The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: PCM49 on October 09, 2011, 03:34:05 PM

Title: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: PCM49 on October 09, 2011, 03:34:05 PM
Imagine summer for the southern hemisphere. on a RE it would look like so:

(http://i901.photobucket.com/albums/ac217/Vaxys/FES1.png)

- day/night divide is at an angle of 23.5 degrees.

this holds true for all sunset/sunrise times across the globe. Feel free to search for these times, they WILL fit together.

So, lets translate the above onto a FE map:

(http://i901.photobucket.com/albums/ac217/Vaxys/FES3.png)

wait, what?!?! wheres this light at the far ice wall coming from?! and why is the north pole dark when south america is further away, but still light?

surely it would look more like this on a FE, (assuming a circular spotlight sun, that reaches to 23.5 degrees from the north pole):

(http://i901.photobucket.com/albums/ac217/Vaxys/fes4.png)

wait, thats not even close either, only a quarter of the earth is light...

if someone explains this away ill be impressed.
Title: Re: Summer in the south pole.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2011, 04:04:23 PM
Those are illustrations, not evidence. I could make a thread "Look at these illustrations, they prove that the earth is a torus."
Title: Re: Summer in the south pole.
Post by: PCM49 on October 09, 2011, 04:09:46 PM
accurate illustrations. i used your FE map, is that not accurate? and i used a fairly arbitrary picture of a global earth, i may as well have used a circle for that, it was not required to be accurate. I did however take a protractor to ensure my line was at 23.5 degrees, which is the only important part of the image.

but if my illustrations are so completely wrong, can you suggest how they should look?
Title: Re: Summer in the south pole.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2011, 04:20:30 PM
accurate illustrations. i used your FE map, is that not accurate? and i used a fairly arbitrary picture of a global earth, i may as well have used a circle for that, it was not required to be accurate. I did however take a protractor to ensure my line was at 23.5 degrees, which is the only important part of the image.

but if my illustrations are so completely wrong, can you suggest how they should look?

First off, your entire post assumes that RET is correct. You haven't demonstrated this. Did you go to those places and time the length of day?

Second off, your post assumes that the FET map is accurate. You haven't demonstrated this. If you lurked a bit you would find that there are other ideas (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.0) on how a Flat Earth may be laid out.

Until you can reconcile how the earth is truly laid out and what kind of daylight each part of its surface receives throughout the year, your illustrations tell us nothing.

Oh, and don't bother to post daylight calculators from the internet. Those are calculators based on how light might behave if the earth were a globe, not from testimonials on how it really behaves.
Title: Re: Summer in the south pole.
Post by: The Knowledge on October 09, 2011, 04:32:00 PM


Until you can reconcile how the earth is truly laid out and what kind of daylight each part of its surface receives throughout the year, your illustrations tell us nothing.

Oh, and don't bother to post daylight calculators from the internet. Those are calculators based on how light might behave if the earth were a globe, not from testimonials on how it really behaves.

Tom, we have a layout of the earth that totally fits the patterns of night and day. You don't. Furthermore, several posters on this forum have verified predicted times match reality in more than one location.
Title: Re: Summer in the south pole.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2011, 04:35:46 PM
Quote
Tom, we have a layout of the earth that totally fits the patterns of night and day.

Source?

Quote
You don't. Furthermore, several posters on this forum have verified predicted times match reality in more than one location.

Source?
Title: Re: Summer in the south pole.
Post by: The Knowledge on October 09, 2011, 04:40:22 PM
Quote
Tom, we have a layout of the earth that totally fits the patterns of night and day.

Source?

Quote
You don't. Furthermore, several posters on this forum have verified predicted times match reality in more than one location.

Source?

1. It's called having the land laid out on a sphere shape orbiting the sun. By an AMAZING COINCIDENCE, this results in a pattern of night and day which EXACTLY fits the known properties of light falling on an object.

2. Do a search you lazy pig. I remember there was a lot of trolling from you in those threads though, so your own post history should be a good place to start.
Title: Re: Summer in the south pole.
Post by: momentia on October 09, 2011, 05:04:36 PM

Quote
You don't. Furthermore, several posters on this forum have verified predicted times match reality in more than one location.

Source?

I did it in western washington.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.msg1219713#msg1219713

Have you ever made and tested a sundial? I have. Sundial shadows match RE solar calculators.
Title: Re: Summer in the south pole.
Post by: PCM49 on October 10, 2011, 08:33:15 AM
ok if you REALLY get hissy, then you can insist that your map of FE is just wrong.

but please, go ahead and do so, because it just doesnt work. so you then have to rewrite a large portion of the accepted FE theory. create a map of a flat earth that behaves exactly as it should, THEN people might actually realise that you guys are for real.

As for sunset/rise, ive been to the canary islands in the summer, i can promise you that the sun rose and set at 6:00 and 18:00. I can assure you my dad has been to northern sweden, inside the arctic circle in the summer and had 23 or so hours of sunlight. you cannot legitimately argue that RE doesnt fit with reality's sunsets and rises.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: NTheGreat on October 10, 2011, 09:31:29 AM
I'm surprised that the times of sunrise and sunset are up for question. If you really doubt that the widely accepted figures are correct, then there are plenty of webcams all over the world you can use to check the accuracy of the times yourself.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: PCM49 on October 10, 2011, 10:21:26 AM
I'm surprised that the times of sunrise and sunset are up for question. If you really doubt that the widely accepted figures are correct, then there are plenty of webcams all over the world you can use to check the accuracy of the times yourself.

na lol da conspirisy chaynjiz da webcam 2 mayk it luk dark and nowun at da webcam reelyzis dat de webcam sez its dark but its akchelly lite owtsyde lol
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 10, 2011, 10:53:27 AM
With so many people all over the world, you would think that someone would have noticed that the sun does not rise or set at the times that scientists have calculated.  Tom, I think it is reasonable to say that the sunset and sunrise times can be considered to be accurate with out having to measure them ourselves.
Title: Re: Summer in the south pole.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 10, 2011, 11:31:54 AM

Quote
You don't. Furthermore, several posters on this forum have verified predicted times match reality in more than one location.

Source?

I did it in western washington.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.msg1219713#msg1219713

Have you ever made and tested a sundial? I have. Sundial shadows match RE solar calculators.

You didn't verify sunrise and sunset times in that thread.

Quote
ok if you REALLY get hissy, then you can insist that your map of FE is just wrong.

but please, go ahead and do so, because it just doesnt work. so you then have to rewrite a large portion of the accepted FE theory. create a map of a flat earth that behaves exactly as it should, THEN people might actually realise that you guys are for real.

We never claimed that the map was verified to be accurate. It's a rendering of how a Flat Earth may work.

Quote
As for sunset/rise, ive been to the canary islands in the summer, i can promise you that the sun rose and set at 6:00 and 18:00. I can assure you my dad has been to northern sweden, inside the arctic circle in the summer and had 23 or so hours of sunlight. you cannot legitimately argue that RE doesnt fit with reality's sunsets and rises.

23 hours of sunlight near the North Pole is possible in an FE model.

Quote
I'm surprised that the times of sunrise and sunset are up for question. If you really doubt that the widely accepted figures are correct, then there are plenty of webcams all over the world you can use to check the accuracy of the times yourself.

There are not webcams all over the world looking at the sun set and rise from the horizon. You can't tell when the sun sets just by looking at a scene casually dim into darkness. The sky is still relatively lit from the sun after it sets, from the sun's light bouncing off of the atmosphere.

With so many people all over the world, you would think that someone would have noticed that the sun does not rise or set at the times that scientists have calculated.  Tom, I think it is reasonable to say that the sunset and sunrise times can be considered to be accurate with out having to measure them ourselves.

Appeal to popularity fallacy.

It's 2011 and 98% of the population believes in the existence of an invisible fairy who lives in the sky. Don't you think someone would have noticed that this invisible fairy does not exist?

It's 1930 and doctors are publicly promoting the health benefits of cigarettes on radio and in print advertisements. With all of these doctors backing the product, and the product having been around for hundreds of years, don't you think one of them would have noticed that cigarettes cause lung cancer?

It's 1630 and the majority of the civilized world believes in the existence of witches. Don't you think someone would have noticed that witches do not exist?

The public believes what they are taught to believe. Scientists believe what they are taught to believe. Belief has nothing to do with truth.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: NTheGreat on October 10, 2011, 12:08:10 PM
There are not webcams all over the world looking at the sun set and rise from the horizon. You can't tell when the sun sets just by looking at a scene casually dim into darkness. The sky is still relatively lit from the sun after it sets, from the sun's light bouncing off of the atmosphere.

Why do you need such precision? The tolerance provided just by the light levels seen in the webcams is more than sufficient to tell which model is more reliable for predicting the times of sunrise and sunset.

And why do you say there aren't webcams pointing towards where the Sun rises or sets? There are a a lot of webcams around.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 10, 2011, 12:53:13 PM
And why do you say there aren't webcams pointing towards where the Sun rises or sets? There are a a lot of webcams around.
Please prove that there are webcams all over the world looking at the sun set and rise from the horizon.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: markjo on October 10, 2011, 01:11:11 PM
And why do you say there aren't webcams pointing towards where the Sun rises or sets? There are a a lot of webcams around.
Please prove that there are webcams all over the world looking at the sun set and rise from the horizon.

http://rizeandset.com/
Not necessarily looking at the rising or setting sun, but it should give you an idea of when those events are occurring.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 10, 2011, 01:19:20 PM
And why do you say there aren't webcams pointing towards where the Sun rises or sets? There are a a lot of webcams around.
Please prove that there are webcams all over the world looking at the sun set and rise from the horizon.

http://rizeandset.com/
Not necessarily looking at the rising or setting sun, but it should give you an idea of when those events are occurring.

(http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2010/Dec/Week3/15863368.jpg)

Weren't you the one arguing that the sun was as far blow the horizon as the moon is above the horizon in this daytime eclipse picture which should be impossible in RET?

Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: markjo on October 10, 2011, 02:41:36 PM
(http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2010/Dec/Week3/15863368.jpg)

Weren't you the one arguing that the sun was as far blow the horizon as the moon is above the horizon in this daytime eclipse picture which should be impossible in RET?

The moon is not totally eclipsed in that photograph.  Also, long exposure photographs on nights of the full moon (especially of snowy terrain) can be quite well lit.
Title: Re: Summer in the south pole.
Post by: PCM49 on October 10, 2011, 02:51:52 PM
Quote
ok if you REALLY get hissy, then you can insist that your map of FE is just wrong.

but please, go ahead and do so, because it just doesnt work. so you then have to rewrite a large portion of the accepted FE theory. create a map of a flat earth that behaves exactly as it should, THEN people might actually realise that you guys are for real.

We never claimed that the map was verified to be accurate. It's a rendering of how a Flat Earth may work.

Then before insisting that the earth is flat, find a map of what a flat earth looks like that could actually be plausible.

its also the widely accepted map, referred to by many members here, thereby invalidating  any assumptions made by that map.

not having a working map is a serious, serious flaw in this website and forum. its been around 10 years now, you cannot deny that it is a gaping hole in FET.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: NTheGreat on October 10, 2011, 03:36:39 PM
Please prove that there are webcams all over the world looking at the sun set and rise from the horizon.

That's quite the request. Well, there won't be any that look at the Sun both setting and rising, as in most places these events happen in two significantly different directions.

Personally I think that observing the Sun itself rise and set is a little excessive. Just watching light levels should be an accurate enough method of estimating the shape of the Sun's spotlight. I suppose I can sit down and work out which cameras are pointing in the direction the sun rises or sets at this time of year, if that's that you really want.

There are thousands of the things through, so it will take quite a while. I think just watching light levels is a better option.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 11, 2011, 04:57:52 AM
With so many people all over the world, you would think that someone would have noticed that the sun does not rise or set at the times that scientists have calculated.  Tom, I think it is reasonable to say that the sunset and sunrise times can be considered to be accurate with out having to measure them ourselves.

Appeal to popularity fallacy.

It's 2011 and 98% of the population believes in the existence of an invisible fairy who lives in the sky. Don't you think someone would have noticed that this invisible fairy does not exist?

It's 1930 and doctors are publicly promoting the health benefits of cigarettes on radio and in print advertisements. With all of these doctors backing the product, and the product having been around for hundreds of years, don't you think one of them would have noticed that cigarettes cause lung cancer?

It's 1630 and the majority of the civilized world believes in the existence of witches. Don't you think someone would have noticed that witches do not exist?

The public believes what they are taught to believe. Scientists believe what they are taught to believe. Belief has nothing to do with truth.

Tom,

I agree with you that just because the majority of people think something is true, it does not make it true.  However, for once, we are not talking about something that a person is supposed to blindly believe, like magic, germs, gravity, or UA.  With exceptions, almost everyone has seen a sunrise and sunset in their life time.  This is not being debated.  But the time at which the sunset/sunrise apparently is.

For many of us, we know that the sun has risen or set, but we probably do not take an interest to find out if it happens at the time it was predicted.  However, there are a lot of people all across the world who do have a great interest in the timing of the sun's appearance and disappearance for various reasons.  Some examples include sailors, military personnel, astronomers, and even farmers.

I spent 8 years as an infantryman in the USMC.  I can personally attest to the importance of knowing the correct time of sunset and sunrise for tactical reasons.  The twilight around sunrise and sunset makes an excellent time to launch an attack.  This is because you have enough light to get into position for the attack and successfully execute the plan, yet you still have enough darkness to provide some cover for your movements.  The exact time in which the sun will set or rise is an important element of many military orders for both offensive and defensive reasons.

I have been a part of military exercises in 4 countries including the US.  5 if you count Hawaii separately from the mainland due to its remoteness.  One of those countries, Chile, was in the southern hemisphere.  I can tell you from personal experience that I obtained or was provided sunrise and sunset times in each of these locations and found no discrepancy in the predicted and actual sunrise or sunset.  Before you ask, no I did not purposely look at my watch at the instant sunrise/set occurred with the purpose of noting whether it was exactly accurate with the times that were predicted.  However, being a non-commissioned officer, I was responsible for making sure that the Marines under my supervision were 100 percent ready before and after the sunrise/set.    When I observed that sunrise should be in 40 minutes, it was, even if it was not down to the exact minute or second.

Most of the time, the sunrise/set times were obtained from The United States Navy Observatory.  Before you try to say that I was given accurate information by the government that civilians are not privy to, the exact same information is available to anyone who wants to check the actual time at http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astronomical-applications (http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astronomical-applications).  This is the exact same site that I have researched data from when I was still in the military.

While my own personal testimony does not cover the entire Earth, although it does cover a broad range and makes good sampling data, there are so many people across the Earth that have had the same experiences that I do not see how someone, somewhere, would not have caught on if we were being lied to.

Tom, I say again what I said earlier.  I think it is safe to say that we can assume the time calculations to be true, even if we do not take personal measurements at every point across the entire world.

By the way, where I live, the link above predicted that twilight would start at 7:03 a.m. and sunrise would be at 7:28 a.m.  I can not see a good view of the horizon from my house due to trees and terrain; however, the prediction appeared to be true.  My back yard had light in it shortly after 7:00 a.m. and was very well lit by 7:30 a.m.  I am planning a trip to the Atlantic coast with my wife within the next couple of weeks and I can post exact times for the sunrise over the horizon; however, I do not think I will be able to get sunset confirmation at the same time.  That is, unless we can agree that the time predictions made by The United States Navy Observatory are not up for debate.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 11, 2011, 05:02:17 AM
Please prove that there are webcams all over the world looking at the sun set and rise from the horizon.

That's quite the request. Well, there won't be any that look at the Sun both setting and rising
Oh, so your claim was moot. Well, at least you know when to admit it.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: NTheGreat on October 11, 2011, 07:05:09 AM
Oh, so your claim was moot. Well, at least you know when to admit it.

I never claimed there were webcams pointing to where the Sun rises and sets. I said there are webcams pointing to where the Sun rises or sets.

Although, I suppose you could try searching for controllable webcams. I don't know if you'll find that many around, through. I would just stick to monitoring light levels. It's sufficiently accurate for the problem at hand.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Tausami on October 11, 2011, 12:13:39 PM
The Aetheric Wind model explains this phenomena.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: markjo on October 11, 2011, 12:19:19 PM
The Aetheric Wind model explains this phenomena.

Would you care to elaborate?
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Tausami on October 11, 2011, 03:56:21 PM
The Aetheric Wind model explains this phenomena.

Would you care to elaborate?

I only actually have about half of my reasoning down. It's because aether, being a step above plasma (actually two or more, taking the Quark-gluon plasma into account) logically glows incredibly bright. I'm just working on why night exists.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: The Knowledge on October 11, 2011, 04:13:13 PM
The Aetheric Wind model explains this phenomena.

Wasn't this the one John Davis was meant to be publishing a book about? Where can we buy this book?
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Tausami on October 11, 2011, 07:01:33 PM
The Aetheric Wind model explains this phenomena.

Wasn't this the one John Davis was meant to be publishing a book about? Where can we buy this book?

No, it's my own. It postulates that the Earth is propelled by aether (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Aether)
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 12, 2011, 12:15:29 AM
The Aetheric Wind model explains this phenomena.

Wasn't this the one John Davis was meant to be publishing a book about? Where can we buy this book?

No, it's my own. It postulates that the Earth is propelled by aether (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Aether)
1) Do we all get to make up these hilarious models?
2) How can any of this rubbish possibly be more scientifically accurate than all of the mainstream theories you have discarded due to being "based on conjecture?" Every time you post more nonsense, baby Jesus soils himself in disgust.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Tausami on October 12, 2011, 02:44:25 AM
The Aetheric Wind model explains this phenomena.

Wasn't this the one John Davis was meant to be publishing a book about? Where can we buy this book?

No, it's my own. It postulates that the Earth is propelled by aether (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Aether)
1) Do we all get to make up these hilarious models?
2) How can any of this rubbish possibly be more scientifically accurate than all of the mainstream theories you have discarded due to being "based on conjecture?" Every time you post more nonsense, baby Jesus soils himself in disgust.

1) No
2) Because the Earth has been proven to be flat. Also, good.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 12, 2011, 04:40:23 AM
The Aetheric Wind model explains this phenomena.

Wasn't this the one John Davis was meant to be publishing a book about? Where can we buy this book?

No, it's my own. It postulates that the Earth is propelled by aether (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Aether)
1) Do we all get to make up these hilarious models?
2) How can any of this rubbish possibly be more scientifically accurate than all of the mainstream theories you have discarded due to being "based on conjecture?" Every time you post more nonsense, baby Jesus soils himself in disgust.

flat_earth_really?, I also believe that this is a troll board.  However, you seem to be a little too belligerent with the FErs.  Can we try to make this a gentleman's debate?
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 12, 2011, 04:46:31 AM
The Aetheric Wind model explains this phenomena.

Wasn't this the one John Davis was meant to be publishing a book about? Where can we buy this book?

No, it's my own. It postulates that the Earth is propelled by aether (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Aether)
1) Do we all get to make up these hilarious models?
2) How can any of this rubbish possibly be more scientifically accurate than all of the mainstream theories you have discarded due to being "based on conjecture?" Every time you post more nonsense, baby Jesus soils himself in disgust.

1) No
2) Because the Earth has been proven to be flat. Also, good.
1) Well that's not really fair. I was going to put dinosaurs in my model. We could have played Jurassic Park.
2) No it hasn't. If it had, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 12, 2011, 04:48:17 AM
The Aetheric Wind model explains this phenomena.

Wasn't this the one John Davis was meant to be publishing a book about? Where can we buy this book?

No, it's my own. It postulates that the Earth is propelled by aether (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Aether)
1) Do we all get to make up these hilarious models?
2) How can any of this rubbish possibly be more scientifically accurate than all of the mainstream theories you have discarded due to being "based on conjecture?" Every time you post more nonsense, baby Jesus soils himself in disgust.

flat_earth_really?, I also believe that this is a troll board.  However, you seem to be a little too belligerent with the FErs.  Can we try to make this a gentleman's debate?
How can you possibly have a gentleman's debate with a troll?
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 12, 2011, 05:07:53 AM
How can you possibly have a gentleman's debate with a troll?

I am just saying that you do not need to be rude with your posts.  I have just as much fun here as you do, yet I try not to make it a personal issue with the FErs.  I like the debates, but I do no think we need to use words like FEtards and such.  Just use logic and reasoning.  Their theory just falls apart.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 12, 2011, 05:38:39 AM
Also, I have not seen any rebuttals about the sunrise and sunset debate.  Can we all now agree that the times are predictable?
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: The Knowledge on October 12, 2011, 07:50:49 AM
Also, I have not seen any rebuttals about the sunrise and sunset debate.  Can we all now agree that the times are predictable?

All of us except Tom do. He's too bad at trolling to be able to work out what to do with that argument now he's been totally squashed.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Eclio on October 12, 2011, 08:43:07 AM
I see some brilliant arguments. Two guesses which side of this debate would qualify as brilliant!
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 12, 2011, 08:50:49 AM
I never claimed there were webcams pointing to where the Sun rises and sets. I said there are webcams pointing to where the Sun rises or sets.
Ah, yes, another semantics challenge. A challenge that I will accept, nonetheless.
If there's one camera pointing at the Sun rising and one camera pointing at the Sun setting, there are cameras pointing at where the sun rises and sets.
If there are two cameras pointing at either where the Sun rises or where the Sun sets, there are cameras pointing at where the sun rises or sets.
If there existed two cameras pointing at both where the Sun rises and sets, an extra adjective would be necessary to avoid ambiguity with a logically possible situation. For example: There are cameras pointing to both where the Sun rises and sets.
It is very important to understand the difference between the two before trying to be a pedant about it. It also doesn't get you too far in the argument.

Although, I suppose you could try searching for controllable webcams.
Oh, what happened to your recent dedication and devotion to your claim? Not so long ago you were willing to take on the task of substantiating your own claims...
I suppose I can sit down and work out which cameras are pointing in the direction the sun rises or sets at this time of year, if that's that you really want.
...and now I'm supposed to do your job for you? Might that be because you've tried and found out that your claim is entirely baseless? Surely if I did try to search (nb. I'm not going to try to back your claims up for you) and didn't find any cameras, you could just say I didn't look hard enough. An excellent tactic... for an amateur.

tl;dr: Back up your claims or take them back.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: NTheGreat on October 12, 2011, 03:38:56 PM
Ah, yes, another semantics challenge. A challenge that I will accept, nonetheless.
If there's one camera pointing at the Sun rising and one camera pointing at the Sun setting, there are cameras pointing at where the sun rises and sets.
If there are two cameras pointing at either where the Sun rises or where the Sun sets, there are cameras pointing at where the sun rises or sets.
If there existed two cameras pointing at both where the Sun rises and sets, an extra adjective would be necessary to avoid ambiguity with a logically possible situation. For example: There are cameras pointing to both where the Sun rises and sets.
It is very important to understand the difference between the two before trying to be a pedant about it. It also doesn't get you too far in the argument.

I would have thought that from the way I was talking about it it was clear enough that I was talking about individual webcams that point to both the place the Sun rises and the place the Sun sets, rather then webcams pointing to where the Sun rises with separate webcams pointing to where the Sun sets. Apologies if this has caused confusion.


Quote
Oh, what happened to your recent dedication and devotion to your claim? Not so long ago you were willing to take on the task of substantiating your own claims...

I'm only able to do so much with my free time. As I've mentioned before, I think that observing the Sun itself rise and set is excessive.


Quote
...and now I'm supposed to do your job for you? Might that be because you've tried and found out that your claim is entirely baseless? Surely if I did try to search (nb. I'm not going to try to back your claims up for you) and didn't find any cameras, you could just say I didn't look hard enough. An excellent tactic... for an amateur.

Earthcam (http://www.earthcam.com/) alone has links to well over a thousand cameras scattered around the world. There's no shortage of webcams, and they aren't hard to find. I didn't think the finding of webcams was an issue.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: vertigho on October 12, 2011, 03:50:37 PM
So if I was to sail around the world, I would at some point drop off the planet? Or if I was view the planet earth from outer-space, it would look like a piece of paper?

Fact is, the earth isn't flat. There is significant scientific evidence disproving the phenomenon, and in a literal sense of the term, there are these things called mountains.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 12, 2011, 09:43:16 PM
So if I was to sail around the world, I would at some point drop off the planet? Or if I was view the planet earth from outer-space, it would look like a piece of paper?

Fact is, the earth isn't flat. There is significant scientific evidence disproving the phenomenon, and in a literal sense of the term, there are these things called mountains.

No, if you sail around the planet, you would be going in a circle.  Besides, even if you traveled in a straight line, the snow ninjas would kill you long before you got to the edge.

You can not go to space.  NASA and their cronies have been lying to you.  And that is ridiculous to say that the Earth would look like a piece of paper.  It is a disk, just like a beach ball, but with out air; the ball has no air, that is, but the Earth does, even though it is not inflated.  This is what causes the illusion that mountains exist.  That and bendy light.

Fact is, you do not have any evidence that proves that the Earth is round.  Don't try to dump any of the scientific crap on us.  We all know that scientists are puppets for NASA.  They are not much better than the low life ninjas who inhabit the outer continent.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 13, 2011, 09:05:32 AM
Imagine summer for the southern hemisphere. on a RE it would look like so:

(http://i901.photobucket.com/albums/ac217/Vaxys/FES1.png)

- day/night divide is at an angle of 23.5 degrees.

this holds true for all sunset/sunrise times across the globe. Feel free to search for these times, they WILL fit together.

So, lets translate the above onto a FE map:

(http://i901.photobucket.com/albums/ac217/Vaxys/FES3.png)

wait, what?!?! wheres this light at the far ice wall coming from?! and why is the north pole dark when south america is further away, but still light?

surely it would look more like this on a FE, (assuming a circular spotlight sun, that reaches to 23.5 degrees from the north pole):

(http://i901.photobucket.com/albums/ac217/Vaxys/fes4.png)

wait, thats not even close either, only a quarter of the earth is light...

if someone explains this away ill be impressed.
Those are very bad images. Provide evidence that shadows on a sphere produce a straight-line boundary between light and dark.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Nolhekh on October 13, 2011, 09:58:26 AM
Look at a sphere
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 13, 2011, 10:33:53 AM
Look at a sphere
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iDA6dwYSASo/TScwKGvIAeI/AAAAAAAABC8/mjzSWcEk2hs/s1600/2.%2Bsphere.jpg)
I see no straight-line boundary. The sphere gradually darkens as it gets further away from the light source. Without Geometric Shadow Theory, this argument falls apart.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: The Knowledge on October 13, 2011, 10:37:38 AM
Xenu proves himself a troll. Errors: too obvious deliberate misunderstanding and "fake innocent" poor example.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 13, 2011, 10:43:31 AM
Xenu proves himself a troll. Errors: too obvious deliberate misunderstanding and "fake innocent" poor example.
I refuse to pretend that there are angular shadows on a sphere, and I'm the one deliberately misunderstanding?
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Nolhekh on October 13, 2011, 11:17:58 AM
Look at a sphere
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iDA6dwYSASo/TScwKGvIAeI/AAAAAAAABC8/mjzSWcEk2hs/s1600/2.%2Bsphere.jpg)
I see no straight-line boundary. The sphere gradually darkens as it gets further away from the light source. Without Geometric Shadow Theory, this argument falls apart.

You appear to have not considered all possible light directions.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 13, 2011, 11:19:40 AM
Look at a sphere
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iDA6dwYSASo/TScwKGvIAeI/AAAAAAAABC8/mjzSWcEk2hs/s1600/2.%2Bsphere.jpg)
I see no straight-line boundary. The sphere gradually darkens as it gets further away from the light source. Without Geometric Shadow Theory, this argument falls apart.

You appear to have not considered all possible light directions.

You are quite correct that patterns of light on the Earth will look nothing like those depicted. For one thing, the Earth is flat.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Nolhekh on October 13, 2011, 11:32:17 AM
You are quite correct that patterns of light on the Earth will look nothing like those depicted. For one thing, the Earth is flat.
If I said so, then I'd be wrong, which is why I didn't.  I'm not talking about what the patterns on the earth look like, and neither are you in this request:
Quote
Provide evidence that shadows on a sphere produce a straight-line boundary between light and dark.
We're talking about straight line boundaries on spheres. Obvious straw man fallacies such as this one will not improve the validity of your point.  Now answer my question.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 13, 2011, 11:34:35 AM
You are quite correct that patterns of light on the Earth will look nothing like those depicted. For one thing, the Earth is flat.
If I said so, then I'd be wrong, which is why I didn't.  I'm not talking about what the patterns on the earth look like, and neither are you in this request:
Quote
Provide evidence that shadows on a sphere produce a straight-line boundary between light and dark.
We're talking about straight line boundaries on spheres. Obvious straw man fallacies such as this one will not improve the validity of your point.  Now answer my question.
Please clarify.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Nolhekh on October 13, 2011, 11:38:12 AM
Have you considered all possible light directions in determining the apparent shape of the light boundary in denying that it could ever appear straight?  I did, I found a sphere and looking from the right direction I see a straight line boundary.  Why couldn't you do this?
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 13, 2011, 11:40:46 AM
Have you considered all possible light directions in determining the apparent shape of the light boundary in denying that it could ever appear straight?  I did, I found a sphere and looking from the right direction I see a straight line boundary.  Why couldn't you do this?
Pics or it didn't happen.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: jraffield1 on October 13, 2011, 11:57:17 AM
Have you considered all possible light directions in determining the apparent shape of the light boundary in denying that it could ever appear straight?  I did, I found a sphere and looking from the right direction I see a straight line boundary.  Why couldn't you do this?
Pics or it didn't happen.

Ha, that's funny. Any photo posted on this forum that supports a round Earth is instantly considered conspiracy propaganda. Please do not ask for proof you will not accept. It's rude.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: markjo on October 13, 2011, 12:18:42 PM
Look at a sphere
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iDA6dwYSASo/TScwKGvIAeI/AAAAAAAABC8/mjzSWcEk2hs/s1600/2.%2Bsphere.jpg)


Looks flat to me.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Nolhekh on October 13, 2011, 02:01:43 PM
Have you considered all possible light directions in determining the apparent shape of the light boundary in denying that it could ever appear straight?  I did, I found a sphere and looking from the right direction I see a straight line boundary.  Why couldn't you do this?
Pics or it didn't happen.
Do it yourself.  Find a ball and look at it's boundary edge on.  I did my science, now you do yours.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 14, 2011, 03:16:33 AM
Have you considered all possible light directions in determining the apparent shape of the light boundary in denying that it could ever appear straight?  I did, I found a sphere and looking from the right direction I see a straight line boundary.  Why couldn't you do this?
Pics or it didn't happen.
Do it yourself.  Find a ball and look at it's boundary edge on.  I did my science, now you do yours.
I have looked at many spheres. None of them have a straight-line shadow boundary. The Earth is flat.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: CidTheKid on October 14, 2011, 04:22:04 PM
Heres a straight line boundary.
(http://wiki.blender.org/uploads/thumb/f/f1/Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png/200px-Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png)

Now, do you any of you FE'thers have a proper map?

One that consistently explains the Points raised by the OP?
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Nolhekh on October 14, 2011, 07:33:29 PM
Have you considered all possible light directions in determining the apparent shape of the light boundary in denying that it could ever appear straight?  I did, I found a sphere and looking from the right direction I see a straight line boundary.  Why couldn't you do this?
Pics or it didn't happen.
Do it yourself.  Find a ball and look at it's boundary edge on.  I did my science, now you do yours.
I have looked at many spheres. None of them have a straight-line shadow boundary. The Earth is flat.

I have looked at many buildings.  None of them are more than 600 m tall.  The Burj Dubai therefore doesn't exist.

Just pointing out the logical flaw to your statement.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Nolhekh on October 14, 2011, 07:38:00 PM
Here's a logical proof.  On a sphere light casts a circular illuminated area.  A circle exists on only one plane.  Anything two-dimensional planar object appears straight when viewed precisely from the edge.  Therefore the light cast on a sphere can appear straight.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 14, 2011, 11:21:02 PM
Heres a straight line boundary.
(http://wiki.blender.org/uploads/thumb/f/f1/Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png/200px-Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png)
This is hardly a straight line.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: sokarul on October 15, 2011, 04:03:10 AM
Heres a straight line boundary.
(http://wiki.blender.org/uploads/thumb/f/f1/Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png/200px-Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png)
This is hardly a straight line.
It is a straight line.
As the pictures show, a shadow on a sphere will be straight on the curved surface. This isn't new.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Thork on October 15, 2011, 04:16:30 AM
That's not straight. It will only be straight if you are perpendicular to the object sphere with respect to the light source.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: sokarul on October 15, 2011, 06:34:15 AM
That's not straight. It will only be straight if you are perpendicular to the object sphere with respect to the light source.

Two spheres will always be "perpendicular" to each other.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Thork on October 15, 2011, 06:46:56 AM
No, you need to observe from perpendicular to see a straight shape.

>--------O
             |
             |
             |
             x

You are x. > is light source. If you are not perpendicular to the object with respect to the light source, you will not see a straight shadow.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: markjo on October 15, 2011, 09:11:40 AM
Heres a straight line boundary.
(http://wiki.blender.org/uploads/thumb/f/f1/Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png/200px-Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png)
This is hardly a straight line.
But it is similar to the day/night illumination pattern predicted by RET.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 15, 2011, 09:31:15 AM
Heres a straight line boundary.
(http://wiki.blender.org/uploads/thumb/f/f1/Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png/200px-Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png)
This is hardly a straight line.
But it is similar to the day/night illumination pattern predicted by RET.
The point that I was trying to make by my disproval of geometric shadows is that night does not suddenly turn into day. It is a gradual transition. The area of the earth which is fully lit at any one time under RET would never be a precise hemisphere, and thus the diagrams are irrelevant.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: The Knowledge on October 15, 2011, 09:34:00 AM
Heres a straight line boundary.
(http://wiki.blender.org/uploads/thumb/f/f1/Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png/200px-Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png)
This is hardly a straight line.
But it is similar to the day/night illumination pattern predicted by RET.
The point that I was trying to make by my disproval of geometric shadows is that night does not suddenly turn into day. It is a gradual transition. The area of the earth which is fully lit at any one time under RET would never be a precise hemisphere, and thus the diagrams are irrelevant.

Only because of light scattered through the atmosphere, not because the physics of light on a sphere cause a gradual transition.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 15, 2011, 09:36:30 AM
Heres a straight line boundary.
(http://wiki.blender.org/uploads/thumb/f/f1/Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png/200px-Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png)
This is hardly a straight line.
But it is similar to the day/night illumination pattern predicted by RET.
The point that I was trying to make by my disproval of geometric shadows is that night does not suddenly turn into day. It is a gradual transition. The area of the earth which is fully lit at any one time under RET would never be a precise hemisphere, and thus the diagrams are irrelevant.

Only because of light scattered through the atmosphere, not because the physics of light on a sphere cause a gradual transition.
Irrelevant. Either way, the line of argument in the OP is rendered redundant.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Nolhekh on October 15, 2011, 11:48:03 AM
The point that I was trying to make by my disproval of geometric shadows is that night does not suddenly turn into day. It is a gradual transition. The area of the earth which is fully lit at any one time under RET would never be a precise hemisphere, and thus the diagrams are irrelevant.

I see nothing in your original post that addressed gradual transition.  You specifically attacked straightness, not sharpness.

Those are very bad images. Provide evidence that shadows on a sphere produce a straight-line boundary between light and dark.

Who are you to judge a bad diagram when you make quick ms paint diagrams which utterly fail to show what it is you're trying to demonstrate?

Anyway, sharpness is irrelevant.  A sharp line can represent the position that is seeing exactly half a sun.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: The Knowledge on October 15, 2011, 02:20:46 PM

Only because of light scattered through the atmosphere, not because the physics of light on a sphere cause a gradual transition.
Irrelevant. Either way, the line of argument in the OP is rendered redundant.

No, sorry, the claim that night doesn't turn suddenly into day as an aspect of light distribution on a geometric shape rather than an aspect of atmospheric effects is very very relevant. See Parsifal for lessons on how to use the word "irrelevant" properly.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: sokarul on October 15, 2011, 03:21:03 PM
No, you need to observe from perpendicular to see a straight shape.

>--------O
             |
             |
             |
             x

You are x. > is light source. If you are not perpendicular to the object with respect to the light source, you will not see a straight shadow.
What I said is correct. But now I see what you were really saying.
In you picture half of O wil be lit up. You could say that the end of light ends on the prime meridian. The prime meridian will look straight from any angle, why wouldn't the light/ shadow line?
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 15, 2011, 04:00:19 PM
Heres a straight line boundary.
(http://wiki.blender.org/uploads/thumb/f/f1/Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png/200px-Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png)
This is hardly a straight line.
But it is similar to the day/night illumination pattern predicted by RET.
Sorry, how does that affect CidTheKid's original claim that it's a straight line?
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: sokarul on October 15, 2011, 05:39:45 PM
Heres a straight line boundary.
(http://wiki.blender.org/uploads/thumb/f/f1/Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png/200px-Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png)
This is hardly a straight line.
But it is similar to the day/night illumination pattern predicted by RET.
Sorry, how does that affect CidTheKid's original claim that it's a straight line?
Are you going to back up your claim that it is not a straight line on a curved surface?
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 15, 2011, 05:47:09 PM
Are you going to back up your claim that it is not a straight line on a curved surface?
In Euclidean geometries, It's impossible to plot a straight line on a curved surface. This should be elementary for someone who claims to hold a science degree.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: sokarul on October 15, 2011, 06:20:08 PM
Are you going to back up your claim that it is not a straight line on a curved surface?
In Euclidean geometries, It's impossible to plot a straight line on a curved surface. This should be elementary for someone who claims to hold a science degree.
You know what we are talking about. Don't derail the thread.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 15, 2011, 06:31:55 PM
You know what we are talking about.
I do know what we're talking about because I've started what we are talking about. This line is not a straight line. I'm waiting for CidTheKid's response.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: The Knowledge on October 15, 2011, 07:09:52 PM
Are you going to back up your claim that it is not a straight line on a curved surface?
In Euclidean geometries, It's impossible to plot a straight line on a curved surface. This should be elementary for someone who claims to hold a science degree.

FE semantic #1 - definition of "straight"  :P
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: sokarul on October 15, 2011, 07:53:43 PM
Are you going to back up your claim that it is not a straight line on a curved surface?
In Euclidean geometries, It's impossible to plot a straight line on a curved surface. This should be elementary for someone who claims to hold a science degree.

FE semantic #1 - definition of "straight"  :P
His argument has run out. Nothing else he can do.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Nolhekh on October 15, 2011, 08:19:03 PM
cid's sphere's lit section definitely has curve to it.  This one does not:

(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p264/Nojaru/sphere.jpg)
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Nolhekh on October 15, 2011, 08:21:53 PM
Heres a straight line boundary.
(http://wiki.blender.org/uploads/thumb/f/f1/Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png/200px-Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png)
This is hardly a straight line.
But it is similar to the day/night illumination pattern predicted by RET.
Sorry, how does that affect CidTheKid's original claim that it's a straight line?
Are you going to back up your claim that it is not a straight line on a curved surface?
I can
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p264/Nojaru/notstraightboundary.jpg)
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: sokarul on October 15, 2011, 08:33:41 PM
Heres a straight line boundary.
(http://wiki.blender.org/uploads/thumb/f/f1/Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png/200px-Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png)
This is hardly a straight line.
But it is similar to the day/night illumination pattern predicted by RET.
Sorry, how does that affect CidTheKid's original claim that it's a straight line?
Are you going to back up your claim that it is not a straight line on a curved surface?
I can
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p264/Nojaru/notstraightboundary.jpg)

That line doesn't follow anything. The line should follow the curvature of the sphere.

The equator on a globe is an example of a straight line on a sphere.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Nolhekh on October 15, 2011, 08:44:16 PM
The line connects the two places on either end of the boundary where it meets the edge of the sphere.  the centre of said boundary clearly does not follow the straight line I've drawn.

I see your confusion.  You believe we are discussing the geodesic, but in fact we are discussing apparent straightness, which cids picture does not show.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: CidTheKid on October 15, 2011, 09:53:34 PM
Eh, that was just the first sphere that came up on image search that I liked. I've got more constructive things to do than argue with people on the internet, though the debate that incurred was quite entertaining.

Nolhekh's Example is much better.

(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p264/Nojaru/sphere.jpg)

As an aside, none of this answers the points raised by the OP.

1. According to RET, the rising and setting of the sun can be consistently predicted, and the light behaves in a manner expected from a sphere. This is Illustrated in the OP.

a: Evidence that puts "Sun Calculators" into doubt has not been brought up.
b: A sphere with a single light source will only have one shadow; whether the edge has a curved line, or a straight line depends on the angle upon which the sphere is viewed. A straight line is possible, but only from a 90 degree angle. Evidence that this is not the case has not been brought up.

2. FET does not have any consistency regarding the subject of solar illumination since there is no commonly accepted Flat Earth map that matches the current predictions of Sunrise and Sunset.

3. Therefore, RET is better.



While I'm here, I'll just leave a picture for you to look at. I think it's quite nice, though it should have no bearing on my argument.

If you feel it's somehow fake, I'd be glad to here how you came to this conclusion. Send me a Message.  :)

(http://encyclozine.com/Science/Earth/Moon/Pictures/10075144.jpg)

Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 16, 2011, 04:03:51 AM
I see nothing in your original post that addressed gradual transition.  You specifically attacked straightness, not sharpness.
If it is not sharp, there is no straight line. There is no line.
Who are you to judge a bad diagram when you make quick ms paint diagrams which utterly fail to show what it is you're trying to demonstrate?
Irrelevant.
Anyway, sharpness is irrelevant.  A sharp line can represent the position that is seeing exactly half a sun.
wtf?
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 16, 2011, 04:14:37 AM
1. According to RET, the rising and setting of the sun can be consistently predicted, and the light behaves in a manner expected from a sphere. This is Illustrated in the OP.
Of course, this also applies to FET.

a: Evidence that puts "Sun Calculators" into doubt has not been brought up.
The results aren't put into doubt. The method of deriving them is.

b: A sphere with a single light source will only have one shadow; whether the edge has a curved line, or a straight line depends on the angle upon which the sphere is viewed. A straight line is possible, but only from a 90 degree angle. Evidence that this is not the case has not been brought up.
Sorry, what?

2. FET does not have any consistency regarding the subject of solar illumination since there is no commonly accepted Flat Earth map that matches the current predictions of Sunrise and Sunset.
Incorrect.

3. Therefore, RET is better.
Better for what purposes? If you mean it's more convenient to believe it, definitely so. If you mean it's more true, nnnnope.

(http://encyclozine.com/Science/Earth/Moon/Pictures/10075144.jpg)
Apparently, stars don't exist, and the Moon's horizon is pink. Might that little pink trail be a remnant of "magic pink" a colour commonly used for transparency in CGI?
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: The Knowledge on October 16, 2011, 05:51:01 AM
Apparently, stars don't exist, and the Moon's horizon is pink. Might that little pink trail be a remnant of "magic pink" a colour commonly used for transparency in CGI?

Why would you expect to see stars in that picture? I don't see a pink trail either.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: CidTheKid on October 16, 2011, 06:08:50 AM

Of course, this also applies to FET.


I'm willing to listen to your explanation.

The results aren't put into doubt. The method of deriving them is.

I'm certain you have evidence to back up this claim.

Sorry, what?

This is covered in basic art class. Read this, Page two:http://www.huevaluechroma.com/021.php (http://www.huevaluechroma.com/021.php)

Incorrect.

You can do better than simply claiming I'm wrong. Providing a FE map that matches the prediction of sunrise and sunset across the world will be good enough.

Better for what purposes? If you mean it's more convenient to believe it, definitely so. If you mean it's more true, nnnnope.

Better, in the form of being a more consistent, Less Hole-ridden explanation. It also happens to be true, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary?

(http://encyclozine.com/Science/Earth/Moon/Pictures/10075144.jpg)
Apparently, stars don't exist, and the Moon's horizon is pink. Might that little pink trail be a remnant of "magic pink" a colour commonly used for transparency in CGI?

Why there are no stars:http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/MoonPics/MoonPics.html (http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/MoonPics/MoonPics.html)
Find the CGI Borders in a film made almost entirely in CGI: (http://)

Color distortions were quite common back when Film was still used instead of digital photography.

(http://www.rlrouse.com/pic-of-the-day/ronald-reagan.jpg)

As you can see, Ronald Reagan is clearly wearing a green suit, identical to the one he always wore. ::)

Apparently, stars don't exist, and the Moon's horizon is pink. Might that little pink trail be a remnant of "magic pink" a colour commonly used for transparency in CGI?

Why would you expect to see stars in that picture? I don't see a pink trail either.

Kindly shut up and let me debate my own points. If anything, you lead the debate onto a tangent completely unrelated to the OP.

I suggest you make a separate thread for this argument, so we can continue debating this subject there.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: NTheGreat on October 16, 2011, 07:25:18 AM
Of course, this also applies to FET

Light behaves in a manner expected on a sphere in a flat Earth model? Why is this?

Quote
The results aren't put into doubt. The method of deriving them is.
What's wrong with the method of deriving them? It seems far simpler than the flat Earth method, with it's bendy light, perspective making things disappear when reaching a certain distance, and other forces that no doubt have a significant effect on the distribution of light.

Just to add some data into this thread, here's a collection of webcams from various Antarctica bases run by Australia. (http://www.antarctica.gov.au/webcams) I think these ones are quite good as they include a time lapse of the past few days, so you can get a rough idea of how long the days and nights are. As of the time of witing(mid October), the days where very slightly longer than the nights. This is much what you would expect with a round Earth model just after the September equinox, but as far as I can tell you would only expect 6 hours or so of light under a flat Earth model, unless there's another phenomena that's being kept from us.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 16, 2011, 07:28:02 AM
webcams from various Antarctica bases run by Australia.
Webcams from rim-continent bases run by imagination?
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Nolhekh on October 16, 2011, 07:37:30 AM
I see nothing in your original post that addressed gradual transition.  You specifically attacked straightness, not sharpness.
If it is not sharp, there is no straight line. There is no line.
incorrect.  Each edge of the shadow forms a line, the halfway point between the edges forms a line, in fact there are an infinite number of possible lines you can derive from a boundary between light and dark on a sphere.
Quote
Who are you to judge a bad diagram when you make quick ms paint diagrams which utterly fail to show what it is you're trying to demonstrate?
Irrelevant.
Anyway, sharpness is irrelevant.  A sharp line can represent the position that is seeing exactly half a sun.
wtf?
The line in the op could represent the position where an observer will see the sun with half of it hidden behind the horizon.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 16, 2011, 07:43:18 AM
incorrect.  Each edge of the shadow forms a line, the halfway point between the edges forms a line, in fact there are an infinite number of possible lines you can derive from a boundary between light and dark on a sphere.
But the shadow has no edge. It is a gradient.
The line in the op could represent the position where an observer will see the sun with half of it hidden behind the horizon.
Irrelevant. Bendy light exists in both FET and RET, and thus the results would be inaccurate.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 16, 2011, 07:52:24 AM
I don't see a pink trail either.
Then perhaps you need to zoom in. It's a fairly simple task. Then again, I'm not surprised you have failed.
Here, for your convenience:
(http://i.imgur.com/2evzG.jpg)
This is a fragment of the picture in question, enlarged 10 times.

I'm willing to listen to your explanation.
An explanation of Sun rising and setting? The Sun rises and sets. There you have it.

The results aren't put into doubt. The method of deriving them is.

I'm certain you have evidence to back up this claim.
Of course. Behold, the search function: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search

This is covered in basic art class. Read this, Page two:http://www.huevaluechroma.com/021.php (http://www.huevaluechroma.com/021.php)
Why are you changing the subject like this?

You can do better than simply claiming I'm wrong. Providing a FE map that matches the prediction of sunrise and sunset across the world will be good enough.
Any map for any model does that, be that FE or RE.

Better, in the form of being a more consistent, Less Hole-ridden explanation. It also happens to be true, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary?
Of course I do. Or, in fact, Wikipedia does. Elementary, really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

Find the CGI Borders in a film made almost entirely in CGI: (http://)
The fact that one piece of CGI is good doesn't mean all CGI in history was good. Conversely, just because one piece of CGI has obvious boundaries implies nothing about other pieces of CGI.

Color distortions were quite common back when Film was still used instead of digital photography.
Of course. Black or white would often become colourised. However, random magic pink borders generally do not occur in analogue photography.

Kindly shut up and let me debate my own points.
I am arguing your points. You may not like it, but you can't shut me up. If you'd like not to discuss with FE'ers, feel free to go elsewhere.

I suggest you make a separate thread for this argument, so we can continue debating this subject there.
No. Feel free to make a separate thread for your arguments, which are not related to the topic at hand, though. Otherwise, face the fact that they may be ignored and/or mixed with other arguments.

This is the Flat Earth Society. This is our ground. You will not dictate the rules here. Love it or leave it.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: The Knowledge on October 16, 2011, 08:01:44 AM
Pizza Planet knows so little about photography it's hilarious. I wonder why he hasn't addressed the strange pale pixels rising in rectangular shapes above the moon's horizon? After all, everything you see in a photograph must be really there, right?
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Nolhekh on October 16, 2011, 08:02:41 AM
incorrect.  Each edge of the shadow forms a line, the halfway point between the edges forms a line, in fact there are an infinite number of possible lines you can derive from a boundary between light and dark on a sphere.
But the shadow has no edge. It is a gradient.
The gradiant has to start and end somewhere.  wherever it does this is what I refer to as the edge.
Quote
The line in the op could represent the position where an observer will see the sun with half of it hidden behind the horizon.
Irrelevant. Bendy light exists in both FET and RET, and thus the results would be inaccurate.
The bendy light theory that FET must use is not the same as the refraction in RET.  Even so, refraction will cause the illuminated area to be slightly larger, but it will still appear straight when viewed from the right angle.  The results would however have inaccuracies that are consistent, so RET based sunrise/sunset time calculators could take this into account, producing accurate times for sunrises and sunsets.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 16, 2011, 08:24:13 AM
incorrect.  Each edge of the shadow forms a line, the halfway point between the edges forms a line, in fact there are an infinite number of possible lines you can derive from a boundary between light and dark on a sphere.
But the shadow has no edge. It is a gradient.
The gradiant has to start and end somewhere.  wherever it does this is what I refer to as the edge.
Quote
Good luck deciding where that is...
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_r-0gEnB_Fok/TTYMy2bglZI/AAAAAAAAAr0/YqJNrergKbM/s1600/gradient+%25281%2529.jpg)
The line in the op could represent the position where an observer will see the sun with half of it hidden behind the horizon.
Irrelevant. Bendy light exists in both FET and RET, and thus the results would be inaccurate.
The bendy light theory that FET must use is not the same as the refraction in RET.  Even so, refraction will cause the illuminated area to be slightly larger, but it will still appear straight when viewed from the right angle.  The results would however have inaccuracies that are consistent, so RET based sunrise/sunset time calculators could take this into account, producing accurate times for sunrises and sunsets.
I am sure the same could be said of FET.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Nolhekh on October 16, 2011, 08:34:49 AM
It starts 70 pixels from the top, and ends at the very bottom.  These areas are straight line boundaries beyond which the gradiant no longer changes.  Thank you for the support.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 16, 2011, 08:36:01 AM
It starts 70 pixels from the top, and ends at the very bottom.  These areas are straight line boundaries beyond which the gradiant no longer changes.  Thank you for the support.
It was just an illustration. Pixels don't exist in the real world, silly.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Nolhekh on October 16, 2011, 08:39:59 AM
I am sure the same could be said of FET.

Sure.  We have a circular lit portion for round earth that covers slightly more than half the planet which can appear straight from the right angle.  And we have a circular lit portion for flat earth that covers slightly more than only a quarter of the earth.  Lets start gathering data points to see which is right.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Nolhekh on October 16, 2011, 08:41:58 AM
It starts 70 pixels from the top, and ends at the very bottom.  These areas are straight line boundaries beyond which the gradiant no longer changes.  Thank you for the support.
It was just an illustration. Pixels don't exist in the real world, silly.

They do in the picture.  They happen to also be a useful measuring unit for something on a computer screen which your gradient was, and therefore my analysis is valid.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 16, 2011, 08:58:02 AM
It starts 70 pixels from the top, and ends at the very bottom.  These areas are straight line boundaries beyond which the gradiant no longer changes.  Thank you for the support.
It was just an illustration. Pixels don't exist in the real world, silly.

They do in the picture.  They happen to also be a useful measuring unit for something on a computer screen which your gradient was, and therefore my analysis is valid.
So what do you suggest? Flying up into space, taking a photograph of the earth and then zooming in on the pixels to try and find some mystical shadow-border? This idea is absurd, and I maintain that the argument falls apart because of it.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Nolhekh on October 16, 2011, 11:02:08 AM
It starts 70 pixels from the top, and ends at the very bottom.  These areas are straight line boundaries beyond which the gradiant no longer changes.  Thank you for the support.
It was just an illustration. Pixels don't exist in the real world, silly.

They do in the picture.  They happen to also be a useful measuring unit for something on a computer screen which your gradient was, and therefore my analysis is valid.
So what do you suggest? Flying up into space, taking a photograph of the earth and then zooming in on the pixels to try and find some mystical shadow-border? This idea is absurd, and I maintain that the argument falls apart because of it.

We can measure light levels quite well on the surface.  I'm not sure why a trip to space is necessary.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 16, 2011, 11:03:14 AM
It starts 70 pixels from the top, and ends at the very bottom.  These areas are straight line boundaries beyond which the gradiant no longer changes.  Thank you for the support.
It was just an illustration. Pixels don't exist in the real world, silly.

They do in the picture.  They happen to also be a useful measuring unit for something on a computer screen which your gradient was, and therefore my analysis is valid.
So what do you suggest? Flying up into space, taking a photograph of the earth and then zooming in on the pixels to try and find some mystical shadow-border? This idea is absurd, and I maintain that the argument falls apart because of it.

We can measure light levels quite well on the surface.  I'm not sure why a trip to space is necessary.
Light levels are affected by clouds, bendy light and such.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Nolhekh on October 16, 2011, 11:49:20 AM
Well, assuming bendy light is consistent, then if we get consistent inaccuracies we can then account for bendy light.  As for clouds, we'll just have to test on sunny days.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: The Knowledge on October 16, 2011, 01:08:38 PM
Well, assuming bendy light is consistent, then if we get consistent inaccuracies we can then account for bendy light.  As for clouds, we'll just have to test on sunny days.

It's been proven inconsistent by virtue of not affecting stars.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Theodolite on October 16, 2011, 01:17:43 PM
Heres a straight line boundary.
(http://wiki.blender.org/uploads/thumb/f/f1/Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png/200px-Manual_-_Light_-_Lamps_-_Sphere_Cubic_Shadow.png)
This is hardly a straight line.

Pretending that you are not aware that if you view the line from the same plane that it is bisecting the sphere will make it appear straight, is intellectually dishonest
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Nolhekh on October 16, 2011, 01:23:44 PM
Well, assuming bendy light is consistent, then if we get consistent inaccuracies we can then account for bendy light.  As for clouds, we'll just have to test on sunny days.

It's been proven inconsistent by virtue of not affecting stars.

or the angular width of the moon.  Interestingly, in all this bendy light discussion has no flat earther realized that something has to account for why the moon always appears the same width. Due to distance the moon should appear smaller.  Bendy light actually compounds this problem due to the fact that light would have to travel even further along an arc rather than in a straight line.

will continue this idea here where it belongs
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51294.20;topicseen (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51294.20;topicseen)
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 16, 2011, 01:27:39 PM
Well, assuming bendy light is consistent, then if we get consistent inaccuracies we can then account for bendy light.  As for clouds, we'll just have to test on sunny days.

It's been proven inconsistent by virtue of not affecting stars.

or the angular width of the moon.  Interestingly, in all this bendy light discussion has no flat earther realized that something has to account for why the moon always appears the same width. Due to distance the moon should appear smaller.  Bendy light actually compounds this problem due to the fact that light would have to travel even further along an arc rather than in a straight line.
Then this probably accounts for the huge variation in the apparent size of the moon, something that many people will have observed:
(http://1001zones.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/big_Moon-Fish.jpg)
(http://www.keystomiami.com/briefcase/80356_moon%20on%20a%20palm%20tip.JPG)
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Theodolite on October 16, 2011, 01:47:49 PM
Give me a break, you cant possibly be unaware of The moon illusion (http://www.howstuffworks.com/question491.htm)

Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Nolhekh on October 16, 2011, 01:51:14 PM
I don't see any angular measurements to show that those moons are in fact different angular size.

However, I'm sure the first one is fake.  I've made images like that myself.  Still mathematically possible however.

Besides, I thought I tried to shift this discussion into a thread where it's more relevant.  Please respond in that thread.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: NTheGreat on October 16, 2011, 01:51:46 PM
Webcams from rim-continent bases run by imagination?

No...You can call it the 'Rim continent ' if you want, but the bases are maintained by the Australian Government, as far as I can tell. The department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Australian Antarctic Division To be precise.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: CidTheKid on October 16, 2011, 02:57:27 PM

An explanation of Sun rising and setting? The Sun rises and sets. There you have it.

Now I'm curious as to how a Flat Earth Produces Sunrise and Sunset identical to that of a Round Earth, as you have just explained. Elaborate a little further, if you will?

Of course. Behold, the search function: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search

(http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l561/AIDSTheKid/I_See_No_Evidence.jpg)
As a Zetetic Observer, I see no evidence here. You're conceding this point?

Why are you changing the subject like this?

You asked about this. I answered. I assume you concede this point as well?

Any map for any model does that, be that FE or RE.

Not according to the OP. And I see you've failed to provide a map, or other evidence to demonstrate the contrary. Are you conceding yet another point?

Of course I do. Or, in fact, Wikipedia does. Elementary, really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

How does this disprove Round Earth Theory? Does FET have an explanation for these Anomalies? Lastly, how are a few Gravitational Anomalies comparable to an inability to produce a proper map?

The fact that one piece of CGI is good doesn't mean all CGI in history was good. Conversely, just because one piece of CGI has obvious boundaries implies nothing about other pieces of CGI.

You didn't even address my claim on why there are no stars? I take it you concede that point as well? I'll accept your point on CGI, since it wasn't even the main part of my argument.

Of course. Black or white would often become colourised. However, random magic pink borders generally do not occur in analogue photography.

They do, and it's called Chromatic Aberration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_Aberration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_Aberration)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/be/Chromatic_aberration_1_14_2009.jpg/800px-Chromatic_aberration_1_14_2009.jpg)

Note the "Random Magic Pink Borders."

Kindly shut up and let me debate my own points.

I am arguing your points. You may not like it, but you can't shut me up. If you'd like not to discuss with FE'ers, feel free to go elsewhere.

I suggest you make a separate thread for this argument, so we can continue debating this subject there.
No. Feel free to make a separate thread for your arguments, which are not related to the topic at hand, though. Otherwise, face the fact that they may be ignored and/or mixed with other arguments.

This is the Flat Earth Society. This is our ground. You will not dictate the rules here. Love it or leave it.

Not even addressed at you. Not even addressed at FE'ers. This was addressed at some idiot who was arguing for me. And very poorly at that, which is why I asked to him to stop. Why are you mad?

Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: The Knowledge on October 16, 2011, 05:20:37 PM
By "some idiot who was arguing for me" do you mean me? Fine. Come on here and answer all the stuff about photography that none of the FE'ers undertand before I do, then. I have no idea whether or not you are going to post, I'm not psychic. Shall I refrain from addressing other posters just in case you want to do it?
If that's your attitude, piss off out of the public forum and conduct your corrections by private message.

Edit: just looked back to see what you thought my "poor argument" on your behalf was, and it's a question asking why another poster would expect to see stars (perfectly reasonable, to assess his understanding of the photographic process since that was his standpoint for argument) and the true statement that looking at the original unmagnified image I could not see a pink line.
Hardly poor arguing on your behalf.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: CidTheKid on October 16, 2011, 06:20:14 PM
By "some idiot who was arguing for me" do you mean me? Fine. Come on here and answer all the stuff about photography that none of the FE'ers undertand before I do, then. I have no idea whether or not you are going to post, I'm not psychic. Shall I refrain from addressing other posters just in case you want to do it?
If that's your attitude, piss off out of the public forum and conduct your corrections by private message.

Edit: just looked back to see what you thought my "poor argument" on your behalf was, and it's a question asking why another poster would expect to see stars (perfectly reasonable, to assess his understanding of the photographic process since that was his standpoint for argument) and the true statement that looking at the original unmagnified image I could not see a pink line.
Hardly poor arguing on your behalf.

Why are you so mad? I merely asked you to refrain from arguing my points for me. Create your own argument rather than hijacking someone elses, please.

Failure to perform proper research, and failure to provide proper evidence makes you about as helpful to my argument as a lead weight. Though it certainly puts you on par with the average FE debater here.

Lastly, I considered the debate on the picture of the moon as merely tangential to the argument in this thread. Hence why I asked you to make a different thread for it.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: The Knowledge on October 17, 2011, 05:08:08 AM
By "some idiot who was arguing for me" do you mean me? Fine. Come on here and answer all the stuff about photography that none of the FE'ers undertand before I do, then. I have no idea whether or not you are going to post, I'm not psychic. Shall I refrain from addressing other posters just in case you want to do it?
If that's your attitude, piss off out of the public forum and conduct your corrections by private message.

Edit: just looked back to see what you thought my "poor argument" on your behalf was, and it's a question asking why another poster would expect to see stars (perfectly reasonable, to assess his understanding of the photographic process since that was his standpoint for argument) and the true statement that looking at the original unmagnified image I could not see a pink line.
Hardly poor arguing on your behalf.

Why are you so mad?
Because you called me an idiot. Reasonable grounds to be annoyed, I think.
Quote
Failure to perform proper research, and failure to provide proper evidence makes you about as helpful to my argument as a lead weight.
Er... what research should I do to ask another poster a question in order to assess his understanding of a topic, and what research should I do to back up my (true) statement that I could not see the pink line?
Tell the guy who asked about the stars and the pink line to make a new thread, not me.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 17, 2011, 05:50:21 AM
By "some idiot who was arguing for me" do you mean me? Fine. Come on here and answer all the stuff about photography that none of the FE'ers undertand before I do, then. I have no idea whether or not you are going to post, I'm not psychic. Shall I refrain from addressing other posters just in case you want to do it?
If that's your attitude, piss off out of the public forum and conduct your corrections by private message.

Edit: just looked back to see what you thought my "poor argument" on your behalf was, and it's a question asking why another poster would expect to see stars (perfectly reasonable, to assess his understanding of the photographic process since that was his standpoint for argument) and the true statement that looking at the original unmagnified image I could not see a pink line.
Hardly poor arguing on your behalf.

Why are you so mad?
Because you called me an idiot. Reasonable grounds to be annoyed, I think.
Quote
Failure to perform proper research, and failure to provide proper evidence makes you about as helpful to my argument as a lead weight.
Er... what research should I do to ask another poster a question in order to assess his understanding of a topic, and what research should I do to back up my (true) statement that I could not see the pink line?
Tell the guy who asked about the stars and the pink line to make a new thread, not me.
Alas, while Zeteticists stand shoulder to shoulder against the evil of untruths, globites cannot even agree whose side they are on, let alone which theories they back. You should come over to FE - the side of reason!
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: CidTheKid on October 17, 2011, 10:33:43 AM
By "some idiot who was arguing for me" do you mean me? Fine. Come on here and answer all the stuff about photography that none of the FE'ers undertand before I do, then. I have no idea whether or not you are going to post, I'm not psychic. Shall I refrain from addressing other posters just in case you want to do it?
If that's your attitude, piss off out of the public forum and conduct your corrections by private message.

Edit: just looked back to see what you thought my "poor argument" on your behalf was, and it's a question asking why another poster would expect to see stars (perfectly reasonable, to assess his understanding of the photographic process since that was his standpoint for argument) and the true statement that looking at the original unmagnified image I could not see a pink line.
Hardly poor arguing on your behalf.

Why are you so mad?
Because you called me an idiot. Reasonable grounds to be annoyed, I think.
Quote
Failure to perform proper research, and failure to provide proper evidence makes you about as helpful to my argument as a lead weight.
Er... what research should I do to ask another poster a question in order to assess his understanding of a topic, and what research should I do to back up my (true) statement that I could not see the pink line?
Tell the guy who asked about the stars and the pink line to make a new thread, not me.
Alas, while Zeteticists stand shoulder to shoulder against the evil of untruths, globites cannot even agree whose side they are on, let alone which theories they back. You should come over to FE - the side of reason!

Great Idea!  ;D

But I'm afraid I'll pass. RE'ers have Sugar Puffs and Caramel apples.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Sentient Pizza on October 19, 2011, 06:50:48 AM
Alas, while Zeteticists stand shoulder to shoulder against the evil of untruths, globites cannot even agree whose side they are on, let alone which theories they back. You should come over to FE - the side of reason!

Man you need to Lurk more. I know you posted this being funny, but damn. You are missing out on some major lines in the sand drawn between FE Proponents. You guys cant agree about the most fundamental things. Light, Gravity/gravitation, size, basic map, navigation, tided, the moon, the sun, I could go on.

This is a prime example of the malfunctioning FE mind. A couple RE guys start arguing with eachother and you jump right to that they cant figure out what theory to back. Maybe its possible that you were looking in a mirrow when you saw those things.  :)
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 19, 2011, 09:30:05 AM
Pretending that you are not aware that if you view the line from the same plane that it is bisecting the sphere will make it appear straight, is intellectually dishonest
A straight line can only have one common point with a sphere if it's touching it, or two if it's intersecting it. Pretending that anything that's projected on a sphere in its entirety might be a straight line is not so much intellectually dishonest, but simply unintellectual.

Now I'm curious as to how a Flat Earth Produces Sunrise and Sunset identical to that of a Round Earth, as you have just explained. Elaborate a little further, if you will?
Why must it be identical to that of a Round Earth? It merely has to match up with reality, not your model.

(http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l561/AIDSTheKid/I_See_No_Evidence.jpg)
As a Zetetic Observer, I see no evidence here. You're conceding this point?
Right. If you're going to pretend you're a retard, I'm going to treat you as one.

You asked about this. I answered. I assume you concede this point as well?
You need to assume less, and derail less. Then you might actually have a conversation (something you've been complaining about recently).

Not according to the OP.
The OP simply happens to be entirely baseless.

And I see you've failed to provide a map, or other evidence to demonstrate the contrary.
The map (or, rather, the closest you'll ever get to a map, seeing how it's entirely impossible of creating a map of any other scale than 1:1) happens to be in the FAQ. It's fairly simple to find it. Then again, you've found the search function baffling. Let me know if you need any help locating the FAQ. I'll be happy to help.

Are you conceding yet another point?
I see your grammar is at slight fault here. It's okay, I'm not native either. You'll be up to speed in no time.
You see, you can't really say "yet again" when you refer to the first object in a group.
Now, to answer your question: No.

How does this disprove Round Earth Theory? Does FET have an explanation for these Anomalies?
RE'ers claim their model explains gravity. Wikipedia shows it doesn't. A direct contradiction with the facts is, by definition, a disproof.

Lastly, how are a few Gravitational Anomalies comparable to an inability to produce a proper map?
Oh, yeah, that's a good point. No, wait, my mistake, it actually isn't. A universe that would be expanding several times as fast as it is now, and orbits that would cause all planets to crash into the Sun by now are easily comparable with an inability to produce a map. Note that it is impossible to produce a map, as explained many times here before. On the other hand, it's also quite impossible for the Earth to be currently inside the Sun, which is what the RE gravitation model suggests.

You didn't even address my claim on why there are no stars? I take it you concede that point as well?
Ah, so many assumptions, and so many of them wrong.
You see, I'm in no way obliged to address any of your claims; and since you're acting like an inconsiderate twat, I'm abusing this liberty. Think what you may of it.

I'll accept your point on CGI, since it wasn't even the main part of my argument.
Oh. Well, if you agree on that, then we might as well leave the stars alone.

Of course. Black or white would often become colourised. However, random magic pink borders generally do not occur in analogue photography.

They do, and it's called Chromatic Aberration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_Aberration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_Aberration)
The link you've provided shows that purple (nb. not pink, and definitely not magic pink) borders would appear on a white background. I'm afraid that purple on white isn't very relevant to magic pink on black.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 19, 2011, 12:46:07 PM

The map (or, rather, the closest you'll ever get to a map, seeing how it's entirely impossible of creating a map of any other scale than 1:1) happens to be in the FAQ.

I'd love to see a decent explaination of that!
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: jraffield1 on October 19, 2011, 01:25:59 PM
Not quite pizza planet. Gravity would not cause the Earth to plummet into the sun, lurk moar on angular momentum and educate yourself.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 19, 2011, 03:55:10 PM
Planet Pizzaz says:

"RE'ers claim their model explains gravity. Wikipedia shows it doesn't. A direct contradiction with the facts is, by definition, a disproof."

Are you sure you're on the correct Wiki?
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 21, 2011, 07:13:55 AM
Are you sure you're on the correct Wiki?
I'm not. Could you help me verify it?
I think that this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/) is Wikipedia.

Not quite pizza planet. Gravity would not cause the Earth to plummet into the sun, lurk moar on angular momentum and educate yourself.
Unfortunately, I'm not talking about angular momentum. It would help if you read the thread before responding.
But hey, I'll post the link once again, just because I'm nice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 21, 2011, 01:00:18 PM
Some contradictions, yes.

But enough to throw the entire theory down the drain and go for a theory based on UA, bendy light, and oh... gravity to explain some phenomenons?

I'll wait a little till we have something more consistent than a discutable 19th century book.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: jraffield1 on October 22, 2011, 12:58:26 AM
Not quite pizza planet. Gravity would not cause the Earth to plummet into the sun, lurk moar on angular momentum and educate yourself.
Unfortunately, I'm not talking about angular momentum. It would help if you read the thread before responding.
But hey, I'll post the link once again, just because I'm nice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

Like I said before, you should learn about angular momentum. Gravity will cause two initially stationary objects to crash into each other, but if those objects have angular momentum then their path towards each other will cause them to move along a curve, or as it is better known, an orbit.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: sokarul on October 22, 2011, 02:05:53 AM
Are you sure you're on the correct Wiki?
I'm not. Could you help me verify it?
I think that this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/) is Wikipedia.

Not quite pizza planet. Gravity would not cause the Earth to plummet into the sun, lurk moar on angular momentum and educate yourself.
Unfortunately, I'm not talking about angular momentum. It would help if you read the thread before responding.
But hey, I'll post the link once again, just because I'm nice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)

This will be helpful.

jraffield1, good luck getting him to back his claim up.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 22, 2011, 02:57:51 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) [link edited to spare us having to cope with the shitty mobile version of Wikipedia]

This will be helpful.
Very helpful, indeed! It brings us to my conclusion - that gravitation not a theory, and not a "scientifically proven fact", as many here seem to claim.
Thanks!

Some contradictions, yes.
I appreciate that you've finally conceded.

But enough to throw the entire theory down the drain and go for a theory based on UA, bendy light, and oh... gravity to explain some phenomenons?
An incredibly unscientific approach, that. We're not throwing the entire theory down the drain for the sake of another theory. We're throwing gravitation down the drain, because it doesn't work. This doesn't make UA automatically work. Don't put words in my mouth.

I'll wait a little till we have something more consistent than a discutable 19th century book.
I don't know what a "discutable" is, but assuming my guess is correct, here's a response:
The truth has no expiry date.

Like I said before, you should learn about angular momentum.
Like I said before, no one (except for you) is talking about angular momentum here. We're talking about the anomalous expansion of orbits, which angular momentum is supposed to counteract.

Gravity will cause two initially stationary objects to crash into each other, but if those objects have angular momentum then their path towards each other will cause them to move along a curve, or as it is better known, an orbit.
Yes, we already know what an orbit is. This is why we're discussing the anomalies in said orbits.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 22, 2011, 04:15:26 AM
Few questons:

1) How planets and stars were created if not by gravity?
2) How do planet revolve around the Sun if not with gravity?
3) How are the tides created if not by gravity?

Just to name a few.

Gravity is a flawed theory, yes, but it can be used to describe and predict a lot of phenomenons.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 22, 2011, 06:48:37 AM
None of these questions apply. I'm not disputing the existence of gravitation (Which is a different thing from gravity, too - look it up!). I'm disputing the RE model of gravitation.

Gravity is a flawed theory, yes, but it can be used to describe and predict a lot of phenomenons.
The Greek mythology is flawed, yes, but it can be used to describe and predict a lot of phenomena.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 22, 2011, 08:28:42 AM
If you want to live the domain of science and go to silliness, it is up to you, but since you don't have anything scientific or elevant to say, I suggest you go to children's websites  and leave us.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: jraffield1 on October 22, 2011, 08:54:58 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) [link edited to spare us having to cope with the shitty mobile version of Wikipedia]

This will be helpful.
Very helpful, indeed! It brings us to my conclusion - that gravitation not a theory, and not a "scientifically proven fact", as many here seem to claim.
Thanks!

Some contradictions, yes.
I appreciate that you've finally conceded.

But enough to throw the entire theory down the drain and go for a theory based on UA, bendy light, and oh... gravity to explain some phenomenons?
An incredibly unscientific approach, that. We're not throwing the entire theory down the drain for the sake of another theory. We're throwing gravitation down the drain, because it doesn't work. This doesn't make UA automatically work. Don't put words in my mouth.

I'll wait a little till we have something more consistent than a discutable 19th century book.
I don't know what a "discutable" is, but assuming my guess is correct, here's a response:
The truth has no expiry date.

Like I said before, you should learn about angular momentum.
Like I said before, no one (except for you) is talking about angular momentum here. We're talking about the anomalous expansion of orbits, which angular momentum is supposed to counteract.

Gravity will cause two initially stationary objects to crash into each other, but if those objects have angular momentum then their path towards each other will cause them to move along a curve, or as it is better known, an orbit.
Yes, we already know what an orbit is. This is why we're discussing the anomalies in said orbits.

Earlier you said that the RE theory of gravity would predict that planets would crash into the sun. My goal was to enlighten you as to why that is not true.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: markjo on October 22, 2011, 09:28:21 AM
Yes, we already know what an orbit is. This is why we're discussing the anomalies in said orbits.

Anomolies indicate that our knowledge of gravity and orbital mechanics is incomplete, not totally lacking.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 22, 2011, 10:56:08 AM
Anomolies indicate that our knowledge of gravity and orbital mechanics is incomplete, not totally lacking.
As I said, I'm not denying the existence of gravitation. I'm merely saying that RET lacks a working model.

Earlier you said that the RE theory of gravity would predict that planets would crash into the sun. My goal was to enlighten you as to why that is not true.
But you have yet to start talking about it.

If you want to live the domain of science and go to silliness, it is up to you, but since you don't have anything scientific or elevant to say, I suggest you go to children's websites  and leave us.
I'm sorry, but I strongly doubt anyone will listen to a noob's opinion about who should stay or leave the Flat Earth Society. It might take you a while, but you'll learn how this place works.
For a quick tip: Saying that something has no "science nor logic" to it doesn't render it false. If you'd like to point out why something is false, feel free to. Unfortunately, you will have to back up your claims, which isn't always easy. Good luck!
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 22, 2011, 11:03:31 AM
Ok, carry on making a fool of yourself here or wherever.

To the others: can someone try to convince Planet Pizzaz (the guy who worked for NASA!!!) that he should study a little bit more physics and logic.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 22, 2011, 12:08:21 PM
Ok, carry on making a fool of yourself here or wherever.
[...] he should study a little bit more physics and logic.
If you'd like to point out why something is false, feel free to. Unfortunately, you will have to back up your claims, which isn't always easy. Good luck!

Planet Pizzaz (the guy who worked for NASA!!!)
Now this is just intellectually dishonest.
What makes you "think" I worked for NASA?
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 22, 2011, 12:25:06 PM
You said that, I believe:
"I'm talking. Yes, I have worked for NASA and they are a conspiracy. I barely managed to get away alive.
Do you believe me? I hope not, because I'm lying. However, I strongly doubt you'd believe me if I wasn't.
People who are talking (and who are persistent in it) are likely to end up in a psychiatric facility of one kind or another."

Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 22, 2011, 12:35:25 PM
I've already responded to that post in the other thread you've made it in.

I'm talking. Yes, I have worked for NASA and they are a conspiracy. I barely managed to get away alive.
Do you believe me? I hope not, because I'm lying. However, I strongly doubt you'd believe me if I wasn't.
People who are talking (and who are persistent in it) are likely to end up in a psychiatric facility of one kind or another.

You said that, i believe?
Have you tried reading the whole post?
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 22, 2011, 01:12:01 PM
No.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 22, 2011, 02:26:38 PM
No.
That explains it.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 22, 2011, 03:30:54 PM
So stick with your brillaint analogy of a planet and a chair.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: momentia on October 22, 2011, 04:09:14 PM
So there are minute differences between theory and observation.
That is why there are people working on better theories.

However, whatever new theory that explains the anomalies won't significantly change predictions, and will likely contain many components of GR.

In the mean time, GR does the best at explaining motions in the sky.
It, along with particle physics, explains how stars are powered, and how brightly they will shine.
It explains the variations in measured g at various points on the earth.
It explains why clocks run at different speeds at different altitudes.
It explains why starlight gets slightly bent when passing massive objects.
it explains the cavendish experiment.

(Not that you will believe this one because it involves spacecraft, but Gravity Probe B directly observed earths gravity well and gravitomagnetic field.)

So yes its imperfect, but it is very accurate, and new theories can't toss out the notion of gravity (something that pulls masses together, some thing that causes masses to change the nature of space-time around them, something that keeps the planets in orbit, etc...). The effect is independent of the ways we try to quantify it, and will retain properties that the new theory will still have to be able to predict.

When you come up with FE physics more accurate than GR, tell me. Because that would be really cool.

Or at least FE physics that had some math. You have to start somewhere.  ;)
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: markjo on October 22, 2011, 04:26:46 PM
Anomolies indicate that our knowledge of gravity and orbital mechanics is incomplete, not totally lacking.
As I said, I'm not denying the existence of gravitation. I'm merely saying that RET lacks a working model.
I suppose that depends on your requirements for a "working model".  If you demand an absolutely complete model with no flaws whatsoever, then you're probably right.  But if you can get by with a model that reflects reality with a high degree of accuracy and precision. then you would be mistaken.
Title: Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
Post by: Nolhekh on October 22, 2011, 04:52:48 PM
You can build a bridge engineered for Newtonian physics and have it work.  Newtonian physics is therefore a working model.