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 - Mock

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What about World's End?
« on: August 12, 2017, 12:34:36 AM »
I understand the confusion about the full moon / eclipse thing. I couldn't wrap my head around that either, until I realized that the moon is never 100% full - if in a position where it would be, it is obscured by the Earth, resulting in a lunar eclipse, as you correctly noted. But the moon is on a tilted orbit around the Earth - which means that Sun, Moon and Earth are comparatively seldom in one plane (twice a month - Full and New Moon), let alone in one line (Solar or Lunar eclipse). Considering the tilted axis, a two-dimensional model like the one in your post won't hold up anymore. This has a good explanation on the whole matter - I know it's from NASA, but it's what everyone else agrees upon, too, and it should at least help you understand the matter.

As for 'weird bullshit', round earth proponents can invoke relativity, dilations of time, singularities, multi-verses, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, invisible forces like gravity and any other kind of intangible magic to explain how the universe works with a round earth, but flat earthers cannot? I think you have a serious case of confirmation bias.
Those things have their foundations in science and are observable, provable, or acknowledged as being just theories. They are certainly more convincing than scientifically unfounded claims like Electromagnetic Acceleration, the Known Magnification Effect and ridiculous perspective tweaks that don't work without weird bendy light.

I'd like to comment on your other points, since you're actually quite pleasant to debate with, but unfortunately it's 2:30 am where I live and I'm growing tired - maybe I'll follow up tomorrow. Good night.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airline flight data - summary.
« on: August 12, 2017, 12:08:32 AM »
I just had an idea, but I don't know if it's feasible, since I'm not that much of a math ace.

Instead of using distances Tom won't believe anyway, why don't we find the limit of at which distances a FE would not be possible anymore? I don't know if it's comprehendable, but there must be a border where for certain distances, a Flat Earth would just barely be possible. Then we can calculate how fast an airplane would have to travel to be on time with the given flight times and distances, and see if that's realistic.

I don't know if that makes sense, but it's what was going through my head ???

E: Basically we give them as much benefit of the doubt as possible with the distances until a FE becomes possible, then we see how fast a plane would have to fly to be on time (since we know how long any given flight would take). We could even let Tom estimate the distances and see how close to Mach 10 planes would apparently get without noticing.


It can be observed that on a normal compass with a magnetized needle, whenever one end points towards the North Pole, the other points towards the South Pole and vice versa. With the bipolar FE model that gets promoted on here, this is clearly not always the case, as demonstrated by the above image I made using your bar magnet graphic for the field lines. At the bottom left position, for example, one end would clearly be attracted by the nearby South Pole, but the other certainly doesn't point north. Same with the far right position, just the other way around. This doesn't occur in real life.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What about World's End?
« on: August 11, 2017, 11:29:45 PM »
Your first point is already a blatant lie. I said there was evidence supporting the Big Bang Theory, not proof.

The rest of your post doesn't make sense either. You're telling me the further I distance myself from the North Pole, the colder it gets? And that I will ultimately be unable to proceed further because at some point the environment will reach a temperature of 0K and that will make time stop? Come on.

Then you just threw some big blue formula at me with no further explanation at all. Oh wait, it's not even a formula - it's some kind of fraction. I know stuff about physics, but I'm not an expert and frankly, if you're not even telling me what the product of that fraction is, you'll have to help me out a bit.

You say an aircraft travelling in the Southern Hemisphere is evidence for a magical time gradient. Well, it's not, because there's a much simpler explanation. The Earth is a globe.

I could just as well assert that the Earth is actually donut-shaped. "Now, donuts have a big hole in the middle - yet you will notice that there is no such hole here on Earth! The explanation? Well, the hole is actually filled with weird "Dark Waves" that mysteriously turn to matter when observed. The fact that we can see no donut hole on Earth obviously proves this!"

It's called circular reasoning. You have an idea (The earth is flat / a donut) with a problem (distances on the Southern Hemiplane not working out in your Flat model / a donut-shaped Earth would have a huge hole), you propose an explanation (the distances are bigger in accordance to your model, but there's the weird time slowing stuff that compensates for it / the bullshit about the dark waves filling the hole when observed), and proceed to use your problem as evidence for the explanation, instead of questioning the original idea like you should.


The magnetic field lines in that model looks like a bar magnet

N is over the North Pole, and S is over the South Pole (It was discovered that the North Pole is technically the South Pole, but that is unimportant). Wherever you are, the compass will align with the field lines. The needle will always point towards the North Pole in the North and it will always point towards the South Pole in the South.
Excuse me, but do you even know how a compass works? The needle doesn't simply point to the nearest magnetic pole. The needle is actually magnetized itself (Proof), so the pointy end (most often red) will ALWAYS point north, unless you're too close to another magnet or are actually standing ON TOP OF one of Earth's magnetic poles. This is an observed fact.

What's true is that in the Southern Hemiplane, the bottom end of the needle would point towards the South Pole due to being magnetically attracted. The front part of the needle wouldn't point to the North Pole, though. This is contradictory to what is actually observed.

Also, it still doesn't solve the problem that there is an area to the south of the South Pole and north of the North Pole. Look at the field lines at the very tips of your bar magnet and imagine a magnetized compass needle a few inches to the right and above the bar magnet's North Pole. Now ask yourself, where would it point? And is this what is observed in our world?

Basically, in your model the s-pole of your compass needle will point north in the Northern Hemiplane, but the other side would at the same time not necessarily point south. This basically renders your compass useless for anything but locating the poles, and that is assuming you know which Hemiplane you are in.

And i've just stumbled upon a video about moon having an overlay of earth's true map... Just imagine if this is true, and if the real map is floating in the sky on the face of the moon, and nobody from flat earthers pays attention to it. Yet we're not even questioning the flat earth map for its flaws.
What the bloody hell is that guy even talking about? Moon doesn't reflect Earth like a mirror - neither in RE, nor in FE theory. This "map" is just the Moon's natural rock formations. You can actually verify this yourself with a telescope.

I just noticed the video's category is Comedy. Explains a lot, doesn't it?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What about World's End?
« on: August 11, 2017, 10:33:18 PM »
Yes, I, too, noticed the parallels to relativity. But there is absolutely no reason it should occur here. Just because you are at a greater distance from the center you don't miraculously accelerate close to the speed of light (which would result in a distortion of time similar to what you described). There is not the tiniest bit of evidence to support that this is the case.

(On another note, it's still impossible to make time stop completely. As I said, the only way to accomplish slowing time by means of relativity is moving with a velocity close to c. Time will move slower, but it still won't stand still, because that is only the case when moving not close to, but at the speed of light - which is impossible for anything that has mass afaik.

That means, even if there was a magical border zone where time slowed, since time can't stand still for you, you would have no problem moving forward, since a point where "t=0", as you put it, cannot exist.)

I put all this in brackets because it is irrelevant - time doesn't slow at all under anything but extremely high speeds (0.1c), and relativity clearly does not apply in this case. If you want to assert that there is a zone on Earth where time for some reason flows much, much slower than elsewhere, the burden of proof is entirely on you.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 11, 2017, 06:20:00 PM »
Tom Bishop, now this is just ridiculous.

You. Used. Those. Numbers. For Your Own. Damn. PROOF

I was assuming that the OP had honestly looked into the matter to produce a legitimate source. It appears that he has not. We do not know how that distance figure is generated.
Of course he has. Didn't you read his posts? Half of his proof consisted of making sure the distance figures were all right. He put more effort into producing a legitimate source than any FE-supporter I have ever seen.

You literally get people pulling stories out of their arse about how the moon is a dormant cold sun that symbolizes yang, and you people say it's an interesting idea worth looking into. Then some RE-supporter comes around with a proof derived from sound sources that follows sound logic and sound, universally accepted science and math, and you suddenly have the audacity to assert that his carefully researched numbers, which were good enough for you mere hours ago when you made a futile and pathetic attempt to prove your own theory, do not accurately represent the distances they should.

Well, maybe those discussions would be easier if you actually got things done with your FE theory. You're not even able to make a map - actually you can't even devise a mere model for how your hypothetical map might look that works in accordance with observed phenomena. What distances is he going to use? He already did great work by not just googling the distances, but actually cross-checking with flight times from airlines. If you can come up with a better way to determine the distances in question so you'll finally be happy with them, please enlighten us. Sadly we can't use a Flat Earth Map because - hey, did I mention you still fail to come up with a map of your own?

It's like for some reason you think you know the Earth is flat, but apart from that you really have no idea at all about how it might look. Of course it's not easy to argue about something you consciously refuse to even sufficiently define. God, the hypocrisy.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 11, 2017, 05:57:53 PM »
Tom Bishop, now this is just ridiculous.

You. Used. Those. Numbers. For Your Own. Damn. PROOF

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What about World's End?
« on: August 11, 2017, 05:22:12 PM »
Yes, but there's evidence for the Big Bang.

Imagine if you will, that the earth is a circular disc and you are on an aircraft. You decide to fly around the center at 30 degrees north. Now you decide to do the same the other side of the equator at 30 degrees South. That journey took the same time to complete but you traveled much further the second time. Or, you traveled 3 times as far in the same time even though you were at the same speed.

So your explanation for the fact that it takes the same time to complete a circle around Earth at 30 degrees north and south, respectively, is that

1. The Earth is flat
2. The circumference of the circle at 30 degrees south is greater than the north one
3. The reason both journeys take the same time to complete despite travelling further during one, is that for some unknown reason, the further someone moves away from the North Pole, the slower he magically appears to be for an outside observer until at some point, time entirely stops for said person
4. No one ever notices this (for example during international phone calls) because ...?

On the other hand, my explanation for the fact that it takes the same time to complete a circle around Earth at 30 degrees north and south, respectively, is that:

1. The Earth is a globe with the circles around 30 degrees north and south being the same length.

Now who makes the least number of outlandish assumptions?'s_Razor

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What about World's End?
« on: August 11, 2017, 04:28:55 PM »
So if the distance increased and the speed stayed the same ... the time must have decreased. t=d/s

So time (although your perception of it remains constant) decreases the further away from the center you get. At some point t=0. Time stops. That is the end of the earth, not the edge. You can go no further as time will not allow it. You can make no further progress away from the center as there is no time to do so. You can only go back. You found the edge of the earth, where t=0 and you cannot progress. Instead of South disappearing, a different dimension ceased to be ... time. And that is why no one has found a physical edge or fallen off.
Jesus tap-dancing Christ, good luck proving that

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 11, 2017, 04:22:19 PM »
3DGeek, I want you to know you're a genius. This eradicates any doubt for anyone in their right mind.

Tom Bishop, I want you to know that your argumentation here is really, really lazy and I think it's embarassing that you as kind of an authority on FET run away from every thread that threatens your worldview with sound logic and pretty much indisputable proof, all while bringing minimal evidence to the table yourself and cowardly questioning thoroughly explained and verified numbers AFTER YOU USED THEM YOURSELF to try and prove your own thesis. I wonder how you justify that last bit in particular? ::)

Anyway, TomInAustin, while I think it's cool that you're trying this, keep in mind that even if you should find a configuration where all the distances miraculously match up, there's still huge problems like the possibility of circumnavigation and the Earth's magnetic field that need to be thought of. Though personally, I would love to see a FE map that actually works out.

Flat Earth Theory / What about World's End?
« on: August 11, 2017, 03:14:50 PM »
In the Ice Wall model, you obviously have the Ice Wall. But why has no one ever explored it? Surely we would be capable of that - at least we would be able to gather more information about it. Also, why not just fly a plane over it - even just to see how far it goes?

And in the bipolar map, there's usually no Ice Wall, meaning that nothing would stop ships from just going over the rim - or at least seeing that rim. Planes could also fly over it anytime. And wouldn't the oceans just drain down there? And, I've always wondered, if it's there, why has no one ever stumbled upon it?

Since some kind of rim at the edge seems to be one of the defining features of a Flat Earth model, it seems like the best way to confirm its veracity without a doubt would be to find said rim - since on a RE, there obviously would be nothing like it. It seems like there would also be tremendous scientific potential, with all the UA and dark energy stuff. So why has no one in the history of the FES ever tried to find it?

Summed up, if the Earth is in fact flat, why has no one ever seen its edge, nor tried to find it? If it has been tried, why could it possibly not have been discovered?

Please, before commenting, at the very least read the summary and below. I know it's a lot of text, but it's important.

So, on the Ice Wall map / Azimuthal Equidistant Projection map. I'm sure y'all know which one I mean.
People have flown over Antarctica, and the flight distances on the southern hemiplane are way too big - let alone the fact that if it were true, planes wouldn't fly the routes they fly, but shorter ones without unnecessary arcs. It's been discussed in countless of threads.

Then there's the newer, bipolar map with Antarctica as an actual continent - yay! But with this model, there's absolutely NO explanation for people travelling from the USA to Japan in the comparatively small amount of time that is observed, since they would have to fly over the Atlantic, Europe and most of Asia.

Also, the map clearly shows there is something "south" of the South Pole, which is contradictory. It's also not how magnetic fields work. There would be large spaces of sea where a compass needle simply would do nothing at all, or just point away from the South Pole - but in this model, the direction opposite south apparently doesn't have to be north. This is in direct contradiction to what is observed everywhere on Earth. And yes, I know the geographic and magnetic South Pole are two different locations, but this problem arises no matter where specifically locate the south pole, as long as it is a fixed point. Compass readings would never be accurate whenever you are east or west of 0° longitude.

To summarize:
The Antarctica as Ice Wall model cannot be true because (among other reasons, I'm sure I'm missing some)
 - there would be bizarrely unrealistic flight durations and routes on the Southern Hemiplane, no matter where specifically the continents are located. If anyone can come up with a map where routes and distances actually behave even roughly like they do in real life, by all means enlighten us.
 - Antarctica is an actual continent, not a huge ring of ice. You can visit it, and you can fly over it, and it's all been done before. If Antarctica is observed to NOT be an Ice Wall along the edge of Earth, then where could it possibly be located in this model so that everything (compass needles / the magnetic south pole; distance from other places) still approximately matches up? It's just not possible. Again, if you disagree, give me evidence (read: a map where it works).

The Two Pole model I've seen around lately cannot be true either, because
 - There's stretches of sea (and islands) "south" (further down on a map) of the South Pole. Where does a compass needle point? North? In that case, the other readings on the compass are not correct, which is not what is observed in real life in those places. Does it just point straight away from the south pole because of magnetic repulsion of the magnetized needle? In that case, again, it doesn't point north, which is not what is observed, either. And don't tell me it's because the actual magnetic south pole is somewhere else, because we know where it is, and it's on (or extremely near) Antarctica, not far off at the South End of the World.
 - There's the unfixable issue that you have to fly over the Atlantic and Europe to get to Japan, and even if you relocate stuff on the map (because people repeatedly say those are just models of how it could be, not maps), there's always the issue of planes on the west end of the Western Hemiplane having to fly over all of the rest of the world to reach the eastern edge of the Eastern Hemiplane. This is the case with all FE maps where neither of the Poles is in the center, and no amount of relocating continents can fix that, so the Bipolar Model CANNOT POSSIBLY be accurate. You should stop using it.

Please note what I am arguing here. This post is NOT trying to disprove FE theory. What I wanted to convey is that both models FE theory has at this moment for what the world roughly looks are not compatible with our observations of this world. My conclusion out of this is NOT that the Earth is round, but that your top priority at this moment should be finding a model of the Flat Earth that is actually in accordance with the real world. Again, I am not talking about specific distances and traveling times and stuff that can be fixed by relocating the continents. I am pointing out fundamental flaws in the very nature of the existing models.

Why wouldn't there be evidence for this? You can accurately calculate if and where two lines meet with simple math.

According to the Ancient Greeks two parallel lines will recede for infinity without ever touching. It is contradictory to logic that two lines approaching each other will never meet, but that is the current theory of perspective.
Are they approaching each other or parallel now? Something does sound contradictory, but it's not the Greeks. Two lines approaching each other will meet, and nobody in their right mind doubts that. Two parallel lines won't, which is also provable (and also common knowledge, for that matter).

In fact, it WOULD be contradictory two parallel lines DID meet. As I said, it's simple math. Two straight lines with the linear functions
f(x)=4x+2 ; g(x)=4x+5
are parallel right? Now try equating the two functions to find their intersection:
It's already messed up at this point really, but it becomes clear when we we subtract 4x from both sides. 2=5? That's a contradiction right in your face when we assume that parallel lines meet at some point.

As you can see, what you portray as an "Ancient Greek idea that two parallel lines will recede for infinity without touching" is actually a fact accepted by people everywhere around the world that can and has been proven by math and logic, and the proof of which I delivered already. The burden of proof that this widely accepted and proven "Ancient Greek theory" is in fact wrong is on you, and if you are really going to assert that it is, I expect more than your usual one-line comment. Mathematical theories are proven and disproven with mathematical facts, not anecdotal evidence.

Edit: Also, you have failed to directly answer my previous question:
Why should light behave differently (and in the way you need it to for your theory to make sense) when coming from a greater distance to the observer? And if you think it does, where is your evidence?
Come on, please at least put some effort into discussions. Both responses in your last post are vague and sort of missing the point.

E2: Formatting.

The Ancient Greeks assumed that two receding perspective lines will never touch each other, infinitely. There is no evidence for this.
Why wouldn't there be evidence for this? You can accurately calculate if and where two lines meet with simple math.

Per the question of light; that is profoundly affected by perspective. For example, if you look out at a flat horizon at sea level, the horizon will appear to rise to your eye level and it will appear that you are inside of a bowel. But are the photons really traveling off of a bowel's surface? Not at all. Perspective causes that illusion.
I don't know what you're talking about. A bowel? Actually even if you mean bowl, I don't get your example. Are there photons moving in any other fashion than a straight line in your given example? And if so, what's the evidencce for that? Because I think it would be a groundbreaking discovery...


To me, it sounds like you're basically saying "Of course we know two plus two equals four, but we don't know how numbers work at bigger scales and therefore you can't expect me to accept that ten billion divided by two equal five billion. Where is your evidence high numbers actually work the same way as low numbers?"

Light (or "perspective") - just like maths - has specific laws that define how stuff works. "Perspective" is nothing but the result of light hitting your eyes at a certain angle and whatnot, and light travels in straight lines and that is a scientifically proven FACT. If you believe that for some reason it behaves differently in an arbitrarily selected range of "greater than normal" distances, I think the burden of proof is on you to explain why that is and how it occurs.

Edit: So my question is, why should light behave differently (and in the way you need it to for your theory to make sense) when coming from a greater distance to the observer? And if you think it does, where is your evidence?

Edit 2: Corrected stupid math mistake.

Light travels in straight lines, doesn't it? And I've read multiple times on here that refraction is minimal in our atmosphere / plane / whatever. (It doesn't seem to be an argument FE theory uses to explain weird perspective stuff either. Everytime I've read about it, people like Tom Bishop just say we don't know how perspective works on large scales, and then stop explaining.)

So, do we all agree light travels in straight lines?
And if that is the case, what do y'all mean by "we don't know how perspective works at big distances"?
I seriously do not understand it. Please explain.

But that might disprove your strange gravity-replacement theory about something accelerating Earth upwards from below, like aetheric wind or something (don't know what UA means, but my guess would be "unknown acceleration"? Please correct me if I'm wrong) - either that, or there must be some other force keeping Sun and Moon away from Earth. Then again, if that is the case, I'm surprised that a) we never knew about this unknown force and b) it doesn't seem to influence us, just the celestial bodies, which sounds strange.

Wow, didn't think that was such an important question :o

Flat Earth Theory / Sun and Moon floating above us - I don't get it
« on: June 19, 2016, 06:06:32 PM »
So you claim the sun and the moon are two (compared to the earth) rather small orbs circling above us. On some wiki page (not sure, but probably the FAQ), I also read that you explain gravity with the Earth being accelerated upwards by dark energy or aetheric winds or something like that. It doesn't even matter, as long as when I drop objects, they "fall down" and land on the ground - which they obviously do.
Now I was wondering: How can sun and moon levitate in the air above us without falling down, the same way a stone I drop will fall down? If we apply gravity to a flat Earth like you say it is, sun and moon will be accelerated downward and crash into the Earth. If we use your concept of the earth being carried by some sort of aetheric wind or whatever, the Earth will be accelerated upwards and crash into the sun and moon, which gives us the exact same results.

What am I missing? It seems like such a stupid question that I'm sure there must be a mistake, but I can't find any ???

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3  Next >