not to talk about any other subjects in Flat Earth Debate for a period of one week, starting on Sunday Aug 20. All discussions will contribute towards a Wiki article.
-
i like the idea of trying to shepherd lots of different threads on the same topic into a more coherent and organized discussion, and i like the idea of doing that in the 'thematic' way you describe. a 'topic of the week' thing would be kinda fun.
i don't like the idea of agreeing not to talk about other subjects.
just my two cents. i'm not especially active in the upper fora, so take it with a grain of salt.
-
We can just confine this to Flat Earth Debate or perhaps Flat Earth General. The other forums can remain open discussion.
-
We can just confine this to Flat Earth Debate or perhaps Flat Earth General. The other forums can remain open discussion.
I also think it is a good idea to consolidate the conversations you will just run away from.
-
We can just confine this to Flat Earth Debate or perhaps Flat Earth General. The other forums can remain open discussion.
If we're going to do this as something official we should adopt a debate scoring strategem of some kind. One that can be agreed upon, and hopefully applied objectively to both sides. I know the latter will be difficult for both groups, but perhaps there's a somewhat neutral party about, or a newer forum member who might be interested? This would mean sources, Primary and Secondary over otherwise, and those who claim credentials would of course need to present evidence that they hold those credentials. I suspect there should be more options about, but National Forensics League could provide a good rubric for scoring or otherwise. I'm certain there are other organizations with rules and regulations, as well as perhaps scoring rubrics that we could draw from. Sounds like a fun idea to me.
-
We can just confine this to Flat Earth Debate or perhaps Flat Earth General. The other forums can remain open discussion.
I also think it is a good idea to consolidate the conversations you will just run away from.
If you don't actually have anything to contribute, then refrain from posting. Your low-content, thread derailing isn't helpful.
I will give you one more friendly warning. Next one is a 30-day ban.
-
TB - let's discuss distances. What equipment, methods and software would you require to determine the shape of the earth? Are you OK with the international definition of the metre?
-
TB - let's discuss distances. What equipment, methods and software would you require to determine the shape of the earth? Are you OK with the international definition of the metre?
TB-Such as distances to the horizon, for example ?
-
I vote Distances. This should be the one that the FE crowd would embrace as it would be possible to create a rough draft map based on verifiable distances. No one is ever going to agree on the conspiracy and the science of the perspective thing has way too many nebulous areas. But distances via flight times with a very small margin of error can't be disputed.
Google Sketchup is a very common and free program that anyone can download and the files can be shared. I submit we create a file that contains triangles scaled to 3 points on each southern hemisphere continent and are spaced according to direct flight miles between 3 cities that have nonstop flights to the other continents. Circles are placed on each city with a radius of flight miles to a point on another triangle. (Such as Sydney to Johannesburg). It will be simple to drag the groups around and see if there is any way possible to align the continents(triangles) in such a way that the distances work on a flat map. This eliminates any argument over the actual shape of each continent.
Since there are variations on routes based on engine count I suggest we only use flights that are direct with 4 engine aircraft. Note: I believe the 787 has been rated to fly the same routes as a 747 but I need to dig deeper.
The one point in the Flight distance thread that Tom repeated was that distances are unknown. Therefore I suggest we either use the published cruise speed or a constant (average 747 and Airbus cruise) to calculate the distance based on flight times that are known and provable. This should stay within an acceptable accuracy given the fact that published flat earth maps show 2x to 4x factors of great circle distances.
Comments?
-
I vote Distances. This should be the one that the FE crowd would embrace as it would be possible to create a rough draft map based on verifiable distances. No one is ever going to agree on the conspiracy and the science of the perspective thing has way too many nebulous areas. But distances via flight times with a very small margin of error can't be disputed.
Google Sketchup is a very common and free program that anyone can download and the files can be shared. I submit we create a file that contains triangles scaled to 3 points on each southern hemisphere continent and are spaced according to direct flight miles between 3 cities that have nonstop flights to the other continents. Circles are placed on each city with a radius of flight miles to a point on another triangle. (Such as Sydney to Johannesburg). It will be simple to drag the groups around and see if there is any way possible to align the continents(triangles) in such a way that the distances work on a flat map. This eliminates any argument over the actual shape of each continent.
Since there are variations on routes based on engine count I suggest we only use flights that are direct with 4 engine aircraft. Note: I believe the 787 has been rated to fly the same routes as a 747 but I need to dig deeper.
The one point in the Flight distance thread that Tom repeated was that distances are unknown. Therefore I suggest we either use the published cruise speed or a constant (average 747 and Airbus cruise) to calculate the distance based on flight times that are known and provable. This should stay within an acceptable accuracy given the fact that published flat earth maps show 2x to 4x factors of great circle distances.
Comments?
I found Tom Bishop's statement : "The distance from New York to Paris is unknown." rather curious.
This information is known and readily available for reference.
-
I vote Distances. This should be the one that the FE crowd would embrace as it would be possible to create a rough draft map based on verifiable distances. No one is ever going to agree on the conspiracy and the science of the perspective thing has way too many nebulous areas. But distances via flight times with a very small margin of error can't be disputed.
Google Sketchup is a very common and free program that anyone can download and the files can be shared. I submit we create a file that contains triangles scaled to 3 points on each southern hemisphere continent and are spaced according to direct flight miles between 3 cities that have nonstop flights to the other continents. Circles are placed on each city with a radius of flight miles to a point on another triangle. (Such as Sydney to Johannesburg). It will be simple to drag the groups around and see if there is any way possible to align the continents(triangles) in such a way that the distances work on a flat map. This eliminates any argument over the actual shape of each continent.
Since there are variations on routes based on engine count I suggest we only use flights that are direct with 4 engine aircraft. Note: I believe the 787 has been rated to fly the same routes as a 747 but I need to dig deeper.
The one point in the Flight distance thread that Tom repeated was that distances are unknown. Therefore I suggest we either use the published cruise speed or a constant (average 747 and Airbus cruise) to calculate the distance based on flight times that are known and provable. This should stay within an acceptable accuracy given the fact that published flat earth maps show 2x to 4x factors of great circle distances.
Comments?
I found Tom Bishop's statement : "The distance from New York to Paris is unknown." rather curious.
This information is known and readily available for reference.
I pointed that out so we can eliminate that argument in advance. The flight times are known, the aircraft cruise speeds are published. Flight Aware has been shown to be accurate within a couple of minutes of refresh time.* All we have to do is agree on a format and we are good to go. I would like to do this in as nonconfrontational a way as we possibly can. As stated I think the FE team would welcome this as a way to get their rough draft map. It would be great if we could get the usual cast of characters involved too. If all we get is Tom disputing every step it's a complete waste of time. We can do a lot better, but even an error rate of 5% would be better than anything I've seen yet.
Tom, you agree? If not what would you change? What is an acceptable error?
* I picked my wife up at the airport Saturday on a flight from Atlanta. I had my iPad open to Flight Aware and it showed the flight landing within 30 seconds of the plane flying past my windshield in the cell phone lot.
-
I vote Distances. This should be the one that the FE crowd would embrace as it would be possible to create a rough draft map based on verifiable distances. No one is ever going to agree on the conspiracy and the science of the perspective thing has way too many nebulous areas. But distances via flight times with a very small margin of error can't be disputed.
Google Sketchup is a very common and free program that anyone can download and the files can be shared. I submit we create a file that contains triangles scaled to 3 points on each southern hemisphere continent and are spaced according to direct flight miles between 3 cities that have nonstop flights to the other continents. Circles are placed on each city with a radius of flight miles to a point on another triangle. (Such as Sydney to Johannesburg). It will be simple to drag the groups around and see if there is any way possible to align the continents(triangles) in such a way that the distances work on a flat map. This eliminates any argument over the actual shape of each continent.
Since there are variations on routes based on engine count I suggest we only use flights that are direct with 4 engine aircraft. Note: I believe the 787 has been rated to fly the same routes as a 747 but I need to dig deeper.
The one point in the Flight distance thread that Tom repeated was that distances are unknown. Therefore I suggest we either use the published cruise speed or a constant (average 747 and Airbus cruise) to calculate the distance based on flight times that are known and provable. This should stay within an acceptable accuracy given the fact that published flat earth maps show 2x to 4x factors of great circle distances.
Comments?
I found Tom Bishop's statement : "The distance from New York to Paris is unknown." rather curious.
This information is known and readily available for reference.
I pointed that out so we can eliminate that argument in advance. The flight times are known, the aircraft cruise speeds are published. Flight Aware has been shown to be accurate within a couple of minutes of refresh time.* All we have to do is agree on a format and we are good to go. I would like to do this in as nonconfrontational a way as we possibly can. As stated I think the FE team would welcome this as a way to get their rough draft map. It would be great if we could get the usual cast of characters involved too. If all we get is Tom disputing every step it's a complete waste of time. We can do a lot better, but even an error rate of 5% would be better than anything I've seen yet.
Tom, you agree? If not what would you change? What is an acceptable error?
* I picked my wife up at the airport Saturday on a flight from Atlanta. I had my iPad open to Flight Aware and it showed the flight landing within 30 seconds of the plane flying past my windshield in the cell phone lot.
Just an observance.:
It seems to me that any data other than any thing they, a flat earther, personally, have done by and for themself is either a fake, is erroneous, inaccurate or is questionable in all aspects of flight times, speeds, distances, etc . ?
This would seem to rule out any information from airlines or the FAA ?
(I am a retired FAA Systems Maintenance Technician. Also a former Navy ET)
-
I vote Distances. This should be the one that the FE crowd would embrace as it would be possible to create a rough draft map based on verifiable distances. No one is ever going to agree on the conspiracy and the science of the perspective thing has way too many nebulous areas. But distances via flight times with a very small margin of error can't be disputed.
Google Sketchup is a very common and free program that anyone can download and the files can be shared. I submit we create a file that contains triangles scaled to 3 points on each southern hemisphere continent and are spaced according to direct flight miles between 3 cities that have nonstop flights to the other continents. Circles are placed on each city with a radius of flight miles to a point on another triangle. (Such as Sydney to Johannesburg). It will be simple to drag the groups around and see if there is any way possible to align the continents(triangles) in such a way that the distances work on a flat map. This eliminates any argument over the actual shape of each continent.
Since there are variations on routes based on engine count I suggest we only use flights that are direct with 4 engine aircraft. Note: I believe the 787 has been rated to fly the same routes as a 747 but I need to dig deeper.
The one point in the Flight distance thread that Tom repeated was that distances are unknown. Therefore I suggest we either use the published cruise speed or a constant (average 747 and Airbus cruise) to calculate the distance based on flight times that are known and provable. This should stay within an acceptable accuracy given the fact that published flat earth maps show 2x to 4x factors of great circle distances.
Comments?
I found Tom Bishop's statement : "The distance from New York to Paris is unknown." rather curious.
This information is known and readily available for reference.
I pointed that out so we can eliminate that argument in advance. The flight times are known, the aircraft cruise speeds are published. Flight Aware has been shown to be accurate within a couple of minutes of refresh time.* All we have to do is agree on a format and we are good to go. I would like to do this in as nonconfrontational a way as we possibly can. As stated I think the FE team would welcome this as a way to get their rough draft map. It would be great if we could get the usual cast of characters involved too. If all we get is Tom disputing every step it's a complete waste of time. We can do a lot better, but even an error rate of 5% would be better than anything I've seen yet.
Tom, you agree? If not what would you change? What is an acceptable error?
* I picked my wife up at the airport Saturday on a flight from Atlanta. I had my iPad open to Flight Aware and it showed the flight landing within 30 seconds of the plane flying past my windshield in the cell phone lot.
Just an observance.:
It seems to me that any data other than any thing they, a flat earther, personally, have done by and for themself is either a fake, is erroneous, inaccurate or is questionable in all aspects of flight times, speeds, distances, etc . ?
I am assuming the positive here. It would be easier if Tom was not still over in the Debate thread saying GPS is not accurate but maybe sanity will prevail. What I would really like to know is where are the rest of the FE team in all this.
-
It is Thursday and it has been decided. We will discuss Distance Discrepancies starting on Sunday Aug 20th, for a period of one week in the Flat Earth Debate forum. I will start preparing my content.
-
Whatever topic we decide to discuss democratically, I'll chime in.
I voted perspective, but I'll discuss conspiracy if that's what people want to talk about.
I don't know much about distances, and I'm not that interested in them, I don't know why, just bores me or overwhelms my brain for some reason.
There's only so much room in my brain for flat earth topics, so that one sort of fell by the wayside...althou I have a strange, sort of semi-serious theory about how distances might work on a flat earth.
-
Whatever topic we decide to discuss democratically, I'll chime in.
I voted perspective, but I'll discuss conspiracy if that's what people want to talk about.
I don't know much about distances, and I'm not that interested in them, I don't know why, just bores me or overwhelms my brain for some reason.
There's only so much room in my brain for flat earth topics, so that one sort of fell by the wayside...althou I have a strange, sort of semi-serious theory about how distances might work on a flat earth.
Everyone should pay attention as the distance question is the biggest hole in FE as there is no possible flat map that can be drawn using verifiable and proven distances.
-
the biggest hole in FE as there is no possible flat map that can be drawn using verifiable and proven distances.
Citation needed...
-
the biggest hole in FE as there is no possible flat map that can be drawn using verifiable and proven distances.
Citation needed...
I would just point you to the "Using airline flight data." thread in Debate. Other than Tom's ridiculous assertions about...
1. The distance from New York to Paris is unknown (LOL about covers that one)
2. GPS is not accurate (while being provided proof of GPS accuracy)
3. Lame attempt to use triangle math to prove his point that he soon decried as not useful or accurate after being proved wrong.
4. Reasons (random low content attempts to derail the thread)
...
No one bothered to show up. Where were you in all that?
The citations are numerous. The world is full of examples of flight times and distances between southern hemisphere locations that can't be mapped on a flat earth.
-
The citations are numerous.
Then you shouldn't have an issue providing some to backup your previous claim.
-
The citations are numerous.
Then you shouldn't have an issue providing some to backup your previous claim.
Sooo, what? You guys can say "Check the wiki" or "Check the forums" and expect us to go digging for it but you can't be bothered to look at a thread on literally the first page of the debate forums? SMH. Here (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0) is the thread he is referring to. Would love to see some input there from someone other than Tom as he appears to have left it, although it's possible that was just because it was the weekend.
-
Sooo, what? You guys can say "Check the wiki" or "Check the forums" and expect us to go digging for it but you can't be bothered to look at a thread on literally the first page of the debate forums? SMH.
I am not sure what you are talking about. If you can't provide a citation for a claim, then just say so. Your unrelated whining isn't relevant to the conversation.
Here (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0) is the thread he is referring to.
Very cool. Maybe next time post a link that actually supports the claim being made.
-
Sooo, what? You guys can say "Check the wiki" or "Check the forums" and expect us to go digging for it but you can't be bothered to look at a thread on literally the first page of the debate forums? SMH.
I am not sure what you are talking about. If you can't provide a citation for a claim, then just say so. Your unrelated whining isn't relevant to the conversation.
Here (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0) is the thread he is referring to.
Very cool. Maybe next time post a link that actually supports the claim being made.
How does that not? Or are we living in different worlds here? The claim is this thread had numerous citations for airline flight data that showed distances that couldn't work on a FE. The thread has that information. Not sure how that link doesn't support the claim. Unless we're reading the claim differently.
-
How does that not? Or are we living in different worlds here? The claim is this thread had numerous citations for airline flight data that showed distances that couldn't work on a FE.
Actually, the claim was:
the biggest hole in FE as there is no possible flat map that can be drawn using verifiable and proven distances.
Which is why I quoted it above to ensure no confusion. Apparently that didn't work.
The thread has that information. Not sure how that link doesn't support the claim. Unless we're reading the claim differently.
The thread you provided does not prove the claim from the person I quoted.
-
How does that not? Or are we living in different worlds here? The claim is this thread had numerous citations for airline flight data that showed distances that couldn't work on a FE.
Actually, the claim was:
the biggest hole in FE as there is no possible flat map that can be drawn using verifiable and proven distances.
Which is why I quoted it above to ensure no confusion. Apparently that didn't work.
The thread has that information. Not sure how that link doesn't support the claim. Unless we're reading the claim differently.
The thread you provided does not prove the claim from the person I quoted.
Because it wasn't done by TominAustin, but by 3DGeek. If you have an issue with the proofs done in that thread I would love to hear from you there. All we've had is Tom claiming (essentially) we can't possibly know the actual real world distances of anything. The thread lays out the proof quite well in my opinion, although perhaps it could be useful to direct you the second part (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg121852#msg121852) of 3DGeek's argument as it did unfortunately end up on the second page due to the poster's real life time constraints.
The link in my signature will also take you to where inquisitive helpfully laid out one set of distances that he used.
-
Some time in the future, after the present subject has been discused at length, I would like to see a discussion of the horizon, the distance to the horizon, and the methods and formulas for estimating the distance on a flat earth.
This could be put on the shelf for consideration at some later time.
Just from observation and facts concerning this subject, this seems to be one of the greatest of fallacies in flat earth ideas.
-
The citations are numerous.
Then you shouldn't have an issue providing some to back up your previous claim.
I did, I pointed you to a thread chock full of citations. a thread you somehow avoided. Was it too embarrassing?
-
I did, I pointed you to a thread chock full of citations. a thread you somehow avoided. Was it too embarrassing?
I see now that simple reading comprehension may be a bit difficult for you. But, I did look at the thread. It doesn't prove the claim you made (quoted above if you find yourself struggling to remember). I know it may be a bit difficult for you to process, so if you have any questions just let me know and I will do my best to help you understand your own words a little better.
-
I did, I pointed you to a thread chock full of citations. a thread you somehow avoided. Was it too embarrassing?
I see now that simple reading comprehension may be a bit difficult for you. But, I did look at the thread. It doesn't prove the claim you made (quoted above if you find yourself struggling to remember). I know it may be a bit difficult for you to process, so if you have any questions just let me know and I will do my best to help you understand your own words a little better.
Actually, you are right it was not 100% conclusive but very close. Math does not lie. And since we couldn't get anyone brave enough to defend their beliefs long enough to contribute so it got boring.
But I started a new thread, based on this poll that would be great if people like you would show up. I posted data that should be impossible to map flat but a true believer could at least make an effort. Instead of snarky comments to non-believers, you guys should swarm in to prove you are right.
Do you agree with Tom that no one knows the distance from New York to Paris? A real answer for a change would be nice. You know, like a Yes or No?