Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Westprog

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bi-Polar Model: YouTube movement catching on
« on: July 25, 2018, 03:38:51 PM »
Not so much a theory as a diagnosis.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is Google maps accurate?
« on: July 25, 2018, 03:35:05 PM »
The distances in the video are based on the Latitude/Longitude coordinate system, which is a spherical coordinate system. Of course you will get a sphere.

It's amazing how that works. Right?

So close, almost there.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Detailed flight times and distances
« on: July 25, 2018, 03:18:38 PM »
It's worth noting that it's not always the flat Earthers using the invalid arguments. I've seen, both here and in other places, flawed arguments used against the flat Earth and in favour of the globe. It's not that common, but it does happen. It's important to point out the flaws. No point in relying on the FE people to do it. If they had the ability to spot flawed reasoning...

Oh, I agree, one of the better posters here on the RE side was 3d.  He had some amazing threads but his idea of using ping times to various servers to measure distances was very flawed.   That does not invalidate his other arguments but some here tried to make it that way.  I have been called out by RE'ers on a few flawed logic issues.   This place is an amazing thought experiment and forces you to rethink many things you take for granted.  It's also very amusing to see Tom come up with new ways to invalidate facts.

Yes, it's obviously not a debate forum in any real sense - but that doesn't mean it's necessarily valueless. It's possible to find logical errors here that don't exist elsewhere in the wild. They should get a grant.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Detailed flight times and distances
« on: July 24, 2018, 05:40:08 PM »

Exactly right.  There are 2 points that can't be argued with any sanity.  One is cruise speeds that are calibrated with radar.  Tom admitted radar is accurate.     There is an acceptable range of cruise speeds.  The other is the clock.  Time is easily measured.  The data does not lie and the chart in the op shows what is expected and is actual proof of a globe.  Any argument about the clock or aircraft speed is pure bunk designed to shift the focus away from facts.  Facts that are very inconvenient to the FE mindset.

There's an option that's used when the argument is irrefutable - and it's quite common in the era of fake news. It's to say "Well, we don't know anything really. Who can tell whether flight times are accurate. I mean, we've all been on flights that turned up late, right? And aircraft speeds vary so much, and routes aren't always direct. Just admit it, we can't draw any conclusions until we have more data."

It's worth noting that it's not always the flat Earthers using the invalid arguments. I've seen, both here and in other places, flawed arguments used against the flat Earth and in favour of the globe. It's not that common, but it does happen. It's important to point out the flaws. No point in relying on the FE people to do it. If they had the ability to spot flawed reasoning...

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Detailed flight times and distances
« on: July 24, 2018, 05:30:56 PM »
What is interesting is exactly how the denial works. Clearly, there's no rational way to argue with this overwhelming weight of evidence - so we are left with a variety of irrational rationalisations.
Where it gets silly is when claims are made that planes don't know how fast they're going and that other ways of measuring distances across oceans like ships laying cables across the Atlantic aren't valid either because they don't know how much cable they've used.


Some of the arguments are so obviously spurious that one suspects that they aren't meant to be taken seriously. It's a case where "Well, I know that the Earth is flat, so their argument must have some hole in it - so whatever."

The flight times disprove the flat Earth in an accessible way, which people who won't stand on top of a cliff with binoculars can appreciate. So it's necessary to use a special new set of obfuscations.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Detailed flight times and distances
« on: July 24, 2018, 12:52:34 PM »
You have to understand that iamcpc is probably unique in Flat Earth circles in simultaneously holding (i) that distances in Google maps is a totally accurate representation of real distance across the Earth's surface and (ii) that the Earth's surface is flat.

From what I've seen, that isn't really a very unique perspective.

I think many FEs recognize that google maps and indeed google earth works very well to represent the locations and distances between places on Earth - at least any places near enough to drive between in our everyday experience.

From what I've seen, most FEs expect that we should be able to make a flat map with distances that perfectly match the distances reported by airlines and google earth. It is a rather abstract bit of geometry to understand that this cannot be possible, and I think many FEs are simply not willing to make this leap.

To mathematically prove the point is tricky, but it's not hard to visualise. If you have a set of distances between cities, it's possible to create a model, using blobs of modelling clay and straws cut to the right length. One can very quickly assemble a rough model. It becomes clear as soon as one puts the model together that one is not free to choose whatever shape one wishes. The distances between cities force one into only one shape. They will not permit a flat map. It cannot work.

It's of course entirely possible for _anyone_ to verify that flight distances as measured on the globe reflect, to a reasonable degree, flight times. This is not some secret mystery that we have to believe because of the Illuminati telling us. We know it because we now have access to air travel for ourselves. We know that the times advertised by the airlines reflect the actual times taken.

What is interesting is exactly how the denial works. Clearly, there's no rational way to argue with this overwhelming weight of evidence - so we are left with a variety of irrational rationalisations. There are a number of ways to go. There's variation in the speeds of different aircraft, there are wind patterns, there are delays due to weather - so how can any of this make any sense? It's just too unreliable. The airlines are all in on it - if the truth about the flat Earth were revealed then they'd be ruined. And so on.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Detailed flight times and distances
« on: July 24, 2018, 12:14:58 PM »
I don't know if it is possible to solve all of these problems.

- There is no FE map
- We can't rely on the distances to be accurate because Lat/Lon relies on spherical coordinates
- We can't rely on the flight times to be accurate

On top of all of the above it is also known that on international flights planes regularly use jet streams to quicker get to a destination.

According to this:

"Jet streams are ever-present, relatively narrow, streams of high-speed winds undulating around the Northern and Southern Hemispheres"

It's certainly the case that wind speed can affect travel times. However, note above (my italics) jet streams operate in both hemispheres. It seems implausible that pilots would make use of jet streams to reduce travel time in the Southern hemisphere and not use them in the North.

And it's an objection which can be cancelled out by using times to and from destinations. If the jet stream speeds up, say, London to New York, it should slow down New York to London.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bi-Polar Model: YouTube movement catching on
« on: July 23, 2018, 12:55:58 PM »
The solution to the circumference being one coordinate point on a globe is that the RE coordinate system is incorrect.
I don't think so - don't FE and RE agree totally on lat long positions? Long is measured in 15 degrees per hour, since we all agree there are 24 hours in a day, and that there is always high noon somewhere. Latitude, we agree on the angle to the pole star. So the coordinate system exhausts all the points on the earth that there are.

It depends on the FEer and also on the day I think.  Tom certainly disputes the validity lat and long as it applies to a FE.

It's always possible to dispute the validity of anything. The basis of the FE movement is refusing to accept anything - optical theory, basic physics, the evidence of one's own eyes, the existence of Australia. Latitude and longitude are easy to deny.

However, even when it's denied, the existence of latitude and longitude as an objective fact of human existence remains. It can just about be shoehorned into the monopole theory, if we ignore everything we know about travelling in the Southern hemisphere, but it's impossible to square with bipolar.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rowbotham on perspective
« on: July 22, 2018, 11:26:53 AM »
  I know what I've seen and I trust that.

It's a fundamental principle of FET to deny the evidence of one's eyes, while at the same time maintaining the opposite.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bi-Polar Model: YouTube movement catching on
« on: July 22, 2018, 11:24:26 AM »
The bipolar model just produces the ancient water pouring over the edge model ..

Well not if all the points on the circumference are the very same point in reality. The water will be held up by itself. This of course is no less absurd, if not a lot more.

I think the flirtation with bipolar will go away. There's something ingenious about equating Antarctica with the ice wall, so that you go South and encounter the edge. This model allows anyone to head off to the edge and verify for themselves that it isn't an edge, and that they end up going from South America to New Zealand instead of falling off the waterfall.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bi-Polar Model: YouTube movement catching on
« on: July 22, 2018, 09:00:33 AM »
Tom’s silly caveat to this issue is that although this is a viable map, no one is sure of the actual orientation of the continents under such a model.

The monopole flat Earth is ridiculous and obviously wrong, but the bipolar model manages to be far worse. The idea of the ice wall has at least the advantage that most people can't go to Antarctica and the South Pole. The bipolar model just produces the ancient water pouring over the edge model, and has distances and directions even more at odds with everyday experience.

I note that the map is for illustrative purposes only and that the real map does not exist and in fact, cannot exist. There will be no flat Earth map reflecting the distances and directions that we experience because when a model is produced that incorporates them, it forms a sphere.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Southern Sky. Need explanations
« on: June 05, 2018, 01:46:11 PM »
The Flat Earth Theory is a relatively new theory that receives zero funding, with hundreds of people like you complaining and refusing to participate. What are you expecting to see?
No it isn't. The Flat Earth Theory is a very old theory which was rejected a long time ago because it was found not to match observations.

What I was expecting to see was some kind of coherent FE model or at least some sign you're working towards one.
Now fine, you don't have funding and so on. But Bobby isn't being funded, or sponsored. He just took it upon himself to make some equipment and do his own experiments.
He has proven conclusively that your assertion that the horizon rises to eye level is false. If you dispute his findings then you are free to repeat his experiments, or devise your own.
You're an empiricist aren't you? What empirical measurements have you actually made yourself?
You seem far too reliant on, and willing to accept the written accounts of, some Victorian dude who has found no acceptance in the scientific community and has been largely forgotten by history.
And you're far too dismissive of anything which contradicts those accounts and far too unwilling to do any experiments yourself.

Is it so unreasonable to expect some effort from you guys to test your assertions?

Yes, it is - because there's a fundamental difference between how FE people think and the people who come on here to understand and argue with them. The process of becoming a FE advocate involves a road-to-Damascus conversion, where they realise that they are being lied to. That can happen instantly or can take a while. Once the process is over, there's no need for any further investigation. If you've put the cheese in the fridge, you don't think of new ways to verify that the cheese is in the fridge.

The only purpose for experiments, arguments, etc., is to confirm the Truth. Any experiment or observation that doesn't serve this aim is irrelevant. It's not of any interest. Arguments that confirm the Truth are useful. Even when multiple arguments contradict each other, that doesn't matter.

So, to return to the topic at hand - nobody involved in FE theory is going to go to the kind of trouble Bobby Shafto or Tontogary have gone to recently. They aren't interested in why the Southern Hemisphere has different constellations. It doesn't particularly fit in with any given theory, so what's the point of the observation?

Look at SiDawg's detailed explanation of how perspective works. It ended up being moved to another forum because nobody cared enough to argue against it. I found it fascinating, but I'm interested in how stuff works. People who are interested in how stuff works tend to assume that FE advocates must be interested too. They aren't.

So we can continue to ask for explanations as to the sky in the South having different constellations, but don't expect any response except "Whatever. I can't see why you people care about this stuff."

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: June 04, 2018, 04:07:25 PM »
The coordinate system absolutely rests upon the idea that the earth is a globe.

Latitude and Longitude lines are vertical and horizontal circles, usually illustrated as laying upon a spherical surface. The points are equidistant, and must represent spherical geometry. Arguing that the Lat/Lon system has nothing to do with a sphere is clearly incorrect. Any warping of them on a surface of another shape (except maybe a concave hollow earth theory) would create distortions.

isnt this the whole point though?  these coordinates for cities (based on round earth model) are used every day by airlines.  Inherently, the model is correct by virtue that every single plane is able to fly to the exact location and arrive at a predictable time at that location.  if the round earth model and lat/long were not correct this wouldnt happen.  How else do you explain the fact that for any given international airport, there are planes arriving correctly from all over the world every day?  if the system wasnt 100% accurate (and therefore the globe model itself) wouldnt that be pretty obvious?   Also, have you never been on an airplane equipped with the screen that shoes your exact location, and been able to look out the window and verify what is one screen matches what you see below (i.e. major cities, rivers, lakes, etc).

I'd be interested to know whether FE people think that there's a separate set of never-seen charts which are what are actually used to direct aircraft to the right destination, or that the global model they use coincidentally sends them to the right place in spite of being wrong.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« on: June 04, 2018, 04:04:05 PM »
It is frustrating that the FE response so far has been "la, la, la, can't hear you" or just trying to find any tiny seed of doubt to claim your experiments are invalid with no attempt to do any experimenting themselves. But whatever, to pretty much everyone else you have done more than enough to disprove the assertion that the horizon always rises to eye level. Good job, as you Americans say. (English translation: "Well done, old bean" ;) )

I think you're missing what the purpose of this experiment was. It wasn't primarily to show that the horizon does not, in fact, rise to eye level. We knew that before, and the claim that it does had no supporting evidence and didn't even make any consistent sense to begin with. We knew what the results of the experiments would be. What was really interesting was to see how the FE proponents would deal with the problem of having one of their beliefs disproved.

I know it seems frustrating to not get any kind of engagement with the argument -  but we need to accept that this won't happen, and indeed, it can't. That's not what's going on here. Look at how the perspective thread was moved out of the debate forum because nobody was interested enough to debate it. (Another piece of excellent work which left me a lot better informed.)

I'll add my own congratulations to Bobby Shafto for an excellent piece of work - and he shouldn't feel frustrated at any failure to convince anyone. That's not possible, and thinking it is will just lead to frustration.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Southern Sky. Need explanations
« on: June 04, 2018, 03:38:26 PM »
Who are you guys talking to? You pretty much joined the the Flat Earth Society when you registered on the forum. You are the "FE enthusiasts." Do you see me making a ton of threads obsessed with the subject? You clearly seem way more interested in some of these topics than I am.

My advice is to research what the YouTube community has to say about the Southern Stars, and what Lady Blount's Bi-Polar model says.

This is what I find interesting about the whole FE thing. This is a very typical response. The FE community isn't interested in this stuff.

There's a completely different set of stars in the Southern hemisphere? Whatever. It's explained somewhere, probably. There's a YouTube video. Who cares?

The reality of the Flat Earth is the starting point, not the conclusion. If there are so-called facts that seem to contradict that, then there is obviously some explanation for it.

If I may, allow me politely disagree: my comment was to help others see the lack of credibility of the op, which is important when discussing pretty much anything, and thus is very relevant. Plus there’s no way to further derail this topic: the question has been answered and flat-heads have nothing to respond (as usual).

Hmm, the OP is a Holocaust denier... As I’ve pointed out before, it seems to be a trend among flat-heads (not all, I know, but a bit too many for it not to be a sign). Just sayin’...

So, I will give you one last warning to refrain from off-topic posting, derailing threads, etc. You are on 3 bans already, next one is permanent.

So someone starts a topic with a claim that the Holocaust is a hoax. That claim is still there, right at the start of this thread. Anyone who reads the thread can see it. A normal person would regard that as being far more significant that the rubbish she was spouting about satellites, which was debunked almost immediately. (Second post in this thread).

This is her signature
Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.

My emphases.

I would have thought that a sensible, rational moderator would have thought "Oh, maybe allowing people to put forward explicit Holocaust denial is a bad thing for our movement. It will cause people to characterise us as a bunch of Nazis". Instead, we are treated to people being banned permanently for pointing it out.

I don't expect this post to get a different reaction, btw. However, when someone decides that denying the great crime of the twentieth century is less significant than a rambling nonsense thread about how satellites work, it says a lot about what kind of movement this is.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My biggest question on all this
« on: June 03, 2018, 10:22:45 PM »
And P.S. Using comic Sans because I like it  ;D [No, you're not. ~Pete]
Sorry, I won't allow that outside of the Complete Nonsense board.
Best modding decision ever tbh.

Back to the silly claim about clouds being behind the moon...
Pretty sure that would not be so in FE either, and clearly in that video they have the exposure set to silly levels such that the moon is so bright the light of it completely obliterates the clouds in front of it.

They show a picture where you can see the clouds in front of the moon and claim that the clouds are behind the moon.


Do the maths.

Now you know that's not going to happen. If this particular poster (the holocaust denier) were able to do the maths, an entire belief system would fall apart.

OK, I shall do them. Let's say ...

Lowest orbit - 180km
Highest orbit - 6950km

(These were the limits of the SpaceX Tesla orbit)

Volume of a sphere, based on each of these, and Earth radius 6971;

(6371+180)cubed * 4/3 * 3.14 = 1,177,039,894,339  cubic km
(6371+6950)cubed * 4/3 * 3.14 = 9,896,437,120,007

Difference = volume available to sats = 8,719,397,225,669

Number of satellites = almost 3000, so space on average per satellite = 9,763,852,461,509 / 3000 =

2,906,465,742 cubic km each

And so this will go down as another huge win for flat Earth theory where the globalists had no answer.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« on: May 04, 2018, 02:03:21 PM »
This is part of the original confused thinking going back to Rowbotham. Clinging to this confused thinking is central to the project. Thinking clearly would derail the whole thing.
Thing is, if they are going to claim to be empiricists and state how important empirical evidence is know, they could try and make some empirical measurements.
Crazy idea, I know, but it might just work.
It's bizarre that they cite ridiculous write ups from Rowbotham of experiments in a hotel which isn't tall enough to easily measure any difference in horizon tip and then deny the evidence of their own eyes when they're shown photos and video of multiple ways to show horizon dip. Here is another:

There was some excuse for Rowbotham - he would have found it difficult to get up in a balloon - but all you need to do is look out of the window and the horizon is clearly below eye level at altitude. You could sight along a spirit level or your complimentary glass of champagne, but you can easily just eyeball it.

Thanks for helping me understand what you meant.

I've noticed that a lot of flat Earth "research" involves poor English from people who clearly don't have English as their first language. One tends to be sympathetic to this - if I were to write a scientific paper in a foreign language, it would read terribly. One tends to assume that the ideas are sound, but the way that they are expressed is affected by having to express them with words that aren't familiar.

So if this terrible, confused "academic article" were written in clear, unambiguous English, it would be a lot easier to see what a mess it is. It's all over the place, with discussions of angular momentum scattered among religious references and claims that a bunch of flat Earth researchers were murdered.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10  Next >