The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: 3DGeek on September 12, 2017, 03:26:44 PM

Title: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 12, 2017, 03:26:44 PM
As some of the earlier "Disproof" articles get pushed down the forum - I wanted to collect together some links and summarize them for those who are interested.  If FE'ers have alternative summaries of what happened in these discussions, please do post your points of view.

1) Tides: Why are there two high tides per day?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6229.0
    The only FE response (from Pete Svarrior) actually helped the RE case with some handy diagrams
    He didn't understand that there are TWO tides per day and handily explained why there is only one in FET.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.

2) Question about Perspective (Round 1): How is the FE "perspective effect" possible?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6242.0
    No significant FE response.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.

3) Lunar eclipses and the "shadow object": Why does the "shadow object" that is required to explain lunar eclipses not obscure any stars? https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6284.0
    Oami said "God can control every photon"...an "interesting" position!
    Joyceclair essentially backed up that "argument".
    Boodidlie agreed.
    CONCLUSION: The FE consensus is that god fakes all of this stuff.\

4) Seeing France from the UK: Observations of Calais from the cliffs of Dover.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6492.0
    No FE response.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.

5) Why does the moon appear upside down in the south?  The moon seems to be rotated when viewed at different latitudes how can this be?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6149
    Perhaps "TheTruthIsOnHere" was attempting a response.  Seemed only to confirm RET.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.

6) Moon Inversion.  Again, more issues over how the moon appears at different latitudes.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6496
    Neutrino (an RE'er) attempted to explain Tom's position on this...raised more questions than answers.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.

7) What is the Sun?  Someone asked about the nature of the FE sun.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6516
    Tom Bishop said "What makes you think that anyone would know the mechanism of the sun just by looking at it? Controlled experimentation is required. Until that time, although the motions are visible to us, the underlying mechanisms remain unknown".
    I pointed out that we can indeed know the mechanism "just by looking at it" and showed evidence.
    Tom replied that "Stellar fusion has not been demonstrated in a lab"  (untrue) and that "observation alone just does not cut it."
    Then he "cunningly" hijacked the thread to talk about the Rowbotham experiment and went back to his favorite (but inconclusive) "proof" about view-over-water...dozens and dozens of replies later - and he'd managed to deflect the "What is the Sun?" question entirely without ever saying more than saying (in effect) "I don't know - and I reject any and all evidence you have".
   CONCLUSION: FET doesn't know and tries hard to deflect the debate.  RET wins.

8 ) The Moon.  A thread that started simply enough but was revealing:  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6618
    Someone asked about why we can only see one side of the moon.
    Tom Bishop explained that the moon rocks back and forth and claimed that astronomers were able to map the far side of the moon before Apollo.  Weird.
    I carefully explained what the truth is.
    Tom Bishop posted something REALLY odd...https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6618.msg121514#msg121514 "Can you show us an example of where an receding object 3000 miles in height turned 45 degrees to its side?" - who knows what THAT meant.  But basically he talks about the "altered perspective" thing.
    He posted a couple more times with increasingly weird claims for this "perspective" thing.
    The thread never did come to any conclusions - basically the FE response is "Weird Perspective Effects"
    CONCLUSION: FET claims "weird perspective".

9) Using airline flight data.  This is my step-by-step proof that there cannot be a valid FE map.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0
    Tom first "proves" that a triangle described by three distances has internal angles that add up to 180 degrees on a flat map.  He's proving something obvious.
    This is explained to him.
    In THIS post: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg121852#msg121852
    I let the 'other shoe drop' and employ a quadrilateral proof to show that no possible FE map can ever exist that is consistent with airline flight data.
    Tom complains that he can't find the data.   We show him how.
    He makes the immortal statement "The distance from New York to Paris is unknown."...people find this so funny, they add it into their signatures!
    Then he disputes the airline flight data.
    It is pointed out that it matches GPS data - Tom disputes the reliability of GPS.
    In THIS post: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122051#msg122051 - I carefully reiterate the argument and point out that the data for distances is verifiable using the known speed of the airplane and the known flight durations.  I point out other sources to back up the flight distance data.
    Eventually, Tom comes back with a claim that made me burst out loud laughing:  "if you bring up cruising speed, please show how the cruising speed of the aircraft was calculated. Based on a test flight to a location with a "known" distance according to Round Earth Theory in the aircraft's development?"  Basically, he's saying that the only way airlines and airplane manufacturers know how fast a plane flies is to fly it over a "known" (but in his belief, incorrect) distance and use a stopwatch to measure how long it takes.
    Many people explain how we know how fast planes fly...including one airline pilot.   I point out that the speed of an airliner is designed into it before the airplane is ever built.  It's not measured after the plane is actually built!
    Tom acts as though these statements were never made - simply doubling down on his earlier demands for speed proof.
    Tom imagines that airplane speed is only measured as "air speed"...which isn't true.
    Tom claims that the cockpit instruments calculate distances using a round-earth model, and are therefore producing incorrect results.
    This thread has wound on for a very long time...but Tom can only keep his toehold on doubt by repeatedly claiming that airlines and airplane manufacturers have no idea how fast their planes can fly.
    It eventually occurs to me that it doesn't matter.  Even if planes fly twice as fast as everyone thinks - that doesn't change the math in my "quadrilateral cities" claim because you can double all of the distances - and the result is STILL a map that doesn't match the flat earth.
    For Tom to be right, the speeds of aircraft would have to magically vary according to some odd law of physics to make it perfectly seem like the world is round, even though it's flat.  The airplane's drag coefficient and/or thrust would have to be different for North/South versus East/West routes - AND would have to be different in the northern hemisphere versus the south.
    Throughout the LONG thread - no other FE'ers offered any useful contributions.
   Sadly, the debate on that thread has gotten so long, and so badly derailed that the important points have been missed.

10) Disproof of FET using refraction.  This thread proves that you cannot use "refraction" to explain FET sunsets. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6710
      Tom points out that he DOES NOT support "refraction" as the cause of sunsets.   I apologize for assuming this to be the case.
      He explains that the "electromagnetic accelerator" thing is also not his current theory.
      He now supports this "altered perspective" concept - but says that he agrees that light travels in straight lines.
      No other FE'ers offered any contributions.
      While the thread didn't disprove FET (at least not Tom's version of it) - but it did establish that the "altered perspective" idea is "The Current Thing".

11) Another careful proof project: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6699
      Not a tremendously useful thread - but it does demonstrate that GPS data agrees with older pre-GPS maps - as evidenced by old land plat descriptions (which are a matter of public record) and the work of the "Degree confluence project".
      No significant FE input.
      CONCLUSION: FET is now unable to dispute lat/long data derived from GPS, RET can demonstrate it's efficacy any time we want.

12) Alternate maps problems:  Where I show some deep problems with the two standard FET maps:  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6793
      Where it's pointed out that the location of Polaris (and the Southern Cross) cannot agree with directions determined by compass.
      Tom repeats that he doesn't know the true map of the FE...and how "longitude lines curve or orient themselves around the North Pole at great distances".
      Junker makes a rare factual contribution by explaining that many FE'ers still believe in bending light and the Electromagnetic accelerator.
      Tau says that sunset (and hence starset) is complicated and that we shouldn't assume it'll work intuitively.
      Tom sews confusion by asking how we know that longitude lines point North.
      Pete Svarrior makes a valid point about the location of the magnetic pole versus the 'true north'.
      I make more explicit my concerns.
      No further input from FE'ers.
      CONCLUSION: FET has no coherent answer.

13) Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.  Most of the current FE 'defense' centers around this odd "alternate perspective" thing. I attempt to unravel it. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6785
      Tom posts this: "You are basing your "proof" on what happens in the real world on an ancient theory about triangles and concepts of infinity. That is not an empirical proof."
      I point out that, no - my proof depends on the idea (which Tom supports) that light travels in straight lines and on Euclidean geometry and nothing else.
      Tom (clearly not understand a darned thing) goes back to simply claiming that perspective is different - but failing to understand that his laws of perspective have to work for a simple pinhole camera - and they DON'T.
      I try to make it even simpler - showing that you can use other ways to prove this.
      Tom makes another bizarre post: "You are using math on a diagram which is situated outside of the universe; not on an empirical first person view."
      I'm just drawing straight lines showing how light goes through a hole...this seems very much "inside the universe" - but maybe Tom doesn't believe in diagrams?  I dunno.
      Tom abandons the thread.
      No other FE'ers make significant comments.
      CONCLUSION: Definitive win for RET.   FET has no coherent answer.

14) Airliner cruise speeds - and why they matter.   In which I attempt to get the "Airline flight distances" debate back on-topic. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6828
      No FE response.
      CONCLUSION: Definitive win for RET.   FET has no coherent answer.

15) Do passenger airplane windows distort camera photos? In other threads, FE'ers claim that photos taken from airliners are inadmissible because the windows distort the images. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6814
     I demonstrate that they do not.
     Junker says that you can't see earth curvature at 40,000 feet (which is more or less the case).
     StinkyOne points out that you could see that curvature from Concorde.
     Tom says "The Concorde was looking down at a circle"...which is a baffling statement.
     Basically, it seems undisputed that photographs from airliner windows are indeed admissible evidence...but Tom doesn't understand that if the Earth was flat, you'd never see a "circle" from an airplane window.
     CONCLUSION: FET may no longer claim "window distortion".

16) Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.   How could this happen in FET?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6832
     Tom says:  "If the sun is descending into the horizon to perspective, what makes you think that if you were to increase your height shortly after sunset that you would not be able to see the sun again?"
     It's explained that perspective cannot be "wrong"...again...and Tom is asked to explain this "alternative perspective" stuff...because aside from one (Rowbotham?) diagram, nobody ever does.  They just parrot that it's true.
     CONCLUSION: FET falls back on "altered perspective" without coherent explanation as to how this explains the phenomenon.

17) Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric...in which the speed of light is used to measure distances. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6852
     Junker complains (legitimately) that this approach cannot produce accurate distances.
     I explain that it can provide an upper limit on distance - and that this is sufficient to disprove any FET map you can come up with.
     I also point out that the price of an airline ticket (most of which is paying for the cost of fuel) is roughly proportional to the RET distance flown...which also adds credence to the idea that airlines know how far they are flying.
     No further FE input.
     CONCLUSION: RET can now easily disprove any highly distorted FET map...of course FET no longer have any kind of a valid map whatever.

18) Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.  In which the 'alternate perspective' hypothesis is put to the test and fails. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6875
     No FE response.
     CONCLUSION: RET win.

19) Disproof using hurricanes.   Hurricanes are caused by the coriolis force - there is no such FE force.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6860
     Tom says that the bit in the Wiki that says that they are caused by the Northern and Southern Celestial Systems grinding together at the equator is correct.
     But then misconstrues the argument and fails to explain why (a) hurricanes never come near the equator and (b) why they rotate in opposite directions north and south of there.
     No further FE input.
     CONCLUSION: RET win.

So far, I don't see any cases where the FE'ers have put up an even halfway valid defense for any of these arguments.

It's clear that the two main arguing points that they have are:

1) Alternate perspective...which is not well explained and doesn't fit with light travelling in straight lines.
2) "We don't know - so we must be right"...which is a VERY odd debate tactic!

It's clear that the way forward in these debates is to firmly define what the FE'ers are trying to explain with their altered theory of perspective - and to try to break the counter-explanation down in to simpler terms so that they may understand.   Pictures and diagrams may help them.

This part of FET is key - because without it, they cannot make sunsets work.  (And, IMHO, even with them sunsets won't work.)
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: Danmark on September 12, 2017, 04:19:13 PM

1) Tides: Why are there two high tides per day?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6229.0
    The only FE response (from Pete Svarrior) actually helped the RE case with some handy diagrams
    He didn't understand that there are TWO tides per day and handily explained why there is only one in FET.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.
Not so fast there partner.  What is the FE explanation for that second daily tide?
The answer is easy.  Both the Sun and the Moon exert an influence on the waters of the flat Earth, thus there are two high tides each day since both the Sun and the Moon cross the dome once a day.   :D
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: Danmark on September 12, 2017, 04:25:17 PM

2) Question about Perspective (Round 1): How is the FE "perspective effect" possible?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6242.0
    No significant FE response.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.  That no one has bothered to refute such silly claims means nothing.  It likely means no one was challenged sufficiently by it and didn't bother.  For example, I looked at the first claim, about the 2 tides, and easily answered it.  For now I'm not even going to bother to look at the rest of  the questions.  Childsplay is for children.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 12, 2017, 04:28:43 PM

2) Question about Perspective (Round 1): How is the FE "perspective effect" possible?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6242.0
    No significant FE response.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.  That no one has bothered to refute such silly claims means nothing.  It likely means no one was challenged sufficiently by it and didn't bother.  For example, I looked at the first claim, about the 2 tides, and easily answered it.  For now I'm not even going to bother to look at the rest of  the questions.  Childsplay is for children.
But your answer, as I explained in that thread, doesn't work all the time, and thus doesn't answer the question. It's easy to believe you're right all the time I suppose. The thread in question here still had no FET response in any meaningful manner on how perspective works. His conclusion in this post is only in error in that the first part isn't really a 'challenge' to be refuted, but a question being asked.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: Danmark on September 12, 2017, 04:36:35 PM
Yes, I am right all the time.  ;)  You have ignored the central point of my response, that logically a failure to respond does not mean a claim is proved.  If I tell you the moon is made of entirely of the 'cauliflower ears' of dead wrestlers, and you fail to respond, does that mean I am right about the structure of the moon?  :D
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on September 12, 2017, 04:45:59 PM
Yes, I am right all the time.  ;)  You have ignored the central point of my response, that logically a failure to respond does not mean a claim is proved.  If I tell you the moon is made of entirely of the 'cauliflower ears' of dead wrestlers, and you fail to respond, does that mean I am right about the structure of the moon?  :D
No, I touched on it by showing it's not as easily answered as you claim, unless you simply assume everything you say is correct and there's not more to it. If an answer is easy, why would one not take 5 min or less to supply it? Within a debate structure, not responding to an opponents claims leaves them that point. Now, should the debate forum be treated in such a way? That's up for debate (oh the irony) but that is what 3D is appearing to imply here.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 12, 2017, 05:28:37 PM

1) Tides: Why are there two high tides per day?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6229.0
    The only FE response (from Pete Svarrior) actually helped the RE case with some handy diagrams
    He didn't understand that there are TWO tides per day and handily explained why there is only one in FET.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.
Not so fast there partner.  What is the FE explanation for that second daily tide?
The answer is easy.  Both the Sun and the Moon exert an influence on the waters of the flat Earth, thus there are two high tides each day since both the Sun and the Moon cross the dome once a day.   :D

That's not true though.  The sun has a TINY influence on tides - when the moon is close to the sun in the sky at midday (say) then there is a high tide at midday AND another tide at almost midnight when both the sun and the moon would be way over on the other side of the flat earth.

If what you said was true then there would ALWAYS be a high tide at noon (when the sun is overhead) and ANOTHER when the moon is overhead...but that simply isn't the case.

If I look up times of the tides in (say) New York for today:

 High   3:39 AM
 Low    9:48 AM
 High   3:58 PM
 Low  10:53 PM

No noontime tide...BUSTED!

Quote
I looked at the first claim, about the 2 tides, and easily answered it.  For now I'm not even going to bother to look at the rest of  the questions.  Childsplay is for children.

Your explanation doesn't remotely explain the facts - so it's a non-starter.  In fact, since you CLEARLY didn't look at even a single tide chart to check that you're theory is plausible - we know that you're just guessing the answer...which is just pathetic.

Guessing is certainly childsplay.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 12, 2017, 05:58:52 PM
No, I touched on it by showing it's not as easily answered as you claim, unless you simply assume everything you say is correct and there's not more to it. If an answer is easy, why would one not take 5 min or less to supply it? Within a debate structure, not responding to an opponents claims leaves them that point. Now, should the debate forum be treated in such a way? That's up for debate (oh the irony) but that is what 3D is appearing to imply here.

In a setting where it's NOT a debate - maybe a Q&A session, then failing to respond proves nothing much.   But in a section of the forum called "Flat Earth Debate" - if you post a strongly argued point, and nobody responds to it for many weeks, you have to presume that they are having a hard time refuting it.

It's not a slam-dunk, I agree.  But:

* If you post a question about something like ships vanishing over the horizon - on which they seem fairly sure of their ground - you'll get LOTS of answers and a vigorous debate - many FE'ers will pile onto it and argue vigorously.

* If you ask questions like: "How are hurricanes formed without the coriolis force?" - you get an answer from maybe one person...typically, Tom.  When you can trivially disprove that answer (eg "Hurricanes are formed because of the celestial currents meeting at the equator"...."But there are no hurricanes at the equator!"), it all goes quiet again.

* If you ask questions like the moon rotation issue - you get no response at all.

Since not a one of them ever admits that they're wrong - we have to assume that failure to answer means that they've given up.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: TomInAustin on September 13, 2017, 01:45:37 PM
As some of the earlier "Disproof" articles get pushed down the forum - I wanted to collect together some links and summarize them for those who are interested.  If FE'ers have alternative summaries of what happened in these discussions, please do post your points of view.

1) Tides: Why are there two high tides per day?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6229.0
    The only FE response (from Pete Svarrior) actually helped the RE case with some handy diagrams
    He didn't understand that there are TWO tides per day and handily explained why there is only one in FET.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.

2) Question about Perspective (Round 1): How is the FE "perspective effect" possible?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6242.0
    No significant FE response.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.

3) Lunar eclipses and the "shadow object": Why does the "shadow object" that is required to explain lunar eclipses not obscure any stars? https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6284.0
    Oami said "God can control every photon"...an "interesting" position!
    Joyceclair essentially backed up that "argument".
    Boodidlie agreed.
    CONCLUSION: The FE consensus is that god fakes all of this stuff.\

4) Seeing France from the UK: Observations of Calais from the cliffs of Dover.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6492.0
    No FE response.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.

5) Why does the moon appear upside down in the south?  The moon seems to be rotated when viewed at different latitudes how can this be?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6149
    Perhaps "TheTruthIsOnHere" was attempting a response.  Seemed only to confirm RET.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.

6) Moon Inversion.  Again, more issues over how the moon appears at different latitudes.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6496
    Neutrino (an RE'er) attempted to explain Tom's position on this...raised more questions than answers.
   CONCLUSION: FET has no counterargument.  RET wins.

7) What is the Sun?  Someone asked about the nature of the FE sun.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6516
    Tom Bishop said "What makes you think that anyone would know the mechanism of the sun just by looking at it? Controlled experimentation is required. Until that time, although the motions are visible to us, the underlying mechanisms remain unknown".
    I pointed out that we can indeed know the mechanism "just by looking at it" and showed evidence.
    Tom replied that "Stellar fusion has not been demonstrated in a lab"  (untrue) and that "observation alone just does not cut it."
    Then he "cunningly" hijacked the thread to talk about the Rowbotham experiment and went back to his favorite (but inconclusive) "proof" about view-over-water...dozens and dozens of replies later - and he'd managed to deflect the "What is the Sun?" question entirely without ever saying more than saying (in effect) "I don't know - and I reject any and all evidence you have".
   CONCLUSION: FET doesn't know and tries hard to deflect the debate.  RET wins.

8 ) The Moon.  A thread that started simply enough but was revealing:  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6618
    Someone asked about why we can only see one side of the moon.
    Tom Bishop explained that the moon rocks back and forth and claimed that astronomers were able to map the far side of the moon before Apollo.  Weird.
    I carefully explained what the truth is.
    Tom Bishop posted something REALLY odd...https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6618.msg121514#msg121514 "Can you show us an example of where an receding object 3000 miles in height turned 45 degrees to its side?" - who knows what THAT meant.  But basically he talks about the "altered perspective" thing.
    He posted a couple more times with increasingly weird claims for this "perspective" thing.
    The thread never did come to any conclusions - basically the FE response is "Weird Perspective Effects"
    CONCLUSION: FET claims "weird perspective".

9) Using airline flight data.  This is my step-by-step proof that there cannot be a valid FE map.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0
    Tom first "proves" that a triangle described by three distances has internal angles that add up to 180 degrees on a flat map.  He's proving something obvious.
    This is explained to him.
    In THIS post: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg121852#msg121852
    I let the 'other shoe drop' and employ a quadrilateral proof to show that no possible FE map can ever exist that is consistent with airline flight data.
    Tom complains that he can't find the data.   We show him how.
    He makes the immortal statement "The distance from New York to Paris is unknown."...people find this so funny, they add it into their signatures!
    Then he disputes the airline flight data.
    It is pointed out that it matches GPS data - Tom disputes the reliability of GPS.
    In THIS post: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122051#msg122051 - I carefully reiterate the argument and point out that the data for distances is verifiable using the known speed of the airplane and the known flight durations.  I point out other sources to back up the flight distance data.
    Eventually, Tom comes back with a claim that made me burst out loud laughing:  "if you bring up cruising speed, please show how the cruising speed of the aircraft was calculated. Based on a test flight to a location with a "known" distance according to Round Earth Theory in the aircraft's development?"  Basically, he's saying that the only way airlines and airplane manufacturers know how fast a plane flies is to fly it over a "known" (but in his belief, incorrect) distance and use a stopwatch to measure how long it takes.
    Many people explain how we know how fast planes fly...including one airline pilot.   I point out that the speed of an airliner is designed into it before the airplane is ever built.  It's not measured after the plane is actually built!
    Tom acts as though these statements were never made - simply doubling down on his earlier demands for speed proof.
    Tom imagines that airplane speed is only measured as "air speed"...which isn't true.
    Tom claims that the cockpit instruments calculate distances using a round-earth model, and are therefore producing incorrect results.
    This thread has wound on for a very long time...but Tom can only keep his toehold on doubt by repeatedly claiming that airlines and airplane manufacturers have no idea how fast their planes can fly.
    It eventually occurs to me that it doesn't matter.  Even if planes fly twice as fast as everyone thinks - that doesn't change the math in my "quadrilateral cities" claim because you can double all of the distances - and the result is STILL a map that doesn't match the flat earth.
    For Tom to be right, the speeds of aircraft would have to magically vary according to some odd law of physics to make it perfectly seem like the world is round, even though it's flat.  The airplane's drag coefficient and/or thrust would have to be different for North/South versus East/West routes - AND would have to be different in the northern hemisphere versus the south.
    Throughout the LONG thread - no other FE'ers offered any useful contributions.
   Sadly, the debate on that thread has gotten so long, and so badly derailed that the important points have been missed.

10) Disproof of FET using refraction.  This thread proves that you cannot use "refraction" to explain FET sunsets. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6710
      Tom points out that he DOES NOT support "refraction" as the cause of sunsets.   I apologize for assuming this to be the case.
      He explains that the "electromagnetic accelerator" thing is also not his current theory.
      He now supports this "altered perspective" concept - but says that he agrees that light travels in straight lines.
      No other FE'ers offered any contributions.
      While the thread didn't disprove FET (at least not Tom's version of it) - but it did establish that the "altered perspective" idea is "The Current Thing".

11) Another careful proof project: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6699
      Not a tremendously useful thread - but it does demonstrate that GPS data agrees with older pre-GPS maps - as evidenced by old land plat descriptions (which are a matter of public record) and the work of the "Degree confluence project".
      No significant FE input.
      CONCLUSION: FET is now unable to dispute lat/long data derived from GPS, RET can demonstrate it's efficacy any time we want.

12) Alternate maps problems:  Where I show some deep problems with the two standard FET maps:  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6793
      Where it's pointed out that the location of Polaris (and the Southern Cross) cannot agree with directions determined by compass.
      Tom repeats that he doesn't know the true map of the FE...and how "longitude lines curve or orient themselves around the North Pole at great distances".
      Junker makes a rare factual contribution by explaining that many FE'ers still believe in bending light and the Electromagnetic accelerator.
      Tau says that sunset (and hence starset) is complicated and that we shouldn't assume it'll work intuitively.
      Tom sews confusion by asking how we know that longitude lines point North.
      Pete Svarrior makes a valid point about the location of the magnetic pole versus the 'true north'.
      I make more explicit my concerns.
      No further input from FE'ers.
      CONCLUSION: FET has no coherent answer.

13) Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.  Most of the current FE 'defense' centers around this odd "alternate perspective" thing. I attempt to unravel it. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6785
      Tom posts this: "You are basing your "proof" on what happens in the real world on an ancient theory about triangles and concepts of infinity. That is not an empirical proof."
      I point out that, no - my proof depends on the idea (which Tom supports) that light travels in straight lines and on Euclidean geometry and nothing else.
      Tom (clearly not understand a darned thing) goes back to simply claiming that perspective is different - but failing to understand that his laws of perspective have to work for a simple pinhole camera - and they DON'T.
      I try to make it even simpler - showing that you can use other ways to prove this.
      Tom makes another bizarre post: "You are using math on a diagram which is situated outside of the universe; not on an empirical first person view."
      I'm just drawing straight lines showing how light goes through a hole...this seems very much "inside the universe" - but maybe Tom doesn't believe in diagrams?  I dunno.
      Tom abandons the thread.
      No other FE'ers make significant comments.
      CONCLUSION: Definitive win for RET.   FET has no coherent answer.

14) Airliner cruise speeds - and why they matter.   In which I attempt to get the "Airline flight distances" debate back on-topic. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6828
      No FE response.
      CONCLUSION: Definitive win for RET.   FET has no coherent answer.

15) Do passenger airplane windows distort camera photos? In other threads, FE'ers claim that photos taken from airliners are inadmissible because the windows distort the images. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6814
     I demonstrate that they do not.
     Junker says that you can't see earth curvature at 40,000 feet (which is more or less the case).
     StinkyOne points out that you could see that curvature from Concorde.
     Tom says "The Concorde was looking down at a circle"...which is a baffling statement.
     Basically, it seems undisputed that photographs from airliner windows are indeed admissible evidence...but Tom doesn't understand that if the Earth was flat, you'd never see a "circle" from an airplane window.
     CONCLUSION: FET may no longer claim "window distortion".

16) Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.   How could this happen in FET?  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6832
     Tom says:  "If the sun is descending into the horizon to perspective, what makes you think that if you were to increase your height shortly after sunset that you would not be able to see the sun again?"
     It's explained that perspective cannot be "wrong"...again...and Tom is asked to explain this "alternative perspective" stuff...because aside from one (Rowbotham?) diagram, nobody ever does.  They just parrot that it's true.
     CONCLUSION: FET falls back on "altered perspective" without coherent explanation as to how this explains the phenomenon.

17) Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric...in which the speed of light is used to measure distances. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6852
     Junker complains (legitimately) that this approach cannot produce accurate distances.
     I explain that it can provide an upper limit on distance - and that this is sufficient to disprove any FET map you can come up with.
     I also point out that the price of an airline ticket (most of which is paying for the cost of fuel) is roughly proportional to the RET distance flown...which also adds credence to the idea that airlines know how far they are flying.
     No further FE input.
     CONCLUSION: RET can now easily disprove any highly distorted FET map...of course FET no longer have any kind of a valid map whatever.

18) Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.  In which the 'alternate perspective' hypothesis is put to the test and fails. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6875
     No FE response.
     CONCLUSION: RET win.

19) Disproof using hurricanes.   Hurricanes are caused by the coriolis force - there is no such FE force.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6860
     Tom says that the bit in the Wiki that says that they are caused by the Northern and Southern Celestial Systems grinding together at the equator is correct.
     But then misconstrues the argument and fails to explain why (a) hurricanes never come near the equator and (b) why they rotate in opposite directions north and south of there.
     No further FE input.
     CONCLUSION: RET win.

So far, I don't see any cases where the FE'ers have put up an even halfway valid defense for any of these arguments.

It's clear that the two main arguing points that they have are:

1) Alternate perspective...which is not well explained and doesn't fit with light travelling in straight lines.
2) "We don't know - so we must be right"...which is a VERY odd debate tactic!

It's clear that the way forward in these debates is to firmly define what the FE'ers are trying to explain with their altered theory of perspective - and to try to break the counter-explanation down in to simpler terms so that they may understand.   Pictures and diagrams may help them.

This part of FET is key - because without it, they cannot make sunsets work.  (And, IMHO, even with them sunsets won't work.)

This post should get a sticky.  Very thorough.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2017, 04:27:08 AM
Your disproofs are rubbish. You aren't winning when we stop responding to you. You are not worth responding to because it has already been covered.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: xenotolerance on September 14, 2017, 05:54:47 AM
I lurked a fair amount in the past month and read these threads as they came through. 3DGeek's work is thorough, and the airline routes proof is pretty stunning. My idea had been to find geometric proofs that did not rely on anything invisible, so to speak, so proving that modeling cities as points on a sphere is consistent with their measured geometry and also that they can never be consistent on a plane is a masterstroke in my view. It's a bulletproof argument, and thoroughly convincing to those with open minds.

The level of discourse in terms of arguments is generally pretty bad, which is not super surprising I guess. But I'm actually learning a fair amount from the discussions anyway! Let us not get bogged down by Tom Bishop's protestations.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: DuniyaGolHai on September 14, 2017, 09:53:03 AM
Your disproofs are rubbish. You aren't winning when we stop responding to you. You are not worth responding to because it has already been covered.

Where is Junker now, if such a low content post would have come from RE'r he would have jumped on to it. But not this time coz its Tom (FE'r)
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: StinkyOne on September 14, 2017, 11:55:57 AM
Your disproofs are rubbish. You aren't winning when we stop responding to you. You are not worth responding to because it has already been covered.

Oh Tom, have some dignity. You got crushed on these threads. It was worth responding in the beginning, but once you realized you couldn't refute the content of what was being said, it suddenly became rubbish and already covered material. Right.... The fact is, there is no proof for a flat Earth, so you have nothing to prove your silly stance. Science passed your ideas by centuries ago and left them in the dustbin of history.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 14, 2017, 12:10:39 PM
Your disproofs are rubbish. You aren't winning when we stop responding to you. You are not worth responding to because it has already been covered.
"Your disproofs are rubbish." is the last desperate statement of a man who has run out of arguments...I'm pretty sure that 100% of the people who read this will hear that.

If you stop responding because you've provided a valid conclusion - then fair enough.  But if you simply stop posting when you have no more ideas left - or if your final post is a question that your opposition is able to answer - then people who look here for answers will assume that you've lost.

"You are not worth responding to because it has already been covered." - if so, then instead of posting something worthless like that - why not just post a link to the FET explanation so that I'll be able to understand the existing coverage?   I try VERY hard to find previous explanation here.  I DO dig through previous threads with similar titles - and I HAVE read the Wiki and all of the dusty old junk in the books you put up as evidence.   I post questions that do NOT seem to have been adequately answered - OR - (as is the case with the question of "perspective") I debunk the existing answer comprehensively.

Better still, when an explanation for something like this is made - put it onto the Wiki.  I've scoured the Wiki looking for answers - and where there are answers, I've been responding to them in my "debunk" threads and showing why they are incorrect.

The entire purpose of a Wiki is that it's VERY easy to update quickly so it does not become a dusty repository of outdated ideas.   (The very name "Wiki" comes from the Hawaiian word meaning "Quickly")

The Wiki here is horribly outdated and does not seem to represent the views of the Society at all.  You say that you have no idea what the FE map looks like - yet the (FIRMLY DEBUNKED) unipolar map is presented as truth almost everywhere.

What you should do is to find your most enthusiastic and knowledgeable FE'ers and offer them permission to update the Wiki whenever they see the need.

I would be more than happy to point out MANY discrepancies between what appears to be "current FE theory" and what is presented in the Wiki - and just as I've listed the gaping holes in those arguments, above.   If there are indeed better explanations buried DEEP inside these forums - then put those explanations in the Wiki where they are easy to find and point to in the event that some RE'er comes along with an already-explained answer.

Frankly - I don't believe that there HAVE been good solutions in FET to any of the threads that are left "dangling" in my list above.

Consider my list of topics to be a list of gaping holes in the Wiki - things that either need to be filled with good, solid answers - or placed on a list of "Questions that we don't know the answer to" so that future FE'ers can try to figure out how to plug those gaps.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 14, 2017, 12:37:45 PM
Your disproofs are rubbish. You aren't winning when we stop responding to you. You are not worth responding to because it has already been covered.

Where is Junker now, if such a low content post would have come from RE'r he would have jumped on to it. But not this time coz its Tom (FE'r)

Last night, Parsifal offered me (yes, **ME**!!) the role of "Moderator" for these forums.

I greatly appreciated this offer because it truly demonstrates that these forums are intended to be a place where both sides of the debate can come and discuss the problems and successes of FET fairly.

Not many societies would offer their most vociferous opponent moderation privileges!

I politely declined because I do not wish my name/handle to be presented as "An Officer of The Flat Earth Society" across the Internet.

But this generous and fair offer shows that there *IS* a desire for clean, honest debate here.

If I had accepted the role of moderator - I'd have been seriously conflicted about whether to send Tom's post into oblivion (although it's clearly content-free and therefore in violation of the rules).   I would want to let it stand because it is a clearer statement of the current, rather desperate, state of FE theory than anything posted anywhere here...but the rules say "Nuke it"...and that would be a mental conflict that's inappropriate for a moderator.

If this is all Tom has left - then he is a spent force - out of ideas and no longer driving the bus for TFES.

But who is?

I was thinking of looking back through the threads posted here in the last few months and counting how many FE'ers are still actively posting in support of the FE theory that TFES stands behind.  That would be a lot of work though...you'd probably need a Python program to scrape the thread listings and get numbers of posts per person to Q&A and Debate topics...maybe someone else would like to try that.

To my eyes, it seems that we have the religious types doing most of the pro-FET posting - and it's VERY low content stuff.   Tom's posts no longer defend or explain his theories - they just as for "evidence" and ignore it when it's provided. 

None of the other hard-core FE'ers really seem to want to defend themselves...they post quite a bit into the "Other Discussion Boards" - into non-FE threads - but they never contribute to Q&A or Debate posts where the actual FE discussions are taking place.

There are 2,200 posts and 67,000 views to the "Trump" thread, - but not a single person who wants to explain to us how FE sunsets can illuminate the undersides of clouds!
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: xenotolerance on September 14, 2017, 01:10:44 PM
Yowza, I just tried to quote Tom's most recent to write a response, but his comment was removed. It was something like 'it was already explained to you, and not debunked,' or another similar way of saying his last statement in the sunset thread never got rebutted. I think. My short term memory needs coffee this morning

Anyway for those curious, https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6785.20 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6785.20) will lead you to the sunset argument, where you can find Tom link to a video and get multiple flavors of rebuttal in response.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: junker on September 14, 2017, 03:00:04 PM
Your disproofs are rubbish. You aren't winning when we stop responding to you. You are not worth responding to because it has already been covered.

Where is Junker now, if such a low content post would have come from RE'r he would have jumped on to it. But not this time coz its Tom (FE'r)

If you have an issue with a post, feel free to report it. Otherwise, low-content posts such as this do not belong in the upper fora. Warned.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: zp0okii on September 14, 2017, 04:07:57 PM
Your disproofs are rubbish. You aren't winning when we stop responding to you. You are not worth responding to because it has already been covered.

Is this seriously your only response to this post? Not a single counterpoint raised? You really must be stumped. Thanks to 3DGeek for compiling this - very impressive list.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: TomInAustin on September 14, 2017, 06:38:33 PM
Your disproofs are rubbish. You aren't winning when we stop responding to you. You are not worth responding to because it has already been covered.

Your response is rubbish.   Every point in his list is accurate.   You stop responding when you lose and you know it.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: TomInAustin on September 14, 2017, 06:46:48 PM
Your disproofs are rubbish. You aren't winning when we stop responding to you. You are not worth responding to because it has already been covered.

Where is Junker now, if such a low content post would have come from RE'r he would have jumped on to it. But not this time coz its Tom (FE'r)

Last night, Parsifal offered me (yes, **ME**!!) the role of "Moderator" for these forums.

I greatly appreciated this offer because it truly demonstrates that these forums are intended to be a place where both sides of the debate can come and discuss the problems and successes of FET fairly.

Not many societies would offer their most vociferous opponent moderation privileges!

I politely declined because I do not wish my name/handle to be presented as "An Officer of The Flat Earth Society" across the Internet.

But this generous and fair offer shows that there *IS* a desire for clean, honest debate here.

If I had accepted the role of moderator - I'd have been seriously conflicted about whether to send Tom's post into oblivion (although it's clearly content-free and therefore in violation of the rules).   I would want to let it stand because it is a clearer statement of the current, rather desperate, state of FE theory than anything posted anywhere here...but the rules say "Nuke it"...and that would be a mental conflict that's inappropriate for a moderator.

If this is all Tom has left - then he is a spent force - out of ideas and no longer driving the bus for TFES.

But who is?

I was thinking of looking back through the threads posted here in the last few months and counting how many FE'ers are still actively posting in support of the FE theory that TFES stands behind.  That would be a lot of work though...you'd probably need a Python program to scrape the thread listings and get numbers of posts per person to Q&A and Debate topics...maybe someone else would like to try that.

To my eyes, it seems that we have the religious types doing most of the pro-FET posting - and it's VERY low content stuff.   Tom's posts no longer defend or explain his theories - they just as for "evidence" and ignore it when it's provided. 

None of the other hard-core FE'ers really seem to want to defend themselves...they post quite a bit into the "Other Discussion Boards" - into non-FE threads - but they never contribute to Q&A or Debate posts where the actual FE discussions are taking place.

There are 2,200 posts and 67,000 views to the "Trump" thread, - but not a single person who wants to explain to us how FE sunsets can illuminate the undersides of clouds!


That is a shame as you would have made a great mod but I get it.  My working theory is Tom never saw your (and a few others) level of logic and detail coming.  The quality of the arguments has been off the charts the last month and really got me thinking about things I haven't touched in years. 

Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: junker on September 14, 2017, 07:54:00 PM
Last night, Parsifal offered me (yes, **ME**!!) the role of "Moderator" for these forums.

That is a shame as you would have made a great mod...


I agree, which is why I gave my recommendation for this when asked yesterday. Thanks for making me look bad... I didn't mean it anyway. I just wanted some help and at this point I really just need someone with a pulse who logs in fairly often.



To my eyes, it seems that we have the religious types doing most of the pro-FET posting - and it's VERY low content stuff.   Tom's posts no longer defend or explain his theories - they just as for "evidence" and ignore it when it's provided. 

None of the other hard-core FE'ers really seem to want to defend themselves...they post quite a bit into the "Other Discussion Boards" - into non-FE threads - but they never contribute to Q&A or Debate posts where the actual FE discussions are taking place.

There are 2,200 posts and 67,000 views to the "Trump" thread, - but not a single person who wants to explain to us how FE sunsets can illuminate the undersides of clouds!

Who are the other "hardcore FEers?" Also, a couple things you will find since you haven't been here that long. The longer people stick around, the more they gravitate to the social fora. Turns out people like to talk about a lot of things. We also like to shitpost in the cellar, get drunk on IRC and collectively listen to music, play terrible games like Star Citizen, etc. Tom is one of the few veterans that tend to stick to the upper fora. You will also find these things go in cycles with users. Sometimes the religious folks show up, then fade away. Then every now and then we will get an influx of noobs on both sides and some decent discussion will happen, and then there will be times like now where there isn't much activity from the FE side since RE shows up in vastly greater numbers.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 15, 2017, 10:27:59 PM
[...] Then every now and then we will get an influx of noobs on both sides and some decent discussion will happen, and then there will be times like now where there isn't much activity from the FE side since RE shows up in vastly greater numbers.
I'm sorry, what does that even mean? You feel outnumbered, or what? You  all pop in every now and then with cryptic one-liners everytime there's something substantial to discuss, while accurately refusing to participate... why do you even bother keeping the fora open, let alone  moderating them? I came here with a rather genuine curiosity for the arguments, but I can only conclude this is either a giant joke or a social experiment.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: junker on September 15, 2017, 10:37:38 PM
I'm sorry, what does that even mean? You feel outnumbered, or what?
It means exactly what I said. Are you finding it difficult to understand? Of course the FE side is outnumbered, but there are times when very few FE proponents are debating, and there are times when there are more of them debating.

You  all pop in every now and then with cryptic one-liners everytime there's something substantial to discuss, while accurately refusing to participate...
I participate in threads that interest me. I can't help if you feel entitled to more than that.

why do you even bother keeping the fora open, let alone  moderating them?
Why wouldn't we keep the fora open? There is a community here that gets plenty of enjoyment from it. If you don't, that is fine, but your question is simply nonsensical. I moderate here because I like the community and enjoy pitching in. It is obvious you have no idea what tfes.org is all about.

I can only conclude this is either a giant joke or a social experiment.
Hey good for you. That is a common opinion from noobs who show up here without putting in much effort.



Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: Ga_x2 on September 15, 2017, 10:56:23 PM
I participate in threads that interest me. I can't help if you feel entitled to more than that.
Hey, you guys called this forum "flat earth debate" I'm actually fine if you don't want to follow suit. I guess we could rename it "flat earth shooting gallery" and just reread old RE proponents posts. Most of them are interesting.
I can only conclude this is either a giant joke or a social experiment.
Hey good for you. That is a common opinion from noobs who show up here without putting in much effort.
enlighten me, then. I've put in the effort of reading the wiki and trying to participate in a discussion and hearing crickets instead. What should be my next move?
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: xenotolerance on September 16, 2017, 07:59:02 PM
Oh man... check this (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71445.msg1935916#msg1935916) out:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Not all map possibilities have been considered. There is no accepted Flat Earth map. There are only proposals which have been made by a few people, with no attempts at accuracy except to show basic features of the model.

In order to prove a Flat Earth wrong you will need to show that it is impossible to make a Flat Earth map. You will need to find logs of all airline flights, map all continental distance and layout possibilities under mono-pole and bi-polar models, consider that there are many airports which do not have direct nonstop routes between each other, look into jet streams, and study flight delays which are said to happen to 25% of flights. And only then, once thoroughly investigated, can you claim that there is no possible Flat Earth map. I expect nothing less from someone who declares any map to be impossible.

so, by Tom's own standard declared only a few months ago, 3DGeek's flight times argument proves flat earth wrong

pack it up folks. show's over
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: 3DGeek on September 17, 2017, 02:23:59 PM
Oh man... check this (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71445.msg1935916#msg1935916) out:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Not all map possibilities have been considered. There is no accepted Flat Earth map. There are only proposals which have been made by a few people, with no attempts at accuracy except to show basic features of the model.

In order to prove a Flat Earth wrong you will need to show that it is impossible to make a Flat Earth map. You will need to find logs of all airline flights, map all continental distance and layout possibilities under mono-pole and bi-polar models, consider that there are many airports which do not have direct nonstop routes between each other, look into jet streams, and study flight delays which are said to happen to 25% of flights. And only then, once thoroughly investigated, can you claim that there is no possible Flat Earth map. I expect nothing less from someone who declares any map to be impossible.

so, by Tom's own standard declared only a few months ago, 3DGeek's flight times argument proves flat earth wrong

pack it up folks. show's over

Over on "the other forum" John Davis (who seems to proclaim himself as "The most influential man alive"...no craziness inherent in that statement) is pushing the "non-euclidean earth".   Which (essentially) means that the world is spherical according to EVERY POSSIBLE test...except that it has a zero sized circular "edge" at the south pole (or ice-wall).

He's basically saying that the earth is indeed round - but with even harder to prove things about sun, moon and stars...but in an non-euclidean world, they might still be at large distances.

Once you declare rulers and other forms of distance measurement to be invalid, you're putting yourself in a world of hurt...and for no particularly good reason.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: RJDO on November 13, 2017, 06:27:03 PM
Hi All,

New here. I am researching, and reading, and looking, to find the Flat Earth Theory explanation for how the Sun works. I read in the Wiki that it is believed to be a Sphere of about 32 miles in diameter and 3000 miles above the surface of the Earth. I have a couple of questions that I thought may be answered here in this Forum Board, as anything I find seems not to answer the questions.

1.) Why is the earth flat but the Sun (and Moon) spheres?

2.) How does the Sun heat the Earth? (Now, I typically have accepted the 98 million mile from earth theory, and Nuclear Fusion which creates radiation which is felt as heat [please excuse my gross over simplification of this process]) But, i am having a hard time believing that a 32 mile wide sphere can sustain nuclear fusion for any length of time, and that he is hot enough to heat the earth to sustainable levels.

3.) How does the Sun (and Moon) not fly away from earth? With the Flat Earth Theory, wouldn't centripetal/centrifugal forces fling these spheres off into space without some sort of "tether" keeping them attached to the earth?

Please help me understand. I have looked and looked, and can only find anecdotal post about "proving the sun actually uses nuclear fusion to Work" post.

I can understand the burden of proof being on the other side, especially since I am asking on the Website for Flat Earth support, but I was hoping this would help. I have seen, read, and can visually observe the current scientific model, so any help would be greatly appreciated. 

Thank you
RJ
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 13, 2017, 09:00:07 PM
Hi All,

New here. I am researching, and reading, and looking, to find the Flat Earth Theory explanation for how the Sun works. I read in the Wiki that it is believed to be a Sphere of about 32 miles in diameter and 3000 miles above the surface of the Earth. I have a couple of questions that I thought may be answered here in this Forum Board, as anything I find seems not to answer the questions.

1.) Why is the earth flat but the Sun (and Moon) spheres?

I believe that most FE proponents would say that they don't know.  There are lots of things about their theory that they don't know.

Quote
2.) How does the Sun heat the Earth? (Now, I typically have accepted the 98 million mile from earth theory, and Nuclear Fusion which creates radiation which is felt as heat [please excuse my gross over simplification of this process]) But, i am having a hard time believing that a 32 mile wide sphere can sustain nuclear fusion for any length of time, and that he is hot enough to heat the earth to sustainable levels.

This came up elsewhere.   Indeed, there would not be sufficient mass to create a gravitational force to generate enough pressure to sustain hydrogen fusion.  For FE to be true - they'd need some other force to provide the necessary compression.

Quote
3.) How does the Sun (and Moon) not fly away from earth? With the Flat Earth Theory, wouldn't centripetal/centrifugal forces fling these spheres off into space without some sort of "tether" keeping them attached to the earth?

They don't believe that the sun, moon and other heavenly bodies orbit the earth - they claim that they move around in a flat plane about 3000 miles above the Earth.  Hence, there would be no centrifugal force.   Also, they claim that there are "celestial currents" that move the sun/moon/planets/stars around in their various patterns (which a REALLY complex BTW) - but as is so often the case - having come up with a name for something ("celestial currents") they count themselves satisfied and move on without explaining what energy source powers them - how exactly the move - that kind of thing.

Quote
Please help me understand. I have looked and looked, and can only find anecdotal post about "proving the sun actually uses nuclear fusion to Work" post.

I can understand the burden of proof being on the other side, especially since I am asking on the Website for Flat Earth support, but I was hoping this would help. I have seen, read, and can visually observe the current scientific model, so any help would be greatly appreciated. 

Thank you
RJ

Sadly, every Round-Earth proponent who comes here for explanation finds the same huge pile of problems with the Flat Earth hypothesis...and none of them ever seem to be adequately explained.

I'd say this though:  You only have to find ONE thing that you see about the world (such as the sun lighting the undersides of clouds right after sunset) that contradicts the claims made for the Flat Earth - then you know it can't be true.  Same thing is true for the Round Earth.

Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 13, 2017, 10:23:28 PM
3DG, I would like to once again ask you to stop lying about FE positions. Not only are you not qualified to talk about them in the slightest and extremely sloppy in your assessments, you are also routinely dishonest.

Just one example for the audience:

Also, they claim that there are "celestial currents"

A quick site-wide Google search for "celestial currents" within all of tfes.org reveals multiple posts, all from one author - can you guess who it was? That's right, it was our beloved Don Quixote, inventing arguments for himself to defeat (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6860.0). Or, well, something more of a hybrid of Don Quixote with a Texan samurai.

If you're so opposed to people arbitrarily inventing new terminology, perhaps you should practice what you preach? Or practice anything at all, really. Last time your defence was that you're very experienced and you thought about things very hard...
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: TomInAustin on November 13, 2017, 11:11:19 PM
3DG, I would like to once again ask you to stop lying about FE positions. Not only are you not qualified to talk about them in the slightest and extremely sloppy in your assessments, you are also routinely dishonest.

Just one example for the audience:

Also, they claim that there are "celestial currents"

A quick site-wide Google search for "celestial currents" within all of tfes.org reveals multiple posts, all from one author - can you guess who it was? That's right, it was our beloved Don Quixote, inventing arguments for himself to defeat (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6860.0). Or, well, something more of a hybrid of Don Quixote with a Texan samurai.

If you're so opposed to people arbitrarily inventing new terminology, perhaps you should practice what you preach? Or practice anything at all, really. Last time your defence was that you're very experienced and you thought about things very hard...

Maybe you should publish positions.   Since no one will make a stand around here on such simple things as maps, distances, domes, ice walls, poles etc it's easy to quote someone you once read say things. 
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: RJDO on November 13, 2017, 11:43:45 PM
Thank you for the replies. I do wish there was an answer for my questions. But I appreciate any time given to responses.

All things aside, I have much respect for a site to not only allow for questions, but entertain them and answer as well.

One last question I have is regarding celestial sailing. As a Mariner, I am well versed in this form of navigation, and enjoy the use of being able to use celestial bodies for navigation. With that said, I do have a question on Polaris. Typically, it is used to give a quicker line of position for latitude. (Once again, grossly over simplified). But this method is only used in the Northern hemisphere as it is only visible for this problem in this hemisphere. Why, is this not possible in the Southern Hemisphere, when the Flat earth should allow for this star to be utilized by all areas on the globe, due to its location on the celestial sphere utilized by celestial navigation.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: mtnman on November 14, 2017, 04:32:31 AM
3DG, I would like to once again ask you to stop lying about FE positions. Not only are you not qualified to talk about them in the slightest and extremely sloppy in your assessments, you are also routinely dishonest.

Just one example for the audience:

Also, they claim that there are "celestial currents"

A quick site-wide Google search for "celestial currents" within all of tfes.org reveals multiple posts, all from one author - can you guess who it was? That's right, it was our beloved Don Quixote, inventing arguments for himself to defeat (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6860.0). Or, well, something more of a hybrid of Don Quixote with a Texan samurai.

If you're so opposed to people arbitrarily inventing new terminology, perhaps you should practice what you preach? Or practice anything at all, really. Last time your defence was that you're very experienced and you thought about things very hard...
Pete, instead of investing time to just criticize 3D's response, why don't you answer RJDO's questions? Haven't you created an online forum to spread your knowledge of the flat world? Why do you respond only to 3D and not to the person posting questions on your forum?

3D has been at this longer than I have, and I'm guessing that he has a feel for the questions to which FE believers don't typically respond.

If the FE faithful reject, deny, or attempt to discredit everything that disagrees with their belief (and there is much that does) and never consider the possibility that they are wrong; then the forum is not for educating themselves.

If the FE faithful don't respond to inquisitive people asking them questions; then the forum is not for educating others.

Then what is the forum for?
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 14, 2017, 06:26:35 AM
3DG, I would like to once again ask you to stop lying about FE positions. Not only are you not qualified to talk about them in the slightest and extremely sloppy in your assessments, you are also routinely dishonest.

Just one example for the audience:

Also, they claim that there are "celestial currents"

A quick site-wide Google search for "celestial currents" within all of tfes.org reveals multiple posts, all from one author - can you guess who it was? That's right, it was our beloved Don Quixote, inventing arguments for himself to defeat (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6860.0). Or, well, something more of a hybrid of Don Quixote with a Texan samurai.

If you're so opposed to people arbitrarily inventing new terminology, perhaps you should practice what you preach? Or practice anything at all, really. Last time your defence was that you're very experienced and you thought about things very hard...
I would point out that "celestial currents" doesn't necessarily have to mean that word pairing only. Celestial gears creates currents or motions within the FE hypothesis. The aether's effects could easily fall under that heading, and it's got a fair bit support. You appear to only care about picking a bone with 3D when you bother posting. It's not very helpful....

As for your questions RJDO, 3D is correct in his answers to my knowledge. 3 is the only one I would add the interesting idea I've seen of there being poles coming out of the North Pole to hold them in place. It was a curious idea, and certainly solved what it set out to fix at least, even if it obviously had other issues.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: GiantTurtle on November 14, 2017, 10:29:26 AM
Have you considered adding these to the lists.
CERN fired neutrinos from Switzerland to Northern Italy, The speed travelled would have been faster than the speed of light if they were traveling the ground distance rather than going under the curve of the earth.

Relativity experiments disprove UA by showing that time travels faster the higher up you are, this is the opposite to expected under UA because celestial gravity should slow clocks as they get higher up.

The Hafele Keating experiments of flying atomic clocks show that a clock flying east is faster than one travelling west. This can also prove that the globe distances and earth rotation and orbit produce the correct readings for a number of flights within 1.6%, including north and south hemispheres.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: FrankF on November 14, 2017, 10:44:12 AM

The answer is easy.  Both the Sun and the Moon exert an influence on the waters of the flat Earth, thus there are two high tides each day since both the Sun and the Moon cross the dome once a day.   :D

But the moon and the sun don't cross on the same schedule every day, yet tides are very regular.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 14, 2017, 01:21:44 PM

The answer is easy.  Both the Sun and the Moon exert an influence on the waters of the flat Earth, thus there are two high tides each day since both the Sun and the Moon cross the dome once a day.   :D

But the moon and the sun don't cross on the same schedule every day, yet tides are very regular.

If you look at a typical tide chart - you can see that it's a bit more complicated.  It is actually the sum of two waves - a large one that follows the position of the moon in the sky - and a much smaller one that follows the sun.

Two important facts:

1) The sun crosses the sky, returning to the same position every 24 hours - but the moon takes about an hour longer (24.83 hours).
2) We always get two high tides per 24.83 hour period - roughly once every twelve and a half hours.

The FET hypothesis that one high tide is caused by the sun and the other by the moon doesn't work...there are times (eg during a solar eclipse) when the sun and moon are in the same patch of sky.  FET would predict that there would be only one double-sized tide that day - and none during the night - but this isn't what happens.

We get TWO high tides every 24.83 hours...regardless of where the sun and moon are - there are ALWAYS two tides, separated separated by the same amount of time.  (Well...approximately.  Because the largest effect is from the moon - this fits with the time the moon takes to cross the sky...but the smaller effect of the sun messes with the timing a bit - so the actual highest and lowest point in the cycle varies by maybe +/- 5 minutes depending on the time in the lunar month.)

If this FET claim were true then you'd never get a high tide on a moonless night...yet high tides happen at night after the moon has set every single month.

The actual mechanism for tides is a bit more complicated - and it only works in RET.

Because gravity decreases with distance from the source - the gravity of the moon is a little stronger on the side nearest the moon and a little weaker on the opposite side.  This tends to stretch the Earth in the direction of the moon.  The solid Earth (being solid) doesn't stretch by any noticeable amount - but the oceans are free to do so.  This stretching of the oceans in the direction of the moon creates two bulges - one nearest the moon and one on the opposite side.  Hence two tides.

FET does not seem to have ANY explanation (certainly none that I've seen posted) for how there can be a high tide in the middle of the night after the moon has set.

Smugglers in the south of England used to time their nefarious landings on nights where the moon had set and the tide was high...this can't happen in FE because the gravity gravitation of either the sun or the moon is required to create the high tide - and they would both be far away.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: mtnman on November 15, 2017, 03:47:58 AM

FET does not seem to have ANY explanation (certainly none that I've seen posted) for how there can be a high tide in the middle of the night after the moon has set.

In response to one of my posts, JMan said the tides were the Earth breathing in and out, you know, like Old Faithful. So you might want to look into that  :D
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 15, 2017, 07:32:08 PM

FET does not seem to have ANY explanation (certainly none that I've seen posted) for how there can be a high tide in the middle of the night after the moon has set.

In response to one of my posts, JMan said the tides were the Earth breathing in and out, you know, like Old Faithful. So you might want to look into that  :D

Yeah - well, even the FE'ers don't seem to pay JMan much attention.

His mental image kinda-sorta makes sense for a round earth - but for a flat one?

Anyway - if the earth were "breathing in and out" then the tides would rise and fall everywhere.  You have to think about what happens over the entire planet.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: GiantTurtle on November 16, 2017, 10:53:18 AM

FET does not seem to have ANY explanation (certainly none that I've seen posted) for how there can be a high tide in the middle of the night after the moon has set.

Other than the curves in space time shifting the waves of Gravity the same as it does with perspective.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: Mark_1984 on November 16, 2017, 01:08:54 PM
And whatnot. I’m sure that’s vitality significant
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 16, 2017, 01:20:02 PM

FET does not seem to have ANY explanation (certainly none that I've seen posted) for how there can be a high tide in the middle of the night after the moon has set.

Other than the curves in space time shifting the waves of Gravity the same as it does with perspective.

That's just taking a bunch of sciency-sounding words and gluing them together into something that approximately resembles a sentence.   It's no more an explanation than: "Space Fairies did it".
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: ScaryGary on November 16, 2017, 09:59:10 PM

FET does not seem to have ANY explanation (certainly none that I've seen posted) for how there can be a high tide in the middle of the night after the moon has set.

Other than the curves in space time shifting the waves of Gravity the same as it does with perspective.

That's just taking a bunch of sciency-sounding words and gluing them together into something that approximately resembles a sentence.   It's no more an explanation than: "Space Fairies did it".

Which govt or space agency is paying you to devote as much time as you do to crafting messages on this website? 
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 16, 2017, 10:13:11 PM

FET does not seem to have ANY explanation (certainly none that I've seen posted) for how there can be a high tide in the middle of the night after the moon has set.

Other than the curves in space time shifting the waves of Gravity the same as it does with perspective.

That's just taking a bunch of sciency-sounding words and gluing them together into something that approximately resembles a sentence.   It's no more an explanation than: "Space Fairies did it".

Which govt or space agency is paying you to devote as much time as you do to crafting messages on this website?
Ah yes the "He's making a point, quick discredit him!" approach. I can safely say I'm on here without being paid by anyone to be here. As such, I find it quite possible for someone ELSE to be on here who is simply passionate about either the debate or something else. In 3D's case I already know exactly why he's on here.

Since you're new I doubt you know about it, and it feels a bit improper to simply say it. He did however state it again just recently over here -> https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7422.msg130781#msg130781

I would however love to see your proof for the "curves in space time shifting the waves of Gravity the same as it does with perspective."
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 16, 2017, 10:30:55 PM
Which govt or space agency is paying you to devote as much time as you do to crafting messages on this website?

Ah - so you don't have an answer - so you're going to try to convince people that I'm being paid to post here.  That's nearly as stupid as the comment that I was responding to.

Well - two things.

1) Nobody pays me to post here.   I happen to have a job where I have enforced periods of inactivity that allow me to spend time on things that interest me.

2) Even if they DID pay me - my arguments still stand true.   So if what I say is proof (which it is) that FET cannot be true - then it's still a valid proof whether I'm being paid or not.

Either way - when you said "Other than the curves in space time shifting the waves of Gravity the same as it does with perspective." - none of those words meant anything regardless of why I post here.

Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: devils advocate on November 17, 2017, 12:20:35 PM

Which govt or space agency is paying you to devote as much time as you do to crafting messages on this website?

Why would they bother paying anyone to post on this site?? There are only a small handful of Flat Earther's here (and who knows how many are trolls or alts). There is no debate with FE as all available proofs are ignored in an ever growing conspiracy list. The spherical nature of earth has been demonstrated numerous times here beyond doubt. I would love to know why you are so desperate to believe in this massive conspiracy, it is just so problematic when one delves into it, it cannot exist. The idea that an agency would pay 3DGeek to post facts here is just crazy, and and he states what he posts are facts, provable and proven anyway so EVEN if was paid it would make no difference. The earth is NOT flat. Flat earth is impossible Gary.
Title: Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
Post by: Looted on November 25, 2017, 02:58:28 PM
Math for spherical triangles.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalTriangle.html

Math for equalateral triangle on a flat surface.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EquilateralTriangle.html

when comparired the two models a larger distance will be more accurate.

This will prove either FET or RET. You will just need to go the distance yourself.

'Its easy to claim something, but to prove it within your means, for some its just easier to ignore logic.'