Non-sky mirror FE

Lord Wilmore you have made comments before that you do not prescribe to the "disk" flat earth.

How, in your model, does the north and South Pole sun cycle work?

I am actually working on this at the moment, but I'd love Parsifal and John Davis to chime in so we can hear what they think.

I'd love Parsifal and John Davis to chime in

Please for the love of God, no!!!

I'd love Parsifal and John Davis to chime in.

I'm imagining something like:

The dinosaurs built the sky-mirror.

hmmm

In Willmore's model the south pole is just a continent at the southern end of the earth. (I believe he said it looks a lot like the flat map of earth.) I was wondering how the sun can appear to never set at the two diffrent poles with this set up.

Quote from: Drdevice on March 03, 2010, 06:21:52 PM

In Willmore's model the south pole is just a continent at the southern end of the earth. (I believe he said it looks a lot like the flat map of earth.) I was wondering how the sun can appear to never set at the two diffrent poles with this set up.

Because how can we be sure that one map is correct? All flat earth maps are equally correct and incorrect. The flat earth has not been measured. All people who go to the south pole are raped by elephants until they die and they are spies for ther conspiracy. Stop derailing this topic. Consider this a warning.

Etc etc etc.

Globe = correct.

All other maps drawn on a 2 dimensional surface [large scale areas] = incorrect. None get you places properly

In Willmore's model the south pole is just a continent at the southern end of the earth. (I believe he said it looks a lot like the flat map of earth.) I was wondering how the sun can appear to never set at the two diffrent poles with this set up.

I keep raising this. No sensible answer has so far been supplied.

In Willmore's model the south pole is just a continent at the southern end of the earth. (I believe he said it looks a lot like the flat map of earth.) I was wondering how the sun can appear to never set at the two diffrent poles with this set up.

The south pole is not a continent in any model of the Earth that I know of.

Also, I have yet to see any reasonable objection to the solar path in Wilmore's model.

Quote from: Drdevice on March 03, 2010, 06:21:52 PM

In Willmore's model the south pole is just a continent at the southern end of the earth. (I believe he said it looks a lot like the flat map of earth.) I was wondering how the sun can appear to never set at the two diffrent poles with this set up.

The south pole is not a continent in any model of the Earth that I know of.

Also, I have yet to see any reasonable objection to the solar path in Wilmore's model.

Your first sentence is directly contradictory to your second sentence, in that you indicate familiarity with the Wilmore model after saying that the south pole is not a continent in any model that you know. Way to go.

I have provided a reasonable objection to the solar path in the Wilmore model by pointing out that at some times of the year the sun has to turn left after passing the equator, and then loop round the south pole, and at other times it will have to turn right and loop round the north pole, and that at the equinox it would have to suddenly flip from following one path to another, causing a sudden overnight difference in the position of the sun. The sun also has to speed up as it passes round the pole. Others have pointed out that the area of illumination of the earth makes no sense in this model too.
So if you haven't seen any reasonable objections to the model, then all it shows is you haven't been reading the forum thoroughly. Go away and read up.

Your first sentence is directly contradictory to your second sentence, in that you indicate familiarity with the Wilmore model after saying that the south pole is not a continent in any model that you know. Way to go.

The south pole is not a continent in Wilmore's FE model.

I have provided a reasonable objection to the solar path in the Wilmore model by pointing out that at some times of the year the sun has to turn left after passing the equator, and then loop round the south pole, and at other times it will have to turn right and loop round the north pole, and that at the equinox it would have to suddenly flip from following one path to another, causing a sudden overnight difference in the position of the sun. The sun also has to speed up as it passes round the pole. Others have pointed out that the area of illumination of the earth makes no sense in this model too.
So if you haven't seen any reasonable objections to the model, then all it shows is you haven't been reading the forum thoroughly. Go away and read up.

The directions "left" and "right" are always measured relative to an observer, and therefore your argument is invalid because it does not define an observer.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 07, 2010, 06:00:54 AM

Your first sentence is directly contradictory to your second sentence, in that you indicate familiarity with the Wilmore model after saying that the south pole is not a continent in any model that you know. Way to go.

The south pole is not a continent in Wilmore's FE model.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 07, 2010, 06:00:54 AM

I have provided a reasonable objection to the solar path in the Wilmore model by pointing out that at some times of the year the sun has to turn left after passing the equator, and then loop round the south pole, and at other times it will have to turn right and loop round the north pole, and that at the equinox it would have to suddenly flip from following one path to another, causing a sudden overnight difference in the position of the sun. The sun also has to speed up as it passes round the pole. Others have pointed out that the area of illumination of the earth makes no sense in this model too.
So if you haven't seen any reasonable objections to the model, then all it shows is you haven't been reading the forum thoroughly. Go away and read up.

The directions "left" and "right" are always measured relative to an observer, and therefore your argument is invalid because it does not define an observer.

1. What is it then?

2. Incorrect. Left and Right are not always relative to an observer.

1. What is it then?

2. Incorrect. Left and Right are not always relative to an observer.

1. A point.

2. Mind providing an example of their use in an absolute sense?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 07, 2010, 06:25:22 AM

1. What is it then?

2. Incorrect. Left and Right are not always relative to an observer.

1. A point.

2. Mind providing an example of their use in an absolute sense?

1.FFS

2. Your left testicle, which I am about to slam with a brick.

Your left testicle, which I am about to slam with a brick.

That is measured relative to myself.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 07, 2010, 06:33:49 AM

Your left testicle, which I am about to slam with a brick.

That is measured relative to myself.

It's still your left testicle to everyone else, regardless of who is observing it and where they are. It is incapable of being your right testicle. Thus disproving your point that left and right are always relative to an observer.
SLAM*squish*

It's still your left testicle to everyone else, regardless of who is observing it and where they are. It is incapable of being your right testicle. Thus disproving your point that left and right are always relative to an observer.
SLAM*squish*

Because, by convention, the orientation of a testicle is measured relative to its owner and not to any other observer.

Well, obviously, in his sentence the observer was the Sun, and the direction it is traveling is East to West, so if it must 'turn' left or right, which way do you think it will go if we try plot it on a projected flat map?


Ofcourse, compared to the projected image of the Earth, it hasn't turned at all but merely stayed on it's normal East to West orbit, but if we look at the map we get it looping all over the place.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 07, 2010, 06:44:36 AM

It's still your left testicle to everyone else, regardless of who is observing it and where they are. It is incapable of being your right testicle. Thus disproving your point that left and right are always relative to an observer.
SLAM*squish*

Because, by convention, the orientation of a testicle is measured relative to its owner and not to any other observer.

Yes, thus disproving your statement that left and right are always variable. Anyway, it doesn't matter which way is left and which is right - the fact is in the Wilmore model the sun has to move in two different directions and flip at the equinox.

Yes, thus disproving your statement that left and right are always variable.

I didn't say they were variable, I said they were relative. Do you need some help?

Anyway, it doesn't matter which way is left and which is right - the fact is in the Wilmore model the sun has to move in two different directions and flip at the equinox.

"Move in two different directions and flip"? Would you mind using some more precise language so I can respond with some degree of accuracy?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 07, 2010, 06:58:38 AM

Yes, thus disproving your statement that left and right are always variable.

I didn't say they were variable, I said they were relative. Do you need some help?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 07, 2010, 06:58:38 AM

Anyway, it doesn't matter which way is left and which is right - the fact is in the Wilmore model the sun has to move in two different directions and flip at the equinox.

"Move in two different directions and flip"? Would you mind using some more precise language so I can respond with some degree of accuracy?

You know perfectly well what I mean. You're back to being the chimpanzee throwing jelly again. If I define what I mean, you'll doubtless go on to "prove your statement of xyz" to which I can respond with evidence for xyz; you then go on to "show source of evidence for xyz is valid" to which I can respond by demonstrating backup evidence; your next move is either "show backup evidence is infallible and cannot be mistaken" or "introduce new derailment item and return to step one".
There is NO POINT responding to anything you say, because your responses to any answers we give you are preset moves like those in a game of chess - the piece you choose depends on the situation.
Here's an example...

TD: The sky is blue
Paedofal: Do you have evidence for this?
TD: I can see it
Paedo: You might perceive it as blue but it actually be another colour.

TD: The sky is blue
Paedofal: Do you have evidence for this?
TD: Other people see it is too.
Paedo: Appeal to majority is no evidence. They might all be wrong.

TD: The sky is blue
Paedofal: Do you have evidence for this?
TD: Scientists have measured the wavelength using a spectrometer and shown the dominant wavelengths to be in the range 440-490nm
Paedo: Can you show me the raw data from this experiment?

TD: The sky is blue
Paedofal: Do you have evidence for this?
TD: Scientists have measured the wavelength using a spectrometer and shown the dominant wavelengths to be in the range 440-490nm, here is the raw data and details of the methods used.
Paedo: The Magic Sky Filter makes the light look blue, it is actually greenish yellow.

TD: The sky is blue
Paedofal: Do you have evidence for this?
TD: Scientists have measured the wavelength using a spectrometer and shown the dominant wavelengths to be in the range 440-490nm, here is the raw data and details of the methods used, and here is some evidence to suggest the Magic Sky Filter is not the cause.
Paedo: The Magic Sky Filter cannot be detected by the method used there because of [insert made up reason here]

TD: The sky is blue
Paedofal: Do you have evidence for this?
TD: Scientists have measured the wavelength using a spectrometer and shown the dominant wavelengths to be in the range 440-490nm, here is the raw data and details of the methods used, and here is some evidence to suggest the Magic Sky Filter is not the cause and some data that would show its existence by a different method as well.
Paedo: How do you know that evidence is correct?
TD: *slams Paedo's other testicle with a brick*

Do you see now why responding to your posts is ALWAYS a waste of time?

Quote from: Parsifal on March 07, 2010, 07:13:37 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 07, 2010, 06:58:38 AM

Yes, thus disproving your statement that left and right are always variable.

I didn't say they were variable, I said they were relative. Do you need some help?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 07, 2010, 06:58:38 AM

Anyway, it doesn't matter which way is left and which is right - the fact is in the Wilmore model the sun has to move in two different directions and flip at the equinox.

"Move in two different directions and flip"? Would you mind using some more precise language so I can respond with some degree of accuracy?

You know perfectly well what I mean. You're back to being the chimpanzee throwing jelly again. If I define what I mean, you'll doubtless go on to "prove your statement of xyz" to which I can respond with evidence for xyz; you then go on to "show source of evidence for xyz is valid" to which I can respond by demonstrating backup evidence; your next move is either "show backup evidence is infallible and cannot be mistaken" or "introduce new derailment item and return to step one".
There is NO POINT responding to anything you say, because your responses to any answers we give you are preset moves like those in a game of chess - the piece you choose depends on the situation.
Here's an example...

TD: The sky is blue
Paedofal: Do you have evidence for this?
TD: I can see it
Paedo: You might perceive it as blue but it actually be another colour.

TD: The sky is blue
Paedofal: Do you have evidence for this?
TD: Other people see it is too.
Paedo: Appeal to majority is no evidence. They might all be wrong.

TD: The sky is blue
Paedofal: Do you have evidence for this?
TD: Scientists have measured the wavelength using a spectrometer and shown the dominant wavelengths to be in the range 440-490nm
Paedo: Can you show me the raw data from this experiment?

TD: The sky is blue
Paedofal: Do you have evidence for this?
TD: Scientists have measured the wavelength using a spectrometer and shown the dominant wavelengths to be in the range 440-490nm, here is the raw data and details of the methods used.
Paedo: The Magic Sky Filter makes the light look blue, it is actually greenish yellow.

TD: The sky is blue
Paedofal: Do you have evidence for this?
TD: Scientists have measured the wavelength using a spectrometer and shown the dominant wavelengths to be in the range 440-490nm, here is the raw data and details of the methods used, and here is some evidence to suggest the Magic Sky Filter is not the cause.
Paedo: The Magic Sky Filter cannot be detected by the method used there because of [insert made up reason here]

TD: The sky is blue
Paedofal: Do you have evidence for this?
TD: Scientists have measured the wavelength using a spectrometer and shown the dominant wavelengths to be in the range 440-490nm, here is the raw data and details of the methods used, and here is some evidence to suggest the Magic Sky Filter is not the cause and some data that would show its existence by a different method as well.
Paedo: How do you know that evidence is correct?
TD: *slams Paedo's other testicle with a brick*

Do you see now why responding to your posts is ALWAYS a waste of time?

Reported this and the other testicle slamming post for being inappropriate. Keep little kid fighting in RM.

It's relevant to the thread, because he accurately described how a post would respond, which indirectly asks "Then how can I prove it to you?"

It's relevant to the thread, because he accurately described how a post would respond, which indirectly asks "Then how can I prove it to you?"

Did I say irrelevant? Testicle slamming doesn't belong in the upper fora.

Testicle slamming doesn't belong in the upper fora.

Reported for memberating.

Stop being fags.