Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« Reply #40 on: July 27, 2017, 02:04:25 AM »
The map / LAX to SYD flight time is a good route, Joe. Except what you don't know is that it takes the same exact time to fly, because it's the same exact route, because the earth is flat. It just takes more time to fly East from LAX, because the plane ends up circling at the destination, until the appropriate distance to support the round Earth hoax is flown.

I got this one, Tom! You're not the only man that can make Kool Aid.

Good point, I didn't think of that. And the planes are secretly hyper-supersonic, and have huge extra gas tanks, so that they can take a circuitous all-water route to Sydney in the same amount of time what we think a "normal" plane would do on a round Earth. Curse you global conspiracy!  >o<

Oh my God! Joe, if you have the time, you should Google something along the lines of "LA to Sydney flat earth." There are, at least, a hundred pages of debate about this topic, on this website alone. I'm happy to report that my flying-over-the-destination-to-obfuscate-actual-distances argument was mentioned three times, whereas your hypersonic-plane-with-supertanker-for-fuel was nowhere to be found.

You need to work on your implausible plausibility skills, sir!

*

Offline Merkava

  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Masterdebater
    • View Profile
Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« Reply #41 on: July 27, 2017, 03:16:49 AM »
It sounds unnecessarily dodgy to me?  If you think those predictions are false, just say so?  If you except them, then we can move on.  I guess I was assuming what time it is around the world was excepted along with our ability to know those times going forward at least a few months.

How about this:
On either equinox, at the equator, when the sun rises, it will be almost directly east of the observer.

Can you get on board with that?  Anyone?

I don't know where the sun will be on the equinox at the equator. We need an actual observation, not a theoretical calculation. There is a complete lack of any effort on your part to provide real actual data. A theoretical calculation starts off as being false. Only once it is affirmed is it true.

You may wish to check the wiki!!!!! ;D
http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude
I gotta say, that is rich. 
Is it really too much effort to visualize in your head a light rolling around the middle of a plate isn't going to be "east" or "west" of anything it touches EVER?

Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« Reply #42 on: July 27, 2017, 04:05:47 AM »
You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?

So why, then, should we accept the sun calculators as unquestionable? Claims were made in this thread, and they need to be supported with evidence. The creator of this thread is maintaining that he has posted "facts" with his sun calculator predictions and that everyone reading should accept it without question. If you guys predict that the sun will appear at a particular spot at a certain date and location, then we expect that you will be able to support your prediction. It is not automatically true.
Still you fail to give examples where eg. sun calculators are shown to be incorrect.  Are they correct for your location?

Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« Reply #43 on: July 27, 2017, 04:47:48 AM »
You may wish to check the wiki!!!!! ;D
http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude
I gotta say, that is rich.

That's the problem. They keep saying "read the wiki", then - literally every time I've seen it done - you point out something specific from the wiki, they say, "I don't agree with the wiki."

In summary, the Wiki is bullshit, but they'll use it every chance they get to dodge a question.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2810
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« Reply #44 on: July 27, 2017, 03:25:13 PM »
You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?

So why, then, should we accept the sun calculators as unquestionable? Claims were made in this thread, and they need to be supported with evidence. The creator of this thread is maintaining that he has posted "facts" with his sun calculator predictions and that everyone reading should accept it without question. If you guys predict that the sun will appear at a particular spot at a certain date and location, then we expect that you will be able to support your prediction. It is not automatically true.
I for one, would absolutely love to see your map.  I however would just say it’s fake.  I would attempt to verify if stands up to measured distances and so on.  Do you guys seriously not even have a map?
I did call the original sunrise time’s facts.  So what?  I immediately offered multiple other options, anything you could agree to just to get to the simple… wait for it…. Fact that the sun rises in the east.  Dun dun dunnnnnnnn!!!!!!
Just out of curiosity, how many times does a utterly simple calculator have to predict the sunrise and sunset (not to mention you can set it to times in the past) before it’s excepted?  Why haven’t you made one based on your theories yet?  Give the formula and I program it for you.

The sun predictions need to be affirmed with actual observations. We have asked for these sun observations on many occasions throughout the years, and after a lot of searching, the Round Earth proponents come up empty again and again, all while still maintaining their vague references that the plethora of data is out there, which they somehow cannot seem to find. It is getting to be quite pathetic.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5865
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« Reply #45 on: July 27, 2017, 03:34:14 PM »

For you new RE'ers: "Zetetic" is an obscure, archaic term popularized by 19th-century by (literally) snake-oil conman and human garbage, Samuel Rowbotham. It originated as a latin term. It means, "to proceed by inquiry, unless that inquiry begins to produce cognitive dissonance, then proceed to get angry, respond childishly, and put your fingers in your ears and sing 'la la la la la' so that your beliefs remain intact, and also harrass your opponents until their bankruptcy and your own death.".

Rowbotham himself properly demonstrated Zetetic technique, thusly (so whenever you hear "Zetetic method", think Rowbotham, and his lovely implementation of it):
  • He went my many pseudonyms for the purposes of his con-artistry, including conning "good Christians" (who loved him) out of their money.
  • He literally ran away from a lecture, after being unable to explain why the hulls of ships disappeared before the masts when sailing out to sea. (A problem he finally remedied later, by just asserting that they don't.)
  • He then badly lost a challenge to spot all of a lighthouse from a beach 14 miles away, at which point he just told everyone he won that challenge. (Why didn't I ever think of that?)
  • Remember the notorious "Bedford Level Experiment"? Rowbotham had a wealthy and allegedly mentally unstable cohort named John Hampden, pretend to not know him, offer up a bet, and be one of the judges. In the end, except Hampden and his "impartial witness" (an author of a flat-earth book), claimed they had won, when they hadn't. Hampden proceeded to harras his opponent until his death; along the way nearly drove his opponent into bankruptcy, and was himself arrested several times. Yet somehow, Flat-Earthers use the "Bedford Level Experiment" as "proof" for their side! (This is the essence of the Zetetic Method.)
  • Rowbotham then proceeded to spend the rest of his life literally as a snake-oil conman, and lecture on his book that asserts all kinds of random made-up shit, like the Oceans are supported by steam, produced from the fires of hell. The fact that certain people keep pointing to this contemptible human being as the ultimate authority on Flat Earth (meanwhile disagreeing with him over anything remotely substantive such as what the fuck the earth looks like), speaks volumes to their own intellectual integrity, and the rigid dogmaticalness of their (ironically stupendously vague and hand-wavey) beliefs.

Seeing as you already made a thread complaining about this topic, I will ask you to keep your posts in this thread on topic so you don't derail the thread. Consider this a warning.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« Reply #46 on: July 27, 2017, 04:05:38 PM »
You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?

So why, then, should we accept the sun calculators as unquestionable? Claims were made in this thread, and they need to be supported with evidence. The creator of this thread is maintaining that he has posted "facts" with his sun calculator predictions and that everyone reading should accept it without question. If you guys predict that the sun will appear at a particular spot at a certain date and location, then we expect that you will be able to support your prediction. It is not automatically true.
I for one, would absolutely love to see your map.  I however would just say it’s fake.  I would attempt to verify if stands up to measured distances and so on.  Do you guys seriously not even have a map?
I did call the original sunrise time’s facts.  So what?  I immediately offered multiple other options, anything you could agree to just to get to the simple… wait for it…. Fact that the sun rises in the east.  Dun dun dunnnnnnnn!!!!!!
Just out of curiosity, how many times does a utterly simple calculator have to predict the sunrise and sunset (not to mention you can set it to times in the past) before it’s excepted?  Why haven’t you made one based on your theories yet?  Give the formula and I program it for you.

The sun predictions need to be affirmed with actual observations. We have asked for these sun observations on many occasions throughout the years, and after a lot of searching, the Round Earth proponents come up empty again and again, all while still maintaining their vague references that the plethora of data is out there, which they somehow cannot seem to find. It is getting to be quite pathetic.
As requested, have you made observations and measurements?  If www.timeanddate.com was producing incorrect numbers we would know and nobody would be using it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2810
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« Reply #47 on: July 27, 2017, 04:37:22 PM »
As requested, have you made observations and measurements?  If www.timeanddate.com was producing incorrect numbers we would know and nobody would be using it.

You want us to gather your evidence for your claims for you? Why would we do that? Your claim, your burden.

We have no idea how accurate timeanddate.com is. There is no transparency. We have no observational reports of verification and we don't even know how the data is being created. As far as we know that website, or the source it gets its information from, is slightly modifying the sunlight model every time someone reports a discrepancy to the point where it is no longer based on a Round Earth Model.

Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« Reply #48 on: July 27, 2017, 04:55:42 PM »
As requested, have you made observations and measurements?  If www.timeanddate.com was producing incorrect numbers we would know and nobody would be using it.

You want us to gather your evidence for your claims for you? Why would we do that? Your claim, your burden.

We have no idea how accurate timeanddate.com is. There is no transparency. We have no observational reports of verification and we don't even know how the data is being created. As far as we know that website, or the source it gets its information from, is slightly modifying the sunlight model every time someone reports a discrepancy to the point where it is no longer based on a Round Earth Model.
Do you agree the site is accurate for your location, surely something you would be interested in checking?

Your carefully crafted words like 'slightly modifying the sunlight model' make no sense.

You use the word 'we' a lot, but who are 'you' when the key point is to determine the correct shape etc. of the earth, whatever it is?  If 'you' believe eg. the times of sunrise and sunset, which prove a round earth if you do the maths, are wrong you should say where they are incorrect.

All the data we have shows a round earth, if you believe otherwise then why is do difficult for 'you' to provide a few sample measurements to show otherwise?

Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« Reply #49 on: July 27, 2017, 05:03:33 PM »
Seeing as you already made a thread complaining about this topic, I will ask you to keep your posts in this thread on topic so you don't derail the thread. Consider this a warning.

This came first, then the expanded topic, but duly noted valid point.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2810
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« Reply #50 on: July 27, 2017, 05:18:06 PM »
As requested, have you made observations and measurements?  If www.timeanddate.com was producing incorrect numbers we would know and nobody would be using it.

You want us to gather your evidence for your claims for you? Why would we do that? Your claim, your burden.

We have no idea how accurate timeanddate.com is. There is no transparency. We have no observational reports of verification and we don't even know how the data is being created. As far as we know that website, or the source it gets its information from, is slightly modifying the sunlight model every time someone reports a discrepancy to the point where it is no longer based on a Round Earth Model.
Do you agree the site is accurate for your location, surely something you would be interested in checking?

Your carefully crafted words like 'slightly modifying the sunlight model' make no sense.

You use the word 'we' a lot, but who are 'you' when the key point is to determine the correct shape etc. of the earth, whatever it is?  If 'you' believe eg. the times of sunrise and sunset, which prove a round earth if you do the maths, are wrong you should say where they are incorrect.

All the data we have shows a round earth, if you believe otherwise then why is do difficult for 'you' to provide a few sample measurements to show otherwise?

Without transparency for how the data is generated any test I would do is invalid. How do we know that the data is still based on a pure Round Earth model and not the result of years of modifications to match observations?

It is YOUR job to present a transparent and usable model along with the observations to back that model up. The Round Earth model is YOUR claim.

Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« Reply #51 on: July 27, 2017, 05:23:26 PM »
As requested, have you made observations and measurements?  If www.timeanddate.com was producing incorrect numbers we would know and nobody would be using it.

You want us to gather your evidence for your claims for you? Why would we do that? Your claim, your burden.

We have no idea how accurate timeanddate.com is. There is no transparency. We have no observational reports of verification and we don't even know how the data is being created. As far as we know that website, or the source it gets its information from, is slightly modifying the sunlight model every time someone reports a discrepancy to the point where it is no longer based on a Round Earth Model.
Do you agree the site is accurate for your location, surely something you would be interested in checking?

Your carefully crafted words like 'slightly modifying the sunlight model' make no sense.

You use the word 'we' a lot, but who are 'you' when the key point is to determine the correct shape etc. of the earth, whatever it is?  If 'you' believe eg. the times of sunrise and sunset, which prove a round earth if you do the maths, are wrong you should say where they are incorrect.

All the data we have shows a round earth, if you believe otherwise then why is do difficult for 'you' to provide a few sample measurements to show otherwise?

Without transparency for how the data is generated any test I would do is invalid. How do we know that the data is still based on a pure Round Earth model and not the result of years of modifications to match observations?

It is YOUR job to present a transparent and usable model along with the observations to back that model up. The Round Earth model is YOUR claim.
I will ask again.  Please just answer the questions with a yes or no.

Is the data in timeanddate.com correct for your location?  Do you accept that the calculations for satellite dish angles are correct?

Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« Reply #52 on: July 27, 2017, 05:37:35 PM »
It is YOUR job to present a transparent and usable model and observations to back that model up. The Round Earth model is YOUR claim.

No, it is your job to challenge the null hypothesis with testable hypotheses and predictions of your own.

Which is the null hypothesis? The one:
  • ...with the fewest untestable assertions immune to disproof.
  • ...with the fewest appeals to magical mechanisms (Celestial Gears, The Firmament, etc.).
  • ...with the fewest appeals to enormous, global, hundred-years cover-up conspiracies.
  • ...with the fewest ad-hoc hypotheses to explain away problems with other ad-hoc hypotheses, rather than just addressing the flaws in the earlier ad-hoc hypotheses
  • ...with the least complicated, least hand-wavy explanations to explain observed phenomenon.
  • ...with the fewest appeals authority
  • ...with the fewest religious elements, e.g. the sacred ancient texts of the con-man/religious figure Rowbotham.
  • ...based on the fewest unfalsifiable assertions.
  • ...with the most exceedingly well-defined, easily testable details at every level - including shapes and relationships of landmasses down to the meter; the masses, distances, and orbital state vectors of every visible object in the solar system, much of which can be easily observationally verified with a Nikon P900, a logbook, and patience.
  • ...And by definition - right or wrong - the one that is overwhelming accepted as the best working theory by the scientific and academic community. Sometimes changing the world is hard work and unfair. So stop whining, accept the world for the way it is rather than complain about it, and get to it!
Since you can't even submit a simple map of even the most roughly approximated size, shape, and relationships of landmasses - to any admitted degree of accuracy - that pretty much rules yours out as the null hypothesis.

Since you use "we" alot, I'm going to lump "you" into "you all": You can't even agree on whether there are two celestial poles instead of one. Dome, or no dome. Antarctica is an ice wall, or continent. The Pacific Ocean surrounds the world, or is just a big ocean. Antarctica is as big as Africa, or as big as Australians think it is. That NZ spends half the year in total darkness, or not. That there is more oceans and continents beyond the ice wall (including Atlantis), or not. Whether there is gravity, or UA.

Etc. Sorry. The RE model is exceedingly internally consistent, extremely detailed and highly specific, every aspect of it is testable, and no part of it is immune to disproof. To suggest it isn't the null hypothesis, is to appear mentally ill. I know you don't believe RE is the null hypothesis. (And via transitive property...)

I'm not suggesting that the RE model is right. I mean I do, elsewhere, but that's not my argument here. It's only to point out that the burden of proof is on FE. (I wouldn't be here if a FE wasn't a fun notion to entertain - I'm certainly not hear to convert the unconvertible. I'm open to conversion.)

RE has a map of the landmasses, shapes, distances, and relationship of whatever it is we live on. A map that can be tested, debated, have holes poked in it, disproven. That is the basis to move forward from, nothing else really matters until you have that.

You don't have that. You don't even have a map.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2017, 05:42:36 PM by JoeTheToe »

Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« Reply #53 on: July 27, 2017, 06:11:56 PM »
As requested, have you made observations and measurements?  If www.timeanddate.com was producing incorrect numbers we would know and nobody would be using it.

You want us to gather your evidence for your claims for you? Why would we do that? Your claim, your burden.

We have no idea how accurate timeanddate.com is. There is no transparency. We have no observational reports of verification and we don't even know how the data is being created. As far as we know that website, or the source it gets its information from, is slightly modifying the sunlight model every time someone reports a discrepancy to the point where it is no longer based on a Round Earth Model.
Do you agree the site is accurate for your location, surely something you would be interested in checking?

Your carefully crafted words like 'slightly modifying the sunlight model' make no sense.

You use the word 'we' a lot, but who are 'you' when the key point is to determine the correct shape etc. of the earth, whatever it is?  If 'you' believe eg. the times of sunrise and sunset, which prove a round earth if you do the maths, are wrong you should say where they are incorrect.

All the data we have shows a round earth, if you believe otherwise then why is do difficult for 'you' to provide a few sample measurements to show otherwise?

Without transparency for how the data is generated any test I would do is invalid. How do we know that the data is still based on a pure Round Earth model and not the result of years of modifications to match observations?

It is YOUR job to present a transparent and usable model along with the observations to back that model up. The Round Earth model is YOUR claim.
It is YOUR job to present a transparent and usable model along with the observations to back that model up. The Flat Earth model is YOUR claim.

The Round Earth model has a usable model. Google Earth. Check any distance provided there against the actual distance. You'll find they line up. Flat Earth is not the default stance, as much as you keep trying to cling to it being so. https://explorable.com/null-hypothesis The common stance is that the Earth is a globe. Thus, YOU are required to disprove it. We have hundreds of years of science backing up a Round Earth, in order for many fields that deal with the Earth to have gotten this far. Meteorology on a large scale, tectonic plates, volcanoes, tidal waves, the tides, earthquakes, and others have all been explained, tested, and confirmed to fit with the Round Earth model. If you want to present a compelling Flat Earth model, you need to explain all of those things in a way that doesn't prevent any others from working.

You instead sit and pretend it's on us to show you every single proof on these items, when by and large most are probably in science journals that aren't necessarily publicly accessible, or not even on the internet anywhere. Round Earth has a robust, working model. Flat Earth does not, you have barely the outline of one.

On topic: Here is provided the equations for how to calculate the sunrise and sunset times. I admit I only barely grasp what all is going on there, but it's also not my field of study. Feel free to check the times given on those websites against the actual equation if you can figure out how to get it working. This has a slightly less involved answer on the things they use to calculate sunset and sunrise times.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« Reply #54 on: July 27, 2017, 06:25:28 PM »
On topic: Here is provided the equations for how to calculate the sunrise and sunset times. I admit I only barely grasp what all is going on there, but it's also not my field of study. Feel free to check the times given on those websites against the actual equation if you can figure out how to get it working. This has a slightly less involved answer on the things they use to calculate sunset and sunrise times.

FE has a model for how sunset and sunrises work, and how to calculate the times:



To figure out the sunset time, just calculate when the Sun passes the vanishing point from a convergent line, to divergent.

(That is literally the most comprehensive explanation I've seen.)

*

Offline Merkava

  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Masterdebater
    • View Profile
Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« Reply #55 on: July 27, 2017, 06:47:54 PM »
You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?

So why, then, should we accept the sun calculators as unquestionable? Claims were made in this thread, and they need to be supported with evidence. The creator of this thread is maintaining that he has posted "facts" with his sun calculator predictions and that everyone reading should accept it without question. If you guys predict that the sun will appear at a particular spot at a certain date and location, then we expect that you will be able to support your prediction. It is not automatically true.
I for one, would absolutely love to see your map.  I however would just say it’s fake.  I would attempt to verify if stands up to measured distances and so on.  Do you guys seriously not even have a map?
I did call the original sunrise time’s facts.  So what?  I immediately offered multiple other options, anything you could agree to just to get to the simple… wait for it…. Fact that the sun rises in the east.  Dun dun dunnnnnnnn!!!!!!
Just out of curiosity, how many times does a utterly simple calculator have to predict the sunrise and sunset (not to mention you can set it to times in the past) before it’s excepted?  Why haven’t you made one based on your theories yet?  Give the formula and I program it for you.

The sun predictions need to be affirmed with actual observations. We have asked for these sun observations on many occasions throughout the years, and after a lot of searching, the Round Earth proponents come up empty again and again, all while still maintaining their vague references that the plethora of data is out there, which they somehow cannot seem to find. It is getting to be quite pathetic.

You can keep saying it and it doesn't change anything.  How can you be so obtuse?  Let's quote YOUR wiki, shall we?

"To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.

That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude."

Just keep reading that until it sinks in or go delete it or prove it wrong.


Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude
Is it really too much effort to visualize in your head a light rolling around the middle of a plate isn't going to be "east" or "west" of anything it touches EVER?

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5865
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« Reply #56 on: July 27, 2017, 07:01:51 PM »
Let's quote YOUR wiki, shall we?

"To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.

That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude."

Tom will just say he doesn't agree with that part of the Wiki.

He uses "we" or "I" - depending on which is more expedient.

All the long-time FE'ers respond with a trite, "Read the wiki" or "I don't agree with the wiki" - depending on which is more expedient. Over, and over, and over. But never respond with a specific, honest hypothesis which can be nailed down. They are afraid of it being picked apart and potentially debunked. (You know, like a legitimate hypothesis.)

Because they lack intellectual integrity. Or maybe they are just phoning it in by now and don't care (which at least would provide some benefit of doubt.)

How about instead of posting off-topic nonsense, you let Tom reply and not try to reply for him. I've been patient with you, but you just cannot seem to stop your petulant behavior (espcially toward Tom for some reason). I have told you repeatedly to knock it off. Is there something you don't understand about that? Am I not being clear enough? I really am trying to be patient and avoid banning you, but you aren't giving me much choice.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2017, 07:03:54 PM by junker »
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« Reply #57 on: July 27, 2017, 07:10:19 PM »
Let's quote YOUR wiki, shall we?

"To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.

That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude."

Tom will just say he doesn't agree with that part of the Wiki.

He uses "we" or "I" - depending on which is more expedient.

All the long-time FE'ers respond with a trite, "Read the wiki" or "I don't agree with the wiki" - depending on which is more expedient. Over, and over, and over. But never respond with a specific, honest hypothesis which can be nailed down. They are afraid of it being picked apart and potentially debunked. (You know, like a legitimate hypothesis.)

Because they lack intellectual integrity. Or maybe they are just phoning it in by now and don't care (which at least would provide some benefit of doubt.)

How about instead of posting off-topic nonsense, you let Tom reply and not try to reply for him. I've been patient with you, but you just cannot seem to stop your petulant behavior (espcially toward Tom for some reason). I have told you repeatedly to knock it off. Is there something you don't understand about that? Am I not being clear enough? I really am trying to be patient and avoid banning you, but you aren't giving me much choice.

Relax, Francis. You're getting a little trigger-happy and off-topic. That was a perfectly valid response. I made a testable prediction highly pertinent to the topic at hand. Let's see how it pans out. If I'm wrong, it should be obvious and I'll acknowledge it. There's no personal attack here. Only critique of ideas and intellectual approaches.

(Though I'll concede that we could have done without the last two sentences. Fair point on that.)

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 401
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« Reply #58 on: July 27, 2017, 07:18:05 PM »
The map / LAX to SYD flight time is a good route, Joe. Except what you don't know is that it takes the same exact time to fly, because it's the same exact route, because the earth is flat. It just takes more time to fly East from LAX, because the plane ends up circling at the destination, until the appropriate distance to support the round Earth hoax is flown.

I got this one, Tom! You're not the only man that can make Kool Aid.

Good point, I didn't think of that. And the planes are secretly hyper-supersonic, and have huge extra gas tanks, so that they can take a circuitous all-water route to Sydney in the same amount of time what we think a "normal" plane would do on a round Earth. Curse you global conspiracy!  >o<


Oh my God! Joe, if you have the time, you should Google something along the lines of "LA to Sydney flat earth." There are, at least, a hundred pages of debate about this topic, on this website alone. I'm happy to report that my flying-over-the-destination-to-obfuscate-actual-distances argument was mentioned three times, whereas your hypersonic-plane-with-supertanker-for-fuel was nowhere to be found.

You need to work on your implausible plausibility skills, sir!


I would debate that point.  I never see any plausible answers from flat earthers that explain the fight time dilemma of FE.  I have posted several actual flights in progress from Flight Track and never a peep.  I wonder why?
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

de·lu·sion
noun
1.   an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5865
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« Reply #59 on: July 27, 2017, 07:19:02 PM »
Let's quote YOUR wiki, shall we?

"To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.

That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude."

Tom will just say he doesn't agree with that part of the Wiki.

He uses "we" or "I" - depending on which is more expedient.

All the long-time FE'ers respond with a trite, "Read the wiki" or "I don't agree with the wiki" - depending on which is more expedient. Over, and over, and over. But never respond with a specific, honest hypothesis which can be nailed down. They are afraid of it being picked apart and potentially debunked. (You know, like a legitimate hypothesis.)

Because they lack intellectual integrity. Or maybe they are just phoning it in by now and don't care (which at least would provide some benefit of doubt.)

How about instead of posting off-topic nonsense, you let Tom reply and not try to reply for him. I've been patient with you, but you just cannot seem to stop your petulant behavior (espcially toward Tom for some reason). I have told you repeatedly to knock it off. Is there something you don't understand about that? Am I not being clear enough? I really am trying to be patient and avoid banning you, but you aren't giving me much choice.

Relax, Francis. You're getting a little trigger-happy and off-topic. That was a perfectly valid response. I made a testable prediction highly pertinent to the topic at hand. Let's see how it pans out. If I'm wrong, it should be obvious and I'll acknowledge it. There's no personal attack here. Only critique of ideas and intellectual approaches.

(Though I'll concede that we could have done without the last two sentences. Fair point on that.)

Alright, you have had plenty of opportunities. Have a few days off to review the rules. If you decide to come back, I'd suggest refraining from the same behavior.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.