The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: RoundEarth101 on April 06, 2010, 04:31:34 PM
-
If earth was flat woundnt the climates all be the same. Like how do explain the equator and a ice wall is impossible if the earth was flat because the climates would all be like the equator.
-
Magical sun movements, angles, and what-not.
-
If earth was flat woundnt the climates all be the same. Like how do explain the equator and a ice wall is impossible if the earth was flat because the climates would all be like the equator.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Temperature+Variations
-
Ah, I love it when Bishop posts links to FE wiki pages.
-
Especially when he links to pages that he wrote. It's as if he's declaring himself an authority.
-
Especially when he links to pages that he wrote. It's as if he's declaring himself an authority.
Of course he is. Don't you know that anyone who writes on a Wiki is an expert?
-
Looking at Tom Bishops link....
Why would the Sun sometimes focus light down and sometimes focus light on an angle?
That doesn't make any sense.
-
Looking at Tom Bishops link....
Why would the Sun sometimes focus light down and sometimes focus light on an angle?
That doesn't make any sense.
Bendy Light makes it work because Bendy light bends light based on whatever it needs to bend to make it work.
Makes sense doesn't it?
-
Looking at Tom Bishops link....
Why would the Sun sometimes focus light down and sometimes focus light on an angle?
That doesn't make any sense.
Well not only that but he forgets that north of the equator is winter when south is summer. So maybe he can explain why a sun directly over the equator would be hotter to one side of the equator and cooler on the other.
Maybe he can also explain why the sun is round from wherever you look at it and maybe he can also explain why the winter sun looks lower in the sky than the summer sun?
Over to you Tom Bishop.
(Guys how can I insert a jpeg? I added a few things to Toms picture in his link lol)
-
Looking at Tom Bishops link....
Why would the Sun sometimes focus light down and sometimes focus light on an angle?
That doesn't make any sense.
Well not only that but he forgets that north of the equator is winter when south is summer. So maybe he can explain why a sun directly over the equator would be hotter to one side of the equator and cooler on the other.
Maybe he can also explain why the sun is round from wherever you look at it and maybe he can also explain why the winter sun looks lower in the sky than the summer sun?
Over to you Tom Bishop.
*Tom Bishop Impression*
Read the Wiki then read "Earth Not a Globe".
*end Tom Bishop Impression*
-
(http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/c/8/9/9/highres_14211353.jpeg)
Tom I add a few things to your diagram and suddenly it makes no sense! Maybe you can solve the mysteries, esp as Melbourne and Tokyo are equidistant either side of the equator? Also days are longer in summer and shorter in Winter. You might wanna rethink your theory on Temperarture Variations then, yes?
-
(http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/c/8/9/9/highres_14211353.jpeg)
Tom I add a few things to your diagram and suddenly it makes no sense! Maybe you can solve the mysteries, esp as Melbourne and Tokyo are equidistant either side of the equator?
Well, for starters, in FET the sun is not over the equator in the northern hemiplane summer.
-
Well, for starters, in FET the sun is not over the equator in the northern hemiplane summer.
It's NOT! But Tom clearly says the where the sun points down it is hottest. That has to be the equator.
He writes;
"The question, "why is the equator warmer than the poles" may be answered by the following illustration:--
When sunlight shines from overhead (on left), one square foot of sunlight falls on one square foot of ground. When it shines at a shallow angle (on right), each square foot of sunlight spreads out over many feet of ground."
Now is he going to say that the hottest parts of the planet are not indeed the equator?
-
Well, for starters, in FET the sun is not over the equator in the northern hemiplane summer.
It's NOT! But Tom clearly says the where the sun points down it is hottest. That has to be the equator.
He writes;
"The question, "why is the equator warmer than the poles" may be answered by the following illustration:--
When sunlight shines from overhead (on left), one square foot of sunlight falls on one square foot of ground. When it shines at a shallow angle (on right), each square foot of sunlight spreads out over many feet of ground."
Now is he going to say that the hottest parts of the planet are not indeed the equator?
The equator is closest to the sun during the middle of spring/autumn. The tropics are the closest points in their respective summers.
-
The equator is closest to the sun during the middle of spring/autumn. The tropics are the closest points in their respective summers.
We know that because we understand the earth's orbit around the sun. But by Tom's diagram it would be impossible for Tokyo and Australia to have the different seasonal mean temperatures that we know they do have, given the equator between them. If the sun does shift north (which it would have to a fair way given the reduced size of the FET sun) then Australia would snow over in winter.
-
The equator is closest to the sun during the middle of spring/autumn. The tropics are the closest points in their respective summers.
We know that because we understand the earth's orbit around the sun. But by Tom's diagram it would be impossible for Tokyo and Australia to have the different seasonal mean temperatures that we know they do have, given the equator between them. If the sun does shift north (which it would have to a fair way given the reduced size of the FET sun) then Australia would snow over in winter.
You're making assumptions about the FE sun's size and distance and effects thereof. Don't.
-
The equator is closest to the sun during the middle of spring/autumn. The tropics are the closest points in their respective summers.
We know that because we understand the earth's orbit around the sun. But by Tom's diagram it would be impossible for Tokyo and Australia to have the different seasonal mean temperatures that we know they do have, given the equator between them. If the sun does shift north (which it would have to a fair way given the reduced size of the FET sun) then Australia would snow over in winter.
You're making assumptions about the FE sun's size and distance and effects thereof. Don't.
I don't know, the Tom Bishop universe clearly has the sun at 32 miles wide at a height of 300,000 miles.
-
*Tom Bishop Impression*
Read the Wiki then read "Earth Not a Globe".
*end Tom Bishop Impression*
Tell us honestly: have you done either?
(http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/c/8/9/9/highres_14211353.jpeg)
Tom I add a few things to your diagram and suddenly it makes no sense! Maybe you can solve the mysteries, esp as Melbourne and Tokyo are equidistant either side of the equator? Also days are longer in summer and shorter in Winter. You might wanna rethink your theory on Temperarture Variations then, yes?
What's hilarious about this is that having made a big song and dance about how Tom just refers people to the wiki, Earth Not a Globe and the FAQ, RE'ers show exactly why they need to do all these things.
-
What's hilarious about this is that having made a big song and dance about how Tom just refers people to the wiki, Earth Not a Globe and the FAQ, RE'ers show exactly why they need to do all these things.
Err seeing as part of that diagram came from Toms Wiki, yes I have been there. In fact it is so child like in it's science that my whole reason fro being here is to show just how dumb it is. See no FEer can argue the point on the mapping thing because I KNOW what I'm talking about. So you resort to playground ridicule instead of for example developing a mathematical counter arguement to something like say Gnomonic projection. Tell you what...why don't you tell me why that couldn't possible work even though it does?
-
*Tom Bishop Impression*
Read the Wiki then read "Earth Not a Globe".
*end Tom Bishop Impression*
Tell us honestly: have you done either?
I've read some of the entries. Not all of them in one sitting but I've looked for some things in there.
I tried reading "Earth is not a Globe" and didn't get past the first chapter before I realized that this was going to be nothing more than someone justifying their observations with whatever he wanted.
-
This is what drives me mad. I have no problems with anyone presenting alternate ideas but when it's based on poor or unproven science and then defended no matter what, then it's going to always be difficult to win any kind of scientific debate. And by win I mean any kind of concession that there are aspects of RET that are true. Even more annoying is the unwillingness of some FEers to put anything to the test. In another thread Raa is at least attempting to form some kind of experiment/ process to create a working flat earth map. I'm even happy to participate because the data collection methods are straightforward. He at least is willing to see for himself if the maths can produce a flat earth map that works, instead of parrot fashion, insisting the world is flat because TB's wiki says it is.
-
Or,how about tom just cites the book in an arguement.It makes no sense to tell people to read an entire book when you can save them time like that.especially when its a book that writes about heaven and hell.
-
Or,how about tom just cites the book in an arguement.It makes no sense to tell people to read an entire book when you can save them time like that.especially when its a book that writes about heaven and hell.
And you'd think that, with the most entries into the Wiki, that he'd be an expert on the subject and be able to point us to the exact entry we need to read.
-
Toms Wiki entries are all bullshit though. Everythinhg he says is just hot gas.
-
Toms Wiki entries are all bullshit though. Everythinhg he says is just hot gas.
Sooo....
Can we shoot him into space?
-
Toms Wiki entries are all bullshit though. Everythinhg he says is just hot gas.
Sooo....
Can we shoot him into space?
Yes plz!
-
Toms Wiki entries are all bullshit though. Everythinhg he says is just hot gas.
Sooo....
Can we shoot him into space?
Yes plz!
No becuase his entertainment value is priceless. Whenever I see he's posted I just have to read it lol.
-
Err seeing as part of that diagram came from Toms Wiki, yes I have been there. In fact it is so child like in it's science that my whole reason fro being here is to show just how dumb it is. See no FEer can argue the point on the mapping thing because I KNOW what I'm talking about. So you resort to playground ridicule instead of for example developing a mathematical counter arguement to something like say Gnomonic projection. Tell you what...why don't you tell me why that couldn't possible work even though it does?
Implication: in this thread, you have no idea what you're talking about.
I've read some of the entries. Not all of them in one sitting but I've looked for some things in there.
I tried reading "Earth is not a Globe" and didn't get past the first chapter before I realized that this was going to be nothing more than someone justifying their observations with whatever he wanted.
So that's a 'no' then. When you've done so, you can make whatever claims you like about their relevance or validity. But until then, stop acting like Tom's advice isn't totally pertinent. How can you decently argue FET if you haven't read the most basic information about it?
-
So, Wilmore, I have to ask. Why do you simply pick apart people's statements so much? You'd do better to contribute FE ideas that we can use to further our understanding.
Lord Wilmore response possibilities:
- Read the Wiki/Earth not a Globe
- You're not contributing anything either (or something to that affect)
- Or he will just quote me and nitpick away my statement
-
He has no counter arguement so he has to resort to jibes like a five year old. Pathetic. Basically he can't argue with me. He KNOWS that nautical mapping and the log data from mariners is pretty difficult data to dispute so now he's resorting to calling us all liars and stupid on various threads. Spat the dummy because he's losing the debate.
-
I've read some of the entries. Not all of them in one sitting but I've looked for some things in there.
I tried reading "Earth is not a Globe" and didn't get past the first chapter before I realized that this was going to be nothing more than someone justifying their observations with whatever he wanted.
So that's a 'no' then. When you've done so, you can make whatever claims you like about their relevance or validity. But until then, stop acting like Tom's advice isn't totally pertinent. How can you decently argue FET if you haven't read the most basic information about it?
I've lurked enough to understand what you think and how you think and I know that you wouldn't give my arguments any more consideration if I had read everything linked on this site.
If I don't believe, I'm wrong. That's the FE philosophy.
-
I've read some of the entries. Not all of them in one sitting but I've looked for some things in there.
I tried reading "Earth is not a Globe" and didn't get past the first chapter before I realized that this was going to be nothing more than someone justifying their observations with whatever he wanted.
So that's a 'no' then. When you've done so, you can make whatever claims you like about their relevance or validity. But until then, stop acting like Tom's advice isn't totally pertinent. How can you decently argue FET if you haven't read the most basic information about it?
But.... what about da evidence? And da stuff theyz can't explain?
I've lurked enough to understand what you think and how you think and I know that you wouldn't give my arguments any more consideration if I had read everything linked on this site.
If I don't believe, I'm wrong. That's the FE philosophy.
-
So, Wilmore, I have to ask. Why do you simply pick apart people's statements so much? You'd do better to contribute FE ideas that we can use to further our understanding.
Lord Wilmore response possibilities:
- Read the Wiki/Earth not a Globe
- You're not contributing anything either (or something to that affect)
- Or he will just quote me and nitpick away my statement
If you're not willing to read the information we have now, what's the point of supplying new information? Earth Not a Globe is only about 400 pages long and is available for free online, as well as from the Book Depository and Amazon. You have no excuse for not having read it.
He has no counter arguement so he has to resort to jibes like a five year old. Pathetic. Basically he can't argue with me. He KNOWS that nautical mapping and the log data from mariners is pretty difficult data to dispute so now he's resorting to calling us all liars and stupid on various threads. Spat the dummy because he's losing the debate.
You can't 'counter' an argument that doesn't exist. All you do is go arund telling everyone how much evidence there is for RET, without presenting any of it. That is called making statements, not providing evidence.
I've lurked enough to understand what you think and how you think and I know that you wouldn't give my arguments any more consideration if I had read everything linked on this site.
If I don't believe, I'm wrong. That's the FE philosophy.
All I'm saying is, Tom's arguments for FET are outlined at length in Earth Not a Globe. Until you've read that book, his suggestion that you do so remains relevant.
-
He has no counter arguement so he has to resort to jibes like a five year old. Pathetic. Basically he can't argue with me. He KNOWS that nautical mapping and the log data from mariners is pretty difficult data to dispute so now he's resorting to calling us all liars and stupid on various threads. Spat the dummy because he's losing the debate.
You can't 'counter' an argument that doesn't exist. All you do is go arund telling everyone how much evidence there is for RET, without presenting any of it. That is called making statements, not providing evidence.
I have told you where plenty of data can be found and have in other threads given nautical distances and sailing times/ speeds as examples. What part of 'there are books of navigational charts that are used by thousands of mariners every day' don't you understand. I really am questioning your ability to understand English here. You know damn well how much data is out there. AGAIN where is the atro mathematical data for FET? Where is it? Why do you have no map that can be used to navigate the earth? Answer that.
It is for you to prove the Earth is flat.
-
I have told you where plenty of data can be found and have in other threads given nautical distances and sailing times/ speeds as examples. What part of 'there are books of navigational charts that are used by thousands of mariners every day' don't you understand.
That people use flat maps to get around the world is not proof that those maps are distorted and that the world is in actual fact a globe.
-
I have told you where plenty of data can be found and have in other threads given nautical distances and sailing times/ speeds as examples. What part of 'there are books of navigational charts that are used by thousands of mariners every day' don't you understand.
That people use flat maps to get around the world is not proof that those maps are distorted and that the world is in actual fact a globe.
Sailors don't use 2D maps. They use gnomonic projection. They have to, because an ocean is just water. They have to know exactly what surface they are sailing on. It's a globe.
Ask yourself this...do you think I really care what shape the world is? No I just care that I can sail from A-B with the correct mathematical data. You don't use mathematical data for a globe if the earth isn't a globe. DO you understand trigonometry. Would you like some pictures of why gnomonic projection matters?
-
Sailors don't use 2D maps. They use gnomonic projection.
Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but gnomonic maps are still printed on paper, right?
-
Sailors don't use 2D maps. They use gnomonic projection.
Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but gnomonic maps are still printed on paper, right?
Err yes and we have them in 3D form as computer animated maps. Listen, go and look it up. You have gnomonic projection BECAUSE A FLAT MAP IS WRONG. The gnomonic lines allow you to correctly measure the distance beteen two points BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO THAT ON A FLAT MAP - because the earth is a globe.
Is it really so hard for you to understand why you need to know the correct distance accross an ocean? On a flattened map the distances in the northern and southern hemispheres get streched. On the FES map the northern hemisphere distances get shortened and the southern hemisphere gets so stretched it's laughable.
Ever sailor knows that the distance between cape town and cape horn is one thing, between North Africa and Cuba another and between Norway and Alaska another again. Those three distances could NOT exist on any shape other than a globe, irregardless of any map. All the map does is communicate the dimensions of the planet.
-
Sailors don't use 2D maps. They use gnomonic projection.
Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but gnomonic maps are still printed on paper, right?
Err yes
So they're 2D then.
The gnomonic lines allow you to correctly measure the distance beteen two points BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO THAT ON A FLAT MAP - because the earth is a globe.
This is a gnomonic map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Gnomonic_Projection_Polar.jpg
It is 2D and compared to a globe, and is 'distorted'.
-
m
Sailors don't use 2D maps. They use gnomonic projection.
Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but gnomonic maps are still printed on paper, right?
Err yes
So they're 2D then.
The gnomonic lines allow you to correctly measure the distance beteen two points BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO THAT ON A FLAT MAP - because the earth is a globe.
This is a gnomonic map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Gnomonic_Projection_Polar.jpg
It is 2D and compared to a globe, and is 'distorted'.
Yes you use the gnomonic lines to tell you the distance. It's a flattened globe essentially but the lines are not a distortion. They relate exactly to a globe. You really can't think in 3D can you? Because sailors do think in 3D. All the 2D map tells you is there's a land mass somewhere. The global lines along with degrees etc tell you how to get there. They are all mathemetical data for a round earth not a flat one.
-
On a globe, the Arabian peninsula isn't almost twice the size of Europe. Thus, that map is distorted in comparison with a globe.
-
On a globe, the Arabian peninsula isn't almost twice the size of Europe. Thus, that map is distorted in comparison with a globe.
But the map is not a 'picture'...you can't flatten a curved land mass. That would be a flat earth. To be honest most larger vessels don't use 2D maps anymore. We have them in case the GPS and Navigational (including 3D) software fails but why use 2D maps when you you can see the real thing in 3D? I could demonstate this by creating a diagram that shows three circumnavigations, that would demonstrate that a flat earth isn't possible. I'd have to do it for both latitude and longitude directions. You can then easily check those sailing distances are correct with any maritime/ shipping office or even any shipping data site online. I think I'll do that today...and I'll use only routes that i've sailed that are also known shipping lanes. I'll post it later.
-
I wait with bated breath.
-
I wait with baited breath.
As we all do for a working FE map. (i.e. the proof for the existence of magic)
-
I wait with baited breath.
Bated breath. Baited breath means your breath smells like maggots.
-
I wait with baited breath.
Bated breath. Baited breath means your breath smells like maggots.
Well at this point, if I was still bating my breath it would probably be much of a muchness.
-
I wait with baited breath.
Bated breath. Baited breath means your breath smells like maggots.
Well at this point, if I was still bating my breath it would probably be much of a muchness.
Please quit derailing this thread Wilmore. Keep your low-content posts out of the upper fora.
Climates have no satisfactory explanation in FET. How do the FE'ers want to reconcile that?
-
I wait with baited breath.
Bated breath. Baited breath means your breath smells like maggots.
Well at this point, if I was still bating my breath it would probably be much of a muchness.
Please quit derailing this thread Wilmore. Keep your low-content posts out of the upper fora.
Climates have no satisfactory explanation in FET. How do the FE'ers want to reconcile that?
Please stop memberating. This is against the rules.