1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How Clouds Once Again Prove Flat-Earth Theory

« on: June 17, 2015, 08:40:18 PM »

wow. I'm going to try to follow the logic here. Please correct me where I lose the plot.

so.... because others have made arguments or claims that include an old world dudes ideas.... means my calling you out for making an obviously lazy/ignorant/tired/pointless thread....is not valid critique/criticism?

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: South Pole

« on: June 17, 2015, 08:05:58 PM »

This thread is so far from the OP topic. However this thread has inspired me to make some basic solid models of a Round earth with satellites (specifically Directv satellites) accurate down to a mile in distances, and .01 Degrees.

I'll use my personal home location as one of the points, and I'll pick 3 other positions around the mainland USA. If someone wants to send me (PM please) your home co'ords I'll include them in my model also (the co'ords will not be visible on the model).

The reason I plan to use my home location is so that I can confirm the actual positioning of my DirecTV dish with the declared position based on the DirecTV literature. If those are the same we can assume other will be consistent.

I will build both models without taking any real world measurements. Then I will measure and compare to see which is more accurate. I suspect it will show the RE model to be consistent with real world conditions and claims, but I will not know until I have completed the modeling and can compare it with real world data. 

I think this model will be useful in illustrating other points as well. 

FE'ers this is your chance to provide me with any data you think should be included in the FE model, as well as any measurements you can provide about DirecTV dishes you might have at home. All I need to know about your position for modeling purposes is your Zip code.

RE'ers this is your chance to provide me with any data you think should be included in the RE model, as well as any measurements you can provide about DirecTV dishes you might have at home. All I need to know about your position for modeling purposes is your Zip code.

I'll probably start another thread once I have the models built so it does not take over this thread.

Thanks to the participants in this thread for inspiring me to some action.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How Clouds Once Again Prove Flat-Earth Theory

« on: June 17, 2015, 07:29:09 PM »

By that logic: The end of all train tracks and roads must also be "very very" close.

Your post is possibly the laziest attempt at a flat earth "proof" I have ever seen. Worst thing about it is it's not even original. Just another lame re-post of the same tired old junk observation/logic.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why a sunset (as we see it) is not possible on a FE!

« on: April 09, 2015, 07:37:51 PM »

In general a model is considered good/elegant when all of the ideas/assumptions build on one another and point toward the same set of conclusions. So I'd like to string some of the ideas in this thread together and then ask some questions.

As far as I understand it, the general FE position is this:
1 - the sun does not set (go below the horizon) or rise like in RE.
2 - The sun remains in the sky above the horizon at all times.
3 - We cant see it sometimes (at night) because of a combination of atmospheric conditions
4 - The atmospheric conditions (noted above) cause the sun to disappear from view quickly, not gradually like expected in a fogy condition.


Why can we ever see stars?
Why do they also go down to the horizon when we see them?
What is the mathematics basis for predicting sunset and sun rise accounting for these atmospheric conditions?
What other light based phenomena could we see the same kind of results/observations?

FE'ers please save this thread the kind of pedantic "we don't all agree on the model" kinds of responses. If you don't subscribe to the "atmospheric conditions are responsible for sun rises and sun sets" model my questions are not for you. Thanks

5

Flat Earth Community / Re: No Transmission Delays to the Moon

« on: February 26, 2015, 09:38:40 PM »

I was very surprised to see this one go by un-challenged. 

If a two cars are damaged in such a fashion that you could establish that they crashed into one another at a relative speed of 120mph, it is only evidence of the fact that neither of the cars was stationary if a single car moving at 120mph could never occur. Alternatively, we can bury this strawman and agree that just because an extremely unlikely scenario could hypothetically occur, it is not a likely explanation for what's being observed.

incorrect. There are many ways to determine the speed of each vehicle up to and including weather or not one was stationary. Just like the case of the radio delays of this thread; the entire scene has to be investigated. Skidmarks, vector of the debris, magnitude of the distance of the debris, damage to each vehicle in magnitude and orientation, the surface it happened on, the condition of the occupants of each vehicle, what safety systems were deployed, was there any video..... I could go on but I think you get it.

In the case of your car collision example: Finding a tire or piece of vehicle debris in an unexpected location does not tell the whole story. That is why the investigation must be thorough and the conclusion must be derived from the evidence. In fact the peice of debris thought to be in an unexpected location (in this case the claim being made about communication times) can be accounted for when the whole picture is put together just like the analysis of the audio performed by gg in this thread.

The flatists (making the claims) should put together a comprehensive investigation about these communication issues where the body of evidence supports their claim. Until then we can stick with the already well known facts about the moon missions, the globular nature of the earth, and our ever expanding/refining understanding of the universe around us.

Sorry Pizza brother, your argument does not hold up here.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The length of the day on a flat earth

« on: February 09, 2015, 08:43:27 PM »

Your posts are full of 2 or three lines of text that take you a minute to write.

That is how questions work Thork. The requested information is in the answer not the question.

And yet you expected responses "filled with details, and calculations, and graphs". Do you expect Flat Earthers to plough masses of time in to servicing the first thing that pops into someone's head?

2 things here:
1 - Both you and tom came up with graphics and made statements but neither one produced the supporting models. Presumably if you can generate the graphics you can also provide the models so we can do the same.

2 - Since the "council" is interested in doing a re-work (or whatever it ends up being) of ENAG and the current uderstanding of FET; this is a perfect opportunity to flesh out the supporting evidence as is advocated by Tom.

You get out what you put in.

You keep posting this statement as a fall back point. Have you considered that YOU (flatists) are getting out what YOU are putting in? The complete lack of fleshed out hypothesis is garnering the complete lack of belief and understaning form the RE side? Maybe if you guys (flatists) actually posted evidence there would be constructive discourse.

We also have a wealth of information on our wiki and library, where we have all those details. If you can't be bothered to read them, why would anyone bother to rewrite them all for you?

Incorrect. There is only a minuscule list of baseless assertions and their very half baked supporting ideas. More accurately your statement should be "There is a small amount of content in our library. We accept this as plenty of evidence even though we fully know none of it stands up to any amount of scrutiny when compared to actual observed phenomena. We will direct you there as though it makes our case for us when we are tired of dodging and escaping specific questions that we have no way to answer."


Now would you like to provide the model that explains the sunrise and sunset times on the flat earth? Or would you like to concede that you have no model to explain the question asked in Skeptoms' OP?

7

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why not pick one topic to flesh out?

« on: January 21, 2015, 08:14:48 PM »

I am currently in the process of modifying the aetheric wind theory to encompass all of FET. My current theory explains the wall around the Earth, the Sun & Moon, and UA, among many other things. It is a work in progress, but I will post a diagram shortly.

Thanks Vauhall! I don't think this thread is the one to post it in but I look forward to seeing it wherever you end up showing it!

I am guessing you feel that aetheric wind is the place to focus then? is there a specific aspect to it that makes it your best position to claim? are there areas where you feel like you could use help from other flatists? or where efforts could be combined as a force multiplier to get better or faster resolution on your work?

8

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why not pick one topic to flesh out?

« on: January 21, 2015, 07:32:40 PM »

That - is - not - on - topic - for - this - thread. Try - for - once - to - stay - on - topic - please.

Please stop with the membrating. If you have an issue with a post, report it. However, I don't see an issue with what Tom is saying. It may not be exactly what you want, but don't reply to it if it isn't something you want to discuss.

And that is why your community is looked at like a troll circle jerk.

And please stop with these kinds of attacks and acting like a child in the upper fora, take it to CN or AR. This is a warning.

Got it.

Tom can do what he wishes despite my repeated requests to stay on topic and open a constructive dialogue, rather than debate the individual merits of FE, which was not the point of the thread anyway.

I legitimately try to help the FE cause, and get "warned" for my behavior because I make an observation about the community that is not favorable, and not a secret. That's why I made the thread in the first place. To help FET (if it has any merit at all) unify one single position and demonstrate some count of seriousness.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Are there any FE contributors willing to even discuss what this thread is about?

I'll re-cap the basic question/intent of the thread:What is your best pillar of evidence that would require the least resources to flesh out? What would the best use of your limited resources be to accomplish this? (Since the $4M ice wall expedition is far from being funded, it might be easier to fund a smaller project that could net better results)

I'm not trying to poke holes in individual FET components here. Quite to the contrary. I am attempting to create a context (similar to the ENAG update) that might get some forward progress on your mission. 

9

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why not pick one topic to flesh out?

« on: January 21, 2015, 02:43:05 PM »

I did just point you to a topic we have fleshed out. The Conspiracy. There's a motive and a means, and plenty of evidence. Instead of discussing the matter, you ran away, claiming that everything was explained.

Wow Tom. Fleshed out? Ran away? I'm happy to sort out how the conspiracy fails just like every other critic that comes to this community.  That - is - not - on - topic - for - this - thread. Try - for - once - to - stay - on - topic - please.

As per the sun and moon, I don't have a problem with the current explanations.

And that is why your community is looked at like a troll circle jerk.

You really don't get that I am trying to help do you?

OR- There really is no basis for ANY flatist claims and you just don't want to admit it.


Are there any other FE proponents that want to chime in here? Anyone who would care to discuss the possibility of actually focusing efforts to further your cause? It seems Tom is content to let your community remain in obscurity.

10

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why not pick one topic to flesh out?

« on: January 20, 2015, 11:17:11 PM »

No reasonable or coherent explanations have been given for the things in the link.

Blah blah blah FE/RE claim
nu uh
uh huh
nu uh
nu huh
Don't you get tired of this Tom?
I'll start another thread so we can go over that link and all the ways it fails. That is not the point of this thread but if you insist we can go down that road so this thread can stay on topic.

I asked you how we should go about figuring out the true nature of gravity and your answer was basically that we can't. I think that pretty much squashes your suggestion. Where else is there to go from there?

Tom. This thread is not about or to engage in debate judo. Still not on the topic of the thread. If you bothered to read my OP you would see that my suggestion was that you work on the issue of Day and night. That (in my opinion) is the simplest and easiest way to provide an alternative explanation for what we see in reality. There are two other threads currently active threads where you have weighed in and provided illustrations without the model to support the way those illustrations were made. I think that is a great starting point. But I'm not in the FE camp and do not need ideas for how to solve the FE problems. I'm trying to show your camp a different way to see these fora as a tool for the actual development of your ideas. If you really want to work on gravitation and how it works in the FE model then do that. No matter what the topic is you should look to the critics of each assertion for the ways in which it fails so you can do the work needed to better flesh out your model. After years of these fora most of the troubleshooting work has been done for you in a very detailed manner.

How are we supposed to study Antarctica, the infinite earth, the nature of light, on a budget of $0? Maybe if you had some real suggestions, we would consider it. All I have seen from you is some criticism that we should do something, but that you have no idea what we should do or how to do it when questioned further.

This is precisely the point to this thread. Do you even read the posts you are responding to? I'll boil it down to one sentence for you...

You do not need to explain every detail of every claim, just provide a full explanation for one claim.


How hard is that to understand? I'm not trying to debate the merits of any of the FE claims. I'm trying to help you get some forward progress by changing your methods. Is the concept of getting the maximum output for the minimum input so confusing? Is it so difficult to accept suggestions of how to improve you methods, even if it is from the other side? It does not matter which issue you choose to go after, just pick one and flesh it out.

11

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why not pick one topic to flesh out?

« on: January 20, 2015, 09:21:27 PM »

But we've already demonstrated that there is a conspiracy.

See: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

No reasonable or coherent explanations have been given for these things. The evidence is so powerful that even the most ardent RE'er I've come across eventually breaks down when these things are discussed and admits that there may be a conspiracy of some sort.

And so the Judo begins? Just can't stay away from it can you? I applaud your devotion to the distract and de-rail stance of the flatists. If nothing else you are consistent in this regard Tom.

Maybe you can't see that I am suggesting something that would be beneficial to your cause. I am trying to show you how a small shift in thinking could help your goals manifest in reality. I can understand your inability to see this. After years of constant bombardment, and general disrespect by the other side, it would be difficult for me too see it a different way too.

You should at least in part abandon the great conspiracy as a talking point. Even the space missions, landings, rovers, and all of that. Perfectly reasonable and coherent explanations have been given for all of the things listed in that link over and over again. Even if those pieces of the conspiracy are true it does not equal a Flat earth.

12

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why not pick one topic to flesh out?

« on: January 20, 2015, 06:17:27 PM »

I'm just saying. You want us to look into things such as the true nature of gravity, the size and nature of the universe, the map of the world, and the properties of a continent thousands of miles away on a budget of $0, without resorting to "debate judo" as you call it. We will need better suggestions than that, I am afraid.

I have not asked you guys to look into anything. I have only tried to point out flaws in the claims made by flatists(not meant in the pejorative). I would bet it comes across like "you should look into" because many of the claims made by flatists are so easily shown to be fundamentally incorrect.

Some FE ideas are plausible in principle, but they fall appart once the concept is applied to any number the vast observations/experiments made in reality. This is due to the great accumulation of knowledge that humans have compiled, and how easily it can be accessed in this modern era.

The push back you get from globularists is more like "well if that thing you claim is true then why is this other thing like this?". Thus your exploration of the components of FE have to be far reaching and require a great amount of data and experiments of their own to properly back up. otherwise you will have to endlessly endure the same basic questions about the same basic assertions that flatists make. 

I think you misunderstand my suggestion Tom. I'll shorten it up a bit.

IF
- you desire to have the great conspiracy unraveled
- you truly believe you are on to something that is hidden
- you are serious in any way about FE

AND
- your resources are limited
- the scientific prowess/ability of your community is limited

THEN
- you should focus on your best topic only. Flesh it out completely and put it out for the world to criticize. If there is any merit the sciences will find it and very rapidly have to revise and find the other flaws (that FE theorists have yet to flesh out) to better resolve our combined understanding of reality. If there is any merit to your assertions, the world (hungry to expand understanding of reality) will do the rest of the work for you.

No amount of forum debate judo will accomplish this on its own. Especially when there are so many vague fall back points as shown by this community. In truth, the criticisms you encounter should be the exact things you try to resolve in a concrete form. You are getting a crude, crowd sourced, peer review every time you claim something on these fora.

13

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why not pick one topic to flesh out?

« on: January 20, 2015, 03:08:52 PM »

How do you suppose we should go about figuring out things such as the mechanism for what keeps us on the ground?

That is a good Question Tom. And thanks, by the way, for asking it. I don't think Gravitation/UA is your best point, but realistically I don't know what is.

Since Gravitation and UA are indistinguishable at a local level that is the kind of point that would need much fleshing out in concert with a ton of experiments to reconcile what has already been measured all over the world. True or not it is likely beyond the means of what this small community could support. Your task is not to show how the current accepted models are false, but rather to show how they can be legitimately explained another way. The trouble is that the existing wealth of data is created by people who don't know they are indoctrinated. Thus you have to give a concrete method to interpret existing data in a different way. If the earth is in fact flat the data is already out there but it's just interpreted wrong.

Really your mission should be to pick one thing that you can create a full hypothesis on with supporting evidence, data, experiments, conclusions, methods, and models. No amount of debate judo will shake the globular stance. I would pick the easiest thing at my disposal. One great fleshed out model that will survive peer review will start the globular sciences down the path and they will sort out the rest for you.

I wish I could be more helpful about where to start. Unfortunately I am in the RE camp and only know FET from this community. Sure I have read ENAG through a couple times and read as much literature as I could consume about the subject but even that has not dissuaded me from the RE stance, and thus makes me biased. I don't actually think there are any strong pieces of evidence to argue for FE but I am not the expert you and a few others are.

14

Flat Earth Community / Why not pick one topic to flesh out?

« on: January 19, 2015, 10:31:35 PM »

With all of the different ideas supported by all of the different FE proponents; don't you think you should focus your efforts on the best piece of evidence you have? Seriously though. Why get caught up in the discussion of topics that don't get you anywhere.

Why not just sort out what is going on with the sun and moon? Do any of the claims (UA, bendy light, antartica, gravity, FE map, conspiracy, etc....) even matter if you don't have an explanation on the sun and moon that could survive any scientific scrutiny?

An example to put it in perspective: During the Bill Nye -V- Ken Ham debate, Mr Nye made a statement that applies here. I'm paraphrasing but the statement was something like - If you could find a squirrel in the fossil record mixed in with the trilobites you could change the world -

My point being that if you could produce a model that explains how the experienced reality of the sun and moon could be explained in another way you could change the world. It would not take a complete Flat earth theory with every little detail sorted out, only one big point to unsettle the foundation of the globularists.

I'm not asking this question to have a debate about the merits of any of the FE ideas. I am more interested in more of an explanation for the tolerance of so many conflicting views. If the case is that there are some flatists who claim to be actively working on FET and you want to lend credence to your case I think you might focus your efforts better. Forum communities like this are almost your best best for a crowd sourced simple peer review. It seems like all you have to do is put out one single piece of founded evidence and the rest of the scientific community (who are unaware of their indoctrination and take all evidence as a challenge to their knowledge) will rally to prove or disprove it. They will do all the work for you if you give them a starting point.

Instead of going on and on about how a thing is plausible or not, produce some maths and let the opposing view have a crack at it. The more you learn form the nay-sayers the closer you will be to uncovering the mystery. The people who most strongly oppose your view are, in reality, your team mates in showing the holes in your position so you can easily sort that out.

That is how peer review works at its most fundamental level. It's not about showing who is right or wrong, but about revising and revealing our understanding of reality. If the earth is flat and we could all benefit from this understanding, no amount of conspiracy could hold back the truth in today's social media climate.

Just a thought. 

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The length of the day on a flat earth

« on: January 19, 2015, 09:13:56 PM »

The refractive index is small, but the space is over tens of thousands of miles. Even over the distance of a few miles, when light air passes between cold air and warm air, or between warm air and cold air, there is a large effect:

OK Tom. Please provide the model for your "large effect" over a few miles. Posting a picture of mirages is hardly the kind of effect you are claiming happens to sunlight as it meets the ground. In fact it seems downright dishonest to claim that a visual effect (caused by what happens to light as it passes through a boundary layer with a great temperature variation) could be responsible for the shape of the spotlight claimed by FE.

 Please provide the basis that allows you to create an illustration depicting the illuminated areas of the disk. It's cant be that hard if you were able to produce the illustration yourself.

All we want to do is cross reference the results of the model against observations we can make in reality. If your model can even get within a few minutes of reality, in any location on the surface,  I think it would stand as a great evidence for a flat earth. Do you not want the great conspiracy unraveled?

16

Flat Earth Community / Re: Shape of daylight on a disc

« on: January 19, 2015, 08:38:25 PM »

I figured a thread like this would be a perfect vessel to elaborate on FET for the purposes of updating ENAG that this community aspires to.

Does anyone have *on topic* content to add to this thread?

17

Flat Earth Community / Re: Shape of daylight on a disc

« on: January 14, 2015, 02:33:08 PM »

On the contrary, I will post in any thread I wish, and I don't need to fulfill your content requirements to do so.  This forum has its own moderators to police post content, and they do a fine job.  If you have further questions, please direct them to my ass before you kiss it.

Well, I'm not sure why you have such a hostile tone. My post was about keeping this thread on track not so much about limiting one person from posting. I apologize if I did not word that well.

Please try to contribute to the content of the thread.

I think the adversarial aspect of this community is part of why it struggles to be taken seriously and why very few (if any) issues ever get resolved. My hope is to assist in civility, after all we are all here to discover the true nature of the world around us.

Are there any FE proponents that care to address the issue at hand? What is the model that describes what the illuminated areas will be for any given point on any given day? Tom Care to share the source of your illustrations?

18

Flat Earth Community / Re: Shape of daylight on a disc

« on: January 13, 2015, 08:41:13 PM »

You are assuming that exactly half of the disc is lit by the sun on the equinoxes.  You have no evidence that this is so.  In our model sunlight is diffused and propagated by the atmoplane, becoming an oblong spotlight.  Tom's illustrations summarize it rather well, I think.

Right...... so then please supply the model so I can verify for myself. That is the standard of evidence set by FE proponents right?

Maybe you could point me to some websites that show the predictions of sunrise on a FE? or Some Wiki pages that display the math for the kind of diffusion of light as you claim so I can do the math myself? Or at least let me know what the date is for the drawing in question so I can calculate and compare to other functional predictions.

If you could do that Tintagel I would gladly accept your continuing participation in this thread. Otherwise please see yourself to the exit as you are only de-railing and distracting. My question is in the search for evidence and you are not contributing.

I am eagerly awaiting an explanation of this light on a flat plane phenomena.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Tides

« on: January 13, 2015, 07:53:51 PM »

My apologies for the complete lack of explanation. I thought I had already added the explanation in the post but it was lost in a strange login/logout loop I was stuck in. 

How then is it possible for the moon with only one eighty-seventh part of the attractive power of the earth, to lift up the waters of the ocean and draw them towards herself? In other words, how can the lesser power overcome the greater?


The lesser power does not "overcome" the greater. Though pulling great bodies of water a few feet is precisely what we expect to see based on the mathematics of the two masses interacting. In fact we can predict and observe a slight wobble in the earths' path due to the pull of the moon. On top of that we observe a predictable wobble in the path of the sun based on the masses of the bodies orbiting it. This is all well understood after a couple hundred yeas of expanding and deepening our understanding of Newtonian physics.

My point is that SBR clearly overestimates and misunderstands the forces he is trying to discredit. Over and over again in this section alone he demonstrates his complete ignorance and ability to make a solid argument against gravitation.

 I could continue pointing out flaws in his writing if you like. However this thread is not about SBR's mistakes and how you should not quote his texts. This thread is about tides. SBR does not get it nor does he provide a model or a base for making predictions to support his claims. without those kinds of details he may have just said nothing on the matter at all.

20

Flat Earth Community / Re: Shape of daylight on a disc

« on: January 13, 2015, 07:03:05 PM »

You are making a false assumption, and then calling us liars when we can't prove your false assumption is correct.

Please explain where my assumptions are false, and provide explanation of the mechanism that produces different predictions.