81

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You Can Neither Demonstrate Nor Defend Flat Earth Without Invoking Conspiracy

« on: January 11, 2018, 01:14:07 AM »

"If one attempts to demonstrate or defend the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy theory, one will either concede that they are mistaken, concede that they MAY be mistaken, or inevitably invoke conspiracy theory in order to make up for a lack of scientific observations that can withstand scrutiny."

What about the option of demonstrating or defending the Flat Earth Model and showing evidence that there is, in fact, a Conspiracy?

Irrespective of a conspiracy, you should be able to demonstrate, consistently, why the flat earth model is true and accurate. The facts exist whether there is a conspiracy or not.

And what you said is a bit vague. How would you demonstrate the flat earth model in any way other than A ) scientific observation, or B ) invoking conspiracy to explain gaps in information?

In this case I’m just asking that we stick to the science. Again, how much you trust or distrust the powers that be is irrelevant.

Another way to look at it: If I’m holding a lighter in my pocket, and we know this lighter is real, but I refuse to show you that lighter, you can allege conspiracy until you’re blue in the face - the lighter doesn’t give a shit about your opinion.

82

Flat Earth Community / Re: Could someone clarify on how globers and flat earthers prove their theory?

« on: January 11, 2018, 12:56:31 AM »

Why? It is wrong about perspective. You demonstrated that you don't understand how perspective works in the real world in the thread about clouds being lit from below.
I even did an experiment and provided photographic proof that you are wrong about it.

You need to come up with a rebuttal to Earth Not a Globe, not post an observation we performed a study on over 150 years ago.

Rebuttal: The sun doesn’t shrink into the “vanishing point,” it sinks under the horizon. You can see this plainly by looking with a pair of protective glasses to compensate for the retina-roasting glare. You will clearly see a circle sink into the sea.

As for objects disappearing over the horizon, all you have to do is watch an object until it’s no longer visible to the naked eye, then take out a telescope. It will continue to creep under the horizon until disappearing.

You could go to the extreme and pluck Hubble out of the sky and repurpose it for land, it really doesn’t matter. Once the object is completely obscured by the side of curvature nearest you, no amount of telescoping will make a difference.

Ball earth’s in your court, friend.

83

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Occam's razor

« on: January 11, 2018, 12:43:50 AM »

So, go ahead and graph your treatise out there for all to see, sparky...

Hi, I'm supe. Who the Hell is Sparky?

Before we get to the math, I just want to point something out:

Yes I can demonstrate why the math, "the math (sic) does not compute."

Science claims to have all the math relative to gravity, the total mass of the solar system, the time of orbits, etc...etc...

First problem. Science rarely, if ever, claims to have "all" of anything, let alone "all the math."

You can only be accurate to a point. The level of accuracy we get from a given measurement is dependent upon how accurate our tools are. Becuase we can't create a tool yet with with an infinite level of accuracy, there's ALWAYS going to be some uncertainty. For this reason, science is constantly pushing the envelope in terms of how accurate and certain we can be. This is why, for instance, you'll see FE memes floating around comparing the distance of the sun as measured by different people over time. The assertion is that simply because there is ANY uncertainty, it means we're not even close to certain.

This is a bit like saying that both the pilot and the passengers of a plane are "flying." Really it's the pilot and co-pilot "flying" the plane, the rest of the passengers and crew are TRUSTING the pilots to KNOW how to fly - to be CERTAIN within a reasonable margin of error.

Anyway, just wanted to get that out of the way. It's a common misconception that science claims to have all the answers, and it seems like that's what you were driving at. It's a fallacy. Let's move on.

... yet cannot correctly plot the movement of the supposed Solar System throughout the galaxy.

Citation please. Where did you hear this, and just how uncertain are we really?

You want to know why it cannot?

Well, you're convinced that it can't, and if I'm mistaken, I want to be SHOWN that I'm mistaken, so I can stop being mistaken.

So I guess what I'm saying is, yes, I want to know why.

... Because as soon as they try and are asked to release the inputs used for the CGI rendering, they will be busted for the FRAUDS they are.

That is why.

What I asked you to do is to show me the maths, seeing as you objected to that specifically. What you just did is to begin talking about maths and then said "they won't release the formulas."

How do you know it's faulty if you yourself haven't even run the numbers? We can explore this further if you want, but for you to say it "does not compute" implies that you've taken the time to actually work out the formulae yourself and SEE that they don't compute.

What you said in the end wasn't an answer to "why does the maths not compute," it was an answer to "why totallackey thinks we can't even access the maths to begin with."

One last thing:

Translate that math to a sphere.

It's not a calculation for a sphere, it's a calculation for "drop height" along a single axis - the one you're STANDING ON when you face the horizon - perpendicular to the horizon. You need to understand what it is before you can ask me to do anything with it at all.

And yes, friend, I know that light bends when it passes through a medium. That’s why the foreword to the examples clearly states the assumption - because this equation doesn’t factor in the refraction of light.

Here are a few examples I worked out the other day.

EXAMPLES...

  Example 1

  Given values...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 10 miles
  h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)

  Objectives for Example 1...

  - solve for d1
  - solve for d2
  - solve for h1

  (d1)
  d1 = sqrt.(h0^2 + 2Rh0)
 
  ... d1 = sqrt.(.001136^2 + (2(3958.75)).001136)

  ....... d1 = sqrt.(.000013 + (7917.5).001136)

  ........... d1 = sqrt.(.000013 + 8.99428)

  ............... d1 = sqrt.(8.994293)

  ................... d1 = 2.999049 miles

  (d2)
  d2 = d0 - d1

  ... d2 = 10 - 2.999049

  ....... d2 = 7.000951 miles

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.(7.000951^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(49.013315 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(15671750.575815) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = 3958.756190 - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 0.00619 mile (32.6832 feet)

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.((10 - 2.999049)^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(7.000951^2 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(49.013315 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = sqrt.(15671750.575815) - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 3958.756190 - 3958.75

  ....................... h1 = 0.00619 mile (32.6832 feet)

  Conclusions for Example 1...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 10 miles
  d1 = 2.999049 miles
  d2 = 7.000951 miles
  h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
  h1 = 0.00619 mile (32.6832 feet)

  ................................
  ................................

  Example 2

  Given values...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 25 miles
  d1 = 2.999049 miles (correlates with h0, remains the same)
  h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)

  Objectives for Example 2...

  - solve for d2
  - solve for h1

  (d2)
  d2 = d0 - d1

  ... d2 = 25 - 2.999049

  ....... d2 = 22.000951 miles

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.(22.000951^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(484.041845 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(15672185.604345) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = 3958.811135 - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 0.061135 mile (322.7928 feet)

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.((25 - 2.999049)^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(22.000951^2 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(484.041845 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = sqrt.(15672185.604345) - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 3958.811135 - 3958.75

  ....................... h1 = 0.061135 mile (322.7928 feet)

  Conclusions for Example 2...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 25 miles
  d1 = 2.999049 miles
  d2 = 22.000951 miles
  h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
  h1 = 0.061135 mile (322.7928 feet)

  ................................
  ................................

  Example 3

  Given values...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 25 miles
  h0 = 0.009469 mile (50 feet)

  Objectives for Example 3...

  - solve for d1
  - solve for d2
  - solve for h1

  (d1)
  d1 = sqrt.(h0^2 + 2Rh0)

  ... d1 = sqrt.(.009469^2 + (2(3958.75)).009469)

  ....... d1 = sqrt.(0.00009 + (7917.5).009469)

  ..........  d1 = sqrt.(0.00009 + 74.970808)

  ............... d1 = sqrt.(74.970898)

  ................... d1 = 8.658574 miles

  (d2)
  d2 = d0 - d1

  ... d2 = 25 - 8.658574

  ....... d2 = 16.341426 miles

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.(16.341426^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(267.042204 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(15671968.604704) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = 3958.783728 - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 0.033728 mile (178.08384 feet)

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.((25 - 8.658574)^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(16.341426^2 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(267.042204 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = sqrt.(15671968.604704) - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 3958.783728 - 3958.75

  ....................... h1 = 0.033728 mile (178.08384 feet)

  Conclusions for Example 3...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 25 miles
  d1 = 2.999049 miles
  d2 = 16.341426 miles
  h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
  h1 = 0.033728 mile (178.08384 feet)

  ................................
  ................................

  Example 4

  Given values...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 100 miles
  h0 = 0.018939 mile (100 feet)

  Objectives for Example 4...

  - solve for d1
  - solve for d2
  - solve for h1

  (d1)
  d1 = sqrt.(h0^2 + 2Rh0)

  ... d1 = sqrt.(0.018939^2 + (2(3958.75))0.018939)

  ....... d1 = sqrt.(0.000359 + (7917.5)0.018939)

  ..........  d1 = sqrt.(0.000359 + 149.949533)

  ............... d1 = sqrt.(149.949892)

  ................... d1 = 12.245403 miles

  (d2)
  d2 = d0 - d1

  ... d2 = 100 - 12.245403

  ....... d2 = 87.754597 miles

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.(87.754597^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(7700.869295 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(15679402.431795) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = 3959.722519 - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 0.972519 mile (5134.90032 feet)

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.((100 - 12.245403)^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(87.754597^2 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(7700.869295 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = sqrt.(15679402.431795) - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 3959.722519 - 3958.75

  ....................... h1 = 0.972519 mile (5134.90032 feet)

  Conclusions for Example 4...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 100 miles
  d1 = 12.245403 miles
  d2 = 87.754597 miles
  h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
  h1 = 0.972519 mile (5134.90032 feet)

Have at it.

84

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Occam's razor

« on: January 10, 2018, 11:48:34 PM »

No there is not "a lot of them."

As a matter of fact, there is not ONE OF THEM!

There is no CGI model depicting the movement of the Sun, with all of the planets in tow, traversing along the galaxy.

And do you want to know why?

Because man cannot make a computer model of such movement because the math and the formulas just do not compute.

So go back to your corner with the pork chop tied around your neck so your dog pays attention to you.

You all really have nothing upon which to hang your hats except your empty heads.

Surely you should be able to demonstrate for us how and why the maths "does not compute."

I can show you why the typical "8 inches per mile squared" maths are wrong, quite plainly. That little diddy quite literally "does not compute" to a globe, but rather a parabola. This doesn't mean that the maths are a hoax, rather in this case it simply means that you're using the wrong maths.

If I had to pick one, this is probably Rowbotham's single greatest contribution to the state of confusion that plagues flat earthers to this day.

Example:

If you're curious - and you ought to be, at least if you're consistent - the maths involved with calculating "drop height" beyond the horizon looks something like this:

VARIABLES:

  d0 = distance from POV to target
  d1 = distance from POV to horizon
  d2 = distance from horizon to target
  h0 = height of POV
  h1 = height obscured by horizon

CONSTANTS:

  R  = radius of the earth

  ... R = 3958.75

ASSUMPTIONS:

  - The earth is 7917.5 miles in diameter.
  - Light travels in straight lines.

FORMULAE...

  (R + h0)^2 = d1^2 + R^2.........d1 = sqrt.(h0^2 + 2Rh0)

  (R + h1)^2 = d2^2 + R^2.........h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R

  d2 = d0 - d1.............................h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R

Mind you, that method doesn't factor in the way light refracts through the atmosphere. Even when an object should be totally obscured by the horizon, the light reflecting off of it in the distance will bend "upwards" through the atmosphere, creating a superior mirrage. How far away you can perceive this mirrage depends on each of the variables outlined above - eye level of the observer, distance to target, height of target, and other factors that affect refraction like the composition and temperature of the air in the direction you're facing.

It's not as simple as you might like it to be, or imagine it to be.

If you understand the maths half as well as I understand the maths I showed here, you should have no problem explaining why we can't map out the motions of the celestial bodies, in simple step by step equations.

Spoiler Alert: I'm an English Lit major and I process requests for parts and services for an informatics hardware company. I suck at maths, but I understand THIS tripe. Any one of you, barring some developmental disorder, should be able to grasp this stuff.

85

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2+2

« on: January 10, 2018, 11:44:35 PM »

Why would you believe an ancient religious text when considering the shape of the earth?

The ancients actually spent lifetimes studying and considering the earth's shape from a fresh start, unlike Astronomers today who merely point to Aristotile's Three Proofs when arguing that the earth is round.

Do you think the ancient astronomers figured everything out on their own, or is it reasonable to assume that every succeeding generation built on the generation that came before it?

Thousands of years ago, ancient astronomers were deferring to their contemporary equivalent of Aristotle, I promise you. Once you learn about what the past has to teach you, THEN you dedicate your life to the present and the future.

Astronomers today do the same thing, you apparently just have a chip on your shoulder about who they choose to hang their hat on with respect to what has already been established in nature.

86

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth Sun

« on: January 10, 2018, 11:39:01 PM »

You claim below, I choose the word beyond.

You're kidding me right?  If the sun circles overhead the earth then wouldn't it just disappear as it gets smaller and smaller?

The chapter in Rowbotham called Why the Sun is bigger when setting than at noontime (or whatever exactly it is called) explains that the magnifying effect of the air makes the far away sun get bigger.  It is a magical air that makes the sun (and moon) look the same size regardless of where you are on earth and how far away it is.  So, sadly, it is not a joke.  If you do not look at things and just think about it, you might be able to convince yourself that there is some way the earth can be flat, at least in your hemisphere.  Oops, I just realized that hemisphere admits the earth is a sphere.  In your hemiplate, would be better.

The phenomenon you're referring to as "a magical air" is just the way light behaves when moving through a medium, by bending. It's called refraction, and you can observe it by sticking a straw into a glass of water.

You don't notice it everywhere you look in the sky because you're not looking through the same VOLUME of air.

If you actually care to understand why and how this works, I can explain.

87

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The 'Burden of proof" and the Universe.

« on: January 10, 2018, 11:15:10 PM »

We develop models of reality based on their predictive power and reliability. I understand where you're coming from with respect to quantum theory, but if you're saying that both sides are simultaneously right and wrong simply because we have a tenuous grasp of the quantum notion of "perspective," insofar that it means an infinite number of possibilities can coincide with each other simultaneously, I'm going to disagree with you.

With the sole exception of quantum theory, everything else we observe about the natural world tells us that we live in an objective, grounded reality.

Consider the following example:

If someone I've never met steps on a plane and flies across the globe to land in my state, visit my workplace, and stop by my desk while I'm on a bathroom break, I have no way of knowing that they even exist, never mind that they came to visit me. Sure, I can conceive of something like this happening, but that's different from knowing with any reasonable degree of accuracy WHEN and HOW this situation might take place, if ever.

If the imaginary visitor stops by my desk and leaves a Post-It note that reads, "The author of this note does not exist," leaving and going home before I get back from the bathroom, I'm going to have a hard time reconciling the content of that message with the obvious fact that, clearly, someone left a note.

It's an interesting thought, quantum theory and the way you're interpreting it, but you're talking about it as though it's as concrete and certain as the pastrami sandwich I had for lunch this afternoon. The fact is that it's still a blossoming field, relatively speaking (haha puns) and we don't actually understand as much about it as we do other disciplines.

88

Flat Earth Theory / You Can Neither Demonstrate Nor Defend Flat Earth Without Invoking Conspiracy

« on: January 10, 2018, 11:00:44 PM »

Very simply put, no one has to address the conspiracy claims in order to demonstrate why the flat earth model is not consistent with reality. Happy to discuss the conspiracy claims in another thread and show you why THEY fall flat for totally different reasons, but right now I want to hash this out and demonstrate the hypothesis in the title:

"If one attempts to demonstrate or defend the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy theory, one will either concede that they are mistaken, concede that they MAY be mistaken, or inevitably invoke conspiracy theory in order to make up for a lack of scientific observations that can withstand scrutiny."

Once we take the time to actually demonstrate why this is, the only response proponents can retreat to is hand-waving about conspiracy.

Mind you, I'm not knocking the conspiratorial elements utterly - certainly there's all kinds of things the elites and the authorities keep hidden from us for one reason or another, however sinister or mundane. All I'm saying is that THIS isn't one of those conspiracies.

As best you can, try to present evidence supporting the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy. If it's really about what we can and can't observe, measure, record, etc. with our own two eyes, then it shouldn't matter that you have a restriction like this - you should be able to demonstrate the consistency of the flat earth model as easily as I would demonstrate the same of the globe model. It is only rational to then assume that whichever model we call "true" must therefore not only be logically consistent, but also exhibit few internal contradictions.

As a gesture of good will, I will not use any photographic or video evidence from NASA or other government space agencies. I will only use independent sources if I have to refer to photographs or video.

I submit to you that one cannot accomplish this task and maintain any kind of reasonable measure of certainty without invoking conspiracy claims to make up for gaps in empirical observation. Happy to debate those claims with you another time, but for the purposes of this thread, we're just talking about the science - the physics and the mathematics that explain the phenomena we observe in reality.

Flat earthers have the floor to submit their most compelling evidence, and we'll have a back and forth to mete out each exhibit.

89

Flat Earth Community / Re: Could someone clarify on how globers and flat earthers prove their theory?

« on: January 10, 2018, 10:49:39 PM »

You can never prove anything to people who have their mind fixed on a certain belief system of course.

https://youtu.be/MoK2BKj7QYk

Come on. Read Earth Not a Globe.

Chapter XIV. Why a Ship's Hull Disappears Before the Mast Head

Chapter XIV: Perspectve on the Sea

You may as well ask us to read "Of the Transmutation of Metals" by Paracelcus for all the good it would do to accurately describe the natural world, which is to say very little, if any at all.

Although, I think that might be an insult to Paracelcus.

90

Flat Earth Community / Re: Could someone clarify on how globers and flat earthers prove their theory?

« on: January 10, 2018, 08:48:43 PM »

You can never prove anything to people who have their mind fixed on a certain belief system of course.

"When an honest man discovers that he is mistaken, he either ceases to be mistaken, or he ceases being honest."

 - Anon

91

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Occam's razor

« on: January 10, 2018, 08:35:20 PM »

According to Occam's Razor, it is more legitimate to believe that the Earth is round than flat. I was confronted this by my Chemistry teacher and I need a way to explain why this is false!!! Help!!! 

The reason Occams Razor discounts the flat earth model is due to the multitudes of complications and contradictions that arise when you attempt to reconcile the model with reality.

For example:

For a flat earth to be true, we have to throw out the mathematics involved with calculating the earth's curvature, rotation, revolution, tilt, mass, gravity, etc.. This means that we have to account for things like: navigation accuracy, projectile accuracy (whether firing artillery, an ICBM, or a rifle at long range), "drop height" beyond the horizon, the movement of celestial bodies, and that's just to name a few. ALL of these disparate disciplines factor in the mathematics that reflect the size and shape of the earth, among other things, consistent with the globe model.

If you understand this and you're then going to say that the earth is flat, you then have to explain how any of the applied science makes any sense. If your answer isn't very good, or if you have no answer at all, or if you can't demonstrate the predictive prowess of the model itself, it's only fair to say you don't have a particularly robust or reliable model.

To be perfectly fair, SOME of the explanations flat earthers provide make sense - to a point - if they make it past a scrutinizing first glance. However, any one observation that concludes a flat earth is rendered suspect if it can be shown that another observation is not consistent with the model. The same goes for globe earth, or any concept in general; it's simply a matter of being logically consistent.

It is not very different from a scenario where, because you believe NASA is a lying sack of shit, when they tell you 2+2 is 4, you throw out mathematics on principle. It simply introduces too many complications for it to be consistent with reality.

And that is why Occam's Razor discounts the flat earth model. It SEEMS like flat earth would be simpler, but that's only because the people who argue for it most fiercely are approaching the subject from TOO simplistic a point of view.

Therefore, I submit to you that even the most ardent flat earth proponent is simply mistaken. It doesn't mean they're wrong about EVERYTHING they think, just this particular issue.

92

Flat Earth Community / Re: Could someone clarify on how globers and flat earthers prove their theory?

« on: January 10, 2018, 08:10:33 PM »

It isn't so much just a matter of providing "proof" so much as comparing the two models to things that we can measure in reality and gauging how many of our observations are consistent or inconsistent with each.

Flat earth model isn't consistent with reality. On first glance, it may seem that way, but there's always something hidden from the limited perspective we have as 6-foot tall upright hominids with binocular vision. We have a mountain of circumstantial evidence that confirms this.

Try to think of it in those terms instead.

93

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why are there so few atheists among flat-earthers?

« on: January 10, 2018, 08:08:08 PM »

Perhaps I should have been more explicit.

• Read the basics before asking questions.
• Don't expect for any single person in particular to respond. People will respond as and when they find appropriate.
• If you want to discuss a new topic, start a thread for it.
• A reasonable response time on an Internet forum is a few days. Prodding people after 2 hours is poor netiquette

• I'm familiar with the basics. The problem isn't familiarity, it's that there's little consensus with respect to the flat earth model - everyone has their own interpretation. There are a few things that seem to be common, but everyone I've come across has their own caveats and exceptions to add. The reason I asked you to give me your take before proceeding is because I don't want to assume anything about what you think. I would rather have you tell me how you see it so that I know we're on the same page. That was why I narrowed down my question to more specific details in a more recent reply.
• No, for sure. Anyone else can chime in. I was just responding to you directly, since it seemed like you were answering my call for an atheist flat earther.
• I may just have to in this case, seeing as we're deviating from the OP.
• Please forgive my eagerness. You're the first openly atheist flat earther I've met, and I'm just eager to hear your take on things.

94

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why are there so few atheists among flat-earthers?

« on: January 10, 2018, 07:40:19 PM »

I don't mind.

Just a friendly reminder. Still looking forward to having this discussion. Hope to hear from you soon.

95

Flat Earth Community / Re: What would it take to convince you that the earth is round?

« on: January 10, 2018, 06:11:40 PM »

From what I've seen, most evidence us "Globalists" attempt to provide is discarded. For example, pictures of the curve, pictures from space, and a lot of highly proven scientific theories are thrown out the window.

So to this I kindly ask, what would It take to convince you the earth is round?

I personally adopted the term "globe-tard." Seeing as you can still be a "globalist" - think Alex Jones, not Samuel Birley Rowbotham - on a flat earth, irrespective of the actual shape of the earth, it seems like a misnomer to call us "globalists."

I mean, for example. I could be living on a flat earth, but also subscribe to the notion that we should move towards a unified, global society. I'm a flat-tard, but I'm also a "globalist" in that scenario.

Conversely, I could be living on a round earth, but also reject the notion that we should move towards a unified, global society. I reject "globalism," but I'm... a "globalist?"

See what I mean? Anyway. Language is fun.

96

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why are there so few atheists among flat-earthers?

« on: January 10, 2018, 05:57:54 PM »

I don't mind. I'll forewarn you though, this site operates under a number of assumptions.

Most of us are unwilling to answer questions we find too simple (ones you can easily find answers to on our website or in related literature, mostly) or too leading.

Now, some of our more cynical detractors will surely say that this is because we want to avoid criticism, and if you choose to believe so, hey-ho. But to offer my own take on things: we've seen quite a few questions, and we see the same questions every day. It becomes very tiresome eventually.

We also generally don't follow the format of 1-on-1 discussions. The general idea is that you'd start a thread on a fairly well-defined subject, and people can chip in as and when they find it appropriate. Dividing conversion  into subject threads (at least theoretically) allows future visitors to easily find past discussions on a given topic. Regardless of the outcome of any given conversation, making them easily indexable is desirable.

No, I would get tired of answering the same questions as well. That being said...

Before I can pose ANY kind of question about flat earth, I need to know what those assumptions are. I need to understand, so we're both on the same page, what exactly the model is "supposed" to look like. I can't make predictions or point out what is and isn't consistent if I don't first know how the model is supposed to work.

If this doesn't make sense to you, consider the globe model. We have very specific detiails to how the globe model is "supposed" to work. Even if we assume those details are all complete fabrications, just like dubious testimony from an unreliable witness, we need those details in order to point out inconsistencies and contradictions.

For example, the globe model says that we're on a round, oblate spheroid. With this in mind, a common objection raised by flat earthers is the fact that the horizon appears flat from our perspective. That isn't really what I want to talk about, and I'm not trying to foist anything on you, I'm just giving you an example and trying to show you why it's necessary that we both have the same understanding about how the model in question, whether flat or globe, is supposed to work in theory, before we can make observations about contradictions and inconsistencies.

So is there a main page that tells me what the assumptions are with respect to flat earth, and we can start with that as a baseline, or are we operating under the assumption that every flat earther has a different interpretation?

If it's the former, I'll read the assumptions before I pose my question. If it's the latter, I need YOU to tell ME what YOUR interpretation is. Otherwise we're just going to be speaking past each other.

I hope this isn't anything like my last attempt. The last time I tried to get a flat earther to describe the model for me, it was like pulling teeth.

In my experience the wiki and FAQ are good starting points. Most will differ somewhere from what's presented there, but having a firm grasp on the information within is a good starting point. I think Tom is the closest here to agreeing with everything on the wiki. But ideas/beliefs do vary person to person.

That's why I generally prefer to ask each individual.

To make this easier, I'll narrow down the parts of the model that matter.

My question has to do with the movement of the sun as it rises, appears to move through the sky, and sets. I need to understand the relationship between the flat plane of the earth, the distance/size of the sun, its motion, etc. We could make a lot of progress very quickly with just those two or three things outlined clearly.

97

Flat Earth Community / Re: planes

« on: January 10, 2018, 05:54:36 PM »

Any evidence for this claim at all? Or just throwing it into the wind?

You would have to test the principle yourself in order to be truly convinced, but trust that navigators - naval, aerial, and terrestrial - factor the curvature of the earth into their calculations.

I can give you an anecdotal example, if you want.

Huh? He was claiming all maps of things South of the equator have errors to this day, and sailors still find themselves hours off course. Do *you* have evidence of this, even anecdotal?

I'm sorry lol

I completely misread what was being conveyed. My fault for skimming.

The point, evidence or no, is that totallackey is making two mistakes.

First, the fact that we started off designing maps that depicted the earth as flat is really quite meaningless, as it fits in with both models.

If the earth was a sphere, the fact that we designed FLAT maps is a reflection of two or three things: 1) Our limited perspective, 2) We tend to draw things on flat canvases like paper, sheepskin, etc., 3) Those canvases are almost always flat, unless wrapped around something that isn't.

The fact that the map is flat isn't an indication that the world itself is ACTUALLY flat. I can draw a convincing sketch of your profile in order to represent what you look like; it doesn't mean you're flat in REALITY just because I depicted you on a flat sheet of paper. The same principle holds for what totallackey is noticing about maps.

So again, this point is really irrelevant, as it fits in with the globe model AND flat earth model. Other things do not.

As for this claim about navigation being way off in the southern hemisphere, I'd like to hear more information as well.

98

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why are there so few atheists among flat-earthers?

« on: January 10, 2018, 05:43:36 PM »

Sorry for all the edits! Just wanna be 100% understood and not taken the wrong way! If I need to clarify anything before we move on, let me know.

99

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why are there so few atheists among flat-earthers?

« on: January 10, 2018, 05:34:48 PM »

I don't mind. I'll forewarn you though, this site operates under a number of assumptions.

Most of us are unwilling to answer questions we find too simple (ones you can easily find answers to on our website or in related literature, mostly) or too leading.

Now, some of our more cynical detractors will surely say that this is because we want to avoid criticism, and if you choose to believe so, hey-ho. But to offer my own take on things: we've seen quite a few questions, and we see the same questions every day. It becomes very tiresome eventually.

We also generally don't follow the format of 1-on-1 discussions. The general idea is that you'd start a thread on a fairly well-defined subject, and people can chip in as and when they find it appropriate. Dividing conversion  into subject threads (at least theoretically) allows future visitors to easily find past discussions on a given topic. Regardless of the outcome of any given conversation, making them easily indexable is desirable.

No, I would get tired of answering the same questions as well. That being said...

Before I can pose ANY kind of question about flat earth, I need to know what those assumptions are. I need to understand, so we're both on the same page, what exactly the model is "supposed" to look like. I can't make predictions or point out what is and isn't consistent if I don't first know how the model is supposed to work.

If this doesn't make sense to you, consider the globe model. We have very specific detiails to how the globe model is "supposed" to work. Even if we assume those details are all complete fabrications, just like dubious testimony from an unreliable witness, we need those details in order to point out inconsistencies and contradictions.

For example, the globe model says that we're on a round, oblate spheroid. With this in mind, a common objection raised by flat earthers is the fact that the horizon appears flat from our perspective. That isn't really what I want to talk about, and I'm not trying to foist anything on you, I'm just giving you an example and trying to show you why it's necessary that we both have the same understanding about how the model in question, whether flat or globe, is supposed to work in theory, before we can make observations about contradictions and inconsistencies. Otherwise, we'll just wind up talking past each other, which is something I presume neither of us want.

So is there a main page that tells me what the assumptions are with respect to flat earth, and we can start with that as a baseline, or are we operating under the assumption that every flat earther has a different interpretation?

If it's the former, I'll read the assumptions before I pose my question. If it's the latter, I need YOU to tell ME what YOUR interpretation is. Otherwise we're just going to be speaking past each other.

I hope this isn't anything like my last attempt. The last time I tried to get a flat earther to describe the model for me, it was like pulling teeth.

100

Flat Earth Community / Re: planes

« on: January 10, 2018, 05:27:28 PM »

Any evidence for this claim at all? Or just throwing it into the wind?

You would have to test the principle yourself in order to be truly convinced, but trust that navigators - naval, aerial, and terrestrial - factor the curvature of the earth into their calculations.

I can give you an anecdotal example, if you want.