1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bipolar Earth

« on: November 20, 2016, 09:25:00 PM »

Are you the same Jane from the other forum?

Yep. Guessing you're the same Luke.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bipolar Earth

« on: November 20, 2016, 02:42:31 PM »

Sandokhan has a "perfect" Bipolar Flat earth, see Re: Path of the Sun in the Bi-polar Model of the Earth.« Reply #26 on: November 19, 2016, 06:50:21 AM ».

It differs from Tom Bishop's,  but all could get from him was to see the "Monstrous" book. So, best of luck.

Think I asked him about that on the other site, nothing happened.
I did start reading up on his model a while ago, but a lot of the links in his thread seem to be broken, which does make it trickier.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bipolar Earth

« on: November 19, 2016, 11:58:11 AM »

I assume you are looking for Tom Bishop, but he has been a bit scarce lately.

This thread might be helpful. It's the most detail I've ever seen from him on the topic. Have fun.

Just looking for anyone who knows the model, they don't need to accept it.
Thanks for the link, but he mostly seems to be addressing near-equator behaviour.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Bipolar Earth

« on: November 19, 2016, 02:11:39 AM »

Hello! Apparently this is the site to go to if you want answers.
I'm not interested in a debate, just in understanding what FET proposes. I'll leave refutations and rebuttals to others, I prefer to figure out the models.

I've heard bits and pieces about a bipolar Earth model that uses something like the Lambert azimuthal map as, at least, a potential illustration. I was referred, also, to this text:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Sea-Earth%20Globe,%20The%20(Zetetes).pdf

My initial query was on the path of the Sun. If you hold to a model similar to the one outlined in that text then on page 30, in fig 25, I'm wondering about what happens when the Sun is at L. I know it mentions the light of the Sun travelling in great curves, but I don't see what kind of curve could be used to avoid it lighting up either all of the northern hemiplane, or none of the southern. When the Sun is 'behind' a pole, how can it illuminate the other hemiplane without lightning up all of the hemiplane it's in?
(The best solution I can see is if it's some kind of spotlight at an angle, but I don't really understand what would cause that, and cause the angle to change, particularly as it shifts between systems. Plus it seems as though that would have more noticeable effects).

If you subscribe to a bipolar model that's different to that, then my question's just, more generally, what kind of path does the Sun take?

Thank you for your help.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Celestial Gears and the Southern/Outer Star Systems

« on: January 06, 2016, 10:10:58 PM »

As for you, Jane: I don't think this animation is quite accurate. The easiest way I can reconcile it is by saying that the entire system should also be rotating clockwise. The motion of the three-gear outer system should then be treated as one ring (think of the stars as "mounted" onto the entire gear system, rather than any individual gear). I realise that this is a messy explanation without any graphical support, but I currently only have access to a very low-powered laptop, so I can't exactly model this up.

I'm just going from the images provided. When you mean the 'entire system' are you referring to the purple outer-ring rotating as a gear? Otherwise I'm not sure what effect it'd have.

@Jane

I'm the meantime whilst the bickering continues ... I have outlined celestial gears before.
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2635.msg66165#msg66165

This should give you a start into this theory. Whilst sandokahn doesn't like that theory, I'm none to keen on the alternative ether theory. I'm a gears kind of a guy.

Thanks for the link.

So, from what I can gather, the other stars are spread around: if the illustration was accurate the southern system would be split up onto several gears (though under the model they're only on one).

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Celestial Gears and the Southern/Outer Star Systems

« on: January 06, 2016, 06:50:28 PM »

If this "younger" site wants to actually take the lead in flat earth theory, it must discard the faq now and bring the full power of ether physics into play.

There are no celestial gears: it was offerred as an explanation years ago in order to defend the erroneous northern circumpolar map.

This site seems to rely on them as well, and it's that model I'm asking about, not an alternative which only you seem to accept. This question is directed to those that hold to the celestial gears model, so I can understand just what they're talking about.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Celestial Gears and the Southern/Outer Star Systems

« on: January 06, 2016, 06:08:37 PM »

To use an illustration I've seen on the sister/deadbeat older brother site to describe celestial gears:



The inner gear would be the Northern star system, rotating one direction, and it's surrounded by the Southern: the stars rotating the other direction, closer to the edge. I'm assuming something like this is accurate: if there was only one such outer 'gear' then at some points there'd be no stars in the sky, which is clearly wrong.

Can anyone describe the stars in the outer gears? The inner gear is understandable, we can observe that star system, but what of the outer? Are they the exact same set-up of stars repeated three times? Is each one just a fraction of what we think of as the southern star system?
It doesn't seem entirely clear as to why, for example, we've never observed stars rotating around three points in the sky: the inner, and then two gears of the outer.

The wiki doesn't seem to dedicate any time to the topic, and I haven't found any actual explanation of gears via the search function. They're just appealed to with no description.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is the sun round?

« on: March 24, 2015, 09:42:06 AM »

Is there really a difference between "unknown" and "untrue"? Because RE'ers sure like to conflate the two when it comes to their own theory.

There's a huge difference.
Again, 'untrue' would be if two pieces of knowledge contradicted one another. 'Unknown' would be if there were a few oddities, and when there are many available explanations: you can't use an example of something distant and incredibly hard to examine, and use it as an example of a contradiction, because it simply isn't. Especially gravity, I wish you luck finding any scientists who'll say gravity is a complete theory.

Further, the term 'unknown' is applied heavily due to context. For example, a flower pot in my garden was dug up several times in winter, over several weeks. I didn't see what did it, but I'm fairly sure soil didn't spontaneously jump out of it. I didn't see anything go and dig into it, and it was more vigorous than you'd expect from the cats I've seen around, should I have concluded that my belief that soil didn't jump out of flowerpots on its own power was untrue? Or should I merely say that the cause is unknown, as many likely and possible explanations exist?

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is the sun round?

« on: March 23, 2015, 08:23:28 PM »

Oh, I'm happy to admit I'm wrong, I'm just not going to do it for no reason. The most extreme conclusion Thork could get from this line of reasoning is "Physics isn't complete," which no one denies.

How come "Physics isn't complete," is an acceptable answer for round-earthers but any unknown variable in flat-earth science is clear and irrefutable proof that the flat-earth theory is totally wrong in all facets and forms imaginable?

Because there's a difference between an as yet unfilled gap, and a contradiction.

The number of things that occur in the Sun (extreme heat, predominantly plasma, fluidity, wild magnetic field...) mean there are a lot of things that can and do explain the supposed problem: and even if there weren't proposed explanations, the comparison to the Earth would still fall for that very reason.
Whereas if you look at proprosed problems with FET you have, for example, sunsets: and I'm not saying that's a good argument, I'm purposefully choosing a less convincing one, but if it was in fact true that under FET the sunsets we observe would not occur, that is a contradiction: that is not a gap waiting to be filled.

There is a huge difference between "Unknown," and "Untrue." Asking after the outside of the ice wall, the formation of the flat Earth, maps, etc: those are questions that target unknowns. Even with no answer, it doesn't render FET untrue, merely incomplete.
A contradiction for RET would be, for example, measuring a distance far shorter than what should be the case on a sphere, or a photo showing that the Sun is indeed a spotlight, or looking over the horizon with a telescope. Those things would contradict RET, and certainly they could be explained, it's just a matter of whether it's explained within the knowledge we already have, or if it needs more to be supposed.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is the sun round?

« on: March 22, 2015, 11:08:40 PM »

It's completely unfathomable to them that they might just be wrong.

Oh, I'm happy to admit I'm wrong, I'm just not going to do it for no reason. The most extreme conclusion Thork could get from this line of reasoning is "Physics isn't complete," which no one denies.

There are two possible explanations for why someone's mind wouldn't change. First, as you say, they're so convinced they refuse to concede: or, second, the arguments intended to make them change their mind just aren't all that great.
Don't assume it's necessarily the former.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is the sun round?

« on: March 22, 2015, 07:49:01 PM »

There is superheated plasma under the Earth's crust according to modern RET.

Which does not make up the entirety of the Earth, nor is it remotely at the same temperatures, so the comparison's still pretty pointless. (And I'm not certain that it's actually plasma, for that matter).

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is the sun round?

« on: March 22, 2015, 06:02:39 PM »

it is supremely paranoid to conclude that the fact you haven't spent years studying something and it doesn't adhere to your personal understanding, means it must be wrong and everyone saying it must be liars.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

That would be a valid statement, if what I said was not the basis for what you believe. That renders your foundation rotten, and your comparison invalid yet again.

But, regardless, make a new thread if you want to discuss credulity and credible sources. This thread is about equatorial bulging, or a lack thereof.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is the sun round?

« on: March 22, 2015, 05:46:41 PM »

Who says the sun is made of superheated plasma? NASA? Based on calculations they made from their perverse 93 million mile distance versus heat? Yeah, jog on. Make a new thread if you want to discuss the composition of the sun. This thread is about equatorial bulging or lack thereof.

Plus spectroscopy, but that's not the point.
If you're trying to show a hole in modern physics, you need to actually accept what it says, otherwise what you're saying has precisely no relevance.

You argued that the fact the Sun does not have an equatorial bulge like the Earth means we should question what such physics say about the Earth. See the quote in my previous post. The simple fact is, you can make no such comparisons because they are completely different states of affairs.

To quote my previous post:

From what a little bit of research unearthed, the two main contenders are the varying rotational rate of fluid, and the effects a magnetic field has on plasma (gas ionized by extreme heat). The latter seems to be the most popular: and you can't reject it just because you'd rather make a post on a forum complaining about science.

Suffice to say, there are possible explanations, and the lack of bulging does not automatically discredit RET. You have to take everything into account, not just the few bits that are convenient for you.

If you're going to argue, as it sounds, that the fact this is a complex topic somehow renders it untrustworthy, there's no way to carry on a discussion. People have expertise in different things, it is supremely paranoid to conclude that the fact you haven't spent years studying something and it doesn't adhere to your personal understanding, means it must be wrong and everyone saying it must be liars.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane

« on: March 22, 2015, 05:37:52 PM »

Jane, I just don't understand how you can get accurate math when you haven't done the measurements

Would you care to respond to my two requests? Personal observation is not the only way to learn something. Until you can show the many times people rely on such distances (eg: any long-distance travel) is somehow unreliable, there is no need to repeat measurements that have already been done.

and you don't know the true shape of the Earth. You assume it's round, sure, and you take that assumption and apply it to a flat Earth model that's not a perfect circle (and quite possibly not a circle at all) thinking that it proves something... when in reality is doesn't.

Yet again, a point you have repeatedly ignored. A perfect circle is the best case scenario, if it is approximately flat. This is a basic mathematical fact. I do not care what shape it actually is, for the purposes of this thread, if it is not concave or convex then it is approximately a 2-D shape. If it is approximately a 2-D shape, the largest possible area that could be contained within the equator (of set length), is if the equator was a perfect circle. If it is not a perfect circle, as I have allowed for (and have explicitly said I have allowed for several times), the possible area within gets further from what we observe.
If your repeated mentions of 'the true shape' are of any relevance, then that is only possible if you accept the Earth is concave or convex. Do you, yes or no? Otherwise, please stop bringing that point up unless you can add anything new.

Until you take the time to actually respond to basically anything I have said, I'm not wasting any more time with you.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is the sun round?

« on: March 22, 2015, 05:27:47 PM »

I have made the point that the sun contradicts the equatorial bulge theory that I am supposed to accept on face value, casting doubt on whether our own planet has such a phenomenon ... or is indeed a whirling ball at all.

When you can show superheated plasma should behave identically to the Earth, which has far smaller size and gravitational pull, your point may be relevant.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane

« on: March 22, 2015, 12:10:36 PM »

You're the only one who's repeating yourself over and over again (even in this very stream of discussion! Your two posts addressed at me say the exact same thing while completely disregarding anything I said).

They say similar things, yes. (The rather crucial difference being that the first was about posing a new question, and the second being about crafting a rebuttal). Consider that's because you added nothing with your second post also.

Vauxxy has gone through quite some effort to explain the lacks in your answer to you, and you, as you so aptly pointed out, felt the need to repeat yourself instead of actually progressing. Similarly, I explained to you why the exact opposite of what you thought is actually the case, but you made no use of that information and instead restated your assertion, throwing in an "In that case". Do you not see how useless this is?

It should be possible to construct a reply for which repetition is not a valid response: and to point out the flaws in said response if repetition is done. That simply hasn't happened. if you follow the discussion, it took quite a while for Vauxy to actually make his central point (that all distances are unreliable), and when asked for how and why that is the case, he changed the topic to what could only be the assertion that they're not reliable, and that I should measure the distances myself. I asked for two things before I did that (a reason to think it was necessary, and to think it was safe), I've yet to read a reply to that.
The alternative is that at least one of us is being unclear: after all, I know what I intend to say, you know what you intend to say, so any losses of clarity are going to be harder to notice given that we know how to fill in the gaps in our own statements. That's why pointing out flaws in statements is crucial, rather than just repeating a question you feel hasn't been answered. if the answer's unsatisfactory, you have to say why, not just handwave and say it is.

After all, I could respond to anything with a complete non-sequitur, or copy an already-refuted rebuttal, and you'd be entirely within your rights to just repeat yourself because the question went thoroughly unanswered. From my perspective (and experience on the other site), Vauxy's done just that.

If I can offer some advice: If you think that repeating yourself will help, you're probably wrong. Most people here have reasonably good reading comprehension, and they probably heard you the first time. If you feel that your response doesn't add anything to the thread (by virtue of being a simple restatement, as you yourself noticed), don't post it. It helps nobody.

I'd agree in theory, less so in practice. If Vauxhall's serious about disagreement (which I have my doubts about, from my experiences with him on the other side), it may just be that I was unclear, or phrased something badly: in which case restatement to emphasize certain details, or re-express to answer a point explicitly, can be of use.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane

« on: March 22, 2015, 11:28:48 AM »

No, it implies the very opposite. If your "answer" does nothing to actually answer the question, people will keep asking you the same question until they actually get an answer. Well, either that or they'll give up, whichever comes first.

In which case it should be possible to say why my answer isn't satisfactory rather than just repeating yourself.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane

« on: March 22, 2015, 10:13:40 AM »

You're making the tragic mistake of assuming that repeating your answer will make it any less incomplete.

If my answer's incomplete, it should be possible to pose a question for which repetition is not a valid response. If he's stuck asking the same question, with basically no alteration, that does seem to imply my answer's enough.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane

« on: March 21, 2015, 10:14:14 PM »

Assuming that hundreds if not thousands of people are either lying, or utterly incompetent despite years of training, is the claim you're making. You have the burden of proof for that, do you have any non-circular means of justifying it?

I never made that claim. I don't think anyone in this thread has made that claim.

Why are you refusing to do the measurements? You don't think there's a conspiracy so your "concerns" about the measurements are just a sly jab at us. Why do you expect me to respond to passive aggressive behavior?

It's a consequence of what you're saying. Apologies for thinking mathematically.
If what you say is true, then what I've said is true. By contraposition, if the 'then' is not true, the 'if' cannot be true. That's the basis.

If you have an alternative explanation, I'm waiting for it.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane

« on: March 21, 2015, 09:52:31 PM »

As Tom clearly pointed out, you can't even describe accurately how these "corroborated" measurements were taken. You've demonstrated that you do not know how these measurements were taken and are basing their accuracy on blind faith alone. That is unscientific. If you cannot explain how the measurements were taken, how can we trust you to know that they are accurate? I would like for you to take the measurements yourself and describe the methods you used to get these measurements. If you cannot do that I'm not sure how we are going to progress. The burden of proof lies on you, since you're the one making the claims.

Flight times. Travel times. Land travel times do the job just fine for most of it. Assuming that hundreds if not thousands of people are either lying, or utterly incompetent despite years of training, is the claim you're making. You have the burden of proof for that, do you have any non-circular means of justifying it?

I've asked for two things before I take the measurements. Can I expect you to get back to me any time soon on that?