*

Offline Baby Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 2488
  • I am Baby Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?
« Reply #20 on: March 19, 2018, 10:37:49 PM »
Do you really not see it as a problem that there are such gaping holes in your "theory"?
You have no idea what a flat earth looks like - in the real world the globe has long since been mapped.
You don't even know if there is one pole or two - in the real world both have been explored, there is a research base at the South Pole which you can pay to visit.

The fact is there is no flat earth map which can match observations. The one in the Wiki doesn't. Either there's one pole in which case there is no way the 24 hour sun in the Antarctic circle can be explained and you're calling every single Antarctic explorer a liar. Or there's 2 in which case your entire model of the sun's movement falls down.

The reason for this is that the premise it is based on - a flat earth - is wrong. It's weird that you never consider this. Instead you start with the premise of a flat earth because of...reasons. You then try and fit everything around that but it doesn't fit. You are trying to fit a too big carpet in a room, soon as you flatten one corner down another one pops up.
There are holes in every theory, including RET. Not that you ever remember any of those. They just get ignored and on you go.

I personally have a very clear idea of what I think the earth looks like. The problem with updating the wiki to reflect this is that not all the flat earthers agree with me.

Some think we have a polar azimuthal layout.
Some think we have two poles.
Some think the earth is infinite.
Some like the Dymaxion map.
I subscribe more to the "Constant-Scale Natural Boundary Map of Earth". Splat Earth Theory.

As the name suggests it is constant scale so no scaling issues, it matches natural boundaries of known antarctic features, it works for ocean currents, compasses, maps ... its a good fit.

But that's just me. But rather than just have to take on round earthers, I also have to convince all the flat earthers. I need to spend lots of time explaining why I think an infinite earth is a stupid idea. Then I have to try to debunk two poles. etc etc etc. I have no appetite for a unified theory. I honestly don't care what other people believe. Its up to them. I put forward my case. Take the bits you like. Bin the rest. But I don't want a shouting match over the contents of the wiki. It has the basic theories in there. It does its job. It isn't there to be a peer reviewed submission to the authorities any more than any other wiki type page is. Its an introduction to FET, and it does its job.

Here's an EASA page about how rockets work. It tells you very little. Its just an intro. Our wiki is like that.
https://www.esa.int/esaKIDSen/SEMVVIXJD1E_Liftoff_0.html
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?
« Reply #21 on: March 19, 2018, 10:56:17 PM »
There are holes in every theory, including RET. Not that you ever remember any of those. They just get ignored and on you go.
Are there? Are you sure these are holes or are they things you just don't understand? What holes are these?

Quote
Some think we have a polar azimuthal layout.
Some think we have two poles.
Some think the earth is infinite.
Some like the Dymaxion map.
But, again, do you really not see this as a problem? Obviously not all debates are over in science, we don't have everything figured out. But the options you list there are SO different from each other. I'm sure all of them solve some problems but have other massive problems. One model may explain seasons but can't explain the 24 hour sun in Antarctica. Another model may explain the 24 hour sun but can't explain seasons. All the models have holes in you could drive a truck through. They're trying to explain something which can't be explained because the earth isn't flat.

To help you out on one point though: The infinite earth is a stupid idea if you combine it with UA, because you need a force to create acceleration and if the earth is an infinite plane then it must be of infinite mass so no amount of force is going to accelerate it

Quote
But I don't want a shouting match over the contents of the wiki. It has the basic theories in there. It does its job. It isn't there to be a peer reviewed submission to the authorities any more than any other wiki type page is. Its an introduction to FET, and it does its job.

Fine, but as discussed there is so much that model can't explain when compared with actual observations.
You claim to be empiricists, what empirical experiments are you doing to try and verify or improve your model?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6741
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?
« Reply #22 on: March 19, 2018, 11:13:45 PM »
One model may explain seasons but can't explain the 24 hour sun in Antarctica. Another model may explain the 24 hour sun but can't explain seasons. All the models have holes in you could drive a truck through. They're trying to explain something which can't be explained because the earth isn't flat.

Seeing as you guys have trouble providing records showing that the sun behaves as if the earth were a globe, I don't see why we would need to conform to your hypothesis.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?
« Reply #23 on: March 19, 2018, 11:17:27 PM »
One model may explain seasons but can't explain the 24 hour sun in Antarctica. Another model may explain the 24 hour sun but can't explain seasons. All the models have holes in you could drive a truck through. They're trying to explain something which can't be explained because the earth isn't flat.

Seeing as you guys have trouble providing records showing that the sun behaves as if the earth were a globe, I don't see why we would need to conform to your hypothesis.
Clearly you are interested in finding the shape of the earth, otherwise you would have a proposal on how to do it.

All the data is in timeanddate.com to calculate the shape of the earth, there is also satellite alignment data.  You could use it for your calculations.

*

Offline nickrulercreator

  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • It's round. That much is true.
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?
« Reply #24 on: March 19, 2018, 11:20:53 PM »
There are holes in every theory, including RET.

Incorrect

Quote
I personally have a very clear idea of what I think the earth looks like.

And how do you know you're not wrong?

Quote
Some think we have a polar azimuthal layout.
Some think we have two poles.
Some think the earth is infinite.
Some like the Dymaxion map.

Like AllAroundTheWorld said:
But, again, do you really not see this as a problem? Obviously not all debates are over in science, we don't have everything figured out. But the options you list there are SO different from each other. I'm sure all of them solve some problems but have other massive problems. One model may explain seasons but can't explain the 24 hour sun in Antarctica. Another model may explain the 24 hour sun but can't explain seasons. All the models have holes in you could drive a truck through. They're trying to explain something which can't be explained because the earth isn't flat.

To help you out on one point though: The infinite earth is a stupid idea if you combine it with UA, because you need a force to create acceleration and if the earth is an infinite plane then it must be of infinite mass so no amount of force is going to accelerate it

Quote
As the name suggests it is constant scale so no scaling issues

Impossible. Where's your evidence?

Quote
it matches natural boundaries of known antarctic features, it works for ocean currents, compasses, maps ... its a good fit.

Evidence?

Quote
Here's an EASA page about how rockets work. It tells you very little. Its just an intro. Our wiki is like that.
https://www.esa.int/esaKIDSen/SEMVVIXJD1E_Liftoff_0.html

Because that site is meant for little kids who don't know super big technical terms. Why not use this pdf from NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/153415main_Rockets_How_Rockets_Work.pdf

Or NASA's article on what rockets are?: https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/nasa-knows/what-is-a-rocket-k4.html

Why not NASA's video on how they launch rockets?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0IQNxf7Qgs

What about their beginner's guide to rockets?: https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.

*

Offline nickrulercreator

  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • It's round. That much is true.
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?
« Reply #25 on: March 19, 2018, 11:21:59 PM »
Seeing as you guys have trouble providing records showing that the sun behaves as if the earth were a globe, I don't see why we would need to conform to your hypothesis.

We do provide records, you ignore it. We could also ask the same of you.
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.

*

Offline Opeo

  • *
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?
« Reply #26 on: March 19, 2018, 11:26:07 PM »
Do you really not see it as a problem that there are such gaping holes in your "theory"?
You have no idea what a flat earth looks like - in the real world the globe has long since been mapped.
You don't even know if there is one pole or two - in the real world both have been explored, there is a research base at the South Pole which you can pay to visit.

The fact is there is no flat earth map which can match observations. The one in the Wiki doesn't. Either there's one pole in which case there is no way the 24 hour sun in the Antarctic circle can be explained and you're calling every single Antarctic explorer a liar. Or there's 2 in which case your entire model of the sun's movement falls down.

The reason for this is that the premise it is based on - a flat earth - is wrong. It's weird that you never consider this. Instead you start with the premise of a flat earth because of...reasons. You then try and fit everything around that but it doesn't fit. You are trying to fit a too big carpet in a room, soon as you flatten one corner down another one pops up.
There are holes in every theory, including RET. Not that you ever remember any of those. They just get ignored and on you go.

I know it would be very convenient if there were, but there really aren't, at least not in the same way. The things FE believers frequently bring up as holes (e.g. the atmosphere should escape Earth's gravity, the ocean shouldn't look flat if the Earth is really spinning, I can't see the curve from this skyscraper/mountaintop/plane) don't actually contradict mainstream science. For example, if you plug in the data into Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and classical mechanics, you'll quickly see it only predicts objects on a spinning equator will be 0.3% lighter due to centrifugal force, but not flying off into space. If you measure each molecule in the upper atmosphere, you'll see none of them ever reach escape velocity and so classical mechanics doesn't predict they'll escape.

I'm not saying this automatically makes all FE hypotheses wrong and Newtonian mechanics right, just that mainstream physics are all consistent with each other. You will be extremely hard pressed to find physicist that disagrees with any of the basic premises of modern science, or that a model globe accurately represents the Earth. Where they sometimes disagree is on new areas of study where there hasn't been a lot of experimentation yet, or on the cutting edge of science like string theory and dark matter and all that, where our tools aren't sophisticated enough to draw real data and so all hypotheses are totally theoretical and untestable.

On the other hand, FE hypotheses generally do contradict each other fundamentally, on things that should be easily testable, like building a simple map of a known and inhabited area which cartographers have been able to do for 9,000 years.

I largely agree with the rest of your post, but I wanted to point that out.

One model may explain seasons but can't explain the 24 hour sun in Antarctica. Another model may explain the 24 hour sun but can't explain seasons. All the models have holes in you could drive a truck through. They're trying to explain something which can't be explained because the earth isn't flat.

Seeing as you guys have trouble providing records showing that the sun behaves as if the earth were a globe, I don't see why we would need to conform to your hypothesis.

Here you go Tom, here's a post I went in depth on that topic with multiple primary sources: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9082.msg143298#msg143298
« Last Edit: March 19, 2018, 11:32:47 PM by Opeo »
"It's easier to fool people that to convince them that they have been fooled ;^)" — Marcus Aurelius, 180 A.D.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6741
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?
« Reply #27 on: March 20, 2018, 12:17:41 AM »
One model may explain seasons but can't explain the 24 hour sun in Antarctica. Another model may explain the 24 hour sun but can't explain seasons. All the models have holes in you could drive a truck through. They're trying to explain something which can't be explained because the earth isn't flat.

Seeing as you guys have trouble providing records showing that the sun behaves as if the earth were a globe, I don't see why we would need to conform to your hypothesis.
Clearly you are interested in finding the shape of the earth, otherwise you would have a proposal on how to do it.

All the data is in timeanddate.com to calculate the shape of the earth, there is also satellite alignment data.  You could use it for your calculations.

Actually timeanddate.com is just an online calculator, not a collection of observations or reports.

Seeing as you guys have trouble providing records showing that the sun behaves as if the earth were a globe, I don't see why we would need to conform to your hypothesis.

We do provide records, you ignore it. We could also ask the same of you.

What reports would those be; your links to online calculators and chants of "prove me wrong"? Those records?
« Last Edit: March 20, 2018, 12:19:12 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6741
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?
« Reply #28 on: March 20, 2018, 12:22:09 AM »
Here you go Tom, here's a post I went in depth on that topic with multiple primary sources: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9082.msg143298#msg143298

Your sources say "according to this source, it will happen", not "it did happen". Do you understand the difference between a prediction and an observation?

Also, long southern days do not discount a bi-polar Flat Earth model or other types of models.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Opeo

  • *
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?
« Reply #29 on: March 20, 2018, 12:34:15 AM »
Here you go Tom, here's a post I went in depth on that topic with multiple primary sources: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9082.msg143298#msg143298

Your sources say "according to this source, it will happen", not "it did happen". Do you understand the difference between a prediction and an observation?

When it comes to sunrise and sunset, I think we can trust a major newspaper wouldn't have gotten it multiple hours wrong in 2016. Someone would have noticed in a city of 5 million people that the paper reported the sun would set at 9:45 on a Summer evening and it ended up setting at 6.

Quote
Also, long southern days do not discount a bi-polar Flat Earth model or other types of models.

And once again, I know. My point has been to show that the most common FE model is nonsensical (which it sounds like is a conclusion everyone posting here is coming to). I never claimed that this means all FE models are wrong (and in fact have said the opposite multiple times).
« Last Edit: March 20, 2018, 12:39:09 AM by Opeo »
"It's easier to fool people that to convince them that they have been fooled ;^)" — Marcus Aurelius, 180 A.D.

Offline Frocious

  • *
  • Posts: 188
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?
« Reply #30 on: March 20, 2018, 12:35:56 AM »
Here you go Tom, here's a post I went in depth on that topic with multiple primary sources: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9082.msg143298#msg143298
Your sources say "according to this source, it will happen", not "it did happen". Do you understand the difference between a prediction and an observation?

I could ask the same of you. One of the major holes I see in FET is the absolute lack of any ability to predict when and where solar eclipses will occur. Meanwhile, on the RE side, we can accurately predict solar eclipses, their paths of totality, and even what the eclipse will look like based on the moon's features.

Has FET ever been able to do the same? Or anything similar? Seriously I'm looking for any prediction made by FET that has ever been proven accurate.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1828
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?
« Reply #31 on: March 20, 2018, 12:39:31 AM »
Actually timeanddate.com is just an online calculator, not a collection of observations or reports.

I would suggest that the basis for its calculations is the myriad of observations and reports that have been made by thousands of astronomers over hundreds of years, continuing to this day...
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Baby Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 2488
  • I am Baby Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?
« Reply #32 on: March 20, 2018, 01:11:10 AM »
I could ask the same of you. One of the major holes I see in FET is the absolute lack of any ability to predict when and where solar eclipses will occur. Meanwhile, on the RE side, we can accurately predict solar eclipses, their paths of totality, and even what the eclipse will look like based on the moon's features.

Has FET ever been able to do the same? Or anything similar? Seriously I'm looking for any prediction made by FET that has ever been proven accurate.

Yes, FET can predict elipses. They happen with regular timing. Like clockwork. Round earth or flat. It is called the Saros cycle. If an eclipse happens somewhere, I can guarantee you'll get another in roughly the same path across earth, 18 years, 11 days, 8 hours later, albeit shifted 120 degrees West due to that pesky 8 hours. Why the hell does the earth need to be a ball for me to do maths like that? This was discovered by the Babylonians and later used by Ancient Greeks. Do you think they had super computers doing fancy ball mechanics, or do you think addition might have worked just fine for them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_%28astronomy%29

This is a good example of round earthers not understanding how something works, noting that it does work, attributing that to being because the earth is a ball, and not having a clue why. You can forget predicting eclipses ... FET has that nailed. We can add. We have a clockwork universe with celestial gearing, eclipse timing is no issue.

So I just plugged a 'major hole' for you. Your not understanding the basic mechanics of the universe, isn't evidence that I don't.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2018, 01:30:19 AM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?
« Reply #33 on: March 20, 2018, 02:13:51 AM »
noting first that 'a good example of round earthers not understanding how something works...' etc is a classic generalization fallacy,

Quote
Why the hell does the earth need to be a ball for me to do maths like that?

this quote is super ironic in the context of this other quote:

Quote
Your not understanding the basic mechanics of the universe, isn't evidence that I don't.

yeah

Tom likes to point out that measuring a repeating pattern isn't the same as making predictions. The prediction that matters is not when or where it will occur, given that it's so regular, but what causes the eclipse to occur in the first place. This is where flat Earth belief fails.

Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?
« Reply #34 on: March 20, 2018, 05:04:02 AM »
I could ask the same of you. One of the major holes I see in FET is the absolute lack of any ability to predict when and where solar eclipses will occur. Meanwhile, on the RE side, we can accurately predict solar eclipses, their paths of totality, and even what the eclipse will look like based on the moon's features.

Has FET ever been able to do the same? Or anything similar? Seriously I'm looking for any prediction made by FET that has ever been proven accurate.

Yes, FET can predict elipses. They happen with regular timing. Like clockwork. Round earth or flat. It is called the Saros cycle. If an eclipse happens somewhere, I can guarantee you'll get another in roughly the same path across earth, 18 years, 11 days, 8 hours later, albeit shifted 120 degrees West due to that pesky 8 hours. Why the hell does the earth need to be a ball for me to do maths like that? This was discovered by the Babylonians and later used by Ancient Greeks. Do you think they had super computers doing fancy ball mechanics, or do you think addition might have worked just fine for them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_%28astronomy%29

This is a good example of round earthers not understanding how something works, noting that it does work, attributing that to being because the earth is a ball, and not having a clue why. You can forget predicting eclipses ... FET has that nailed. We can add. We have a clockwork universe with celestial gearing, eclipse timing is no issue.

So I just plugged a 'major hole' for you. Your not understanding the basic mechanics of the universe, isn't evidence that I don't.
I believe 'accurately' is a major point here. The Saros Cycle is only accurate to a point. If I'm not mistaken, to the day. Not the hour, not the minute, as we had accurately predicted using RE calculations for the recent US eclipse. Can the Saros Cycle also accurately predict the path of totality, from the width of it to the length? Again, from my understanding it doesn't get much more accurate than to within an error of a few dozen miles. Far less accurate than we were given using the RE model. So no, it's nowhere near the mark of 'accurate' when compared to the tool that actually was.

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?
« Reply #35 on: March 20, 2018, 05:15:26 AM »
yo that's good thinking, I revise the claim that predicting the cause is most important. I did not consider the accuracy of the prediction which is also illuminating

Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?
« Reply #36 on: March 20, 2018, 08:34:27 AM »
Personally I see no evidence that the educated FE supporters truly believe in FE. Their tendency to lack the will to engage with those that oppose their views on a range of points by hiding behind the claim that they shouldn't have to waste their time convincing non believers is a tell.

They practically admit that convincing all but the most susceptible of FET is a lost cause and excuse it by claiming we are brainwashed sheep.

Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?
« Reply #37 on: March 20, 2018, 09:41:30 AM »
One model may explain seasons but can't explain the 24 hour sun in Antarctica. Another model may explain the 24 hour sun but can't explain seasons. All the models have holes in you could drive a truck through. They're trying to explain something which can't be explained because the earth isn't flat.

Seeing as you guys have trouble providing records showing that the sun behaves as if the earth were a globe, I don't see why we would need to conform to your hypothesis.
No, you just shout "fake!" when the evidence is provided which is a lazy way of proving yourselves "right" about something.
Here's a video of 24 hour sun at the south pole:

If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

*

Offline Baby Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 2488
  • I am Baby Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?
« Reply #38 on: March 20, 2018, 10:46:52 AM »
I believe 'accurately' is a major point here. The Saros Cycle is only accurate to a point. If I'm not mistaken, to the day. Not the hour, not the minute, as we had accurately predicted using RE calculations for the recent US eclipse. Can the Saros Cycle also accurately predict the path of totality, from the width of it to the length? Again, from my understanding it doesn't get much more accurate than to within an error of a few dozen miles. Far less accurate than we were given using the RE model. So no, it's nowhere near the mark of 'accurate' when compared to the tool that actually was.

NASA uses the Saros cycle.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html

It uses the same tables that have always been used. They just do it to a few more decimal points these days because we have computers and more accurate clocks. We predict eclipses based on period, not some ball mechanics formula that you have all failed to produce. I mean you keep saying we use RET to predict eclipses. Prove it. Show me this globular formula. There isn't one. In fact, it is so hard to do with balls in space, it actually has a name. The three body problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem

As for how accurate, in 1504 Christopher Columbus used the Saros cycle to accurately predict an eclipse. He told natives if they didn't keep giving him and his men food and nice gifts, he'd block out the sun as it would anger God. The natives then observed the sun being blocked out, soiled their grass skirts and loaded his ships with everything he needed. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1504_lunar_eclipse

Columbus used Saros cycle 105. You can see from the table we can ping it to the second! Accuracy is no issue here. Note you get totality info, duration, precise size of shadow, everything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Saros_105

I'd say even then it was so accurate, that you could use the tables to predict an eclipse anywhere on earth to within a few minutes. And that's what NASA does ... the exact same way. The way its been done for 3000 years. This isn't RET. Its a clockwork phenomenon, that is as predictable as the sun rising and setting. Below is a page from the almanac Columbus used. Pretty similar looking tables to wikis offerings today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Zacuto#/media/File:AlmanachPerpetuum.jpg

PS: your recent US eclipse was Saros cycle 145. It will next appear in 2035, but only be fully visible from the middle of the Pacific Ocean. But in 2053 on September 12, it'll be right over Saudi Arabia.  You guys will get it back (remember it moves 120 degrees west each time because of the 8 hours (one third)) in 2071, but it'll only be a partial for you then unless you wander a bit south to Panama.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Saros_145

PPS: Notice how when you pick something even remotely interesting, you get a proper reply. Something a bit less obvious and done to death than spotlight suns or gravity.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2018, 11:34:21 AM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?
« Reply #39 on: March 20, 2018, 12:07:57 PM »
The three body problem has little relevance here, and, despite your clichéd approach, has several well understood solutions.

Satellite mapping is used to improve accuracy of predictions: https://www.space.com/37128-how-to-predict-eclipse-2017-path.html

Insofar as RET is even a thing, satellites are probably part of it. As are WGS84, and lunar rovers.