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 - stack

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 39  Next >
1
Flat Earth Projects / Re: Need help with map
« on: March 22, 2019, 12:10:30 AM »
I can't, but it's a damned good idea!

Why is it a good idea? What bearing do pyramids have on the shape of the Earth?

This guy seems to have drawn a connection between pyramids and a flat earth. I skimmed through it, but I wouldn't even know where to begin to summarize the vid:


2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Need clarification (time zones)
« on: March 21, 2019, 11:32:03 PM »
So using time and date, I think the question some of us has is/are (see attached time and date map):

- Starting at the blue circle (SF), flying due west, on the flat map, you go off the image on the left.
   - How is it that me and my plane all of a sudden, appear on the far right edge of the map image?
      - How did I, on the the flat map, poof, disappear off the left edge and then reappear way over on the right edge?



Lastly, is there anything else in the world that functions the way you are describing that we can look at as sort of a guide?

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Need clarification (time zones)
« on: March 21, 2019, 06:39:31 PM »
Can you render a diagram of what you're talking about?

I feel like you are an intelligent person. I feel like you know how to use mapquest or yahoo maps. These maps represent an infinite series of regular and intelligible sequence of destinations when traveling west. These maps are used and understood very well by literally millions and millions of people each year. I have diagrammed, in detail for you,  the regular and intelligible sequence of destinations when traveling wes

 screenshots taken directly from www.mapquest.com of the regular and intelligible sequence of destinations when traveling west on this mapquest model which renders the earth as a flat plane: United states > pacific ocean > asia >europe > Atlantic ocean > united states

 1. Starting at the United States heading west you reach the pacific ocean
The blue arrow below represents heading west from the west coast and arriving into the pacific ocean.


 2. Continuing west from the pacific ocean you reach Asia
The blue arrow represents heading west from the pacific ocean and arriving in Asia


3. Going west from Asia puts you in Europe
The blue arrow represents heading west from Asia and arriving in Europe



3. Going west from Europe puts you in the Atlantic Ocean
The blue arrow represents heading west from Europe and arriving in the Atlantic Ocean




4. Going west from the Atlantic Ocean puts you back in America
The blue arrow represents heading west from the Atlantic Ocean and arriving in the United States




Does this mean that there are infinite United States? No it does not.

Thanks for diagramming. Using MapQuest as well, do you believe the below adequately represents the journey west from SF and returning back to SF on your infinite flat plane?


4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Need clarification (time zones)
« on: March 21, 2019, 03:46:13 PM »

Let me lay it out another way. Your FE model, west coast > pacific ocean > asia >europe > Atlantic ocean > east coast > west coast takes you from A to B in the picture below. There is 2 of everything in the image. Two San Franciscos, for example, A where I started and B where I landed. Two distinct points on the flat plane thousands of miles apart yet they are the one and only San Francisco. How can there be two?

On a globe you head west and circle around the ball and land back where you started, A to A, as it were. Only one San Francisco on the globe.

What am I missing?



There are not two west coasts on earth. But if you travel the planet you can come across regular and intelligible sequences of destinations which can repeat an infinite number of times depending on what direction you travel.



There are two west coasts on this regular and intelligible sequence of destinations when traveling west on a globe earth.

 west coast > pacific ocean > asia >europe > Atlantic ocean > east coast > west coast

Even though the west coast appears twice on this regular and intelligible sequence of destinations when traveling west  there is only one west coast.


There are two west coasts on this regular and intelligible sequence of destinations when traveling west on this flat earth model.

 west coast > pacific ocean > asia >europe > Atlantic ocean > east coast > west coast

Even though the west coast appears twice on this regular and intelligible sequence of destinations when traveling west  there is only one west coast.

There is only 1 west coast on a globe. 1 of everything. On the image I provided of your plane there are 2 west coasts, two of everything. You're not making any sense with words - Can you render a diagram of what you're talking about?

5
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Where is eye level in this photo?
« on: March 21, 2019, 06:32:59 AM »
As we have several different time lapses showing that a sinking effect is occuring in the distance half the time, single pictures don't really cut it anymore.

Can you be more specific regarding "half the time"? Sure, we've all seen some miraging timelapses, like the skunk bay one, but I would hardly be so bold to say that they account for 50% of all sinking ship videos, if that's what you're claiming. And none of which ever account for the sinking ship completely 'sinking'.

We can equally find several "mountains prove flat earth" videos on YouTube.

Do share then.

The timelapses of the sinking ship effect cast doubt on all sinking photos. You need an experiment that controls for refraction.

If you mean skunk bay, no they don't cast doubt on any sinking photos. If you have other timelapses that show miraging I have just as many that don't. So this is neither here nor there.

Describe an experiment that controls for refraction. What do you mean by that exactly?

It can sometimes get close to what a Round Earth predicts, but not exact. A member of our forums, Bobby, was taking pictures of a sinking effect that changed every day he looked, providing further evidence that this effect is an illusion.

Time and time again, the margin of error is far more in favor of RE than FE. Even in the Turning Torso examination we found RE off by 10% and FE off by 80%, both not accounting for refraction. I'm ok with 10% margin of error.

And as for Bobby's experiments of late, the changes were not daily. There were some days when significant miraging occurred and many days when it did not.

The round earth excuse is that it was earth curvature + illusion, but that is neither here nor there.

It's kind of disingenuous to point the refraction/miraging magic wand solely at RE when it's gainfully employed in explaining sunsets and sunrises in ALL circumstances for FE. There is no greater use of 'illusion' than that.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Need clarification (time zones)
« on: March 21, 2019, 06:08:42 AM »
Alright, Iam, but now I feel even more daft.
In the globe model, there is no 'pattern'. Each port of call, departure, destination, is a single point. A to B. I guess my question is, does your model "Pac Man"? And if not, can you diagram it out? Or, I'll do it for you if we can agree on what you're trying to convey.

i looked up the definition of the word pattern.  I found this definition. If you don't like the word pattern then I will replace it.

"A regular and intelligible form or sequence discernible in the way in which something happens or is done."



A regular and intelligible sequence of destinations when traveling west on the globe earth:
west coast > pacific ocean > asia >europe > Atlantic ocean > east coast > west coast


A regular and intelligible sequence of destinations when traveling west on this flat earth model earth:
west coast > pacific ocean > asia >europe > Atlantic ocean > east coast > west coast

Let me lay it out another way. Your FE model, west coast > pacific ocean > asia >europe > Atlantic ocean > east coast > west coast takes you from A to B in the picture below. There is 2 of everything in the image. Two San Franciscos, for example, A where I started and B where I landed. Two distinct points on the flat plane thousands of miles apart yet they are the one and only San Francisco. How can there be two?

On a globe you head west and circle around the ball and land back where you started, A to A, as it were. Only one San Francisco on the globe.

What am I missing?


7
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 21, 2019, 03:09:06 AM »
All of which means that the burden of extraordinary claims actually falls on you, because you are suggesting that because you believe the Earth is flat, due to your intuition, most of our scientific understanding needs to be rewritten. That's a monumental claim.

Again, you have every right to believe what you wish. But I don't think it's fair to say, as you said, "A flat Earth -- plain, simple, and logical as it is -- requires a lesser degree of evidence."

Again, you're the one using the word intuition; I think you're also ignoring the research I've done. We clearly disagree that most of our scientific understanding needs to be rewritten. You came up with that monumental, unfounded claim.

A flat Earth is still -- and fairly -- plain, simple, and logical.

The word intuition aside, I would say a flat earth is not plain & simple though it may be logical in some respects, but not in many others.

Point of fact, all long haul transportation of goods and humans, by sea or air, is navigated via a globe earth model, great circles, etc. So where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, is when FET can summon a better means of worldly transport than exists today and prove that point. Be a global transport 'disruptor' as it were. Until such time there is nothing plain, simple, and logical about a flat earth construct. If FE were plain, simple, and logical there would be a map.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Need clarification (time zones)
« on: March 21, 2019, 02:11:02 AM »
I may not be synaptically firing on all cylinders here, but I'll give it a go. They are not literally the exact same because of the operative word of 'repeating'. On a globe there is one San Francisco where I started my journey. On an infinite repeating plane there are an infinite number of San Franciscos. How many SF's do you count on the repeating plane versus the globe below:


The western travel pattern of west coast > pacific ocean > asia >europe > Atlantic ocean > east coast > west coast > pacific ocean > asia >europe > Atlantic ocean > east coast > west coast > pacific ocean > asia >europe > Atlantic ocean > east coast > west coast > pacific ocean > asia >europe > Atlantic ocean > east coast can go on forever. In the globe model I would call this an infinitely repeating pattern. In the flat model i would call this an infinitely repeating pattern. I changed some wording to remove the word repeating. Maybe this will make it more clear.

In the western travel infinite pattern flat earth model: you started on the west coast of America and travel west. You cross the pacific ocean then hit Asia. You cross Asia into Europe. You leave the shores of Europe to cross the Atlantic ocean and hit the east coast of America. Cross America and you are back to the west coast of America.


In the western travel infinite pattern round earth model: you started on the west coast of America and travel west. You cross the pacific ocean then hit Asia. You cross Asia into Europe. You leave the shores of Europe to cross the Atlantic ocean and hit the east coast of America. Cross America and you are back to the west coast of America.

Alright, Iam, but now I feel even more daft.
In the globe model, there is no 'pattern'. Each port of call, departure, destination, is a single point. A to B. I guess my question is, does your model "Pac Man"? And if not, can you diagram it out? Or, I'll do it for you if we can agree on what you're trying to convey.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« on: March 21, 2019, 01:59:24 AM »
'Doesn't account for what we observe . . .suns, moons'

As far as I know, there's only one of each that we see here, and it accounts for the moon, which appears considerably larger as it nears the horizon, and I'm suggesting it may apply to the sun also.

As an FE proponent, as far as one of each, I would argue that you don't know this. In some FE models there is a 'shadow object' aiding the moon and sun in an eclipse setting.
As for Moon size on the horizon being larger, yes a phenomena and can apply to the Sun as well. But that doesn't account for the sun that on a Flat Earth is over my head 3000 miles up at noon and then scoots across the sky and come sunset, it's over land approx 6-7000 miles away from me to the west. Still 3000 miles high. Yet somehow it has maintained it's observable size, if not a smidge larger, and slips downward, bottom up, disappearing completely, not to be seen again by me until tomorrow. All that and it's 3000 miles above me.

'No bottom up compression'

Yes there is. I said the lines are merely a device to understand what's happening, not to say they exist. If you divide the perspective field into 1,000 horizontal lines, there is compression for those nearest the center line, while those away from the center are increasingly spaced out (which makes closer objects appear larger). As for the other dynamics at play, objects that depart converge towards the center, even if they remain far off to the left or right. If you Google Image 'one point perspective grid' you will get a better idea.

A compression for those nearest the center line do not make for completely shearing off the bottom of the object, like this:



As well, in 'perspective' drawing there is more than one. There are two point perspectives, three, etc.

'Require some uniformity'

How can they require what doesn't exist, if we are both admitting that apparent sun size varies within the day, and day to day? I dispute your claim that the sun is always the same at sunset and sunrise. As for whether aether is accounted for, doing so may be impossible since the sun is unlike any other object, [in FE] is higher than any other visible object, and aether concentrations or its behavior may vary with latitude and altitude in unknown ways. While refraction is predictable and expressible in a formula in a lab setting, there is no way to translate that across the numerous variables in a real-world setting, especially when the object is said to be 3,000 miles altitude, and no man has likely gone beyond 30-40 or so.

I'm not saying it's always the same. But I could post a thousand timelapse sunsets and they would all look extremely similar; the bottom continually sinks until the entire orb disappears, bottom up and you could set your watch to it. "Aether concentrations" and the like are irrelevant. One man's aether is another man's atmosphere. So if we measure some refraction in a given scenario, whether it's measuring through aether or not is neither here nor there. The calculation and observable result is the same. See what I'm saying?

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Need clarification (time zones)
« on: March 21, 2019, 12:35:29 AM »

The problem with the infinite repeating model is the repeating part. Are there multiples of the same continent, country, city? Multiple repeating versions of me? I never could wrap my head around this model.

In the repeating flat plane model: you started on the west coast of America and travel west. You cross the pacific ocean then hit Asia. You cross Asia into Europe. You leave the shores of Europe to cross the Atlantic ocean and hit the east coast of America. Cross America and you are back to the west coast of America. Is this the same West coast of America that you started at or a different one? You could repeat this trip an infinite number of times. Are there an infinite number of western america coastlines to depart from and arrive to?


In the round earth model: you started on the west coast of America and travel west. You cross the pacific ocean then hit Asia. You cross Asia into Europe. You leave the shores of Europe to cross the Atlantic ocean and hit the east coast of America. Cross America and you are back to the west coast of America. Is this the same West coast of America that you started at or a different one? You could repeat this trip an infinite number of times. Are there an infinite number of western america coastlines to depart from and arrive to?


Do you notice how they are literally the EXACT same? If you believe the earth is round how could this model be in any way confusing to you?

I may not be synaptically firing on all cylinders here, but I'll give it a go. They are not literally the exact same because of the operative word of 'repeating'. On a globe there is one San Francisco where I started my journey. On an infinite repeating plane there are an infinite number of San Franciscos. How many SF's do you count on the repeating plane versus the globe below:


11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Need clarification (time zones)
« on: March 20, 2019, 08:06:18 PM »
Yes that matched my experience... But you told me it is a flat plane, so I can't just teleport from the left side of the map to the right. The map predicts that because it is a 2D representation of the GE world view. Sometimes I wonder what you are trying to tell me  :-\

One thing that you will have to understand is that there are many models which depict the earth as a "flat" surface. There are pros and cons to all the different models.


The earth modeled as a circular disk with the north pole in the middle has a very hard time with things like time zones, flight times/distances, driving times/distances, shipping times/distances, time zones and some aspects of lunar cycles.
 





The earth can also be modeled as a interactive repeating plane. (much like a sphere could be considered a flat plane that curves in upon itself) Notice how i'm not linking you www.flatearthmodels.com I'm linking to you known and verified maps of the earth used by hundreds of thousands of people every day.

https://www.mapquest.com/
https://maps.yahoo.com/
http://suncalc.net


These models do much better with things like time zones, flight times/distances, driving times/distances, shipping times/distances, and time zones

The problem with the infinite repeating model is the repeating part. Are there multiples of the same continent, country, city? Multiple repeating versions of me? I never could wrap my head around this model.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« on: March 20, 2019, 07:31:04 PM »
I don't think you're looking at it correctly.

Optically, think of the sun not as a distinct object but as an inextricable part of a single image  that is the human perspective field, and imagine that the field consists of thousands of horizontal lines. These lines compress into smaller increments (terminating at near-zero increments) as they get closer to the center line, so the horizontal lines that represent the top or bottom part of a departing object will hit the center line and compress first; top or bottom depending on whether the departing object is above or below the center line of the perspective field. When an object returns into view, the opposite effect of compression (which takes the effect of sinking), i.e. decompression, would occur (taking the effect of rising), as if a tape is being played in reverse.

Cool explanation, but it doesn't account for what we observe. Objects, suns, moons, cars, planes, whathaveyou, uniformly shrink as they move farther away from the observer. There is no bottom up compression of horizontal lines or such. Would also beg the question, what are these lines? Are they 'pixels'? What is their size, how are they divided? What constitutes a 'line'? Also, why horizontal? Why not vertical, or diagonal? This seems like a real stretch not necessarily seated in reality and merely a conjuring to get out of a jam, so to speak.

As for the claim that sun appears the same every time, I disagree. I'd say it's smallest when overhead, and largest at sunrise and sunset, but appears larger some sunsets than it does in others due to changing atmospheric conditions. So tying refraction's effect to a constant or formula wouldn't suffice. In determining refraction's effect you'd also have to account for all the dynamics and effects of aether, which is not disproven and was repeatedly re-proven in experiments by Sagnac and others, as well as possible re-interpretations of the nature and behavior of light. Einstein's relativity is still under dispute by eminently qualified academics.

Whether or not these coincident phenomena are actually accounting for what we see is another question, but it seems at least plausible on its face.

I agree, the sun doesn't appear the same every time. But I would say often enough, twice daily, to billions of people that would require some uniformity of explanation. As for whether you would have to account for the dynamics and effects of aether, ostensibly, we already do. Refraction is calculated and is the same whether aether exists or not. In other words, refraction is aether agnostic.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« on: March 20, 2019, 03:37:00 AM »
I don't consider myself a FE'er, but I'll offer a potential explanation:

1) As the sun moves farther away, it moves towards the center line or horizon line of one's perspective field. Similarly, if a plane flies away it's going to appear closer to the horizon line and appear to drop, just as an object on the ground that moves away will appear to rise. The closer the object gets to the center line, the more it compresses, i.e. the more optical data that has to fit into a tiny space, to the point of total compression, which can explain why objects seem to disappear bottom first.

The problems I have with this stem from planes, things, get smaller as they visually move away from your POV. Something like the sun, in its setting, generally does not. As well, why bottom first? Why not the object, fitting into a 'tiny' space, compresses from all sides? The sun should shrink uniformly to a dot and then vanish. There is no up or down. But instead, it stays it's relative size even 1000's of miles away at sunset and slowly slinks below the surface, every time.

2) At the same time that this bottom-first compression is occurring, refraction causes an illusion of magnification (presumably due to dust, increased atmospheric interference), in the same way that the moon appears far larger when it is near the horizon line. This would explain why the sun often appears larger at sunrise and sunset than during midday.

We would need some sort of calculation/formula for this refraction/magnification to occur pretty much every day of the year equally around the world. Seems a bit far fetched that every sunrise and sunset observed on earth every day would magically possess some properties affording a top up sunrise and a bottom down sunset. Where the sun isn't just refracted/magnified to behave so, but to make it appear from nowhere and dissappear completely only to be revealed again 12 or so hours later.

14
Using the same logic, perhaps the rebel graphic designer is also telling us that the Moon is actually quite a bit larger than the earth or mars.

15
Flat Earth Community / Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« on: March 16, 2019, 11:48:21 PM »
Many religions spawn from, or were influenced by, content which was created around a period of about 4000 B.C -- the Old Testament.

And many more were not.

And he is clear to reference both the Old and New Testaments. In doing so, we're back to Chistiandom.

16
Flat Earth Community / Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« on: March 16, 2019, 11:06:44 PM »
Rowbotham's chapter on religion is called "General Summary -- Application -- Cui Bono" Cui Bono means "who stands to gain from it?"

He is answering a frequently asked question of "Who cares?" and "What does it matter if the earth is flat?", which has been asked here a million times. If the earth is flat, central, and the world in which we live happens to be exactly as the ancients depicted it in their religious texts, bottomless pits, corners, tiny stars, and all, it would matter quite a lot. It may suggest that someone or something gave them that knowledge.

I wasn't aware that all ancients were Judeo-Christians.

17
Flat Earth Community / Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« on: March 16, 2019, 10:48:31 PM »
Rowbotham says that belief without evidence is a fallacy.

I agree, but he did not practice what he preached.

Here we are instructed that it has been demonstrated and evidenced that Heaven and Hell are places. I hadn't realized that his citing of lighthouse heights and visibility, for example, may have proved out the Christian concept. More scriptural cart before the horse nonsense.

"In addition to this is it as the Scriptures teach? Is not Heaven spoken of as an abode--a blissful residence of the accepted with their satisfied Creator; and hell a place, an actual locality, appointed for the evil-minded and the rejected? Let the distracted believer in Scripture be careful how he parleys with his judgment, and endangers himself by a too exclusive and one-sided conception. That heaven and hell are only conditions and not places no man is justified in asserting; but that they are both is perfectly demonstrable. To adopt one and reject or deny the possibility of the other is utter folly. To admit that both are realities is simply the dictate of reason, and the conclusion which the evidence compels us to acknowledge."

It's just odd that he spends all of chapter XV fitting his "evidence" into scripture. Why do so at all? If only to make a point that the scripture is the truth as evidenced by his "findings". Just so happens that his "findings" didn't fit any other religious text?  There's simply no denying that scripture is the bias and he makes his work magically fits that bias.

18
Flat Earth Community / Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« on: March 16, 2019, 09:46:55 PM »
Quote
The literal teaching of the Old and New Testaments on the subject of the earth's destruction is plain and unmistakeable.

Are you arguing that the bible does not say and teach those things about the earth? It clearly does say some thing about the earth being flat, and about its impending destruction.

Never does Rowbotham declare that truth is based on scripture. The entire chapter says that scripture should be based on physical evidence. Your definition of "scriptural literalism" is entirely backwards.

You just quoted a sentence saying "It may have both a spiritual, a moral, and a political aspect, but only as a superstructure upon the material and philosophical."

It "may" have a spiritual aspect seems to be contrary to the words of the bible which says that it does have a spiritual aspect. The spiritual aspect being "possible" is sprinkled all throughout that chapter. Rowbotham also states that physical evidence for scripture is necessary. Your interpretation of Rowbotham's message seems to be warped around whatever it is that you want to perceive.

I think Rowbotham's full quote (among others) stands for itself showing his scriptural literalism and how it informed his world view. And the same goes for those who carried on his work, Blount, Voliva, etc., though they were much more straight forward about it.

19
Flat Earth Community / Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« on: March 16, 2019, 08:31:14 PM »

I don't have a problem with that. That is not a conclusion based upon biblical authority, that is called evidence for the elements of the bible.

Biblical literalism would be "it says this in the bible, therefore it is true". It is not difficult to understand what is being communicated at all.

Supporting elements of the bible with physical evidence is pretty much the exact opposite of biblical literalism. I find it pretty odd and disingenuous that anyone could fail to understand that.

I think it's pretty clear that Rowbotham was a scriptural literalist:

"The literal teaching of the Old and New Testaments on the subject of the earth's destruction is plain and unmistakeable. Numbers, however, have been led to deny that the Scriptures have any literal signification. But such a denial is unquestionably contrary to fact, and inconsistent with the genius and purpose of all inspiration. It may not be denied that this language will bear a spiritual application; but its primary and essential meaning is literal and practical. It may have both a spiritual, a moral, and a political aspect, but only as a superstructure upon the material and philosophical. Let men beware how they jeopardise their lasting welfare by taking liberties with a book written as the expressed will of Heaven for the guidance of mankind. If they are determined to read with fanciful bearings, let them do so for what pleasure it will afford; but if it is done to the exclusion of practical good and literal application, it is not less than dangerous presumption."

20
Flat Earth Community / Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« on: March 16, 2019, 05:51:18 AM »
Are you talking about the chapter on religion where he says that all religions of the world depict a Flat Earth in their ancient texts, that the faithful should seek to provide evidence for their beliefs, and that the Bible should be put under the severest of criticism?

No, I'm talking about the chapter where he says this:

"The Scriptures--the Bible, therefore, cannot be other than the word and teaching of God. Let it once be seen that such a conclusion is a logical necessity; that the sum of the purely practical evidence which has been collected compels us to acknowledge this, and we find ourselves in possession of a solid and certain foundation for all our future investigations."

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 39  Next >