The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Tomm on July 08, 2010, 05:38:00 AM
-
Its in the subject.
-
If the earth is flat, there must be a conspiracy.
-
If the earth is flat, there must be a conspiracy.
That wasn't the question... :P
I want to know why you all spurned the round earth explanations for apparent lack of roundness etc., when the flat earth side (of the argument) is so complicated. ???
-
Oh, I this forum is usually dedicated to conspiracy questions. Sorry.
Most FE'ers claim it's because their zetetic meditation led them to this conclusion. I think many will also refer you to the Bedford Experiment and tell you to read Earth Not A Globe.
Don't let this site fool you though. Most of the FE debators here are actually trolls and doesn't really believe in a FE.
-
Oh, I this forum is usually dedicated to conspiracy questions. Sorry.
Most FE'ers claim it's because their zetetic meditation led them to this conclusion. I think many will also refer you to the Bedford Experiment and tell you to read Earth Not A Globe.
Don't let this site fool you though. Most of the FE debators here are actually trolls and doesn't really believe in a FE.
No problem ;D
Although, I never realised that zetetic meditation could count as a scientific method...
Well, good luck to FEers proving their theories...
-
Zeteticism is considered more correct by FE'ers than the scientific method.
-
Zeteticism is considered more correct by FE'ers than the scientific method.
It's also considered more retarded by the general population.
-
Zeteticism is considered more correct by FE'ers than the scientific method.
It's also considered more retarded by the general population.
sounds to me like they bumped their head on the ice wall.
-
Zeteticism is considered more correct by FE'ers than the scientific method.
It's also considered more retarded by the general population.
Actually it's considered not at all by the general population.
-
Zeteticism is considered more correct by FE'ers than the scientific method.
It's also considered more retarded by the general population.
Actually it's considered not at all by the general population.
The troll population has gone down tho. When I was here over a year ago, there wer way less anti-trolls. I take this as further evidence that their are very few actual believers, as most trolls give up circa 1000 posts or fewer
-
The easiest way to determine the earth is not round is to simply view the data. From there, later one comes to the realization that the most reasonable model in lieu of this is that the earth is flat.
-
The easiest way to determine the earth is not round is to simply view the data. From there, later one comes to the realization that the most reasonable model in lieu of this is that the earth is flat.
This is incorrect. Most people view the data as seeing that the earth is round.
I haven't yet seen a single post that says why the earth can't be round. All I have seen is lol theories, that talk about how gravity is impossible and how a round Earth would violate the laws of motion. Oh yeah, lets not forget that because in some abstract mathematical constructs, that addition changes so that 1+1=1, that means the earth can't be round, or that because birds don't take the great circle, the earth can't be round
-
The easiest way to determine the earth is not round is to simply view the data. From there, later one comes to the realization that the most reasonable model in lieu of this is that the earth is flat.
This is incorrect. Most people view the data as seeing that the earth is round.
I haven't yet seen a single post that says why the earth can't be round. All I have seen is lol theories, that talk about how gravity is impossible and how a round Earth would violate the laws of motion
Simply measure gravitational pull fairly at different altitudes, visit rock city, or visit the bedford canal.
-
The easiest way to determine the earth is not round is to simply view the data. From there, later one comes to the realization that the most reasonable model in lieu of this is that the earth is flat.
This is incorrect. Most people view the data as seeing that the earth is round.
I haven't yet seen a single post that says why the earth can't be round. All I have seen is lol theories, that talk about how gravity is impossible and how a round Earth would violate the laws of motion
Simply measure gravitational pull fairly at different altitudes, visit rock city, or visit the bedford canal.
other people have done these expirements, and came up with the fact that the earth is round. Also, other people have say, gone to th south pole. FEH relies on denial of modern science. I've only denied a bunch of 19th century books
-
Here is an experiment for John to try:
Visit Norway(Next summer since you probably won't be able to have the funds for a trip in time) sometime between june 12-july 1.
From there you should be able to observe the Midnight sun.
Seeing as this isn't possible on the Icewall model(or any other model i have seen) it is a disproof for FE.
-
Here is an experiment for John to try:
Visit Norway(Next summer since you probably won't be able to have the funds for a trip in time) sometime between june 12-july 1.
From there you should be able to observe the Midnight sun.
Seeing as this isn't possible on the Icewall model(or any other model i have seen) it is a disproof for FE.
Actually, John is also developing a model to explain phenomona associated with light, currently known as Aetheric Eddification Theory. I'm sure he has considered light distribution at the poles as part of this.
-
Indeed I have, and have gathered first hand data from the widdershins of our little home.
-
Here is an experiment for John to try:
Visit Norway(Next summer since you probably won't be able to have the funds for a trip in time) sometime between june 12-july 1.
From there you should be able to observe the Midnight sun.
Seeing as this isn't possible on the Icewall model(or any other model i have seen) it is a disproof for FE.
Actually, John is also developing a model to explain phenomona associated with light, currently known as Aetheric Eddification Theory. I'm sure he has considered light distribution at the poles as part of this.
Color me surprised... Does John have a theory for light at both poles? Even for when the Sun appears from the opposite direction and from beyond the Rim? Wow! That'll be something to read!
-
You join the growing ranks who eagerly await John's forthcoming work.
-
You join the growing ranks who eagerly await John's forthcoming work.
I'm just thrilled to see that FET now has two poles, just as any REer would be!
-
In the model I support, the Earth actually does have two poles in a sense recognisable to RE'ers. I believe John subscribes to the traditional FE configuration, so forgive me if I lapsed into terminology more suited to my geographic model than his.
-
In the model I support, the Earth actually does have two poles in a sense recognisable to RE'ers. I believe John subscribes to the traditional FE configuration, so forgive me if I lapsed into terminology more suited to my geographic model than his.
Really where is the other pole in the model you support?
-
Here is an experiment for John to try:
Visit Norway(Next summer since you probably won't be able to have the funds for a trip in time) sometime between june 12-july 1.
From there you should be able to observe the Midnight sun.
Seeing as this isn't possible on the Icewall model(or any other model i have seen) it is a disproof for FE.
Actually, John is also developing a model to explain phenomona associated with light, currently known as Aetheric Eddification Theory. I'm sure he has considered light distribution at the poles as part of this.
Then i await his data.
Indeed I have, and have gathered first hand data from the widdershins of our little home.
Although....
Define Aether and Widdershins,i have no idea what these are.
-
In the model I support, the Earth actually does have two poles in a sense recognisable to RE'ers. I believe John subscribes to the traditional FE configuration, so forgive me if I lapsed into terminology more suited to my geographic model than his.
Really where is the other pole in the model you support?
Depends what kind of pole you're talking about, but if geographic, then one is the Arctic and the other is in Antarctica. You can find a rough representation of this model in the FAQ.
-
Here is an experiment for John to try:
Visit Norway(Next summer since you probably won't be able to have the funds for a trip in time) sometime between june 12-july 1.
From there you should be able to observe the Midnight sun.
Seeing as this isn't possible on the Icewall model(or any other model i have seen) it is a disproof for FE.
Actually, John is also developing a model to explain phenomona associated with light, currently known as Aetheric Eddification Theory. I'm sure he has considered light distribution at the poles as part of this.
Then i await his data.
Indeed I have, and have gathered first hand data from the widdershins of our little home.
Although....
Define Aether and Widdershins,i have no idea what these are.
Apologies, widdershins is not the correct term. Brain fart. I meant rimward.
-
Here is an experiment for John to try:
Visit Norway(Next summer since you probably won't be able to have the funds for a trip in time) sometime between june 12-july 1.
From there you should be able to observe the Midnight sun.
Seeing as this isn't possible on the Icewall model(or any other model i have seen) it is a disproof for FE.
Actually, John is also developing a model to explain phenomona associated with light, currently known as Aetheric Eddification Theory. I'm sure he has considered light distribution at the poles as part of this.
I would like to point out that this is exactly what FE does:
It takes something that is impossible on a Flat Earth and makes up some theory to explain it away. Aetheric Eddification Theory doesn't even make sense. If I'm reading it right (because eddification isn't a word) you're theory is that Aether has flows that go against the normal flow of Aether. This doesn't explain anything as Aether is said to be a colorless, tasteless, intangible medium that light goes through. Or it was until it was disproven.
-
The easiest way to determine the earth is not round is to simply view the data. From there, later one comes to the realization that the most reasonable model in lieu of this is that the earth is flat.
I've watched the sun set below the horizon a number of times and I have yet to see an FE model from any FE'er (including you) that explains this phenomenon better and more simply than the standard round earth model.
-
Well well. Another theory that just takes reality and the predictions of a round earth, and forces them to happen on a flat earth. Just let it be known that I was inb4 bendy space and bendy magnetic field lines, and infinite loop plane theory
-
In the model I support, the Earth actually does have two poles in a sense recognisable to RE'ers. I believe John subscribes to the traditional FE configuration, so forgive me if I lapsed into terminology more suited to my geographic model than his.
Really where is the other pole in the model you support?
Depends what kind of pole you're talking about, but if geographic, then one is the Arctic and the other is in Antarctica. You can find a rough representation of this model in the FAQ.
Do tell me where. I don't see two poles in any diagram in the FAQ. Thanks.
Definitions of pole on the Web:
- a long (usually round) rod of wood or metal or plastic
- a native or inhabitant of Poland
- one of two divergent or mutually exclusive opinions; "they are at opposite poles"; "they are poles apart"
- perch: a linear measure of 16.5 feet
- perch: a square rod of land
- one of two points of intersection of the Earth's axis and the celestial sphere
- punt: propel with a pole; "pole barges on the river"; "We went punting in Cambridge"
- terminal: a contact on an electrical device (such as a battery) at which electric current enters or leaves
- support on poles; "pole climbing plants like beans"
- a long fiberglass sports implement used for pole vaulting
- deoxidize molten metals by stirring them with a wooden pole
- one of the two ends of a magnet where the magnetism seems to be concentrated
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn - DNA polymerase epsilon catalytic subunit A is an enzyme that in humans is encoded by the POLE gene.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POLE - In the mathematical field of complex analysis, a pole of a meromorphic function is a certain type of singularity that behaves like the singularity of at z = 0. This means that, in particular, a pole of the function f(z) is a point a such that f(z) approaches infinity as z approaches a.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_(complex_analysis) - The rod is a unit of length equal to 5.5 yards, 5.0292 metres, 16.5 feet, or of a statute mile. A rod is the same length as a perch and a pole. The lengths of the perch (one rod) and chain (four rods) were standardized in 1607 by Edmund Gunter. In old English, the term lug is also used.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_(unit_of_length)
-
Or it was until it was disproven.
When did that happen?
-
Do tell me where. I don't see two poles in any diagram in the FAQ. Thanks.
Uh, in the FAQ. A link is provided in the 'Geography' section. Unless of course you're trying to make some ridiculous pedantic point. Anyway, the map is linked in the FAQ, so go read it.
-
Do tell me where. I don't see two poles in any diagram in the FAQ. Thanks.
Uh, in the FAQ. A link is provided in the 'Geography' section. Unless of course you're trying to make some ridiculous pedantic point. Anyway, the map is linked in the FAQ, so go read it.
I still don't see two poles in any map. I guess you don't understand what a 'pole' is. I did provide the definition here lately. It's amazing how you use words with such fickleness.
-
Ah, so you are just making some stupid point of pedantry. When you're ready to have an adult discussion, let me know.
-
Ah, so you are just making some stupid point of pedantry. When you're ready to have an adult discussion, let me know.
So you resort to name calling when caught in an error... That's good to know. An adult admits his (or her) error. So despite what you wrote all FET models of the FE have only one geographic pole, right?
-
So you resort to name calling when caught in an error... That's good to know. An adult admits his (or her) error.
I don't believe I've called you any names, even if I have made judicious use of certain adjectives.
So despite what you wrote all FET models of the FE have only one geographic pole, right?
No, the model I support has two geographic poles. Please read the FAQ.
-
So you resort to name calling when caught in an error... That's good to know. An adult admits his (or her) error.
I don't believe I've called you any names, even if I have made judicious use of certain adjectives.
So despite what you wrote all FET models of the FE have only one geographic pole, right?
No, the model I support has two geographic poles. Please read the FAQ.
So much for your statement about not caring about speculative model, huh? The FAQ doesn't tell which model you support or where the second geographical pole is. Maybe you speculate that it's on the underside of the FE.
-
No, I don't. One geopgraphic pole is in the Arctic, and the other is in Antarctica, as per the map which is linked to in the FAQ.
-
No, I don't. One geopgraphic pole is in the Arctic, and the other is in Antarctica, as per the map which is linked to in the FAQ.
You mean this map? http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/1zyzfxf.png
If so, then could you tell me how we can circumnavigate the earth around the equator? Also it would be nice to know how the sun "moves" with that map to create the day'n'night cycle we have here on earth.
-
The easiest way to determine the earth is not round is to simply view the data. From there, later one comes to the realization that the most reasonable model in lieu of this is that the earth is flat.
Where is all this DATA people keep talking about? Flat Earth is an a priori argument, period.
-
The easiest way to determine the earth is not round is to simply view the data. From there, later one comes to the realization that the most reasonable model in lieu of this is that the earth is flat.
Where is all this DATA people keep talking about? Flat Earth is an a priori argument, period.
I also have to ask, "Do you guys have another language you use, kind of like the Alien League on Waveryly Place?" Widdershins and adderwall and whatsahooits, and pungicallies, and doofensmirtz? What the???? I don't get it... ::)
-
I also have to ask, "Do you guys have another language you use, kind of like the Alien League on Waveryly Place?" Widdershins and adderwall and whatsahooits, and pungicallies, and doofensmirtz? What the???? I don't get it... ::)
What?
-
The easiest way to determine the earth is not round is to simply view the data. From there, later one comes to the realization that the most reasonable model in lieu of this is that the earth is flat.
Where is all this DATA people keep talking about? Flat Earth is an a priori argument, period.
I also have to ask, "Do you guys have another language you use, kind of like the Alien League on Waveryly Place?" Widdershins and adderwall and whatsahooits, and pungicallies, and doofensmirtz? What the???? I don't get it... ::)
Widdershins is English.
-
I apologize old chaps, but what data are you referring to? Perhaps I am simply just not as enlightened as such brilliant gentleman such as yourselves, but i don't suppose you were referring to this data?
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/datasheet.prl
http://www.iris.edu/data/
http://edc2.usgs.gov/geodata/index.php
http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds11/kb.html
definitely not, as all this supports a spheroidal earth...
what ever could you be referring to?
-
No, I don't. One geopgraphic pole is in the Arctic, and the other is in Antarctica, as per the map which is linked to in the FAQ.
You mean this map? http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/1zyzfxf.png
If so, then could you tell me how we can circumnavigate the earth around the equator?
The 'equator' is a fiction of erroneous RE geography.
Also it would be nice to know how the sun "moves" with that map to create the day'n'night cycle we have here on earth.
I can't tell you how the sun moves, because I believe that light bends, and thus the apparent movements of the Sun may not be its actual movements. However, I can give you an image which shows the rough distribution of light in such a model (though you should ignore the Sun's movements as depicted in the following image):
(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b382/qpiine/Flat%20Earth/equinox-1.gif)
-
No, I don't. One geopgraphic pole is in the Arctic, and the other is in Antarctica, as per the map which is linked to in the FAQ.
You mean this map? http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/1zyzfxf.png
If so, then could you tell me how we can circumnavigate the earth around the equator?
The 'equator' is a fiction of erroneous RE geography.
Also it would be nice to know how the sun "moves" with that map to create the day'n'night cycle we have here on earth.
I can't tell you how the sun moves, because I believe that light bends, and thus the apparent movements of the Sun may not be its actual movements. However, I can give you an image which shows the rough distribution of light in such a model (though you should ignore the Sun's movements as depicted in the following image):
(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b382/qpiine/Flat%20Earth/equinox-1.gif)
So I can't reach, let's say japan, from panama by flying west?
-
Of course you can. Why couldn't you?
-
Of course you can. Why couldn't you?
Because I would havean icewall blocking my way
-
Of course you can. Why couldn't you?
Because I would havean icewall blocking my way
What? ???
You've lost me here - there is no ice wall in that model. Also, are you aware that west != left?
-
Of course you can. Why couldn't you?
Because I would havean icewall blocking my way
What? ???
You've lost me here - there is no ice wall in that model. Also, are you aware that west != left?
Yes, west is left, when I go "left" from panama I hit the edge of the disc before I ever reach japan
-
West is a direction which is either defined in terms of geographic north, or if we're talking about a compass, relative to magnetic north. It is not 'left'.
-
!= means "is not equal to".
-
!= means "is not equal to".
Really? I was confused by that too. I thought =/= was "is not equal to"...
-
!= means "is not equal to".
Really? I was confused by that too. I thought =/= was "is not equal to"...
!= is the not equals sign in C and similar programming languages.
-
I wasn't confused by !=, I was merely contradciting him. If I stand in panama west corresponds to left on the map he presented.
-
I wasn't confused by !=, I was merely contradciting him. If I stand in panama west corresponds to left on the map he presented.
The trick in that projection is that the parallel wraps around the "top" or "bottom" of the map. So by following around the parallel and ignoring the position of the Sun, the distance traveled, temperatures encountered, and a few other facts, by going west you end up on the far side of the Earth again. One parallel, the Equator, doesn't seems to be able to do that. So he can't explain how the Sun on the Equinoxes gets back for the 'next day'. I think we can all agree that this model of FE is one of the worst, being unable to explain the motion of the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars, the confinement of the atmosphere, and the reason we can't find the edge (This model has no ice wall.).
-
Which means we are back at sqaure one: There is no map of a FE with two poles.
-
That map makes no sense. During the equinox, the sun is only overhead at the equator, meaning that it must move in a circle.
-
That map makes no sense. During the equinox, the sun is only overhead at the equator, meaning that it must move in a circle.
You should note the laughable discontinuity too. The lit area instantaneously jumps from the 'left' side to the 'right' side as the Sun move across from right to left and then suddenly back to the right side. Just how easy it would be to do an experiment to verify this. It's a shame that FEers continue to speculate rather than experiment.
-
Of course you can. Why couldn't you?
Because I would havean icewall blocking my way
What? ???
You've lost me here - there is no ice wall in that model. Also, are you aware that west != left?
Yes, west is left, when I go "left" from panama I hit the edge of the disc before I ever reach japan
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Circumnavigation
-
Of course you can. Why couldn't you?
Because I would havean icewall blocking my way
What? ???
You've lost me here - there is no ice wall in that model. Also, are you aware that west != left?
Yes, west is left, when I go "left" from panama I hit the edge of the disc before I ever reach japan
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Circumnavigation
Please ignore Tom's post. He didn't notice that we're discussing a different model. Thanks.
-
Of course you can. Why couldn't you?
Because I would havean icewall blocking my way
What? ???
You've lost me here - there is no ice wall in that model. Also, are you aware that west != left?
Yes, west is left, when I go "left" from panama I hit the edge of the disc before I ever reach japan
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Circumnavigation
Please ignore Tom's post. He didn't notice that we're discussing a different model. Thanks.
The mechanism on that page still applies to this model. East and West are circles around the North Pole.
-
Of course you can. Why couldn't you?
Because I would havean icewall blocking my way
What? ???
You've lost me here - there is no ice wall in that model. Also, are you aware that west != left?
Yes, west is left, when I go "left" from panama I hit the edge of the disc before I ever reach japan
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Circumnavigation
Please ignore Tom's post. He didn't notice that we're discussing a different model. Thanks.
The mechanism on that page still applies to this model. East and West are circles around the North Pole.
No, that's wrong. South of the Equator east and west are circles about the South Pole. And East and West aren't continuously defined for the Equator. Please continue to ignore Tom's posts. Thanks.
-
Of course you can. Why couldn't you?
Because I would havean icewall blocking my way
What? ???
You've lost me here - there is no ice wall in that model. Also, are you aware that west != left?
Yes, west is left, when I go "left" from panama I hit the edge of the disc before I ever reach japan
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Circumnavigation
Please ignore Tom's post. He didn't notice that we're discussing a different model. Thanks.
The mechanism on that page still applies to this model. East and West are circles around the North Pole.
No, that's wrong. South of the Equator east and west are circles about the South Pole. And East and West aren't continuously defined for the Equator. Please continue to ignore Tom's posts. Thanks.
I thought that was a given when you sign up to this forum, are the newbies not being warned to ignore him already?
Note: I wish FE would try to stick to one FE model, would make us proving them wrong so much simpler.
Is the Ice wall theory still accepted or no?
-
That map makes no sense. During the equinox, the sun is only overhead at the equator, meaning that it must move in a circle.
You should note the laughable discontinuity too. The lit area instantaneously jumps from the 'left' side to the 'right' side as the Sun move across from right to left and then suddenly back to the right side. Just how easy it would be to do an experiment to verify this. It's a shame that FEers continue to speculate rather than experiment.
Yeah I was thinking about that.
But I guess you have to picture it like this: In Tom's mind the Earth is undeniably flat. So any observations must fit that model. Therefore his wacko elliptical curve Sun MUST be correct.
-
Of course you can. Why couldn't you?
Because I would havean icewall blocking my way
What? ???
You've lost me here - there is no ice wall in that model. Also, are you aware that west != left?
Yes, west is left, when I go "left" from panama I hit the edge of the disc before I ever reach japan
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Circumnavigation
Please ignore Tom's post. He didn't notice that we're discussing a different model. Thanks.
The mechanism on that page still applies to this model. East and West are circles around the North Pole.
Tom please STFU and look at the model we are using in this thread. It is getting really annoying when you burst in with ludicrous claims like that if it isn't even on topic. The model provided can not have the same mechanism.
-
I wasn't confused by !=, I was merely contradciting him. If I stand in panama west corresponds to left on the map he presented.
No, it doesn't. West is defined relative to North.
The trick in that projection is that the parallel wraps around the "top" or "bottom" of the map. So by following around the parallel and ignoring the position of the Sun, the distance traveled, temperatures encountered, and a few other facts, by going west you end up on the far side of the Earth again. One parallel, the Equator, doesn't seems to be able to do that. So he can't explain how the Sun on the Equinoxes gets back for the 'next day'. I think we can all agree that this model of FE is one of the worst, being unable to explain the motion of the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars, the confinement of the atmosphere, and the reason we can't find the edge (This model has no ice wall.).
Luckily I don't have to worry about what parallel's can or can't do, because they are imaginary lines. Additionally, I would be grateful if you could explain why this model is worse than the standard model just because it does not invent an ice wall in order to provide a reason for these things. This model is perfectly compatible with an ice wall, I simply think it ridiculous to presume one exists when there is no evidence.
Which means we are back at sqaure one: There is no map of a FE with two poles.
What? Even if you have issues with that map, I don't see how you can claim it doesn't exist.
That map makes no sense. During the equinox, the sun is only overhead at the equator, meaning that it must move in a circle.
You should note the laughable discontinuity too. The lit area instantaneously jumps from the 'left' side to the 'right' side as the Sun move across from right to left and then suddenly back to the right side. Just how easy it would be to do an experiment to verify this. It's a shame that FEers continue to speculate rather than experiment.
Actually, what we should probably laugh at is your inability to read:
I can give you an image which shows the rough distribution of light in such a model (though you should ignore the Sun's movements as depicted in the following image):
www.rif.org
Tom please STFU and look at the model we are using in this thread. It is getting really annoying when you burst in with ludicrous claims like that if it isn't even on topic. The model provided can not have the same mechanism.
Actually, Tom is 100% correct, and the point he is making is 100% relevant. You guys simply do not seem to understand that west is defined relative to north. The 'equator' is an imaginary line that does not exist; FET does not need to accomodate a fiction which assumes a RE.
-
I wasn't confused by !=, I was merely contradciting him. If I stand in panama west corresponds to left on the map he presented.
No, it doesn't. West is defined relative to North.
The trick in that projection is that the parallel wraps around the "top" or "bottom" of the map. So by following around the parallel and ignoring the position of the Sun, the distance traveled, temperatures encountered, and a few other facts, by going west you end up on the far side of the Earth again. One parallel, the Equator, doesn't seems to be able to do that. So he can't explain how the Sun on the Equinoxes gets back for the 'next day'. I think we can all agree that this model of FE is one of the worst, being unable to explain the motion of the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars, the confinement of the atmosphere, and the reason we can't find the edge (This model has no ice wall.).
Luckily I don't have to worry about what parallel's can or can't do, because they are imaginary lines. Additionally, I would be grateful if you could explain why this model is worse than the standard model just because it does not invent an ice wall in order to provide a reason for these things. This model is perfectly compatible with an ice wall, I simply think it ridiculous to presume one exists when there is no evidence.
Which means we are back at sqaure one: There is no map of a FE with two poles.
What? Even if you have issues with that map, I don't see how you can claim it doesn't exist.
That map makes no sense. During the equinox, the sun is only overhead at the equator, meaning that it must move in a circle.
You should note the laughable discontinuity too. The lit area instantaneously jumps from the 'left' side to the 'right' side as the Sun move across from right to left and then suddenly back to the right side. Just how easy it would be to do an experiment to verify this. It's a shame that FEers continue to speculate rather than experiment.
Actually, what we should probably laugh at is your inability to read:
I can give you an image which shows the rough distribution of light in such a model (though you should ignore the Sun's movements as depicted in the following image):
www.rif.org
Tom please STFU and look at the model we are using in this thread. It is getting really annoying when you burst in with ludicrous claims like that if it isn't even on topic. The model provided can not have the same mechanism.
Actually, Tom is 100% correct, and the point he is making is 100% relevant. You guys simply do not seem to understand that west is defined relative to north. The 'equator' is an imaginary line that does not exist; FET does not need to accomodate a fiction which assumes a RE.
You're making it blatantly obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about.
-
What, you think that west is a heading independent of north? Have you ever held a compass? Given that magnetic north actually moves around, do you think people would be able to navigate with a compass if west was just 'take a left at Panama'?
-
What, you think that west is a heading independent of north? Have you ever held a compass? Given that magnetic north actually moves around, do you think people would be able to navigate with a compass if west was just 'take a left at Panama'?
No, but when I stand on the "left-coast" of panama my compass shows that west corresponds to "left" on your map. Are you trying to tell me my compass is spazzing?
EDIT: Your posts still haven't validated your map, just thought I should point that out since you will most likely tear out a single comment and attack it to distract from a flawed map.
-
The trick in that projection is that the parallel wraps around the "top" or "bottom" of the map. So by following around the parallel and ignoring the position of the Sun, the distance traveled, temperatures encountered, and a few other facts, by going west you end up on the far side of the Earth again. One parallel, the Equator, doesn't seems to be able to do that. So he can't explain how the Sun on the Equinoxes gets back for the 'next day'. I think we can all agree that this model of FE is one of the worst, being unable to explain the motion of the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars, the confinement of the atmosphere, and the reason we can't find the edge (This model has no ice wall.).
Luckily I don't have to worry about what parallel's can or can't do, because they are imaginary lines. Additionally, I would be grateful if you could explain why this model is worse than the standard model just because it does not invent an ice wall in order to provide a reason for these things. This model is perfectly compatible with an ice wall, I simply think it ridiculous to presume one exists when there is no evidence.
Let me try to explain again. The model that you support fails to explain the reason that a person cannot find the edge. Your model fails to explain how a person, or the Sun, traveling west along the Equator ends back on the "left" side of the model. This model is not compatible with the Ice Wall in that no ice has been observed in the middle of the Pacific Ocean at 0o, 180o.
In your model, for example, in December, the Sun would appear to travel along a path around the South Pole. An observer traveling west on the 5o N parallel would travel around the North Pole. Somehow the Sun would still have to illuminate the observer even though they're far apart and the intervening North Pole would be in darkness.
-
That map makes no sense. During the equinox, the sun is only overhead at the equator, meaning that it must move in a circle.
You should note the laughable discontinuity too. The lit area instantaneously jumps from the 'left' side to the 'right' side as the Sun move across from right to left and then suddenly back to the right side. Just how easy it would be to do an experiment to verify this. It's a shame that FEers continue to speculate rather than experiment.
Actually, what we should probably laugh at is your inability to read:
I can give you an image which shows the rough distribution of light in such a model (though you should ignore the Sun's movements as depicted in the following image):
You might want to reread our comments yourself. We do understand that you can't provide a sensible description of the Sun's movements. Indeed, I believe we've made a point of it. Our comments are on the discontinuity of the distribution of light as the Sun needs to illuminate both the left and right sides of the map at the same time in order to match reality. The failure of this model to match reality with nothing more than 'light bends' is laughable.
Look at the required distribution of light at noon in Honolulu in March. The Sun must be illuminating areas at the top, bottom, left, and right, while not illuminating Africa. To an observer toward the top of the North Pole, the Sun must appear to the South, as in away from the North Pole. Indeed an observer at the top of the map would find that traveling up the map takes them off the edge of the world, not towards the South Pole.