*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8799
    • View Profile
Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
« Reply #20 on: September 14, 2017, 07:54:00 PM »
Last night, Parsifal offered me (yes, **ME**!!) the role of "Moderator" for these forums.

That is a shame as you would have made a great mod...


I agree, which is why I gave my recommendation for this when asked yesterday. Thanks for making me look bad... I didn't mean it anyway. I just wanted some help and at this point I really just need someone with a pulse who logs in fairly often.



To my eyes, it seems that we have the religious types doing most of the pro-FET posting - and it's VERY low content stuff.   Tom's posts no longer defend or explain his theories - they just as for "evidence" and ignore it when it's provided. 

None of the other hard-core FE'ers really seem to want to defend themselves...they post quite a bit into the "Other Discussion Boards" - into non-FE threads - but they never contribute to Q&A or Debate posts where the actual FE discussions are taking place.

There are 2,200 posts and 67,000 views to the "Trump" thread, - but not a single person who wants to explain to us how FE sunsets can illuminate the undersides of clouds!

Who are the other "hardcore FEers?" Also, a couple things you will find since you haven't been here that long. The longer people stick around, the more they gravitate to the social fora. Turns out people like to talk about a lot of things. We also like to shitpost in the cellar, get drunk on IRC and collectively listen to music, play terrible games like Star Citizen, etc. Tom is one of the few veterans that tend to stick to the upper fora. You will also find these things go in cycles with users. Sometimes the religious folks show up, then fade away. Then every now and then we will get an influx of noobs on both sides and some decent discussion will happen, and then there will be times like now where there isn't much activity from the FE side since RE shows up in vastly greater numbers.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 07:58:02 PM by junker »

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
« Reply #21 on: September 15, 2017, 10:27:59 PM »
[...] Then every now and then we will get an influx of noobs on both sides and some decent discussion will happen, and then there will be times like now where there isn't much activity from the FE side since RE shows up in vastly greater numbers.
I'm sorry, what does that even mean? You feel outnumbered, or what? You  all pop in every now and then with cryptic one-liners everytime there's something substantial to discuss, while accurately refusing to participate... why do you even bother keeping the fora open, let alone  moderating them? I came here with a rather genuine curiosity for the arguments, but I can only conclude this is either a giant joke or a social experiment.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8799
    • View Profile
Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
« Reply #22 on: September 15, 2017, 10:37:38 PM »
I'm sorry, what does that even mean? You feel outnumbered, or what?
It means exactly what I said. Are you finding it difficult to understand? Of course the FE side is outnumbered, but there are times when very few FE proponents are debating, and there are times when there are more of them debating.

You  all pop in every now and then with cryptic one-liners everytime there's something substantial to discuss, while accurately refusing to participate...
I participate in threads that interest me. I can't help if you feel entitled to more than that.

why do you even bother keeping the fora open, let alone  moderating them?
Why wouldn't we keep the fora open? There is a community here that gets plenty of enjoyment from it. If you don't, that is fine, but your question is simply nonsensical. I moderate here because I like the community and enjoy pitching in. It is obvious you have no idea what tfes.org is all about.

I can only conclude this is either a giant joke or a social experiment.
Hey good for you. That is a common opinion from noobs who show up here without putting in much effort.




Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
« Reply #23 on: September 15, 2017, 10:56:23 PM »
I participate in threads that interest me. I can't help if you feel entitled to more than that.
Hey, you guys called this forum "flat earth debate" I'm actually fine if you don't want to follow suit. I guess we could rename it "flat earth shooting gallery" and just reread old RE proponents posts. Most of them are interesting.
I can only conclude this is either a giant joke or a social experiment.
Hey good for you. That is a common opinion from noobs who show up here without putting in much effort.
enlighten me, then. I've put in the effort of reading the wiki and trying to participate in a discussion and hearing crickets instead. What should be my next move?

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
« Reply #24 on: September 16, 2017, 07:59:02 PM »
Oh man... check this out:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Not all map possibilities have been considered. There is no accepted Flat Earth map. There are only proposals which have been made by a few people, with no attempts at accuracy except to show basic features of the model.

In order to prove a Flat Earth wrong you will need to show that it is impossible to make a Flat Earth map. You will need to find logs of all airline flights, map all continental distance and layout possibilities under mono-pole and bi-polar models, consider that there are many airports which do not have direct nonstop routes between each other, look into jet streams, and study flight delays which are said to happen to 25% of flights. And only then, once thoroughly investigated, can you claim that there is no possible Flat Earth map. I expect nothing less from someone who declares any map to be impossible.

so, by Tom's own standard declared only a few months ago, 3DGeek's flight times argument proves flat earth wrong

pack it up folks. show's over

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
« Reply #25 on: September 17, 2017, 02:23:59 PM »
Oh man... check this out:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Not all map possibilities have been considered. There is no accepted Flat Earth map. There are only proposals which have been made by a few people, with no attempts at accuracy except to show basic features of the model.

In order to prove a Flat Earth wrong you will need to show that it is impossible to make a Flat Earth map. You will need to find logs of all airline flights, map all continental distance and layout possibilities under mono-pole and bi-polar models, consider that there are many airports which do not have direct nonstop routes between each other, look into jet streams, and study flight delays which are said to happen to 25% of flights. And only then, once thoroughly investigated, can you claim that there is no possible Flat Earth map. I expect nothing less from someone who declares any map to be impossible.

so, by Tom's own standard declared only a few months ago, 3DGeek's flight times argument proves flat earth wrong

pack it up folks. show's over

Over on "the other forum" John Davis (who seems to proclaim himself as "The most influential man alive"...no craziness inherent in that statement) is pushing the "non-euclidean earth".   Which (essentially) means that the world is spherical according to EVERY POSSIBLE test...except that it has a zero sized circular "edge" at the south pole (or ice-wall).

He's basically saying that the earth is indeed round - but with even harder to prove things about sun, moon and stars...but in an non-euclidean world, they might still be at large distances.

Once you declare rulers and other forms of distance measurement to be invalid, you're putting yourself in a world of hurt...and for no particularly good reason.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Offline RJDO

  • *
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2017, 06:27:03 PM »
Hi All,

New here. I am researching, and reading, and looking, to find the Flat Earth Theory explanation for how the Sun works. I read in the Wiki that it is believed to be a Sphere of about 32 miles in diameter and 3000 miles above the surface of the Earth. I have a couple of questions that I thought may be answered here in this Forum Board, as anything I find seems not to answer the questions.

1.) Why is the earth flat but the Sun (and Moon) spheres?

2.) How does the Sun heat the Earth? (Now, I typically have accepted the 98 million mile from earth theory, and Nuclear Fusion which creates radiation which is felt as heat [please excuse my gross over simplification of this process]) But, i am having a hard time believing that a 32 mile wide sphere can sustain nuclear fusion for any length of time, and that he is hot enough to heat the earth to sustainable levels.

3.) How does the Sun (and Moon) not fly away from earth? With the Flat Earth Theory, wouldn't centripetal/centrifugal forces fling these spheres off into space without some sort of "tether" keeping them attached to the earth?

Please help me understand. I have looked and looked, and can only find anecdotal post about "proving the sun actually uses nuclear fusion to Work" post.

I can understand the burden of proof being on the other side, especially since I am asking on the Website for Flat Earth support, but I was hoping this would help. I have seen, read, and can visually observe the current scientific model, so any help would be greatly appreciated. 

Thank you
RJ

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
« Reply #27 on: November 13, 2017, 09:00:07 PM »
Hi All,

New here. I am researching, and reading, and looking, to find the Flat Earth Theory explanation for how the Sun works. I read in the Wiki that it is believed to be a Sphere of about 32 miles in diameter and 3000 miles above the surface of the Earth. I have a couple of questions that I thought may be answered here in this Forum Board, as anything I find seems not to answer the questions.

1.) Why is the earth flat but the Sun (and Moon) spheres?

I believe that most FE proponents would say that they don't know.  There are lots of things about their theory that they don't know.

Quote
2.) How does the Sun heat the Earth? (Now, I typically have accepted the 98 million mile from earth theory, and Nuclear Fusion which creates radiation which is felt as heat [please excuse my gross over simplification of this process]) But, i am having a hard time believing that a 32 mile wide sphere can sustain nuclear fusion for any length of time, and that he is hot enough to heat the earth to sustainable levels.

This came up elsewhere.   Indeed, there would not be sufficient mass to create a gravitational force to generate enough pressure to sustain hydrogen fusion.  For FE to be true - they'd need some other force to provide the necessary compression.

Quote
3.) How does the Sun (and Moon) not fly away from earth? With the Flat Earth Theory, wouldn't centripetal/centrifugal forces fling these spheres off into space without some sort of "tether" keeping them attached to the earth?

They don't believe that the sun, moon and other heavenly bodies orbit the earth - they claim that they move around in a flat plane about 3000 miles above the Earth.  Hence, there would be no centrifugal force.   Also, they claim that there are "celestial currents" that move the sun/moon/planets/stars around in their various patterns (which a REALLY complex BTW) - but as is so often the case - having come up with a name for something ("celestial currents") they count themselves satisfied and move on without explaining what energy source powers them - how exactly the move - that kind of thing.

Quote
Please help me understand. I have looked and looked, and can only find anecdotal post about "proving the sun actually uses nuclear fusion to Work" post.

I can understand the burden of proof being on the other side, especially since I am asking on the Website for Flat Earth support, but I was hoping this would help. I have seen, read, and can visually observe the current scientific model, so any help would be greatly appreciated. 

Thank you
RJ

Sadly, every Round-Earth proponent who comes here for explanation finds the same huge pile of problems with the Flat Earth hypothesis...and none of them ever seem to be adequately explained.

I'd say this though:  You only have to find ONE thing that you see about the world (such as the sun lighting the undersides of clouds right after sunset) that contradicts the claims made for the Flat Earth - then you know it can't be true.  Same thing is true for the Round Earth.

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10012
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
« Reply #28 on: November 13, 2017, 10:23:28 PM »
3DG, I would like to once again ask you to stop lying about FE positions. Not only are you not qualified to talk about them in the slightest and extremely sloppy in your assessments, you are also routinely dishonest.

Just one example for the audience:

Also, they claim that there are "celestial currents"

A quick site-wide Google search for "celestial currents" within all of tfes.org reveals multiple posts, all from one author - can you guess who it was? That's right, it was our beloved Don Quixote, inventing arguments for himself to defeat. Or, well, something more of a hybrid of Don Quixote with a Texan samurai.

If you're so opposed to people arbitrarily inventing new terminology, perhaps you should practice what you preach? Or practice anything at all, really. Last time your defence was that you're very experienced and you thought about things very hard...
« Last Edit: November 13, 2017, 10:29:51 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 886
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
« Reply #29 on: November 13, 2017, 11:11:19 PM »
3DG, I would like to once again ask you to stop lying about FE positions. Not only are you not qualified to talk about them in the slightest and extremely sloppy in your assessments, you are also routinely dishonest.

Just one example for the audience:

Also, they claim that there are "celestial currents"

A quick site-wide Google search for "celestial currents" within all of tfes.org reveals multiple posts, all from one author - can you guess who it was? That's right, it was our beloved Don Quixote, inventing arguments for himself to defeat. Or, well, something more of a hybrid of Don Quixote with a Texan samurai.

If you're so opposed to people arbitrarily inventing new terminology, perhaps you should practice what you preach? Or practice anything at all, really. Last time your defence was that you're very experienced and you thought about things very hard...

Maybe you should publish positions.   Since no one will make a stand around here on such simple things as maps, distances, domes, ice walls, poles etc it's easy to quote someone you once read say things. 
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline RJDO

  • *
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
« Reply #30 on: November 13, 2017, 11:43:45 PM »
Thank you for the replies. I do wish there was an answer for my questions. But I appreciate any time given to responses.

All things aside, I have much respect for a site to not only allow for questions, but entertain them and answer as well.

One last question I have is regarding celestial sailing. As a Mariner, I am well versed in this form of navigation, and enjoy the use of being able to use celestial bodies for navigation. With that said, I do have a question on Polaris. Typically, it is used to give a quicker line of position for latitude. (Once again, grossly over simplified). But this method is only used in the Northern hemisphere as it is only visible for this problem in this hemisphere. Why, is this not possible in the Southern Hemisphere, when the Flat earth should allow for this star to be utilized by all areas on the globe, due to its location on the celestial sphere utilized by celestial navigation.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 01:03:07 AM by RJDO »

Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
« Reply #31 on: November 14, 2017, 04:32:31 AM »
3DG, I would like to once again ask you to stop lying about FE positions. Not only are you not qualified to talk about them in the slightest and extremely sloppy in your assessments, you are also routinely dishonest.

Just one example for the audience:

Also, they claim that there are "celestial currents"

A quick site-wide Google search for "celestial currents" within all of tfes.org reveals multiple posts, all from one author - can you guess who it was? That's right, it was our beloved Don Quixote, inventing arguments for himself to defeat. Or, well, something more of a hybrid of Don Quixote with a Texan samurai.

If you're so opposed to people arbitrarily inventing new terminology, perhaps you should practice what you preach? Or practice anything at all, really. Last time your defence was that you're very experienced and you thought about things very hard...
Pete, instead of investing time to just criticize 3D's response, why don't you answer RJDO's questions? Haven't you created an online forum to spread your knowledge of the flat world? Why do you respond only to 3D and not to the person posting questions on your forum?

3D has been at this longer than I have, and I'm guessing that he has a feel for the questions to which FE believers don't typically respond.

If the FE faithful reject, deny, or attempt to discredit everything that disagrees with their belief (and there is much that does) and never consider the possibility that they are wrong; then the forum is not for educating themselves.

If the FE faithful don't respond to inquisitive people asking them questions; then the forum is not for educating others.

Then what is the forum for?

Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
« Reply #32 on: November 14, 2017, 06:26:35 AM »
3DG, I would like to once again ask you to stop lying about FE positions. Not only are you not qualified to talk about them in the slightest and extremely sloppy in your assessments, you are also routinely dishonest.

Just one example for the audience:

Also, they claim that there are "celestial currents"

A quick site-wide Google search for "celestial currents" within all of tfes.org reveals multiple posts, all from one author - can you guess who it was? That's right, it was our beloved Don Quixote, inventing arguments for himself to defeat. Or, well, something more of a hybrid of Don Quixote with a Texan samurai.

If you're so opposed to people arbitrarily inventing new terminology, perhaps you should practice what you preach? Or practice anything at all, really. Last time your defence was that you're very experienced and you thought about things very hard...
I would point out that "celestial currents" doesn't necessarily have to mean that word pairing only. Celestial gears creates currents or motions within the FE hypothesis. The aether's effects could easily fall under that heading, and it's got a fair bit support. You appear to only care about picking a bone with 3D when you bother posting. It's not very helpful....

As for your questions RJDO, 3D is correct in his answers to my knowledge. 3 is the only one I would add the interesting idea I've seen of there being poles coming out of the North Pole to hold them in place. It was a curious idea, and certainly solved what it set out to fix at least, even if it obviously had other issues.

Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
« Reply #33 on: November 14, 2017, 10:29:26 AM »
Have you considered adding these to the lists.
CERN fired neutrinos from Switzerland to Northern Italy, The speed travelled would have been faster than the speed of light if they were traveling the ground distance rather than going under the curve of the earth.

Relativity experiments disprove UA by showing that time travels faster the higher up you are, this is the opposite to expected under UA because celestial gravity should slow clocks as they get higher up.

The Hafele Keating experiments of flying atomic clocks show that a clock flying east is faster than one travelling west. This can also prove that the globe distances and earth rotation and orbit produce the correct readings for a number of flights within 1.6%, including north and south hemispheres.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 10:39:52 AM by GiantTurtle »
We generally accept evidence from all  sources.

The only evidence for Round Earth celestial accuracy (assuming that timeanddate is even based on RET) is the evidence you collected with your friends last month?

Offline FrankF

  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
« Reply #34 on: November 14, 2017, 10:44:12 AM »

The answer is easy.  Both the Sun and the Moon exert an influence on the waters of the flat Earth, thus there are two high tides each day since both the Sun and the Moon cross the dome once a day.   :D

But the moon and the sun don't cross on the same schedule every day, yet tides are very regular.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
« Reply #35 on: November 14, 2017, 01:21:44 PM »

The answer is easy.  Both the Sun and the Moon exert an influence on the waters of the flat Earth, thus there are two high tides each day since both the Sun and the Moon cross the dome once a day.   :D

But the moon and the sun don't cross on the same schedule every day, yet tides are very regular.

If you look at a typical tide chart - you can see that it's a bit more complicated.  It is actually the sum of two waves - a large one that follows the position of the moon in the sky - and a much smaller one that follows the sun.

Two important facts:

1) The sun crosses the sky, returning to the same position every 24 hours - but the moon takes about an hour longer (24.83 hours).
2) We always get two high tides per 24.83 hour period - roughly once every twelve and a half hours.

The FET hypothesis that one high tide is caused by the sun and the other by the moon doesn't work...there are times (eg during a solar eclipse) when the sun and moon are in the same patch of sky.  FET would predict that there would be only one double-sized tide that day - and none during the night - but this isn't what happens.

We get TWO high tides every 24.83 hours...regardless of where the sun and moon are - there are ALWAYS two tides, separated separated by the same amount of time.  (Well...approximately.  Because the largest effect is from the moon - this fits with the time the moon takes to cross the sky...but the smaller effect of the sun messes with the timing a bit - so the actual highest and lowest point in the cycle varies by maybe +/- 5 minutes depending on the time in the lunar month.)

If this FET claim were true then you'd never get a high tide on a moonless night...yet high tides happen at night after the moon has set every single month.

The actual mechanism for tides is a bit more complicated - and it only works in RET.

Because gravity decreases with distance from the source - the gravity of the moon is a little stronger on the side nearest the moon and a little weaker on the opposite side.  This tends to stretch the Earth in the direction of the moon.  The solid Earth (being solid) doesn't stretch by any noticeable amount - but the oceans are free to do so.  This stretching of the oceans in the direction of the moon creates two bulges - one nearest the moon and one on the opposite side.  Hence two tides.

FET does not seem to have ANY explanation (certainly none that I've seen posted) for how there can be a high tide in the middle of the night after the moon has set.

Smugglers in the south of England used to time their nefarious landings on nights where the moon had set and the tide was high...this can't happen in FE because the gravity gravitation of either the sun or the moon is required to create the high tide - and they would both be far away.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
« Reply #36 on: November 15, 2017, 03:47:58 AM »

FET does not seem to have ANY explanation (certainly none that I've seen posted) for how there can be a high tide in the middle of the night after the moon has set.

In response to one of my posts, JMan said the tides were the Earth breathing in and out, you know, like Old Faithful. So you might want to look into that  :D

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
« Reply #37 on: November 15, 2017, 07:32:08 PM »

FET does not seem to have ANY explanation (certainly none that I've seen posted) for how there can be a high tide in the middle of the night after the moon has set.

In response to one of my posts, JMan said the tides were the Earth breathing in and out, you know, like Old Faithful. So you might want to look into that  :D

Yeah - well, even the FE'ers don't seem to pay JMan much attention.

His mental image kinda-sorta makes sense for a round earth - but for a flat one?

Anyway - if the earth were "breathing in and out" then the tides would rise and fall everywhere.  You have to think about what happens over the entire planet.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
« Reply #38 on: November 16, 2017, 10:53:18 AM »

FET does not seem to have ANY explanation (certainly none that I've seen posted) for how there can be a high tide in the middle of the night after the moon has set.

Other than the curves in space time shifting the waves of Gravity the same as it does with perspective.
We generally accept evidence from all  sources.

The only evidence for Round Earth celestial accuracy (assuming that timeanddate is even based on RET) is the evidence you collected with your friends last month?

Offline Mark_1984

  • *
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
« Reply #39 on: November 16, 2017, 01:08:54 PM »
And whatnot. I’m sure that’s vitality significant