1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why no photos of Polaris from Southern Hemisphere countries?

« on: April 12, 2018, 04:45:14 PM »

The Wiki says it's because of perspective.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Shifting_Constellations

Same way they explain sunset. Wrongly, obviously, in both cases. On a flat earth the sun would be visible 24 hours a day and all stars not close to the horizon (which could be occluded by closer hills, for example, would be visible from everywhere. If Polaris is straight above the north pole then you'd be able to see it from everywhere. You can't, because the earth isn't flat.

Hi AllAround, I think you missed my point. I know the wiki explains that perspective is the reason that at certain latitudes Polaris ceases to be visible. I'm looking for an explanation or evidence from Flat Earth people to support the other claim from Rowbotham that "polaris has been seen from as far south as Capricorn". I want to know what evidence they have to support this claim, and if it is true why has no-one yet photographed it. Not seen any answers yet.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Why no photos of Polaris from Southern Hemisphere countries?

« on: April 12, 2018, 01:46:27 PM »

There are a couple of points made about polaris on the wiki and the visibility of it from different points on the Earth. In one, using info from Rowbotham, there is the claim that polaris has been observed on numerous occasions by navigators as far south as the tropic of Capricorn. The second point is the usual one about perspective being the reason that polaris gets lower in the sky the further south you travel. In this debate post I want to address the first point, assuming flat earth believers accept the claim.

Regarding the first point, despite the claim there is no evidence presented to back it up. Especially nowadays, given the internet, social media and sites like this, it would be very easy for someone to provide evidence to support this claim. Just get someone located between Capricorn and the Equator to take a photo of polaris and post it on here. Given the abundance of diagrams and memes, can anyone explain why no-one has been able to do this?
I propose that the reason no-one has done this is because it is not possible. Can any flat earth believers refute this and provide evidence? Thanks.

3

Flat Earth Community / Re: Convex Earth Documentary

« on: March 30, 2018, 12:33:16 AM »

Tom - given your strong moral stance on lying to children are you going to add something to the Wiki about Santa Claus not being real either?

Why would he do that? Does the Wiki contain any mentions of Santa Claus that need rectifying?

I naively thought I would make a light-hearted comment that would illustrate the utter nonsense of Tom's chosen position of failing to see the difference between the legitimate and innocent presentation of magic as entertainment and that of fraudulent exploitation presented as the supernatural. Sorry if it went over your head, Puck.

4

Flat Earth Community / Re: Convex Earth Documentary

« on: March 28, 2018, 05:57:06 PM »

There are children and people of various capacities at these shows. Why is it okay to lie to children? Rather than downplaying and justifying lies, you would do better just to admit that magicians are liars, and their job is to lie to people. And, if it is the magician's job to lie to people, what is the difference between a magician who goes one step further with his backstory and says that he was touched by angles or given his powers by a sorcerer?

Since lies and deception are perfectly okay in your book - where is the line between good lie and bad lie? They are all just magicians with different backstories. What makes a magical backstory acceptable and unacceptable?

Tom - given your strong moral stance on lying to children are you going to add something to the Wiki about Santa Claus not being real either?

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence

« on: March 27, 2018, 08:50:15 AM »

I see words, not demonstration.

Sorry - I thought I'd save you the time of looking for the flights yourself. Can't you be bothered to do the most basic research? I can demonstrate how you can book one here: https://www.expedia.co.uk/Flights-Search?mode=search&paandi=true&trip=roundtrip&options=cabinclass%3Aeconomy%2Cnopenalty%3AN%2Csortby%3Aprice&passengers=children%3A0%2Cadults%3A1%2Cseniors%3A0%2Cinfantinlap%3AY&leg1=from%3ASantiago%2C%20Chile%20(SCL-Arturo%20Merino%20Benitez)%2Cto%3ASydney%2C%20NSW%2C%20Australia%20(SYD-Kingsford%20Smith%20Intl.)%2Cdeparture%3A28%2F3%2F2018TANYT&leg2=from%3ASydney%2C%20NSW%2C%20Australia%20(SYD-Kingsford%20Smith%20Intl.)%2Cto%3ASantiago%2C%20Chile%20(SCL-Arturo%20Merino%20Benitez)%2Cdeparture%3A4%2F4%2F2018TANYT

If I did not know better, I'd suspect you were a top class troll who does this just for giggles. I have to commend your stamina to keep this up day-in day-out. Anyway, I refuse to waste any more time on you. Ta' rah!

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm confused: How have we gotten it wrong for so long?

« on: March 23, 2018, 07:06:08 PM »

You state there are not other observations on the wiki. I show you that there are other observations on the wiki. You get angry. Classic RE tactic. If you want to debate maybe stop moving goalposts all the time and behave in a civil manner.

Trouble in paradise eh Homer? Not sure what you have to get angry about. I merely voice surprise that for someone who purports to place utmost importance on personal observations, and lends very little credence to the evidence of third parties, you seem very happy to put forward as your beliefs a series of statements from other people that are neither observations nor logically supportable. Please let me know which of the evidence you provided is empirically sound observational fact? Ta muchly. "Compass points North" is not an observation that concludes "Earth must be flat". "Water looks flat" is not an observation that concludes "Earth must be flat". "Circumference is bigger is southern hemisphere" is provably false. If you're happy to accept this without thinking about it then go for it, but don't try to pretend these are "observations".

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm confused: How have we gotten it wrong for so long?

« on: March 23, 2018, 02:38:11 PM »

Other observations? There are no other observations on the Wiki - just flimflam about laws of perspective that don't exist and suppositions about unmeasured physics. No observations of the stars, no observations of the track of the sun, no observations of the path of the planets, no observations of the navigability of the globe. Are you referring to observations you have made other than ones where you didn't see curvature? What are these?

https://books.google.nl/books?id=GzkKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA&redir_esc=y&hl=en#PPP9
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za00.htm
https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924031764594

Do you really want to do this? I thought you placed the primacy upon your own observations, as a true empirical seeker of knowledge, not someone else's. And in choosing someone else's, why do you accept these meagre efforts as proof yet discount the entirety of all other collected learning from ancient Greece, India, the Muslim world, medieval Europe, the enlightenment, modern science?
Random choice from "100 proofs":  "11:As the mariners' compass points north and south at one time, and as the North, to which it is attracted is that part of the Earth situated where the North Star is in the zenith, it follows that there is no south "point" or "pole" but that, while the centre is North, a vast circumference must be South in its whole extent. This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe."
So - because a compass points North there can be no South pole? This doesn't mean anything. There is no logic to this sentence and it proves nothing. Do we have to go through every one?

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm confused: How have we gotten it wrong for so long?

« on: March 23, 2018, 02:05:09 PM »

What is a nominal flat earther?

You are being deliberately obtuse. You know he means someone who identifies as a believer that the Earth is flat.

If not seeing a curvature was the only indication of a flat earth, then sure. But combined with other observations this becomes a different story.

Other observations? There are no other observations on the Wiki - just flimflam about laws of perspective that don't exist and suppositions about unmeasured physics. No observations of the stars, no observations of the track of the sun, no observations of the path of the planets, no observations of the navigability of the globe. Are you referring to observations you have made other than ones where you didn't see curvature? What are these?

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problem with Empiricism

« on: March 23, 2018, 01:57:13 PM »

What I am still struggling with though, and I believe true Flat Earthers are struggling with me that there are instances where people are trying to show something, but the so-called "Flat Earther" (not a real one) says: "I'm sorry, not interested. I don't care what you want to show me as I already know what you are going to show me and my conclusion is such and such." That goes against Flat Earthism.

This is often the result of having the hundreds of people asking the same questions that have already been answered hundreds of times both here, in the wiki as well as in the FAQ.

If you don't want to have a debate about flat earth, having an open flat earth debate forum is probably not for you. Perhaps spend your time improving the wiki instead?

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problem with Empiricism

« on: March 23, 2018, 12:51:00 PM »

And "the horizon looks flat" is not evidence for a flat earth.

Yes it is. To a real Flat Earther he must see and observe the world around him and that is what he knows. Everything else is left unknown.

I have to disagree with you on this point. "The horizon looks flat" is not evidence that an empiricist would rely on alone, because of the knowledge that if a sphere is big enough, and if one is close enough to it it will appear flat. By the same logic one cannot be inside a house and look out of the window and say "It looks warm outside" and therefore conclude it is warm outside. A true empiricist would need to experience with all his senses, not just his eyes from a single view point. A true empiricist would understand the inadequacy of relying on a single sense from a single point and would therefore use all his senses and a variety of view points in order to verify that his senses are correct, thus justifying his faith in his senses for experiencing the world.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problem with Empiricism

« on: March 23, 2018, 12:28:16 PM »

What is a RE mindset, there is no doubt about the shape of the earth

You have answered your own question, and it is this level of dogmatism that makes you guys so funny.

Interesting definition of "dogma". Is it dogma that I believe oxygen is the constituent element of the air that allows me to continue living?
Is it dogma that I don't reject the mountain of photographic, documentary, technological, observational, astronomical evidence for the shape of the earth on the grounds of an undefined conspiracy?
Is it dogma that I believe the reason the sun stays an identical shape and size and speed as I look at it throughout the day is because it indeed does remain the same distance from me?
Was it dogma that allowed scientists from Europe, India and the Middle East throughout (pre-medieval) history to independently calculate the size of the Earth that corresponds with the actual measured distances in use today by shipping companies, telecommunication companies, airlines.
Or is it dogma that enables you to reject all of this because of something to do with unmeasured, unverifiable, untestable ideas about perspective/thick air/magic energy and contradictory flat earth geographic depictions.
I get what you are doing on a philosophical level - and as an exercise this is valid in questioning "What is belief?" and "What is real?" and "How do we know what we know?". But in propagating inadequate explanations and provable ignorance beyond the scope of the philosophical, surely you have tied yourself to the rock of dogma and cannot free yourself from its destination?

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm confused: How have we gotten it wrong for so long?

« on: March 22, 2018, 02:44:42 PM »

yes, we know, and we also predict that you shouldn't be able to see the curve from commercial flights in general

And as Occam would say, the conclusion we should draw from that is that the world is flat.

Would Occam understand that if the sphere was big enough he wouldn't be able to make any conclusions about how flat it was or wasn't unless he was sufficiently distant from the surface to appreciate any relative curve?

Also would Occam accept that his balloon experiment would need to be higher than 3k off the ground before basing his entire world view on his incomplete observations?

And I'd love to hear Occam's thoughts about why the sun stays the same size and speed throughout the entirety of its arc across the sky before disappearing bottom first beneath the horizon. Maybe in that case Occam would make a few assumptions about thickness of air and distant lights must be the same size as near lights and perspective something something something. Bad Occam!

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm confused: How have we gotten it wrong for so long?

« on: March 22, 2018, 11:00:50 AM »

3km

Not high enough to see curvature. You'd need to be over 10k. You've drawn your conclusion from incomplete data.

So in what experiments have you taken part? So far my own observations have shown me that the earth is flat.

What has my involvement in experiments got to do with your incomplete attempt to get a balloon high enough to see the curve? Your response is called "Whataboutism". Are you going to try your balloon again? How did you measure the height last time? Please provide workings.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm confused: How have we gotten it wrong for so long?

« on: March 22, 2018, 09:55:40 AM »

3km

Not high enough to see curvature. You'd need to be over 10k. You've drawn your conclusion from incomplete data.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence

« on: March 21, 2018, 11:24:44 PM »

To conclude from the points raised in the posts, there is no empirical evidence for the ice-wall, there is no empirical evidence for the alternative contradictory projections of a flat earth, there is plenty of empirical evidence for global distances between cities, and the ice wall wiki page cherry-picks source material for anything that can be misinterpreted as supporting evidence to give the appearance of credence whilst ignoring the huge bulk of the same source material that explicitly rejects the flat earth position. Nice one.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence

« on: March 21, 2018, 11:07:52 PM »

This is a terrible argument from Tom. We do have data for going 'the long way around,' and you get it by connecting flights together like pz says. In another current case, Santiago to Cape Town to Sydney. It doesn't help his cause at all; again, the work has been done and it is a complete debunk of flat Earth belief. He's starting you all on a wild goose chase to retread an argument he already lost. Don't fall for it.

Connecting flights aren't traveling on the same latitude. They travel more northward. We have no idea how big the earth's circumference is at those far southern latitudes in question.

Okay, so you can't argue with the flight times in the northern hemisphere so you've decided we have no data for the southern hemisphere. Except we have plenty of corroborating evidence for flight time there too - Chile to Sydney, Sydney to South Africa, New Zealand to anywhere, Brazil to South Africa. It all adds up. Which is almost a side issue, whether you believe it or not. Cruise ship times across the Pacific or Atlantic, north or south of the equator, the stars, the positions of the planets in the sky relative to anywhere on Earth and so on ad nauseum. They all correspond with distances between locations on the globe. All of them, no matter where you are. They work.

17

Flat Earth Community / Re: Convex Earth Documentary

« on: March 21, 2018, 08:19:05 PM »

Also, I think it is important for you to honestly answer Pablo's question above.

I answered his question.

Sorry Tom, but I don't think you did. I wanted to know if you accepted the results of Tycho's empirical observations and experiments? And saying they were based on incorrect foundations doesn't cut it - the guy who invented the car didn't invent the wheel, but if the wheel didn't work the car wouldn't either. It's the same with astronomy - it works because it does.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence

« on: March 21, 2018, 07:54:42 PM »

Continental US, I suppose? Will look it up.

EDIT: Well, obviously that's the way. Why should they go over china? That makes absolutely no sense on a globe, so on which flat earth model would it?

The point is that it would make no sense for the planes to fly the "long way" around the earth between those two southern points. We only have data for that route.

But we do have data for LA to China, and China to Europe, and Europe to New York, and New York to LA, and guess what the data for the long way round corroborates?.... I think Tom is making a great case for the globe.

19

Flat Earth Community / Re: Convex Earth Documentary

« on: March 21, 2018, 06:18:40 PM »

"of his era" ...

If Tycho Brahe had lived through the modern era, where we've seen 50+ years of orbital space flight, have imagery of the whole Earth every 10 mins through weather satellites, have seen over 20 humans go to the Moon and back .....

Do you think he would bother doing his experiment?

You just answered the question of why the source is old. Astronomers wouldn't study something unless they felt it was a matter of question or contention. Congratulations?

The key point on Tycho Brahe's work is whether the Earth orbits the Sun or vice versa. He knows the Earth is round and his observations rely on it. He might dispute the spin but he agrees with the shape.

Do you accept his findings?

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence

« on: March 21, 2018, 06:12:43 PM »

Yet you can.

Any evidence of that? Have you measured the distances between all points on earth?

You don't need to do it personally when there is enough corroborating information. Comparisons of any published intercontinental flight times adhere the distances shown on the globe, weather patterns and forecasts relative to different locations, recorded relative position of the sun in the sky throughout the day from any location, predictable location of the stars at any point in time, fuel calculations used by airlines, navigation of international shipping, journey times for people who go on cruises across the Atlantic or Pacific. All these things perfectly align with the relative distances of locations on the globe. None of them align with any possible FE projections or visualization or whatever excuse for a map is being used. For all the enthusiasm you have for the dimensions of the Earth you show a surprising lack of interest in the geography of it.

Planes don't take all possible flight routes. Who is traveling between Australia and South America going the "long" way around the earth? No one is.

While I do not subscribe to the Monopole model, using flights as an argument is not conclusive.

I see - so you take the rest as conclusive then. Cool. Or don't you?