[Tom Bishop]

There seem to be a number of Flat Earthers who hold a different position to me or the Wiki. I am offering to debate them on the subject. As opposed to another Round Earth Vs Flat Earth debate this will be between Flat Earth proponents and require us to argue in favor of our own Flat Earth Theories.

I will ask that Round Earth proponents refrain from posting in this thread. You have everywhere else to post. Don't post here, just watch. I would only like to talk to other Flat Earth proponents about why they feel that their theories are better. Maybe if we talk about it we can refine some of these ideas and come to insightful conclusions.

I generally support the positions in the Wiki in my outlook on FET, with some slight variations. Many the positions in the Wiki are empirical conclusions which have evolved from discussing these matters over a long period of time. For the record, I hold that:

- The earth is accelerating upwards to keep us pinned to the surface (Universal Acceleration)
- The heavens exhibit Celestial Gravitation, although it is not necessarily an attraction by mass
- Light travels in straight lines and the sunset is caused by perspective
- Perspective operates on a discrete ruleset rather than a continuous ruleset (Ie. The perspective lines meet a finite distance away, as observed in the meeting of railroad tracks, rather than an infinite distance away as theorized by Euclid)
- The moon is a sphere and does not rotate significantly as it sets as consequence of discrete perspective rules
- The sun is a sphere and shines light in all directions
- The Lunar Eclipse is caused by the Shadow Object
- The Flat Earth model is a two pole system, but the exact map is unknown (this opinion differs from the majority here)
- The exact distance between distant locations on earth is unknown because distance data relies on an unproven Round Earth coordinate system (which makes it difficult to create a map)
- The nature of the edge of the earth is unknown, but may naturally end as per the Atmolayer Lip Hypothesis
- The age and origin of the earth is unknown, but "it always was" is an empirical conclusion
- There is no firmament
- Astronomers, cartographers, and other professionals are wrong, as opposed to "in on it"
- NASA's intent is to fake the concept of space travel, is not running a real space agency, and is merely mistaken about the round shape of the earth

I may have left out more. Anything in the Wiki is otherwise my position.

Feel free to ask any clarifying questions and tell me what you believe and why your Flat Earth ideas are better.

[juner]

There seem to be a number of Flat Earthers who hold a different position to me or the Wiki. I am offering to debate them on the subject. As opposed to another Round Earth Vs Flat Earth debate this will be between Flat Earth proponents and require us to argue in favor of our own Flat Earth Theories.

I will ask that Round Earth proponents refrain from posting in this thread. You have everywhere else to post. Don't post here, just watch. I would only like to talk to other Flat Earth proponents about why they feel that their theories are better. Maybe if we talk about it we can refine some of these ideas and come to insightful conclusions.

I generally support the positions in the Wiki in my outlook on FET, with some slight variations. Many the positions in the Wiki are empirical conclusions which have evolved from discussing these matters over a long period of time. For the record, I hold that:

- The earth is accelerating upwards to keep us pinned to the surface (Universal Acceleration)
- The heavens exhibit Celestial Gravitation, although it is not necessarily an attraction by mass
- Light travels in straight lines and the sunset is caused by perspective
- Perspective operates on a discrete ruleset rather than a continuous ruleset (Ie. The perspective lines meet a finite distance away, as observed in the meeting of railroad tracks, rather than an infinite distance away as theorized by Euclid)
- The moon is a sphere and does not rotate significantly as it sets as consequence of discrete perspective rules
- The sun is a sphere and shines light in all directions
- The Lunar Eclipse is caused by the Shadow Object
- The Flat Earth model is a two pole system, but the exact map is unknown (this opinion differs from the majority here)
- The exact distance between distant locations on earth is unknown because distance data relies on an unproven Round Earth coordinate system (which makes it difficult to create a map)
- The nature of the edge of the earth is unknown, but may naturally end as per the Atmolayer Lip Hypothesis
- The age and origin of the earth is unknown, but "it always was" is an empirical conclusion
- There is no firmament
- Astronomers, cartographers, and other professionals are wrong, as opposed to "in on it"
- NASA's intent is to fake the concept of space travel, is not running a real space agency, and is merely mistaken about the round shape of the earth

I may have left out more. Anything in the Wiki is otherwise my position.

Feel free to ask any clarifying questions and tell me what you believe and why your Flat Earth ideas are better.

In reference to light, is there a particular reason you don't ascribe what is observed to one of the "bendy light" theories? I know they haven't been worked on in quite some time, but there still may be some potential there. Especially for your pseudo-stalker 3Dgeek who seems to have taken an obsession around the topic.

I think the regulars here are on the same page with most of the wiki, even though we know it needs some updates and revisions.

[Tom Bishop]

In reference to light, is there a particular reason you don't ascribe what is observed to one of the "bendy light" theories? I know they haven't been worked on in quite some time, but there still may be some potential there. Especially for your pseudo-stalker 3Dgeek who seems to have taken an obsession around the topic.

I think the regulars here are on the same page with most of the wiki, even though we know it needs some updates and revisions.

There is nothing mechanically wrong with the Electromagnetic Accelerator theory where light from the sun (and perhaps all light) bends upwards. I think that it can still make valid explanations, and I did support it at one point years ago. Today, solely as a matter of philosophy, my outlook has evolved to support only explanations which are empirical conclusions to the natural world, and have downgraded the bendy light theories on grounds of parsimony.

The reason the upward bending light theory was proposed was because the straight line theory did not explain the sunset among other phenomena. Under the theories of Elucid and other Ancient Greeks the perspective lines should never meet and will approach each other for infinity, meaning that the sun should never reach the ground with perspective.

However, neither Elucid or his cohorts ever actually demonstrated that perspective operated on those rules. It was just assumed that was the case. From empirical observation we do see that lines appear meet in the not-infinite-distance (ie. rail road track perspective scene), and so we should accept perspective as we see it, not what is theorized under an ancient mathematical model.

A number of interesting conclusions follow; such that the perspective lines are discrete rather than continuous, and that during sunset the sun is actually hidden by the imperfect surface features of the earth where the perspective lines meet. Rowbotham also makes many of these same conclusions in his determination that perspective lines are discrete. It is mentioned in Earth Not a Globe, in fact, that the sunset over the ocean takes longer when the seas are calm and sooner when they are choppy and disturbed (mentioned at the end of the chapter Tangential Horizon).

The subject of the discrete nature of perspective has not yet been fully explored and it is interesting in that in exploring this topic and challenging the Ancients we are discussing things that have never really been discussed before, coming to unique conclusions about the world, and are exploring new frontiers to human knowledge.

I am challenging the fundamental model, foremostly, because the tenets have never really been demonstrated. In contrast, the bendy light theory accepts that the fundamental model is true and tries to work around it with the introduction of curved light. I find it to be much more stimulating to consider root questions of whether nature is discrete or continuous, and firmly believe that the best approach to our discovery of the world is to consider the basics before looking to a work around.

[juner]

Thank you for the detailed, thorough answer. I had seen some of your posts regarding perspective recently, but have a much better understanding of your position now.

[fememo]

I have a theory that we live inside a very slowly expanding electromagnetic field that started off with nothing inside.  Small objects (asteroids/gases) got trapped inside over billions of years causing the outer layer to expand slowly.  Heavier elements settled on the bottom creating a hard crust that supports life with gases trapped above the solid (and liquid i.e. water) relatively flat earth.

A bit like below.



The outer rim of the flat plane 'Antarctica' is frozen as the atmosphere outside the forcefield is cold freezing the water around the edges.



The sun, moon etc are objects attracted towards the earths magnetic north but trapped on the outside of the forcefield.