61

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth at the Beach

« on: June 03, 2020, 03:58:32 PM »

your commentary is along the lines of "it might be possible! You don't know! You can't just say the Earth looks flat! Maybe an illusion!

No tom, my point was that you can't conclude the shape of the earth from singular, isolated observations. It's crazy that you read that and thought that equated to illusions... Or you were trying to go for the character assassination route yet again.. . You really do seem to enjoy doing that. I'll say it again if you like. You can't come to the conclusion of the earth's shape from isolated observations. Nowhere did I say what you see is illusions. You really do need to stop putting words in my mouth. This is what, the 3rd time in a row now that I've pointed this out? Stop doing it.

62

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth at the Beach

« on: June 03, 2020, 01:32:55 AM »

You are arguing based on your personal 'logic' and what is 'possible' and what you personally perceive as 'simpler'.

I am arguing on what is directly concluded. The question was why the light of the Moon appears to face us regardless of our position around it. If we observe that the light of the Moon follows to face us when we look at it from different positions around it, the direct conclusion is that the light is following us to face us. A simple, direct conclusion. We are observing light and making a conclusion about what light does.

The alternative RE interpretation is to hypothesize about tidal locking and distant moons and straight line light geometries as underlying assumptions and axioms. It is possible, but does not follow as a direct conclusion from the observation, as it requires a number of further assumptions to be true to construct this explanation.

In regards to the visual movement of the sun and Earth movement, you are appealing to 'what the ancient people believed' and appeals to absurdity, rather than direct conclusions or evidence for your beliefs. A rather unsatisfactory way of convincing anyone, and shows us that you must argue in this way because the cause and effect and direct conclusions are not in your favor.

The "alternative" you're referring to is also just observation, but with other observations in mind. The flaw you have with just concluding from singular observations in isolation from other observations is that what you see may not directly be explainable. Like using the "look out the window" kind of argument as a proof the world is flat, you can't conclude the shape of the earth from that, you need more information. You can't conclude the shape of the earth just from seeing quite far on a clear day over a large body of water either, not as an isolated observation. What you can do is put all of the observations together to make sense of each one. That's what science is and it works well. The "alternative" is your way of doing things, which evidently from the fe wiki is a fractured mess of isolated information of which doesn't work together. It's kind of like taking random pieces of different jigsaw puzzles and trying to form a complete picture. This, sadly for you, is where you'd need to rely on other peoples observations because you as an individual cannot do it alone.

Lets take OP's sun example, as the sun sets it doesn't move further away or vanish into the distance. If you were completely isolated in this observation you might come to the conclusion the sun or rotating around you, but then people from all locations of the world can feed each other information from which you may find that if the earth were a flat circle, it was rotating around the equator, but now you have the problem that this isn't what all the observations suggest, so in order to keep the world flat you have to have light from the sun bending extremely upward to the point where it's managing a 90 degree arch in either direction. That right there is an assumption based on the idea the earth is flat. and it still doesn't really work, because half the world is covered in sunlight which then you'd have to make an assumption that the light isn't distributing in all directions from the sun equally across the world. That's already two assumptions made in order for the earth to be flat just from observing the sun with other people. And now without those assumptions you might come to a conclusion that the earth is a sphere. Now you watch boats dropping below the horizon and that observation, along with your joint effort observations of the sun, is further evidence to the shape being spherical. Then some people shoot a rocket into the sky and stick people on the ISS and they can see the earth looking rather spherical which is yet another observation that the earth is a sphere. All observations add up to the shape of the earth being spherical. All isolated observations don't add up to anything because they're isolated. You can conclude so many things from that kind of observation. For example, someone born and raised on an island with no technology can from an isolated observation conclude that the universe is an infinite expanse of never ending water with your small island in the middle and I'm sure somewhere out there this has happened, but it's the wrong conclusion.

63

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: A note on "Conspiracy" theories

« on: May 25, 2020, 04:50:33 PM »

The only way your position that government conspiracies are generally loony and false can work is to believe that the government is inherently good and working in favor of our interests rather than its own.

So again, why should we believe that?

You really love putting words in to peoples mouths. Not all conspiracies are false and not all governments are the same. So sure, some governments (and dictatorships in general) are bad and some do conspire, but that doesn't mean it's always the case and it doesn't mean every conspiracy is true if one is. You really need to stop being so presumptuous.

Oh, so "some" governments are bad and lie. Can you tell us which ones are good and selfless which ones are bad and selfish?

No, can you? Are you trying to drive some point home here? I've pretty said my point clearly. governments are made to control, conspiracies can sometimes turn out to be true, some turn out to be false. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue against.

64

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: A note on "Conspiracy" theories

« on: May 24, 2020, 10:37:11 PM »

The only way your position that government conspiracies are generally loony and false can work is to believe that the government is inherently good and working in favor of our interests rather than its own.

So again, why should we believe that?

You really love putting words in to peoples mouths. Not all conspiracies are false and not all governments are the same. So sure, some governments (and dictatorships in general) are bad and some do conspire, but that doesn't mean it's always the case and it doesn't mean every conspiracy is true if one is. You really need to stop being so presumptuous.

65

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: A note on "Conspiracy" theories

« on: May 24, 2020, 09:58:26 PM »

Since you agree that the government would seek to control us, the only thing left to discuss is whether the government would be inherently good in that control. Why should we believe that the government is inherently good?

Why should we believe that the government is inherently bad either though? What a strange question to ask.

66

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: A note on "Conspiracy" theories

« on: May 24, 2020, 08:59:29 PM »

If we admit that organizations and entities tend to control as much as their power allows, we must admit that we are being controlled by organizations or entities capable of that.

there's nothing to admit, it's obvious that there is a hierarchy and governments are literally here to control and govern so it's no revelation and it's not a conspiracy that this is happening. Rules and laws are put in place to keep individuals and full communities of people controlled. The question isn't whether or not we are being controlled, it's whether those who control us are doing things they aren't supposed to and covering it up/hiding it from us.

67

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: A note on "Conspiracy" theories

« on: May 24, 2020, 06:01:52 PM »

It stands that any group or entity more powerful
than you is going to attempt to control you, just like you personally attempt to control the less powerful things around you - household objects, pets, plants.

Ah yes, Justin Gaethje and the rest of the UFC is constantly trying to control me.

Jokes aside, This isn't a conspiracy, government do control what they govern. That's why it's a government.

68

Flat Earth Community / Re: Research question about becoming a flat earther

« on: May 23, 2020, 05:21:45 PM »

Perhaps things naturally collect at the center of the universe which make life possible, like how things could collect at the bottom of a bowl, or different properties at the center of the sun.

This is a fair comment for sure. It's a what if, and I dunno, since it looks like everything is expanding away from us then why would everything be collecting in the middle?

69

Flat Earth Community / Re: Research question about becoming a flat earther

« on: May 23, 2020, 05:19:30 PM »

Don't put words in my mouth Tom, I wasn't ranting about hating religion, I was explaining why I put religion to one side as an explanation. I don't care either way if people have religious beliefs, I certainly don't hate it, I just don't personally see any point in using religion as a base for our understanding of the universe, for which I explained why that is. You were pretty quick to the character assassination there and it's highly disrespectful.

Not at all. The reason to believe we are at the center is because the evidence says that we are at the center.

Evidence also says we could equally be anywhere else in the universe...

You seem to be screaming saying that bad people are 100% bad, no matter what. Again, asking us to judge with our biases without considering the other side.

I crossed out your further attempts at character assassination... Stop making it seem like I'm some angry, loud person. And I'm not saying they are 100% bad as in they have 0% good in them, I'm saying they are definitely bad people. you take another person hostage and exploit their family for profit you aren't a good person, That's pretty much obvious and also not really my point, my point was the psychological process of blocking out something in the mind in order to fill it with something else. In this case, slowly blocking out the fact that someone is doing something horrific and coming round to liking them. Do you see the point I'm making or do you want to argue semantics more?

I'm simply asking if this is something you've taken into consideration when you dived deep into the idea of flat earth in the (relatively) short time of a few years filling your mind with a very much overview/foundation knowledge of a lot of topics in order to dig deeper into each one. There are very few people in this world that would fully understand every subject matter about the world, and flat earthers would have to dive into a lot of those topics and have a high level of knowledge about them which is obviously not likely possible for one persons lifetime. A Jack of all trades I suppose would be the term. You can't be an expert on everything, so it's possible you can misunderstand things. By you, I mean all of us obviously, not specifically you.

I'll say again, so far I've seen all flat earthers who rush to do a youtube video or whatever to share their epiphany tend to massively not understand what they're talking about in fact the only flat earthers that haven't been proven wrong are the silent ones like Pete... Even you, Tom, seem to fail to understand something as simple as perspective while confidently going about explaining things and that's not a dig at you, it's my point that you and I or anyone else cannot retain knowledge of so many subject matters without getting things fundamentally wrong sometimes. There was even an extremely long thread pointing this out to you Tom. Do you claim to be all knowing of all subjects about the earths shape? Are you smarter than rocket scientists or the engineers that put satellites into orbit? Are you more knowledgeable than professional geologists? Are you a better sea captain than a sea captain with a lifetime of experience sailing the world? Absolutely not. Which suggests that you would have a lot of holes in your knowledge on the subject of  the earths shape. But people who are professionals in their fields have enough knowledge to know specific things that point toward the earths shape. Do you have expert credentials in anything that could show evidence of a flat earth Tom? If so I'd love to hear it (really, I would). I know my specific field of expertise is CGI and there's still plenty more for me to learn in that subject.

I say that your investigational method  founded on judging with your biases is insufficient, and that you actually need to consider the position of the other side for better understanding.

I'd say you missed the main point I was making and just went straight to the attacking of me, All I'm doing here is asking you if perhaps there are some misunderstandings in your knowledge that could have taken you to the wrong conclusion. I'm even admitting this for myself, I could well be doing this. It's something I said I question a lot for myself.

The fact that you're basically saying no and going to character assassination suggests quite a bit of arrogance from some kind of insecurity. If I do what you're doing here I could say you're always screaming "BUT THREE BODY PROBLEM", I could say you're yelling how much you hate the globe, I haven't done that though. If I were you I'd question why you feel so very strongly about not wanting to admit you may have some misunderstandings. Think of them as plot holes maybe, that's how I consider it. For example if I said X, Y and Z is all true, but if X is true then Z can't be, that's a plothole in my knowledge and I would most certainly question that.

70

Flat Earth Community / Re: Research question about becoming a flat earther

« on: May 23, 2020, 01:00:04 PM »

Is your reasoning "that's aburd" and "Stephen Hawking is right. We have no scientific evidence for this, but we have to believe it because of modesty"?

Apologies in advance for going off topic from OP for this, feel free to split this discussion if deemed needed.

So, my reasoning has nothing to do with what famous people say but I'll take you through my thought process. First, I don't have a religion so I don't believe we as humans or that the earth itself is some kind of special case from the rest of the universe, in that regard maybe it's modesty but I think in a very chaotic universe we popped up in quite a random place, I have no reason to believe that place is the very center of the universe any more than that place is random within the universe and the probability of earth forming and life forming on earth in the very center is extremely low. You could say some sky daddy no one has seen evidence for has made us and we're super special and the center of everything... In that sense I guess I do say "that's absurd" simply because I'm not religious. Since this observation is nothing to do with religion I mostly discount that as a probable reason for being at the center (I could be wrong, maybe god is a thing, if he is I've seen nothing to suggest it's truth).

I mean, let me ask you something, if you were born and raised in a town that had never heard of religion, no religious members in the towns community, no bible to read, would you come to the conclusion that god is your saviour and that there's heaven after life? Without people to tell you this stuff, you'd probably grow up not being religious correct? This thought is the reason I don't have any religion, people telling me god is a thing and that I have to have faith or I'll be damned and doomed for eternity... Just sounds like cult conditioning to me and thankfully that never happened in my upbringing. I grew up in an accepting family that would be fine if I had a religion but didn't tell me how to think. If I ever happened upon a super religious experience that could not be explained any other way than a god intervention/miracle then that may convince me but until that time, I'll be looking at things from the perspective that religion has no place in what we observe in the universe.

So again, if all of the celestial bodies are ever expanding away from us, and away from each other, then that observation would look the same from any position in the known universe and again the probability that we happen to be at the center would be extremely low. The only reason to believe we're in the center is religion, it's cool if people have religion as it has nothing to do with me, but it has no place in such a point. Of course I could be wrong and maybe (observable universe aside) we are in the middle and everything revolves around us... But whats the probability of that being the case? Well, if the earth were flat, I could go out into the street and proclaim that I am in the center of the world, whats the chances of that being true?

The religious side of this is the biggest "what if". if god is actually a thing the the probability of us being in the middle shoots way up, but we still wouldn't know for sure without 'faith' that some book people wrote ages ago claiming it to be the word of god, then rewrote a few times still proclaiming it to be that same word of god even though it's different now and up to modern standards is actually, truly the word of god. If god is real I don't think I'd believe in the bible still. Or Jesus, call me damned but he sounds like a con man.

As for the example of Stockholm syndrome, dude, they could give me my favourite meal every day and never beat me but if they still took me and held me against my will and then emotionally exploit my family for profit, they're bad people...  Come on Tom, next you'll be saying slavery is all good so long as you treat your slaves well. 

Also NGL I really am trying to think of examples with good things to convey my point but I could only think of bad things like Stockholm syndrome, I'm really not trying to say flat earth is bad and believing it is bad or anything (though it's not exactly beneficial to think the world is flat when it's not).  Sorry if it comes across as me comparing flat earth to being super bad.

71

Flat Earth Community / Re: Research question about becoming a flat earther

« on: May 22, 2020, 10:35:09 AM »

I mean no disrespect to what anyone here believes they know as truth and obviously I'm not disputing "the truth" because well, we all know we disagree on that, but do you guys ever wonder/worry about whether or not the reason it has taken a long time to come to the conclusion of a flat earth is related to simply becoming so familiar with the idea over time that you've kind of warmed to it?

I don't believe so. As an example not directly Flat Earth and more cosmology related, look at the Cosmological Principle page.

The collected quotes here compels me to think that the philosophy that we are set adrift in a random part of the universe may be untrue. I don't think that I merely read the quotes enough times to convince myself of that, that it has anything to do with my 'warming up to it', or that the quoted sources were misquoted and the sources wrote 'just kidding' afterwards, or anything. What could be my fallacy in this example?

Maybe someone else would read these quotes and would agree with the appeals to absurdity and Stephen Hawking's scientific position founded on modesty?

This isn't really an example of what I was asking, but since you mention it, I do personally think it's more likely we aren't in the center of the universe, but I also accept there is also the possibility that we are in the center. I can't confirm either, but if one were confirmed it would take nothing away from me. I mean, if you draw a bunch of dots on a deflated balloon and pick any dot to represent earth and blow up the balloon, all the other dots will expand away from it equally, the same could be said for any of those dots. Pick a dot, any dot, and that dot will observe it's surroundings in a similar way that we observe the universe. With that in mind, why should I consider earth as a random dot in a larger and expanding universe? It doesn't matter to me if we are in the middle, it matters simply that what we observe is the same regardless. A lot of people pick a side on this, religious folk would insist we are at the center and feel it would break their understanding of a lot of things if that were untrue. I couldn't care less, but I do think it would be a pretty cool coincidence if we were roughly in the center.

To go back to my previous posts point; You only provided one snippet of your understanding of the universe around you, that one snippet helps to form your full understanding of the universe around you and unless you like to play devils advocate a lot, you've been shown on these forums time and time again that things you think you knew or understood were wrong. And if you were wrong about some things, things which lean on other things to need to be correct, do you not think maybe your fundamental understanding of everything could be skewed? That maybe you're more accepting of evidence of a flat earth simply because you've built up in your mind rather intensely over the course of a few years how you think the universe works?

I can put it another way, you look at Stockholm syndrome. I can tell you now that people who would kidnap me and demand randsom money from my friends and family for my freedom are horrible people. You can't change my mind on that because 1. I dont think about it that often and 2. I've not been exposed to that situation. Now suddenly I get kidnapped and they keep me for an intense month where I get to know them and come to like them.

It's safe to assume that if I didn't spend that month with them I would never accept that they are good people or try to justify in my head what they're doing is ok. I guess what I'm getting at is if you surround yourself with certain information and really put your mind to it, you can come to believe the information is correct. You've been subjected to this information for so long, at a much more intense rate than other topics of information that you could well have just come to understand it as the right thing, much like how if I'd have been subjected to my captors for so long, at a more intense rate than I normally spend time with people, I could come to believe those people are ok. But then my sister would come along be like "Wtf, why are you friends with this horrible people? What they did was absolutely wrong" in this case the rest of the world is my sister.

To be clear it's just an example and I don't consider you to be held hostage by flat earth or anything ridiculous but I hope you can see the possibility of how subjecting yourself to something for a "crash course" amount of time could make you think certain things. To use another example, I burglars should know stealing is wrong, but they justify it, in their mind it's the 'right' thing to be doing because they've been subject to a certain conditioning. In their mind they're just taking back from a world that took from them so it's ok, even though they'd be incorrect. Or hell, I don't think skateboarding is that great, in fact I think it's somewhat pointless but give me 5 years to go get good at it and if I meet a bunch of great people while doing it then I'll tell you skateboarding is life. Skateboarding is the best thing and everyone should do it, I'd be convinced.

So I guess what I'm asking is, has subjecting yourself to the topic of flat earth in a relatively short and intense amount of time maybe conditioned you? Is it possible you've conditioned your mind to think a certain way which could be incorrect? I mean, I know in your minds the answer is no because no one would want to admit that obviously, but from the outside it certainly seems like this may have happened and I am just curious if the thought had crossed your minds at any point?

72

Flat Earth Community / Re: Research question about becoming a flat earther

« on: May 20, 2020, 10:59:26 AM »

I mean no disrespect to what anyone here believes they know as truth and obviously I'm not disputing "the truth" because well, we all know we disagree on that, but do you guys ever wonder/worry about whether or not the reason it has taken a long time to come to the conclusion of a flat earth is related to simply becoming so familiar with the idea over time that you've kind of warmed to it? I believe known as the 'Illusory truth effect'. I know sometimes I have to check myself on this too, especially on a subject I don't know much about which is linked to many other subjects I don't know much about. the shape of the earth in detail seems to be one of those topics for most people, as most people don't actually know much about the world and the universe around us it's easy to dive in with a surface level of knowledge on a lot of topics which would make people open to interpret information incorrectly or simply receive wrong information which would act as the foundation of your knowledge on the overall subject. By the time you've become a more critical thinker (something flat earth subject has helped me with too) it may be that the information you "know" as correct could be otherwise not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect

Of course, you could argue the same thing for "round earth" since most people grow up on this information but no one subjects themselves to the topic quite so intensely as I'm sure people do when they start pulling at the thread a massive conspiracy. A lot of people "know" the earth is a spheroid planet but don't care either way.

73

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Body Analytical Analyses

« on: May 17, 2020, 07:42:47 PM »

All sources on this subject admit that they failed at predicting the motion of celestial system past two bodies. Can you point me to the part in history where scientists were able to use the three and n-body problems to describe the solar system based on Newton's laws? Surely this would have been mentioned somewhere in conventional knowledge materials.

Can you point to any credible scientists today that have said that n-body problems means the world isn't spherical?

74

Flat Earth Theory / Re: International Space Station

« on: May 17, 2020, 07:39:05 PM »

The solar panels absorb the suns radiation though although how much I don't know. Surely the panels if directed like mirrors wouldn't appear bright all over the earth ?

test for yourself by looking at any functional solar panels here on earth. can you see a reflection on the surface? Yea? Then it's directly reflecting a lot of light. Now look at a piece of limestone. No reflection in that rock? It's scattering light a lot more than a surface where you can clearly see a mirror reflection of some kind.

https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-sunlight-is-directly-reflected-by-a-solar-panel .

The solar panels in my garden are dull. They are designed to absorb light .

https://www.edn.com/international-space-station-iss-power-system/

Cool, can you or can you not see some form of reflection here in these totally random googled images? Is the surface of solar panels smooth, or rough?

75

Flat Earth Theory / Re: International Space Station

« on: May 17, 2020, 06:24:20 PM »

The solar panels absorb the suns radiation though although how much I don't know. Surely the panels if directed like mirrors wouldn't appear bright all over the earth ?

test for yourself by looking at any functional solar panels here on earth. can you see a reflection on the surface? Yea? Then it's directly reflecting a lot of light. Now look at a piece of limestone. No reflection in that rock? It's scattering light a lot more than a surface where you can clearly see a mirror reflection of some kind.

76

Flat Earth Theory / Re: International Space Station

« on: May 17, 2020, 05:16:23 PM »

Apparently it's because the solar panels cover a big area and reflect sunlight. I always thought the point of solar panels was to absorb sunlight.

I didn’t want this to slip away, but you need to go out and understand things better before you come try to refute them. Solar panels are indeed meant to absorb light but 5ish percent still gets reflected. That’s enough to look a little bright when the reflection is of the sun.

Neither do I . Insolation at earth = 1370W/m^2 so 5% reflection = 70W/m^2 .  Area of solar panels = 2500m^2 so total reflected =18000W . Isnt that a 180kw lamp.

Those figures won't be accurate but it seems a tall order to reflect such a bright image from 250mls away.

why? What has distance got to do with it? You see stars, you see the moon, the sun. All much further away. Light doesn't just stop and vanish after a few hundred km.

77

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: May 15, 2020, 06:24:47 PM »

It was explained in this thread so it's not an unknown or unclear problem

While it's not unreasonable of you to be holding up the scrutiny of 1+1=anything but 2, it's just not the same scenario.

To put this to an example that isn't apples, I'm going to assume you have a desk for you computer, if you use a measuring tape or something and measure your desk, whats your answer? Well whatever it is, it's wrong because in reality whatever number you just gave to yourself there is not going to be the exact answer. Just like how if some guy asked for directions one day and I say "oh yea, go 5 miles and you'll come to the exit off to that road" etc etc is also wrong by your standard, because it could well have been 5.000000239237645391 miles (sorry Pete don't ban me) are you suddenly going to assume that the distance is unknown? Am I lying? can you never trust me with directions again? Or is that pretty solid directions?

Lets use another example and assume that google maps or bing is super accurate and you want to walk exactly 5 miles. You follow the directions given and stop when your phone says you're there at your destination 5 miles away from your starting position. Well, you aren't because you took half a step extra over the distance it gave. Now you've walked an unknown distance in your standards... Seems like a strange standard to have

78

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Body Analytical Analyses

« on: May 15, 2020, 01:41:08 PM »

Thank you, both. All that REALLY helps clarify a few things.

As I wrote in other threads, I'm NOT a math guy. But I am a logic guy.

And doesn't this argument of Tom/FEers completely destroy their own FET?

Let me rephrase it to see what I mean (although I'm sure you already do, but for the sake of others who read this thread) -

The argument goes:
"Since this one thing [3 body problem] cannot be fully mathematically described, it must therefore mean physics is wrong, so we cannot rely on it to determine that gravity and the solar system operate the way science says it does." 

The exact same reasoning would immediately lead anyone to conclude that FET is wrong.       There's almost nothing in FET that is mathematically described in a consistent/coherent way. Almost everything follows a short road, then ends with "well, beyond this point we aren't sure."  Examples are endless (what's the size of any celestial body we see? What's the actual path that even ONE of them take that also accounts for every single phenomena that all humans observe?).

From a non-scientist's standpoint, it seems like the more they push this argument while failing to fully mathematically describe basically all parts of their theory, the more it's clear they're missing the galaxy for the trees (so to speak  ).

BUT, I do have one question -

What's up with the idea that it says in the Wiki on this site that 3+ bodies become inherently unstable over time?  Is that a red herring?  Is it a "given zillions of years" issue?  The 3 body problem section of the Wiki here devotes quite a bit of space to it, so I'd like to understand a  bit more.

Thanks!!!!






 

I get what you're saying and I've noticed that no FE idea seems to stand together/make sense with other FE ideas. For example being able to totally see that rockets aren't leaving the atmosphere but are curving off into the distance which is somehow proof that we have never gone to space, while also claiming things like extreme bendy light to explain an extremely distorted perspective view of the world or why the sun is somehow hitting near half of the world and not the other half, and yet while claiming bendy light also complain when things are explained on a round earth with mirages (like being able to see a city in the distance where you normally couldn't, in very specific conditions) "Look see, we can see that city so it proves there is no curve, bendy light is just an excuse!"

So yea, flat earth ideas/explanations (lets call them X, Y and Z) don't work together. if X, Y cant happen, if Y, Z cant happen etc etc. but they still use Y to explain a specific thing while almost intentionally staying ignorant of X and Z

I guess X Y Z is the true 3 body problem that FE have yet to solve.

79

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?

« on: May 14, 2020, 08:14:59 PM »

I disagree that it would be so easy for the sailors to notice that they're traveling a greater distance than expected; there are so many x-factors involved with sailing. I suspect they rely primarily on navigation equipment to determine what kind of distances they've covered and just trust what they're told just like everyone else; for all we know innumerable sailors involved in this race were surprised that they covered as little distance as their equipment tells them, but because RE is so ingrained, they just don't question it.

Can you not tell you're going faster when you're walking on a travelator? You know how much faster you'd need to be going to go round the flat Antarctica? It's not just a small difference.

I'm sure someone will come back to this and say there's some kind of extremely fast current that's dragging the boats round x times faster or something, well you'd only have to either stop or go the other way to find out if that's true.

80

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: May 14, 2020, 03:56:48 PM »

At this point you're arguing the utility of every digital calculator, which IMO is pretty futile and really beside the point. I'm not sure why you're doubling down on this.  The real question you should be asking yourself no is why you're bothered about such a tiny error introduced when a computer is crunching numbers compared to the extremely large error that would be if the map wasn't based on a globe...