The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: EmperorZhark on October 29, 2011, 06:09:19 AM

Title: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 29, 2011, 06:09:19 AM
Using this:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0759496.html

Or any reliable source on distances between cities,

Find any FE map large enough to contains all continents, including Antarctica, consistant with the distances given above.

Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 29, 2011, 10:25:38 AM
Already a couple of hours and... no map.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 29, 2011, 10:26:48 AM
Already a couple of hours and... no map.
Good timing!

It has previously been explained to you that distances on the FE map are, in fact, consistent with reality.

Here's your map. Note the image source.
(http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/idl_html_help/images/maps06.gif)
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 29, 2011, 10:31:05 AM
I don't care about hte source.

Wrong with most of the distances.

Dismissed.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 29, 2011, 10:41:32 AM
Wrong with most of the distances.
Incorrect.

Dismissed.
Gee, talk about blindly rejecting evidence. So much talk, so little science.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 29, 2011, 10:43:34 AM
Use a basic ruler, you'll see that you are wrong.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Thork on October 29, 2011, 10:45:38 AM
This is the most anti-climacticly named thread for some time. The ultimate challenge is to regurgitate the information we handed out in other threads a few weeks ago?
We are dining on scraps. :(
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 29, 2011, 10:46:29 AM
Use a basic ruler, you'll see that you are wrong.
Why would I use a basic ruler? That would entirely ignore the scale of the map.
Can you use a basic ruler to measure the distance from Kaliningrad to Sydney on a Mercator projection and/or a globe?
Hint: no.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 29, 2011, 10:48:35 AM
If it's a FE map, the scale is the same everywhere.

So your map is wrong.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 29, 2011, 11:11:36 AM
If it's a FE map, the scale is the same everywhere.
Incorrect, unless it happens to be 1:1
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 29, 2011, 11:21:32 AM
No.

Scale is a matter of proportions.
If City A is distant by 10 miles 10 City B and 20 miles to City C, whatever the scale is, the City C will remain twice more distant to City A than city B to City A.

If it works at scale 1:1, it will work at any scale.

So your map doesn't work.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 29, 2011, 11:30:32 AM
No.

Scale is a matter of proportions.
If City A is distant by 10 miles 10 City B and 20 miles to City C, whatever the scale is, the City C will remain twice more distant to City A than city B to City A.

If it works at scale 1:1, it will work at any scale.

So your map doesn't work.
FE maps do not scale linearly due to EAT.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 29, 2011, 11:31:00 AM
What is EAT?
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 29, 2011, 11:33:05 AM
What is EAT?
And this, boys and girls, is why we read the FAQ and lurk before arguing.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 29, 2011, 11:40:04 AM
Found EA, note EAT.

No need to act so superior when clearly you have such preposterous ideas bout scales.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 29, 2011, 11:42:43 AM
Found EA, note EAT.
Good, they're the same thing. T stands for "theory".

No need to act so superior when clearly you have such preposterous ideas bout scales.
I am certain you are just about to present your case on this subject. You've just forgotten to do so in this post.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 29, 2011, 11:46:17 AM
I forgot to add: the map should also work in the absence of light. (Does darness bend too?)
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 29, 2011, 12:16:16 PM
I forgot to add: the map should also work in the absence of light. (Does darness bend too?)

Here's a representation of the Earth in absolute darkness:
(http://cdn2.mamapop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/black.square.jpg)
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Thork on October 29, 2011, 12:30:44 PM
oohh,oooh me, me! I made a dark earth with lights at night.

Voila!
(http://i55.tinypic.com/o5zvxg.png) (http://i56.tinypic.com/qnaeqs.png)
Click for big. :D
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Thork on October 29, 2011, 12:42:21 PM
Ahh, my tribute troll is back. If you are going to rip me off, try and be funny or something. >:(
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 29, 2011, 12:44:50 PM
I forgot to add: the map should also work in the absence of light. (Does darness bend too?)

Here's a representation of the Earth in absolute darkness:
(http://cdn2.mamapop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/black.square.jpg)

Still anything relevant?
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on October 29, 2011, 01:26:01 PM
The problem is, the distances themselves have to change as well, not just our perception of the distances.  Otherwise, large farms in the Australian outback, for example, could not produce nearly as many crops.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 29, 2011, 02:23:05 PM
Still anything relevant?
I guess you didn't get it. If there was no light, you couldn't see the Earth. Asking how it would look if you couldn't see it is somewhat silly.

The problem is, the distances themselves have to change as well, not just our perception of the distances.
Incorrect.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on October 29, 2011, 03:02:15 PM
The problem is, the distances themselves have to change as well, not just our perception of the distances.
Incorrect.
What?  Why not?

If a plane is going at a hundred miles per hour (and in Australia it looks distorted by a factor of three) and you go three hundred miles in one hour, I think somebody's going to notice, even if they can't see the difference.

Also, crops in Australian outback!
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 29, 2011, 04:23:28 PM
Still anything relevant?
I guess you didn't get it. If there was no light, you couldn't see the Earth. Therefore, asking how it would look if you couldn't see it is somewhat silly.


According to you a map during the daytime is different than during nighttime!?

I suggest you dispense your massive incompetence somewhere else; you're waisting everyone's time here.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 29, 2011, 05:37:04 PM
According to you a map during the daytime is different than during nighttime!?

I suggest you dispense your massive incompetence somewhere else; you're waisting everyone's time here.
First things first, I feel inclined to remind you that this is the Flat Earth Society. If anyone's wasting someone's time here, it's the useless RE'ers disrupting the Society's operation with their thinking that we're here to accommodate their stupidity. No one here has any incentive whatsoever to convince you. Debating is a pastime. If you dislike it, leave. It's simple.

Furthermore, it would seem that you read my post, and then claimed that "according to me", something I didn't say happens. As usual, you accuse me of things that apply only to you - in this case, massive incompetence.

What?  Why not?

If a plane is going at a hundred miles per hour (and in Australia it looks distorted by a factor of three) and you go three hundred miles in one hour, I think somebody's going to notice, even if they can't see the difference.
You've got it backwards. Seeing the difference is the only thing that happens, and only from sufficient distances. Mechanics != optics.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on October 29, 2011, 07:38:01 PM
What?  Why not?

If a plane is going at a hundred miles per hour (and in Australia it looks distorted by a factor of three) and you go three hundred miles in one hour, I think somebody's going to notice, even if they can't see the difference.
You've got it backwards. Seeing the difference is the only thing that happens, and only from sufficient distances. Mechanics != optics.
I don't understand!  What I'm saying is, people have clocks, and one hour is noticeably different from three hours.  Sure, bendy light tells them, "Nope, three hundred miles, not one hundred (as it really is due to Earth's flatness)."  But their plane scheduler, and their pilot, etc., (believing there to be three hundred miles as well) will say, "We have three hundred miles to go.  We are currently going at one hundred miles per hour, so we expect to get there within three hours."

Twenty minutes later (a third of an hour), the pilot will realize that they've gone a full hundred miles!  But the whole time they've been watching, and they've never exceeded one hundred miles per hoour!  By this standard, they would have had to be going three hundred miles per hour!  But the pilot checks the reports, nope, one hundred the whole time!  As this trend continues (because, you know, the world's flat), he will notice it more and more.  He'll think, "Well, I guess there's something wrong with the equipment.  I must be going at three hundred miles per hour."  Surely he'll anounce to the passengers, "Well, we seem to be having some strange technical disruptions, and it seems that we're going at three hundred miles per hour, not one hundred.  We will be there much sooner than expected."  This goes against the pilot's intuition, though, because three hundred miles per hour is ridiculously fast.  The pilot will likely make a report to whoever's in charge about this.

You may say, "Well, they are in denial, to avoid changing their whole world view."  Well sure, but there are flights over Australia every day!  Surely the director or whatever will continually have the equipment looked at, but there will be no problems (because the real problem is bendy light).  Eventually they'll start to wonder.  Besides, "flat Earth" never occurs to them; that is patently ridiculous.  They have flights over Antarctica all the time.  They won't have a reason to deny this, because they don't think it will cause a scientific upheaval; they just think it's so weird and seemingly unexplainable, but never ceasing to show itself.

Also!  Crops in Australian outback!  You never explained that!
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 29, 2011, 08:36:50 PM
No, the flight times will be the same. I've already said that twice. Both the distances and velocities remain unaffected. It only looks different when you observe it from space.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on October 29, 2011, 08:53:03 PM
No, the flight times will be the same. I've already said that twice. Both the distances and velocities remain unaffected. It only looks different when you observe it from space.
Unaffected relative to what?  Does that mean that the distances predicted by a globe (i.e., the ones we measure) are unaffected (by the switch to FET), and bendy light simply makes the hull-down phenomenon?  Although, that doesn't really make sense either, because then how can the Earth be flat still?  We can't project the same distances on a flat Earth.

OR, does it mean that the distances displayed on the map are unaffected?  Because, if so, then again, everything I just said!  Perception clashes with reality, and odd results are experienced!

I don't see how either of these positions can be held.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 29, 2011, 09:48:42 PM
We can't project the same distances on a flat Earth.
That is correct, assuming we're speaking from the Euclidean geometries' point of view. We're not.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on October 29, 2011, 10:35:08 PM
We can't project the same distances on a flat Earth.
That is correct, assuming we're speaking from the Euclidean geometries' point of view. We're not.
On a flat Earth, don't we have to be?
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 05:47:37 AM
So, still no map?
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 30, 2011, 08:01:17 AM
On a flat Earth, don't we have to be?
I see no reason why. The commonly-used three-dimensional Euclidean geometry is known to be false even on RE, since we already know there are more dimensions than that (the last I've checked scientists were arguing whether it's 7 or 11. Damned if I know what they're claiming now).

So, still no map?
You have already been presented one. If this is all you have to say, could you please stop derailing this thread? El Cid and I are actually having an interesting discussion here.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 08:04:15 AM
Using this:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0759496.html

Or any reliable source on distances between cities,

Find any FE map large enough to contains all continents, including Antarctica, consistant with the distances given above.

One day, and only nonsense from one or two guys.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: markjo on October 30, 2011, 08:22:22 AM
On a flat Earth, don't we have to be?
I see no reason why. The commonly-used three-dimensional Euclidean geometry is known to be false even on RE, since we already know there are more dimensions than that (the last I've checked scientists were arguing whether it's 7 or 11. Damned if I know what they're claiming now).

So string theory has been proven to be true?  When did this happen?
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 09:39:59 AM
Guys, guys, no theory.

Just a map.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Thork on October 30, 2011, 09:45:03 AM
Guys, guys, no theory.

Just a map.
Read the FAQ.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 09:46:31 AM
Done it.

You're not taking the challenge.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Thork on October 30, 2011, 09:53:05 AM
What is the problem? You want a map. There is a map in there. Your demands for maps, and then rejection of all maps is wearisome. Use any map you like. Maps are projections of a flat earth. If you don't like our theories, challenge the theory. Don't just keep demanding more maps. I am telling you, you can use any map in the world. They are all projections of a flat earth.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 09:58:29 AM
If you had bothered taking a map and checking the distances, you wouldn't say this.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Thork on October 30, 2011, 10:02:41 AM
If you had bothered taking a map and checking the distances, you wouldn't say this.
The distances all match what you see in the real world. That's how maps work. Please learn about map projections. It ensures the only place on a map where there is no distortion is along the projection line. Everything else is distorted for the cartographers and users convenience. This allows you to have equal area maps, equal distance maps, bearing maps etc.

To ask FES to produce a map that does all of this at once is to ask FES for something that RET hasn't provided either. That is not a reasonable request, nor is it a satisfactory proof of rotundity or disproof of flatness. You are failing. :(

Its Halloween. Make an effort. A packet of crisps isn't scary. >:D
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 10:06:52 AM
A projection on a FE map should only have homothetic distorsion which is not what shows your so-called FE map.

So, still no map.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Thork on October 30, 2011, 10:11:08 AM
A projection on a FE map should only have homothetic distorsion which is not what shows your so-called FE map.

So, still no map.
Why should it? Because you say so? No. That's not how it works. Its our flat earth theory. Don't tell us how it should be so you can then tell us its wrong. Maps are projections of a flat earth! And you can use ANY map in the world. They all show a flat earth. Any map. Any map at all. Stop asking for maps. Use google and type map. Anything you see. Its a flat earth map, because earth is flat. Have I made that simple enough for you because I have explained it dozens of times to you as have others and you are still asking for a map. You are coming across as REtarded.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 10:17:38 AM

 You are coming across as REtarded.

Funny!

I like the: "Maps are projections of a flat earth! And you can use ANY map in the world. They all show a flat earth." Probably the wrongest argument in the world.

And: "Its our flat earth theory. Don't tell us how it should be so you can then tell us its wrong." Is shows that you are willingly wrong. OK.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on October 30, 2011, 10:18:08 AM
If you had bothered taking a map and checking the distances, you wouldn't say this.
The distances all match what you see in the real world. That's how maps work. Please learn about map projections. It ensures the only place on a map where there is no distortion is along the projection line. Everything else is distorted for the cartographers and users convenience. This allows you to have equal area maps, equal distance maps, bearing maps etc.

To ask FES to produce a map that does all of this at once is to ask FES for something that RET hasn't provided either. That is not a reasonable request, nor is it a satisfactory proof of rotundity or disproof of flatness. You are failing. :(

Its Halloween. Make an effort. A packet of crisps isn't scary. >:D

A globe preserves distances, surface areas, and is distortion free  ;D
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Thork on October 30, 2011, 10:19:35 AM
Earth is not a Globe. O0
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 10:21:21 AM
Since you cannot prove it by producing a single FE map, therefore Earth is not flat.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Thork on October 30, 2011, 10:22:48 AM
E v e r y   m a p   i s   a   f l a t   e a r t h   m a p.

The earth is flat.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 10:25:51 AM
Since you have trouble explaining me your theory on maps, may be you could indicate me a link to disprove me (and my stupid ideas!)?
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EnglshGentleman on October 30, 2011, 10:30:01 AM
Since you cannot prove it by producing a single FE map, therefore Earth is not flat.

Your logic is faulty, your conclusion does not follow the premise. Even if he couldn't provide a flat earth map, which he has, all it would mean is that he he has yet to produce a map. It has no bearing on the shape of the Earth.

And considering your OP is asking us to chart out the entire world by ourselves, it seems a fair bit unreasonable. I would also like to point out that those numbers are most likely incorrect, as air traffic never take the most direct route to their destination.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 10:34:19 AM
Yes, I agree, the conclusion is far-fetched.

Thurk has talked about maps, they are all wrong.

And I am just asking to measure the distances between no more 28 cities (and my guess is that you need far less to disprove a map).
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on October 30, 2011, 10:35:09 AM
E v e r y   m a p   i s   a   f l a t   e a r t h   m a p.

The earth is flat.

I think you mean to say, any map covering an adequately small area can be approximated fairly well by a flat map. However, the larger the area of the map, the greater the error between the true geometry of the Earth and the flat approximation. On a flat Earth, maps should have no distortion at any scale. What we observe however, is that when you look at larger and larger maps, the distortion increases accordingly. This would only occur on a ROUND Earth.  8)
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EnglshGentleman on October 30, 2011, 10:37:57 AM
Yes, I agree, the conclusion is far-fetched.

Thurk has talked about maps, they are all wrong.

And I am just asking to measure the distances between no more 28 cities (and my guess is that you need far less to disprove a map).

But you are asking us to use a map that projects the entire world and be in agreement with your data (which is most likely misleading since air travel times are the same regardless of a flat or round earth). How are we supposed to get data with four significant figures if we are just using scale systems? (e.g. one inch=200 miles)
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 10:40:03 AM
1) No one has as much as hinted that the measurements were "misleading".

Just use rounded figure. Even on a 10 cm map it should work.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Thork on October 30, 2011, 10:44:36 AM
No, that's not what I meant to say. Why should maps have no distortion? If you want to make (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EiaIHMcIlpc/TmopqTOh8OI/AAAAAAAAAmA/nogHk_Szs5A/s320/modern+flat+earth+map.png) look like this (http://friday.westnet.com/~crywalt/dymaxion_2003/earthmap10k.reduced.jpg) you are going to need to distort it.

The North Pole for example is a point, but in the map, it has been stretched across the entire upper surface of the map. So to make a map like that you need to apply a projection. A flat earth was projected to give another flat map.

I have explained this several times to you now. I think you are being wilfully stupid and I am running out of enthusiasm.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 10:47:42 AM
I think you are being wilfully stupid and I am running out of enthusiasm.

Since you cannot explain this to me, why don't you find me an internet link which would explain your theory?

PS On the first map, Sydney is too far away from Santiago de Chile, on the second map Anchorage is too far away from Vladivostok.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Thork on October 30, 2011, 10:49:46 AM
PS On the first map, Sydney is too far away from Santiago de Chile, on the second map Anchorage is too far away from Vladivostok.
Because ... they are projections. ::) That is how maps work. It doesn't mean the earth can't be flat.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 10:51:25 AM
None of your "projections" work.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Thork on October 30, 2011, 10:52:42 AM
??? If you can navigate with them ... they work. Do you know how to use a map?
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on October 30, 2011, 10:54:11 AM
PS On the first map, Sydney is too far away from Santiago de Chile, on the second map Anchorage is too far away from Vladivostok.
Because ... they are projections. ::) That is how maps work. It doesn't mean the earth can't be flat.

Wrong. Projecting a flat surface onto another flat surface reduced by some proportionality constant (i.e. make it smaller) would preserve all relative distances, areas, and orientations without any distortion whatsoever. Because this is not the case, as maps of larger scales are impossible to create without distortion, then it must be concluded that the Earth is definitely NOT flat.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Thork on October 30, 2011, 10:56:10 AM
I can only reiterate what I have already said, I am not going to keep repeating it because you refuse to accept it. Read my previous posts.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 10:59:32 AM
Projecting a flat surface onto another flat surface reduced by some proportionality constant (i.e. make it smaller) would preserve all relative distances, areas, and orientations without any distortion whatsoever.

I agree with you. It's such a simple and obvious concept!
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on October 30, 2011, 11:00:51 AM
I can only reiterate what I have already said, I am not going to keep repeating it because you refuse to accept it. Read my previous posts.

I refuse to accept what you say because you obviously don't know how projections work.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 12:00:29 PM
That's exactly what Thurk keeps on telling me!
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on October 30, 2011, 12:36:38 PM
In RET, the reason a flat map is distorted is because the real world is spherical, which is impossible to flatten out without distorting it.

If the Earth were flat, there would be absolutely no distortion.  Projecting a flat Earth to a flat map will have no distortion.  The distances should all be perfectly accurate, even though they can't be on a globe.  We've measured Australia.  It's a lot bigger than your map shows.

The dimensions beyond the third are tiny and have practically no effect.  Also, they might not exist.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 02:39:48 PM
So apart from Pizzazplanet and Thurk, everybody agrees.

So back to the challenge.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 30, 2011, 03:24:18 PM
Find any FE map large enough to contains all continents, including Antarctica, consistant with the distances given above.
You have already been shown one. What is the point of this? Are you just going to pretend it didn't happen; or perhaps you're going to return to your "no science here" spam?
Quit wasting our time and get to the point.

If the Earth were flat, there would be absolutely no distortion.
Incorrect. There would be an optical distortion which must be represented on the map. You are fallaciously applying the Euclidean model of geometry, which is known to be faulty, even in RE science.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 04:39:50 PM
Sorry PlanetPizzaz, no new data, no reference to anything remotly scientific.

Come back when you have something relevant.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: momentia on October 30, 2011, 05:00:35 PM
Thork, you need to make Australia a bit larger on that map of yours. Right now it doesn't span enough lines of longitude.


According to http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=240 and http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=196,

On september 8th, noon will be 12:15 PM (+8) in Perth, and 11:53 AM (+10) in sydney, meaning that the sunrises are 2 hours 22 minutes apart.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Thork on October 30, 2011, 05:02:30 PM
I did not draw any lines of longitude on the map, so it is your observation skills that are at fault, not my map.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 05:04:38 PM
Both Thork and PlanetPizzaz maps don't work with the challenge.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on October 30, 2011, 05:18:07 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry)

Generally accepted in mainstream science, not known to be faulty in "RE science," whatever that is.

And I know it says that Einstein diisproved it and all, but this only matters when spacetime is warped, and the warp around Earth is entirely undetected, and completely insignificant.

And I simply don't understand what other system you suggest.  Even if light is distorted, distance isn't distorted.  I would assume your map would show what's really there, not light distortion.

I thought that the weird-looking map was what was there, and bendy light explains the distortion.  This doesn't change distances, which is the problem I'm pointing out.  I don't understand "There would be an optical distortion which must be represented on the map."
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: momentia on October 30, 2011, 05:18:25 PM
I did not draw any lines of longitude on the map, so it is your observation skills that are at fault, not my map.

Perhaps you should add them?

(http://i39.tinypic.com/zipymp.jpg)

There are 24 segments, each segment is an hour. Australia crosses 1.5
It should cross at least 2.37
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on October 30, 2011, 05:20:16 PM
I did not draw any lines of longitude on the map, so it is your observation skills that are at fault, not my map.

Perhaps you should add them?

(http://i39.tinypic.com/zipymp.jpg)

There are 24 segments, each segment is an hour Australia barley crosses 1.5
It should cross at least 2.37

Did you ever consider that you drew them wrong?

@El Cid: no, we don't.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 30, 2011, 05:23:37 PM
or perhaps you're going to return to your "no science here" spam?
no reference to anything remotly scientific.
Oh, okay.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: markjo on October 30, 2011, 05:24:28 PM
Did you ever consider that you drew them wrong?

Then why don't you draw them correctly?
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 30, 2011, 05:26:00 PM
Then why don't you draw them correctly?
NASA to the rescue! (http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/idl_html_help/images/maps06.gif)
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 05:26:43 PM
It's pointless, the distances are wrong on this map (take Sydney, Santiago and Capetown).
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Thork on October 30, 2011, 05:27:18 PM
I did not draw any lines of longitude on the map, so it is your observation skills that are at fault, not my map.

Perhaps you should add them?

(http://i39.tinypic.com/zipymp.jpg)

There are 24 segments, each segment is an hour. Australia crosses 1.5
It should cross at least 2.37
My God, those angles are all over the place. The segments aren't even sized.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 30, 2011, 05:29:33 PM
It's pointless, the distances are wrong on this map (take Sydney, Santiago and Capetown).
Incorrect.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on October 30, 2011, 05:31:12 PM
It's pointless, the distances are wrong on this map (take Sydney, Santiago and Capetown).
Incorrect.
Let me fix that: Correct.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 05:32:22 PM
It's pointless, the distances are wrong on this map (take Sydney, Santiago and Capetown).
Incorrect.

Use a ruler and place it on the image on your screen. Or just go away.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 30, 2011, 05:34:23 PM
Let me fix that: Correct.
Only if you make assumptions that imply the Earth's rotundity. Such assumptions would constitute a petitio principii, and would definitely not help your questions to be answered.
However, if your only point is to feel that you're so right and that you told those pesky FE'ers, proceed. We'll just end in a stalemate, both deeply convinced that we've "won".

Use a ruler and place it on the image on your screen. Or just go away.
Are you a bot? We've already talked about that here. If rulers are so great, please use one on a globe and on a Mercator map.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 05:35:58 PM
The topic is about map and FE map.

Apparently you don't know how to use a ruler on a flat surface.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 30, 2011, 05:39:10 PM
The topic is about map and FE map.
Oh, so if a "flaw" "applies" to an FE map, that's terrible, but if it applies to RE, it's fine and not important at all? Interesting, interesting.

Apparently you don't know how to use a ruler on a flat surface.
I am sure you think this is relevant to the subject, but it's not. A Mercator map is perfectly flat, and yet your experiment fails for it.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 05:42:00 PM
Unless you come back with scientific evidence with you, no need to spam again with your lack of understanding.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: momentia on October 30, 2011, 05:42:47 PM
I did not draw any lines of longitude on the map, so it is your observation skills that are at fault, not my map.

Perhaps you should add them?

(http://i39.tinypic.com/zipymp.jpg)

There are 24 segments, each segment is an hour. Australia crosses 1.5
It should cross at least 2.37
My God, those angles are all over the place. The segments aren't even sized.

Incorrect.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 30, 2011, 05:43:35 PM
Unless you come back with scientific evidence with you, no need to spam again with your lack of understanding.
As I have already explained to you (wow, talk about lack of understanding), if you'd like to call someone wrong, you need to explain why. Otherwise, it's nothing but a cheap escape strategy.
Also, why would I provide scientific evidence for the fact that Mercator distances don't work, when you yourself have agreed with it in this thread?
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 05:46:05 PM
Since some people here don't understand the challenge, here it is again:


Using this:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0759496.html

Or any reliable source on distances between cities,

Find any FE map large enough to contains all continents, including Antarctica, consistant with the distances given above.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 30, 2011, 05:46:47 PM
(http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/idl_html_help/images/maps06.gif)
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Thork on October 30, 2011, 05:48:14 PM
Since some people here don't understand the challenge, here it is again:


Using this:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0759496.html

Or any reliable source on distances between cities,

Find any FE map large enough to contains all continents, including Antarctica, consistant with the distances given above.

Lrn2scale, you useless excuse for a human.
Title: New ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 05:50:20 PM
Using this:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0759496.html

Or any reliable source on distances between cities,

Build a representation of the Earth with all distances coherent. (clue: the map doesn't have to be planar).
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 30, 2011, 05:50:30 PM
To try and help EmperorZhark to understand, here is a graphical explanation of the FE distance model.

(http://matplotlib.sourceforge.net/basemap/doc/html/_images/nplaea.png)

All circles are identical.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 05:51:11 PM
(http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/idl_html_help/images/maps06.gif)

Distances between etc etc. You're not making any effort!
Title: Re: New ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 30, 2011, 05:52:05 PM
(http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/idl_html_help/images/maps06.gif)
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 30, 2011, 05:52:44 PM
Distances between etc etc. You're not making any effort!
It is you who doesn't make any effort. I've even provided an extra illustration to explain this to you.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: momentia on October 30, 2011, 05:53:58 PM
To try and help EmperorZhark to understand, here is a graphical explanation of the FE distance model.

(http://matplotlib.sourceforge.net/basemap/doc/html/_images/nplaea.png)

All circles are identical.

alright, make a map where all circles look like circles.
Title: Re: New ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Thork on October 30, 2011, 05:54:31 PM
Well done PizzaPlanet. The 'ultimate' ::) challenge has been met.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 30, 2011, 05:54:33 PM
alright, make a map where all circles look like circles.
This is one.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 05:55:06 PM
To try and help EmperorZhark to understand, here is a graphical explanation of the FE distance model.

(http://matplotlib.sourceforge.net/basemap/doc/html/_images/nplaea.png)

All circles are identical.

They are so identical that some are circles, other ellipses.
Title: Re: New ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 30, 2011, 05:55:47 PM
(http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/idl_html_help/images/maps06.gif)

You didn't even try. You're an utter failure.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 30, 2011, 05:56:42 PM
They are so identical that some are circles, other ellipses.
Only if you assume the Euclidean 3-dimensional geometry. Such an assumption is necessary for RE, so you take it for granted. However, it is a very invalid assumption.
Title: Re: New ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 30, 2011, 05:57:46 PM
You didn't even try. You're an utter failure.
Incorrect. This has been explained to you several times now.
Title: Re: New ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Thork on October 30, 2011, 05:58:23 PM
You didn't even try. You're an utter failure.
Its because you do not understand the answer. The conversation cannot move on until you grasp how a map works. Only then can you object to the flat earth theory. You are being given the answer repeatedly, and you don't get it. It is you that fails.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: momentia on October 30, 2011, 06:00:55 PM
They are so identical that some are circles, other ellipses.
Only if you assume the Euclidean 3-dimensional geometry. Such an assumption is necessary for RE, so you take it for granted. However, it is a very invalid assumption.

True, perhaps you could use a geometry with roughly uniform positive curvature.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 30, 2011, 06:01:43 PM
True, perhaps you could use a geometry with roughly uniform positive curvature.
By no means. This would render the existence of most of space impossible.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: momentia on October 30, 2011, 06:07:50 PM
True, perhaps you could use a geometry with roughly uniform positive curvature.
By no means. This would render the existence of most of space impossible.

Actually, I have a metric to describe such a manifold:
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2vw8hvq.png)

h = height above sea level (in meters)
λ = longitude
Φ = latitude

The distance between two points is calculated by finding the shortest path between them (minimize ∫ds from point 1 to point 2.)
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 30, 2011, 06:11:46 PM
Actually, I have a metric to describe such a manifold:
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2vw8hvq.png)

h = height above sea level (in meters)
λ = longitude
Φ = latitude

The distance between two points is calculated by finding the shortest path between them (minimize ∫ds from point 1 to point 2.)
Wrong forum.
http://theroundearthsociety.net/
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: momentia on October 30, 2011, 06:17:24 PM
That is my FE model.

Anyways, what geometry are you considering?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 30, 2011, 06:26:37 PM
This, essentially, but with inclusion of EA distortion, which causes a strong distinction between mechanical and optical observations.

Using non-euclidean space and looking at the earth in a fractal manner we solve all issues with geography on a flat earth.
(http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/871/fractalearthbf8.jpg)
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: momentia on October 30, 2011, 07:39:23 PM
This, essentially, but with inclusion of EA distortion, which causes a strong distinction between mechanical and optical observations.

Using non-euclidean space and looking at the earth in a fractal manner we solve all issues with geography on a flat earth.
(http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/871/fractalearthbf8.jpg)

So the radius of the earth actually decreases to zero as you go close the south pole?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Nolhekh on October 30, 2011, 08:05:04 PM
This, essentially, but with inclusion of EA distortion, which causes a strong distinction between mechanical and optical observations.

Using non-euclidean space and looking at the earth in a fractal manner we solve all issues with geography on a flat earth.
(http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/871/fractalearthbf8.jpg)
What evidence brought you to conclude that the earth is like this?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 30, 2011, 08:37:40 PM
So the radius of the earth actually decreases to zero as you go close the south pole?
No, the radius remains constant. Why would it change?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 31, 2011, 01:37:50 AM
FE = flat map = euclidean geometry = no deformation = no projection, only a scale.

If you'd have to draw a map of a FE, just imagine 26 rows with the numbers 1 to 26 and 26 columns with the letters A to Z, forming 26 x 26 squares, each representing roughly 1,000 miles.

Using the simples laws of geometry (and why should it be different because we are dealing with flat surfaces), we know that any distance in square F12 = the ones in V5.

This is valid using any scale.

I don't see the reason why you want to use anything more complicated than this.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 31, 2011, 10:37:44 AM
FE = flat map = euclidean geometry
Incorrect.

Using the simples laws of geometry (and why should it be different because we are dealing with flat surfaces), we know that any distance in square F12 = the ones in V5.

This is valid using any scale.
Of course, including a variable scale, such as that of the Mercator map or the FE map.

I don't see the reason why you want to use anything more complicated than this.
It's not complicated at all. You're just dismissing it without even trying to think about it. It's like with people who say maths is hard because they don't pay attention in class.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on October 31, 2011, 11:16:14 AM
FE = flat map = euclidean geometry
Incorrect.
[/quote]

So you don't believe the Earth is flat. You have been noted.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 31, 2011, 01:05:48 PM
Just imagine you take a photo of FE, from space.

Then you draw a map directly from the photo.

There you have your FE map.

I'd just like to see what it looks like.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 31, 2011, 01:11:50 PM
FE = flat map = euclidean geometry
Incorrect.


Can someone prove of disprove that guy?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 31, 2011, 01:13:54 PM

Using the simples laws of geometry (and why should it be different because we are dealing with flat surfaces), we know that any distance in square F12 = the ones in V5.

This is valid using any scale.
Of course, including a variable scale, such as that of the Mercator map or the FE map.


Can someone explain this guy that we don't need a variable scale?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 31, 2011, 01:16:51 PM

I don't see the reason why you want to use anything more complicated than this.
It's not complicated at all. You're just dismissing it without even trying to think about it. It's like with people who say maths is hard because they don't pay attention in class.

Fortunately, I never had teachers like you.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Theodolite on October 31, 2011, 01:25:04 PM
You can edit your post, and quote more posts in it, so you dont bury your own wall of statements....



I don't see the reason why you want to use anything more complicated than this.
It's not complicated at all. You're just dismissing it without even trying to think about it. It's like with people who say maths is hard because they don't pay attention in class.

Fortunately, I never had teachers like you.


Using the simples laws of geometry (and why should it be different because we are dealing with flat surfaces), we know that any distance in square F12 = the ones in V5.

This is valid using any scale.
Of course, including a variable scale, such as that of the Mercator map or the FE map.


Can someone explain this guy that we don't need a variable scale?

FE = flat map = euclidean geometry
Incorrect.


Can someone prove of disprove that guy?

Just imagine you take a photo of FE, from space.

Then you draw a map directly from the photo.

There you have your FE map.

I'd just like to see what it looks like.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 31, 2011, 01:36:24 PM
So you don't believe the Earth is flat. You have been noted.
I'm not sure how you've reached this conclusion, but it would seem you have derived it from your rectum. It is, of course, incorrect.

Just imagine you take a photo of FE, from space.

Then you draw a map directly from the photo.

There you have your FE map.

I'd just like to see what it looks like.
Yes, that's what I've been showing you all along.

Can someone prove of disprove that guy?
lol ad hominem

Can someone explain this guy that we don't need a variable scale?
Who are you to dictate the principles of a theory you don't subscribe to?
Can someone explain this guy [sic] that we don't need gravitation for RE? Oh, wait, so people are floating? Shit, RE disproved.
That was easy.

You can edit your post, and quote more posts in it, so you dont bury your own wall of statements....
I don't think he'll listen. Watch out, though. He might tell you there was no science in your post.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 31, 2011, 01:46:24 PM
You can edit your post, and quote more posts in it, so you dont bury your own wall of statements....



I don't see the reason why you want to use anything more complicated than this.
It's not complicated at all. You're just dismissing it without even trying to think about it. It's like with people who say maths is hard because they don't pay attention in class.

Fortunately, I never had teachers like you.


Using the simples laws of geometry (and why should it be different because we are dealing with flat surfaces), we know that any distance in square F12 = the ones in V5.

This is valid using any scale.
Of course, including a variable scale, such as that of the Mercator map or the FE map.


Can someone explain this guy that we don't need a variable scale?

FE = flat map = euclidean geometry
Incorrect.


Can someone prove of disprove that guy?

Just imagine you take a photo of FE, from space.

Then you draw a map directly from the photo.

There you have your FE map.

I'd just like to see what it looks like.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: momentia on October 31, 2011, 02:27:57 PM
I worded my last post wrong. I meant:

If the south circle is the same as the north pole, then the circumference of the south pole = the circumference of the north pole = 0. So if you travel around a circle of radius R centered at the north pole, it will have a circumference C as a function of R. C initially increases as R increases , but since C is zero when R = radius of the earth, C has to start decreasing some point as R increases, until it is zero at the south circle.

Correct?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 31, 2011, 02:31:11 PM
I worded my last post wrong. I meant:

If the south circle is the same as the north pole, then the circumference of the south pole = the circumference of the north pole = 0. So if you travel around a circle of radius R centered at the north pole, it will have a circumference C as a function of R. C initially increases as R increases , but since C is zero when R = radius of the earth, C has to start decreasing some point as R increases, until it is zero at the south circle.

Correct?
There are many problems with this statement, mostly due to the fact that you're trying to describe this model as if it existed in an Euclidean geometry. No radii or circumferences change at any given time.
However, if you're just trying to visualise this in your head, then yes.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: momentia on October 31, 2011, 02:38:26 PM
I worded my last post wrong. I meant:

If the south circle is the same as the north pole, then the circumference of the south pole = the circumference of the north pole = 0. So if you travel around a circle of radius R centered at the north pole, it will have a circumference C as a function of R. C initially increases as R increases , but since C is zero when R = radius of the earth, C has to start decreasing some point as R increases, until it is zero at the south circle.

Correct?
There are many problems with this statement, mostly due to the fact that you're trying to describe this model as if it existed in an Euclidean geometry. No radii or circumferences change at any given time.
However, if you're just trying to visualise this in your head, then yes.

Not really, I'm asking for the circumference of a circle C of radius R centered at the north pole as a function of R. (not the radius of
the FE, just a radius that can vary from 0 to the radius of the earth.)

In euclidean geometry C(R) = 2πR

In non-euclidean, C(R) is allowed to be different
What you are saying is that C(0) = C(Radius of the earth) = 0.

Also, what is your definition of flat?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 31, 2011, 02:43:11 PM
Not really, I'm asking for the circumference of a circle C of radius R centered at the north pole as a function of R. (not the radius of
the FE, just a radius that can vary from 0 to the radius of the earth.)
The Earth as a whole has no radius, and no circumference. It's a fractal.

Also, what is your definition of flat?
A surface with no general upward or downward curvature. Mountains and valleys don't count.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: momentia on October 31, 2011, 02:56:29 PM
Not really, I'm asking for the circumference of a circle C of radius R centered at the north pole as a function of R. (not the radius of
the FE, just a radius that can vary from 0 to the radius of the earth.)
The Earth as a whole has no radius, and no circumference. It's a fractal.

Also, what is your definition of flat?
A surface with no general upward or downward curvature. Mountains and valleys don't count.

If you measure from the north pole south until you hit the south pole, you have the radius of the earth. If you hook a string from the north pole to yourself of a given length, walk around a circle with the string taut, you will measure a circumference. That circumference is equal to a function of the length of the string.

All non-euclidean geometries have curvature.

Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 31, 2011, 03:17:37 PM
If you measure from the north pole south until you hit the south pole, you have the radius of the earth. If you hook a string from the north pole to yourself of a given length, walk around a circle with the string taut, you will measure a circumference. That circumference is equal to a function of the length of the string.
Ah, so you're interested in the measurements of one iteration of the loop. With this correction, yes, you are correct.

All non-euclidean geometries have curvature.
With reference to Euclidean geometries, yes. With reference to themselves, no.
EDIT: Also, that's not quite true. Consider the absolute geometry, for example.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on October 31, 2011, 03:26:33 PM
So you don't believe the Earth is flat. You have been noted.
I'm not sure how you've reached this conclusion, but it would seem you have derived it from your rectum. It is, of course, incorrect.

Just imagine you take a photo of FE, from space.

Then you draw a map directly from the photo.

There you have your FE map.

I'd just like to see what it looks like.
Yes, that's what I've been showing you all along.

Can someone prove of disprove that guy?
lol ad hominem

Can someone explain this guy that we don't need a variable scale?
Who are you to dictate the principles of a theory you don't subscribe to?
Can someone explain this guy [sic] that we don't need gravitation for RE? Oh, wait, so people are floating? Shit, RE disproved.
That was easy.

You can edit your post, and quote more posts in it, so you dont bury your own wall of statements....
I don't think he'll listen. Watch out, though. He might tell you there was no science in your post.

You said that the phrase "Flat Earth = flat map" is incorrect. If the Earth is flat, then a map of it would necessarily need to be flat as well with absolutely no distortion on any scale. You admit that creating a map that contains no distortion is impossible, so you have proved that the Earth cannot be flat. Your attempts at skimming through wikipedia and declaring the Earth to be a fractal is even MORE baseless than the idea that Earth is flat. Try again.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 31, 2011, 03:34:15 PM
You said that the phrase "Flat Earth = flat map" is incorrect.
No, I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth. It doesn't help your position.

If the Earth is flat, then a map of it would necessarily need to be flat as well with absolutely no distortion on any scale.
Mechanically, yes. Optically, no. Mechanics != optics.

You admit that creating a map that contains no distortion is impossible
Wrong again. I point out that scaling a map down is impossible, and simultaneously I point out that every RE map in history has been a projection. This includes globes, so the "3d world, 2d map" argument does not apply.

so you have proved that the Earth cannot be flat.
False assumptions read to false conclusions.

Your attempts at skimming through wikipedia
Hooooold it right there. A baseless accusation in the middle of an accusation of my claims being baseless? How wonderfully hypocritical.

and declaring the Earth to be a fractal is even MORE baseless than the idea that Earth is flat. Try again.
Ah, yes, I see a whole lot support for this claim. I am convinced. Oh, wait, no, I'm not, since there is no support whatsoever. By all means, do try again!
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: momentia on October 31, 2011, 03:39:33 PM
If you measure from the north pole south until you hit the south pole, you have the radius of the earth. If you hook a string from the north pole to yourself of a given length, walk around a circle with the string taut, you will measure a circumference. That circumference is equal to a function of the length of the string.
Ah, so you're interested in the measurements of one iteration of the loop. With this correction, yes, you are correct.

All non-euclidean geometries have curvature.
With reference to Euclidean geometries, yes. With reference to themselves, no.
EDIT: Also, that's not quite true. Consider the absolute geometry, for example.

Absolute geometry is not powerful enough to talk about well defined surfaces.

With "references to themselves," surfaces still have curvature. Gaussian curvature is dependent only on what unit you use to measure distance.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 31, 2011, 03:41:49 PM
Absolute geometry is not powerful enough to talk about well defined surfaces.
I don't see how this is relevant.

With "references to themselves," surfaces still have curvature. Gaussian curvature is dependent only on what unit you use to measure distance.
Our definitions of "curvature" clearly differ.

Is there a point to this at all? You've shown a sufficient understanding of my theory, and it seems to me that now you're just poking holes in semantics (and not managing thus far).
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: momentia on October 31, 2011, 03:47:49 PM
Absolute geometry is not powerful enough to talk about well defined surfaces.
I don't see how this is relevant.

With "references to themselves," surfaces still have curvature. Gaussian curvature is dependent only on what unit you use to measure distance.
Our definitions of "curvature" clearly differ.

Is there a point to this at all? You've shown a sufficient understanding of my theory, and it seems to me that now you're just poking holes in semantics (and not managing thus far).

Maybe you can clue me in on your meaning of curvature.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 31, 2011, 03:56:30 PM
Maybe you can clue me in on your meaning of curvature.
Well, I already did, but then you claimed a non-curved surface is curved by definition. I'll just choose to agree to disagree on that one.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: momentia on October 31, 2011, 09:46:25 PM
Maybe you can clue me in on your meaning of curvature.
Well, I already did, but then you claimed a non-curved surface is curved by definition. I'll just choose to agree to disagree on that one.

If you can tell me more about this surface (it's metric perhaps?), You could help your argument. But right now, it seems like you are talking about a surface with a non-zero gaussian curvature.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Ryan Onessence on November 01, 2011, 12:24:20 PM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51049.msg1251245#msg1251245
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 02, 2011, 01:29:47 AM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51049.msg1251245#msg1251245

What kind of Earth map woul dcome with your theory?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on November 02, 2011, 04:02:21 PM
PizzaPlanet, let me teach you something I learned a long time ago.

My brother and I used to always have an argument about something.  Often, one of us would realize that the other had comitted a fatal error at the base of their argument, rendering it meaningless.  We would relish in it, when we saw this, and we would wait for the other to continue arguing, and just pretend that we didn't know that they had a wrong assumption.  Then, finally, we would say, "Oh!  Do you think that X?"  When they realized that it was not so, it was highly embarrassing, and they were put to shame.

Sometimes I would get the chance to do this, and sometimes he would.  Then, one time, I realized it was happening, except this time, he thought that he was doing it to me, but his belief was grounded in yet another wrong assumption!  I thought, "Well, jeez, this will take forever.  Forget it."  Then I told him the error he had comitted.  "Oh," he said, still somewhat embarrassed.


It seems to me that you are trying to do the same thing, but it's not working because you're giving so little information in hopes of this happenning, that no one ever really tries to rat you out, and you never get to reveal their wrong assumption.  This just makes you look like a terrible debater who doesn't really know what he's talking about.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 02, 2011, 05:08:49 PM
you're giving so little information
In fact, I've given you thirty pages of information here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=44906.0), and I'm constantly providing more. If you feel that some information is missing (note: the fact that you disagree with something doesn't make it missing. Of course, I welcome debating that too, but you've claimed that I provide little information, not incorrect information [even though you likely think of both]), just ask. Make sure you've checked that the information really wasn't provided, though - you not trying to find it is not equal to me not having provided it.

If you have a look at the thread I've just linked, you will notice that there are three distinct type of RE'ers: the good ones, such as Nohlekh, who can discuss the problem with respect and understanding. He may very well think I'm a complete nutcase, but he's making valid points and actually makes the discussion challenging, since he evaluates what I say, rather than just blindly dismissing them; then there are the ones that just don't care enough, like markjo. They'll hop into a thread, ask a question that's only just been answered, and then either not post again or argue the topic for a while, only to eventually say that "they don't care" once they run out of arguments (see: The recently concluded debate about Rowbotham's education); and finally, the ones that have come here to troll, such as EmperorZhark. I've already described his behaviour in this post. It's up to you which one you'll be. However, don't expect me to cater to you if you just keep saying "nope, not enough", rather than asking specific questions and addressing what I say. This, of course, works both ways.

This just makes you look like a terrible debater who doesn't really know what he's talking about.
What makes me "look like a terrible debater" is called confirmation bias - if you try to see beyond it, you'll notice that EmperorZhark has been asking the same question over and over, dismissing all arguments as "no science here", asking if "someone could explain this guy <X>" [sic], and never even mentioning a single counter-argument. He has no case whatsoever, and yet you tell me I provide little information.

I appreciate the anecdote about your brother's and your unfair debating practices, but I believe you've targeted it at the wrong team. With what I said in mind, if you still disagree, please explain why.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on November 02, 2011, 05:26:03 PM
In fact, I've given you thirty pages of information here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=44906.0), and I'm constantly providing more.
That's not what I'm talking about.  You misunderstand.
You said that the phrase "Flat Earth = flat map" is incorrect.
No, I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth. It doesn't help your position.
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about.  I can see that when you quoted that phrase, you quoted, "Flat Earth = flat map = Euclidean geometry."  You said it was incorrect (again, without following up) because you were referring to your belief that a flat Earth doesn't necessarily mean Euclidean geometry, without explaining why.  Then, when jraffield1 misunderstood, taking a wrong assumption to base his or her argument off of, you said, "No, I didn't.  Don't put words in my mouth.  It doesn't help your position."  Which, of course, is true, but is anyone expected to care enough to realize that, or pursue that line of argument?  Saying things like, "It doesn't help your position" just makes you seem like a closed-minded, bad debater.

I'm not talking about the theory in general.  I realize that you have lots of information on it.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 02, 2011, 05:43:11 PM
That's not what I'm talking about.  You misunderstand.
Quite likely so.

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about.  I can see that when you quoted that phrase, you quoted, "Flat Earth = flat map = Euclidean geometry."  You said it was incorrect (again, without following up) because you were referring to your belief that a flat Earth doesn't necessarily mean Euclidean geometry, without explaining why.
This is because I have explained my views on that point within a very short period of time before he asked about it again. Call me impatient if you will, but I assure you you'd be too after dealing with people like this for two years. A conversation cannot go on if one party is speaking whilst the other isn't listening. In an on-line debate, "listening" becomes "reading".

Then, when jraffield1 misunderstood, taking a wrong assumption to base his or her argument off of
Which, speaking from experience, he probably did intentionally. Of course, I might be wrong, but precedent shows that I probably am not. RE'ers and FE'ers alike love to take the other side's claims out of context.

"No, I didn't.  Don't put words in my mouth.  It doesn't help your position."  Which, of course, is true, but is anyone expected to care enough to realize that, or pursue that line of argument?
Well, no one here is forced to discuss my opinions with me. If they actually want to discuss, they should pay attention, yes. If they just want to come around and say "haha, you're wrong", I usually won't be wasting my time with them.
You seem to suggest that I should guide everyone by hand and act as a tutor here. I won't do that, mainly because I don't get paid for this.

Saying things like, "It doesn't help your position" just makes you seem like a closed-minded, bad debater.
Really? Because you've just said something just like that, and twice. The only difference is that instead of the ambiguous "it doesn't help your position", you've specified how it makes my position worse.
Now, I'm not saying you're a bad debater. It's just that stating our opinions on how something makes someone look doesn't make us bad debaters. In my opinion, he intentionally misquoted me, and in this particular discussion, this makes his position worse in the way that I won't bother spending too much time addressing it. Strawman arguments and poor trolls just aren't worth anyone's effort.

I'm not talking about the theory in general.  I realize that you have lots of information on it.
I'm glad, and I'll keep what you said in mind.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Ryan Onessence on November 03, 2011, 08:01:51 AM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51049.msg1251245#msg1251245

What kind of Earth map woul dcome with your theory?

One like the map shown in the link except with Antarctica as a continent ... all the landmasses would be the same scale to one another as a regular round earth map, only they are warped around the Arctic the same way as the map shown. Of coarse the map would have minor distortions because of this warping except the scale would be drawn more or less true to the same apparent relative size on a RE map, lets not forget the distance of continents etc and the unravelling of a globe to a rectangle is still distorted toward the poles so RE maps are still only approximate. Also the possibility that Google earth is even sketchy with consistency at different areas on the same level zoom as was suggested in this thread.

As stated in the TDT model 2.1 Australia would not appear stretched and squashed as much and the scope of the entire disk would be twice as big as the FEmap shown, this is because Antarctica exists on the middle band of the overall donut Toroid scope i.e. the ring in a vertical 2D cross-section of a torus, implied by both centre points of either circle of the donut shape. Remembering however that the middle band is distorted by the phi warped bands of space; each band is the same volume of space when moving inward and outward along the radius so the middle is actually somewhere other than the pictorially relative middle of the scope in both fig 1 and 2. (fig 1 and 2 are not able to be drawn to the shape of a Torus; in truth the donut hole/axis of a torus in fig 1 is infinitely far away always out of reach as it implodes into infinite depth so the imploversial Scope cannot be portrayed as a cross-section of Torus) As stated in section 2.1 of the TDT model, the outward Dilative Imploversial scope (DIS) depicted in fig 2. is the overt 2/3 ratio Torus of the Double Torus field when emanating from the Arctic pole (Vortexual Axis), thus a baseline of finite depth is centred on the Arctic in the lowest density of the FE cosmos i.e. the material realm. The 1/3 ratio of the non overt Inward Imploversial scope (IIS) in fig 1. deals with higher density energy and pulls light into the infinite depth of the vortating donut axis, hence day and night as the sun orbits. Along with this idea one can take a leap down the rabbit hole and ponder the idea that perhaps in the same manner as the mainstream idea that the universe exists within a black hole of a larger universe, there could very well be an entire Copernican cosmos existing in comparison with the FE at relatively quantum levels of infinite depth, of which vortates within the axis/donut hole of the FE Arctic pole/heavens.

We don't know what's beyond Antarctica because the magnetic repulsion of the perimeter of the Imploversial scope causes all matter to veer to the left or the right if anything attempts to go head on with a direct radial coarse to the perimeter; the same as two same pole magnets being pushed toward one another... the weaker one will be repelled. Even organic beings experience this because they too have an EMF Torus which is entrained to the fundamental waveform that emanates from the Arctic pole and along the horizontal-disk following the Vortexual G's as described in 1.1. The best guess is that beyond Antarctica the ocean becomes so cold and frozen that it is rigid beyond being repelled and thus an Antarctic wasteland exists beyond, this of coarse is speculation, there may be a rim world with a light source of its own where beings have the opposite EMF polarisation to those at the Arctic. Thus they are not repelled by the IIS EMF of the TDT's Antarctic envelope but instead by the Arctic Poles EMF... The ocean may be kept held in by Toroidal Aetheric EMF buoyancy on the rim world i.e. repulsed by the Antarctic's IIS; This is understood as being possible when one studies the concept of the Toroid fractal cosmos whereby matter is innately Electromagnetic when the quantum world is likewise made of micro tori with EMF's of their own (as above, so below).

Getting back on topic to your question it may actually be feasible to suggest a circumferentially wrapped landmasses on a square shaped map since Antarctica is the limit of the known world. Thereby all the continents will be set to relatively normal scale as per a RE map, with a degree of non-euclidean EA distortion on the circumferential warp of their circular wrap but not on their radial length thus no visual radial compression of landmasses further out from the Arctic would occur, an increment of graduated compensation would be applied to the progressive circumferentially adapted bands and radii of RE latitude and longitude lines i.e. indicating that each band is as voluminous as the last in the radial length but with an added scale of circumferential extent. I think It would require 2 grids with 2 colours to distinguish. one would be a regular square grid and the other would be the concentric/radial, each radial band would have a Key of its own for dividing the distance of self similar phi centric radii by the circumferential orientation to the square grids regular fixed distance.

Having humoured your question, I may now humour myself. For you see this map business is all to complicated and not a crucial element in order for the Lucid adept to tune into the FE perspective, since Lucid's accept that all possible model's are simultaneously accessible via the Macro-quantum factor they would simply pick up a RE map knowing that it provides all the necessary data to get form A - B
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: momentia on November 03, 2011, 08:28:29 PM
Ryan Onessence's posts are so funny to read when you know the definitions of the words he uses.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Ryan Onessence on November 03, 2011, 09:02:01 PM
Ryan Onessence's posts are so funny to read when you know the definitions of the words he uses.

Are you saying my english is bad ? if so please explain which words I am not using corectly
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 04, 2011, 02:29:48 AM
Your map is not distance-accurate.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: momentia on November 04, 2011, 02:28:51 PM
Your posts are just hard to read, and often it seems like you just put in words for the heck of it.

Ryan Onessence's posts are so funny to read when you know the definitions of the words he uses.

Are you saying my english is bad ? if so please explain which words I am not using corectly

As stated in section 2.1 of the TDT model, the outward Dilative Imploversial scope (DIS) depicted in fig 2. is the overt 2/3 ratio Torus of the Double Torus field when emanating from the Arctic pole (Vortexual Axis), thus a baseline of finite depth is centred on the Arctic in the lowest density of the FE cosmos i.e. the material realm.
baseline of finite depth?
lowest density of the FE cosmos i.e. the material realm?

Quote
Even organic beings experience this because they too have an EMF Torus which is entrained to the fundamental waveform that emanates from the Arctic pole and along the horizontal-disk following the Vortexual G's as described in 1.1.
entrained to the fundamental waveform?
Not to mention that no one has noticed this huge magnetic field.

Quote
The ocean may be kept held in by Toroidal Aetheric EMF buoyancy on the rim world i.e. repulsed by the Antarctic's IIS; This is understood as being possible when one studies the concept of the Toroid fractal cosmos whereby matter is innately Electromagnetic when the quantum world is likewise made of micro tori with EMF's of their own (as above, so below).
EMF buoyancy?
Matter being innately electromagnetic (having charge or dipole moments) explains this?

Quote
I think It would require 2 grids with 2 colours to distinguish. one would be a regular square grid and the other would be the concentric/radial, each radial band would have a Key of its own for dividing the distance of self similar phi centric radii by the circumferential orientation to the square grids regular fixed distance.
self similar phi centric radii?
why phi?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Ryan Onessence on November 04, 2011, 10:46:18 PM
Your posts are just hard to read, and often it seems like you just put in words for the heck of it.

Ryan Onessence's posts are so funny to read when you know the definitions of the words he uses.


Are you saying my english is bad ? if so please explain which words I am not using corectly

As stated in section 2.1 of the TDT model, the outward Dilative Imploversial scope (DIS) depicted in fig 2. is the overt 2/3 ratio Torus of the Double Torus field when emanating from the Arctic pole (Vortexual Axis), thus a baseline of finite depth is centred on the Arctic in the lowest density of the FE cosmos i.e. the material realm.
baseline of finite depth?
lowest density of the FE cosmos i.e. the material realm?

Quote
Even organic beings experience this because they too have an EMF Torus which is entrained to the fundamental waveform that emanates from the Arctic pole and along the horizontal-disk following the Vortexual G's as described in 1.1.
entrained to the fundamental waveform?
Not to mention that no one has noticed this huge magnetic field.

Quote
The ocean may be kept held in by Toroidal Aetheric EMF buoyancy on the rim world i.e. repulsed by the Antarctic's IIS; This is understood as being possible when one studies the concept of the Toroid fractal cosmos whereby matter is innately Electromagnetic when the quantum world is likewise made of micro tori with EMF's of their own (as above, so below).
EMF buoyancy?
Matter being innately electromagnetic (having charge or dipole moments) explains this?

Quote
I think It would require 2 grids with 2 colours to distinguish. one would be a regular square grid and the other would be the concentric/radial, each radial band would have a Key of its own for dividing the distance of self similar phi centric radii by the circumferential orientation to the square grids regular fixed distance.
self similar phi centric radii?
why phi?


Ok are you sure what meant to say was that my posts are funny to read when you don't know the definitions or implied conceptualisation of the words I use. You initially implied that you knew the terminology that I use and it was funny to you. I totally understand the posts not making any sense if you don't know what my Acronyms and big words imply, this is why its best if you start from the beginning of the TDT model and take it in slowly and recap and revise what Acronyms mean when they come up later on. Of coarse your only going to do this if you really want to understand it

The Toroidal EMF I am talking of has been described in the recent post in the Edward Leedscalnin thread.

When I say Baseline of Finite depth i mean just that, the gross matter of the material realm is buffered at a threshold that doesn't get shrunk exponentially into infinite depth in the same manner to the scenario of conventionally held black hole physics. This is because the dilative Torus (Dilative Imploversial Scope DIS outward non-euclidean implosion) is overtly dominant by 2/3 at the Arctic thus the 1/3 inwardly implosive Scope (IIS) cannot drag it exponentially inward.

Why Phi? because phi is not a static measurement it is a ratio....you cant measure space as metric when dealing with it non-euclideanly.  An object on phi-centric band A. will be diminished in size by the value of phi when compared from th esame perspective with itself on band B. Hence the self-similar fractal principle of non-euclidean space where each arbitrarily represented concentric distance by phi is the same volume of space experientially speaking when travelling on the 2D depicted radii coarse inward toward the centre. The space that is expanding is the volume of the bands total circumference not the distance of radius     

Your map is not distance-accurate.
.   
That's right, my map isn't distance perfect, it doesn't even exist, I explained that its irrelevant in context of the reason for entertaining a FE perspective.. what I was implying is that the non-euclidean Toroidal space is the solution to the problem in context with the experiential reality, as was outlined again with different terms in the paragraph above i.e. size is warped referentially from one band to the next, yes, but in the immediate experiential space all distances and shapes are relatively speaking the same as metric RE expectations. So the way the FE maps distort shapes of landmass is not a representation of FE reality in this version of the TDT model
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: momentia on November 05, 2011, 01:16:42 PM
Aha, this is a funnier post to read, with more "technical" detail.

When I say Baseline of Finite depth i mean just that, the gross matter of the material realm is buffered at a threshold that doesn't get shrunk exponentially into infinite depth in the same manner to the scenario of conventionally held black hole physics.

First, nothing shrinks exponentially in a black hole. I think the word your looking for is inversely. (You don't say what shrinks. A threshold?)
Actually, in general when you say exponentially, you seem to  mean inversely. However it is hard to tell due to the lack of well defined terms. Perhaps a more rigorous treatment of the subject is in order?

Quote
Why Phi? because phi is not a static measurement it is a ratio....you cant measure space as metric when dealing with it non-euclideanly.

I meant why phi, why not 2 or pi or 10/7?
And then you say that non-euclidean spaces aren't metric, meaning that distance is ill-defined, meaning that distance doesn't exist. (which isn't true. Non-euclidean spaces and Reimannian manifolds in general have metrics)

Quote
Hence the self-similar fractal principle of non-euclidean space where each arbitrarily represented concentric distance by phi is the same volume of space experientially speaking when travelling on the 2D depicted radii coarse inward toward the centre. The space that is expanding is the volume of the bands total circumference not the distance of radius     

Non-Euclidean space is not fractal in nature. if you zoom in on a small part, it starts to behave like euclidean space of the same dimension. Perhaps you meant to say there is a singularity (at the orgin in proper coordinates) when you embed your manifold in a higher dimensional euclidean space?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Ryan Onessence on November 05, 2011, 11:15:08 PM
When I say Baseline of Finite depth i mean just that, the gross matter of the material realm is buffered at a threshold that doesn't get shrunk exponentially into infinite depth in the same manner to the scenario of conventionally held black hole physics.

First, nothing shrinks exponentially in a black hole. I think the word your looking for is inversely. (You don't say what shrinks. A threshold?)
Actually, in general when you say exponentially, you seem to  mean inversely. However it is hard to tell due to the lack of well defined terms. Perhaps a more rigorous treatment of the subject is in order?


Yes in the conventionally held physics of black holes it does not shrink exponentially, I meant it is believed to be compressed but this is incorrect in terms of Hyperdimensional physics. In Imploversial physics nothing is squashed by the singularity of a black hole because there is no singularity, just a point at which stuff shrinks exponentially beyond the wavelength of sensory perception, the same way as there is a finite point in a 2D picture of non-euclidean space but in theory the point is infinite in length of space. This is why at the Arctic pole the overt 2/3 DIS being the inverse of the IIS of exponential implosion inwards creates a threshold that keeps the FE disk from being shrunk exponentially inward, which would otherwise be pulled out of synchronised tessellation with the non overt IIS where they alternate at the middle band of the disk i.e Antarctica. The middle band is the point where they are equally 1.5/3 If this were not so the the effect would be that the DIS would be unpinned from its 1.5/3 ratio at the neutral pole and would imploded exponentially into the infinite depth of the IIS.

I don't use the term inverse because there are 2 Implosive factors, the DIS and IIS which are both inversions of one another and are both non-euclidean so the terminology has to take a broader stride, to avoid saying the inverse of the inverse of the inverse which would scatter ones mind to no end.  When you perceive think I m adding in words for the heck of it I am actually intentionally inculcating visual images into your mind, such as EMF buoyancy, if that term means nothing to you, you aren't exercising your imagination. it implies a threshold of gravic/levic suspension because a torus has both forces either side of the disk holding it equalibriated. The DIS and IIS are responsible for this 2-fold inverted effect. but at the rim world the IIS EMF effect is overt and emanates inward from the envelope so to smaller charges of micro tori which have the omni directional charge of a TDT from the outside of their own envelope are repulsed inward by the overt IIS EM force of the FE's TDT...So water molecules which are considered to be made of clusters of micro-tori with EM bands themselves are held in and the Gravic force of the TDT vortex as described in 1.1 keeps the ocean levelled the same way as the Earth disk is. 

Why Phi? because phi is not a static measurement it is a ratio....you cant measure space as metric when dealing with it non-euclideanly.
I meant why phi, why not 2 or pi or 10/7?
And then you say that non-euclidean spaces aren't metric, meaning that distance is ill-defined, meaning that distance doesn't exist. (which isn't true. Non-euclidean spaces and Reimannian manifolds in general have metrics)

No i mean they aren't metric in the sense of euclidean space when mapped on a 2D representation. I am under the impression that metric is depicted 2Dimensionally as cubical measurement...am I right?
Hence the self-similar fractal principle of non-euclidean space where each arbitrarily represented concentric distance by phi is the same volume of space experientially speaking when travelling on the 2D depicted radii coarse inward toward the centre. The space that is expanding is the volume of the bands total circumference not the distance of radius     

Non-Euclidean space is not fractal in nature. if you zoom in on a small part, it starts to behave like euclidean space of the same dimension. Perhaps you meant to say there is a singularity (at the orgin in proper coordinates) when you embed your manifold in a higher dimensional euclidean space?

Correct it is not fractal in nature it is perfectly self-similar in quantity of volume when travelling inward in 3D space. However what is depicted as a radial coarse inward on a 2D representation appears as arbitrary diminished-scale self-similar fractal ratios when using phi as a measurement. Most people cannot fathom the nature of non-euclidean space without a picture to illustrate so my terminology is oriented in the manner which describes the principles form a 2D representation. I think what you are experiencing as difficulty in comprehending my use of terms, is that of the words I use, you have an academic understand in context of complex mathematics. Perhaps this is where you derive your orientation of humour from. I aim to be able to explain to those who do not have academic understandings as well as those who do, you yourself have implied that you understood what I mean but that you considered what I meant to say was inverse as opposed to exponential shrinking. And I have been further concise with the difference as stated above, Imploversial physics is not the same as conventional black-hole physics   
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Zogg on November 06, 2011, 12:40:55 AM
Gaussian curvature is dependent only on what unit you use to measure distance.
Our definitions of "curvature" clearly differ.

So you were not speaking of Gaussian curvature.

Well, let's speak Gaussian curvature then. In your theory, what's the Gaussian curvature of the earth? I'm speaking of earth approximated by a two-dimensional manifold (not as fractal, neglecting mountains etc.), with metrics related to measured (not seen) distances. (The distances even a blind man could measure, e.g. with a tape measure, by rolling a barrel or measuring the time in a vehicle moving with constant speed.)

If it's zero, then said metrics are euclidean. Given that according to FET, earth has the topology of a disk, there must be a single, euclidean, isometric map. Please provide such a map.

If it's not zero (as we REers claim), then the earth cannot be called "flat", because "flat" means "locally isometric to a plane in the metrics of the embedding space", which implies "locally euclidean", which implies "zero Gaussian curvature".
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 07, 2011, 12:21:42 AM
Back to topic please! A map!
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 09, 2011, 01:19:51 PM
Gaussian curvature is dependent only on what unit you use to measure distance.
Our definitions of "curvature" clearly differ.

So you were not speaking of Gaussian curvature.

Well, let's speak Gaussian curvature then. In your theory, what's the Gaussian curvature of the earth? I'm speaking of earth approximated by a two-dimensional manifold (not as fractal, neglecting mountains etc.), with metrics related to measured (not seen) distances. (The distances even a blind man could measure, e.g. with a tape measure, by rolling a barrel or measuring the time in a vehicle moving with constant speed.)

If it's zero, then said metrics are euclidean. Given that according to FET, earth has the topology of a disk, there must be a single, euclidean, isometric map. Please provide such a map.

If it's not zero (as we REers claim), then the earth cannot be called "flat", because "flat" means "locally isometric to a plane in the metrics of the embedding space", which implies "locally euclidean", which implies "zero Gaussian curvature".

You seem to be confused. You see, the measured differences are wrong, and thus you're special curvyness is irrelevant.

Yes, I did that on purpose.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Zogg on November 09, 2011, 01:39:19 PM
You seem to be confused. You see, the measured differences are wrong, and thus you're special curvyness is irrelevant.

You are trying to confuse me, but you fail.  ;D If the measured distances are wrong, this means measured distances differ from actual measurable distances, which is complete nonsense.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 09, 2011, 01:42:59 PM
You seem to be confused. You see, the measured differences are wrong, and thus you're special curvyness is irrelevant.

You are trying to confuse me, but you fail.  ;D If the measured distances are wrong, this means measured distances differ from actual measurable distances, which is complete nonsense.

Measured distances do indeed differ from measurable distances. I'm glad your catching on.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Zogg on November 09, 2011, 01:49:43 PM
Measured distances do indeed differ from measurable distances. I'm glad your catching on.

So, once a measurable distance is actually measured, it changes? How do you know?  I mean, you can't possibly know the value of a measurable distance without actually measuring it, and if it changes once you measure it, you can't know the value it had before.

This is funny. Now would be a good moment to mention the Heisenberg uncertainty principle...
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 09, 2011, 02:26:38 PM
Measured distances do indeed differ from measurable distances. I'm glad your catching on.

So, once a measurable distance is actually measured, it changes? How do you know?  I mean, you can't possibly know the value of a measurable distance without actually measuring it, and if it changes once you measure it, you can't know the value it had before.

This is funny. Now would be a good moment to mention the Heisenberg uncertainty principle...

No, it's much simpler than that. They were measured incorrectly.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on November 09, 2011, 02:28:41 PM
Measured distances do indeed differ from measurable distances. I'm glad your catching on.

So, once a measurable distance is actually measured, it changes? How do you know?  I mean, you can't possibly know the value of a measurable distance without actually measuring it, and if it changes once you measure it, you can't know the value it had before.

This is funny. Now would be a good moment to mention the Heisenberg uncertainty principle...

No, it's much simpler than that. They were measured incorrectly.

How do you suppose we measure it "correctly?"
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 09, 2011, 02:32:05 PM
Odometers should work just fine.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on November 09, 2011, 02:43:39 PM
Odometers should work just fine.

We shall eagerly await the results of your pan-global drive.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 11, 2011, 12:30:02 AM
Almost two weeks, and still no FE map...
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 11, 2011, 03:53:20 AM
We shall eagerly await the results of your pan-global drive.
Why would I do that? I'm not the one asking for proof of what can be seen to be obvious with much less effort.

Almost two weeks, and still no FE map...
In fact, you were shown several. You just happen to dislike them. Can't do much about that.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 11, 2011, 08:07:34 AM
You theories have widely discarded.

Flat Earth = Euclidian geometry = homothetic projection: if a FE map was possible, you should be able to provide one
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on November 11, 2011, 11:02:15 AM
We shall eagerly await the results of your pan-global drive.
Why would I do that? I'm not the one asking for proof of what can be seen to be obvious with much less effort.


Not being willing to perform an experiment does not negate the importance of the experiment. Also, I cannot see the entirety of the Earth just by looking out the window, and doubt you can either, so its not as obvious as you like to believe.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 12, 2011, 12:30:14 PM
FE will remain a theory if no more proofs can be given.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Zogg on November 12, 2011, 12:50:40 PM
Almost two weeks, and still no FE map...
In fact, you were shown several. You just happen to dislike them. Can't do much about that.

Read the opening post. We are speaking of an isometric map (up to a scale factor), which should exist if the earth is flat.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 13, 2011, 04:59:16 AM
PlanetPizzaz doesn't know the first thing about maps. Don't let be trolled by him.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 13, 2011, 12:33:02 PM
Not being willing to perform an experiment does not negate the importance of the experiment.
Of course. It may or may not be very important, which is entirely irrelevant to whether or not I feel like driving a car around the world just so that I can elaborate a point on an Internet forum.

Also, I cannot see the entirety of the Earth just by looking out the window, and doubt you can either
Of course, I can't. In fact, the view from my window is quite uninteresting. I can see a street, and then a row of houses on the other side.
However, I'm not sure why you think that I've said anything about observing the Earth just by looking out the window. To clarify: I haven't.

Read the opening post. We are speaking of an isometric map (up to a scale factor), which should exist if the earth is flat.
The problem with this is that you make assumptions about FET. You ask us to prove your theory, which you deliberately create to be impossible.
Two can play that game: Please explain RET without resorting to gravitation, as it is known that gravitation is not true due to its observed anomalies from reality. This should be doable if the Earth is round.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 13, 2011, 12:43:58 PM
Nothing about this thread is ultimate nor a challenge.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 13, 2011, 12:55:56 PM
Nothing about this thread is ultimate nor a challenge.
It has been merged, however!
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 13, 2011, 01:16:42 PM
It's a real challenge because you have yet to produce a FE map.

Ultimate was ironic, but since we've no answers, might be funally ultimate.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on November 13, 2011, 06:54:55 PM
The problem with this is that you make assumptions about FET. You ask us to prove your theory, which you deliberately create to be impossible.


So you really do think a flat Earth map is impossible to create? Good to know.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 13, 2011, 07:32:12 PM
So you really do think a flat Earth map is impossible to create? Good to know.
Not at all. I think that a flat Earth map that matches your theory is impossible to create. Your theory also happens to be entirely incompatible with FET, so that's not much of a problem.
How did you manage to miss the most important part of my post? I even emboldened it for emphasis.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on November 13, 2011, 08:05:56 PM
So you really do think a flat Earth map is impossible to create? Good to know.
Not at all. I think that a flat Earth map that matches your theory is impossible to create. Your theory also happens to be entirely incompatible with FET, so that's not much of a problem.
How did you manage to miss the most important part of my post? I even emboldened it for emphasis.

In FET the Earth is flat, therefore a flat map exists that preserves distance and area and is of a constant scale. Is it possible to create such a map, yes or no?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on November 13, 2011, 08:08:55 PM
It works the other way as well. In RET, without referencing gravity in the slightest, it is possible to construct a 3D map of the Earth that preserves distance and area, when you connect all the different places and move them so the distances match up, the shape you get is a sphere.

Your move.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 13, 2011, 08:42:20 PM
In FET the Earth is flat, therefore a flat map exists that preserves distance and area and is of a constant scale.
This assumption is incorrect. The implication does not occur in real FET. It only occurs in the RE'ers version of it, which is simply incompatible with reality.

It works the other way as well. In RET, without referencing gravity in the slightest, it is possible to construct a 3D map of the Earth that preserves distance and area, when you connect all the different places and move them so the distances match up, the shape you get is a sphere.
Once again, you seem to be acting as if I said something I didn't say. I haven't asked you to produce a map. I asked you to explain how the model works without resorting to gravity. To save you some effort, I am specifically interested in how people manage to stay on the Earth, and why they don't float away.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on November 13, 2011, 09:08:11 PM
In FET the Earth is flat, therefore a flat map exists that preserves distance and area and is of a constant scale.
This assumption is incorrect. The implication does not occur in real FET. It only occurs in the RE'ers version of it, which is simply incompatible with reality.

I've read all your made up reasons for why this is, so lets see if you can give me a real answer this time. Why can't a flat Earth have a flat map?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 13, 2011, 09:10:01 PM
Why can't a flat Earth have a flat map?
Due to Electromagnetic Acceleration scaling issues, as well as it being impossible to draw a fractal without eventually limiting it.

Also, I like it how you've ignored the gravity challenge. I was hoping you would. It grants me much satisfaction.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on November 13, 2011, 09:13:41 PM
Once again, you seem to be acting as if I said something I didn't say. I haven't asked you to produce a map. I asked you to explain how the model works without resorting to gravity. To save you some effort, I am specifically interested in how people manage to stay on the Earth, and why they don't float away.

In RET gravity is not in dispute, only the theory describing gravity. It doesn't make any sense to discuss RET without using gravity. But that's not what is being disputed here. Telling me to exclude gravity from RET doesn't make any sense, but asking for a flat map that describes a flat Earth makes perfect sense.

It seems to me that you think the Earth is both round and flat at the same time, I think it's time you reviewed your materials and literature again to make sure you didn't miss anything important.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on November 13, 2011, 09:16:40 PM
Why can't a flat Earth have a flat map?
Due to Electromagnetic Acceleration scaling issues, as well as it being impossible to draw a fractal without eventually limiting it.

Also, I like it how you've ignored the gravity challenge. I was hoping you would. It grants me much satisfaction.

Electromagnetic Acceleration has absolutely nothing to do with constructing a map. Try again. Also, the fractal nature of the Earth has never been observed.

As for your gravity challenge, I will give you an answer as soon as you express FET with mentioning the Earth accelerating. I'm quite looking forward to seeing why people don't float away.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 13, 2011, 09:20:00 PM
In RET gravity is not in dispute, only the theory describing gravity.
On this forum, the Earth's existence is not in dispute, only its shape.

Telling me to exclude gravity from RET doesn't make any sense, but asking for a flat map that describes a flat Earth makes perfect sense.
Both requests are entirely as valid and make just as much sense. In both cases, it's asking someone to explain a model with an extra condition that directly contradicts that model.

It seems to me that you think the Earth is both round and flat at the same time, I think it's time you reviewed your materials and literature again to make sure you didn't miss anything important.
It seems to me that you are quite mistaken. I think it's time you stopped resorting to personal attacks (even as subtle and discreet as this one wasn't) and focused on the matter at hand.

Electromagnetic Acceleration has absolutely nothing to do with constructing a map.
According to your impossible version of FET, based off wishful thinking.

Also, the fractal nature of the Earth has never been observed.
Really? Crossing Antarctica is one of the all-time favourite of RE'ers here. I would gladly see some elaboration on this claim so that I can tell RE'ers the Earth has never been circumnavigated this way.

As for your gravity challenge, I will give you an answer as soon as you express FET with mentioning the Earth accelerating. I'm quite looking forward to seeing why people don't float away.
Okay. The Earth is accelerating. See also: Equivalence Principle.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 13, 2011, 09:21:58 PM
I'm still greatly enjoying the fact that you're avoiding this question, by the way. You've made two "unfair" requests to counter my one, and yet I'm the only one responding.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on November 13, 2011, 09:29:16 PM
In RET gravity is not in dispute, only the theory describing gravity.
On this forum, the Earth's existence is not in dispute, only its shape.

Telling me to exclude gravity from RET doesn't make any sense, but asking for a flat map that describes a flat Earth makes perfect sense.
Both requests are entirely as valid and make just as much sense. In both cases, it's asking someone to explain a model with an extra condition that directly contradicts that model.

It seems to me that you think the Earth is both round and flat at the same time, I think it's time you reviewed your materials and literature again to make sure you didn't miss anything important.
It seems to me that you are quite mistaken. I think it's time you stopped resorting to personal attacks (even as subtle and discreet as this one wasn't) and focused on the matter at hand.

Electromagnetic Acceleration has absolutely nothing to do with constructing a map.
According to your impossible version of FET, based off wishful thinking.

Also, the fractal nature of the Earth has never been observed.
Really? Crossing Antarctica is one of the all-time favourite of RE'ers here. I would gladly see some elaboration on this claim so that I can tell RE'ers the Earth has never been circumnavigated this way.

As for your gravity challenge, I will give you an answer as soon as you express FET with mentioning the Earth accelerating. I'm quite looking forward to seeing why people don't float away.
Okay. The Earth is accelerating. See also: Equivalence Principle.

Way to ignore the UA challenge. It had the condition that you don't mention UA, and the first thing you mention is... UA. Way to go.

Crossing the Antarctic is no more fractal in nature than going in a circle an being surprised as finding yourself at your departure point.

Creating a map has absolutely nothing to do with the way light bends. If the world were in the shape of a square, and light was bent like crazy so that from far away it looked like a triangle, the map for that world would be in the shape of a... square. That's right, we want a map of how the Earth is, not how it looks with bendy light.

As you have avoided anything remotely close to an answer, I think it is you who is using an impossible verson of FET.

Educate yourself.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 13, 2011, 09:32:58 PM
Way to ignore the UA challenge. It had the condition that you don't mention UA, and the first thing you mention is... UA. Way to go.
Come on, you're smarter than that. Surely you've managed to read my opinion about RE'ers making up FET and FE'ers making up RET. I actually went out of my way to make it simple and entertaining!

Crossing the Antarctic is no more fractal in nature than going in a circle an being surprised as finding yourself at your departure point.
Incorrect.

Creating a map has absolutely nothing to do with the way light bends. If the world were in the shape of a square, and light was bent like crazy so that from far away it looked like a triangle, the map for that world would be in the shape of a... square. That's right, we want a map of how the Earth is, not how it looks with bendy light.
And how do you propose I produce a graphical illustration of everything but the graphical image of the Earth?

As you have avoided anything remotely close to an answer, I think it is you who is using an impossible verson of FET.
As said numerous times before, you disliking an answer doesn't make it not an answer. It just makes it an answer you don't like. You, on the other hand, have really not answered the gravity question, much to my amusement.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on November 13, 2011, 09:42:39 PM
Way to ignore the UA challenge. It had the condition that you don't mention UA, and the first thing you mention is... UA. Way to go.
Come on, you're smarter than that. Surely you've managed to read my opinion about RE'ers making up FET and FE'ers making up RET. I actually went out of my way to make it simple and entertaining!

Crossing the Antarctic is no more fractal in nature than going in a circle an being surprised as finding yourself at your departure point.
Incorrect.

Creating a map has absolutely nothing to do with the way light bends. If the world were in the shape of a square, and light was bent like crazy so that from far away it looked like a triangle, the map for that world would be in the shape of a... square. That's right, we want a map of how the Earth is, not how it looks with bendy light.
And how do you propose I produce a graphical illustration of everything but the graphical image of the Earth?

As you have avoided anything remotely close to an answer, I think it is you who is using an impossible verson of FET.
As said numerous times before, you disliking an answer doesn't make it not an answer. It just makes it an answer you don't like. You, on the other hand, have really not answered the gravity question, much to my amusement.

I shall answer your gravity challenge much the way you answered mine. Gravity causes people to stick to the Earth's surface. challenge complete.

Like I said, I'll give you a real answer when you give me one of a FET that doesn't include UA.

A map that doesn't preserve distance and area is quite useless as a map. What I want is a map in which distances and areas are the same as what has been measured. Basically, I want a map of the mechanical distances between points on the Earth.

Also, how is crossing Antarctica represent a fractal?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 13, 2011, 09:49:07 PM
I shall answer your gravity challenge much the way you answered mine. Gravity causes people to stick to the Earth's surface. challenge complete.
Ah, I guess my humour is lost on you. Let me explain: You see, you've asked me to explain FET WITH including UA. Now you're changing your request, which is quite a low blow. But hey, what else could I expect from you? :)

Like I said, I'll give you a real answer when you give me one of a FET that doesn't include UA.
Sure, the Davis model uses gravity on an infinite plane.
Just to keep track of these, that's the fourth request that you're making trying to avoid the gravity question. :)

A map that doesn't preserve distance and area is quite useless as a map.
Well, I guess that's it for pretty much all Round Earth navigation. Very rarely do you see people use globs to direct vessels, and yet they find quite a lot of use in their flat maps.

What I want is a map in which distances and areas are the same as what has been measured. Basically, I want a map of the mechanical distances between points on the Earth.
I have already suggested a globe as such a map (and I've done so in this thread, as well as another thread you've been posting in. You haven't read them. For shame!), keeping in mind that, much like any other maps, it has its significant downfalls.

Also, how is crossing Antarctica represent a fractal?
After crossing Antarctica you end up in the South-centric iteration of the Earth. Crossing one of the poles again will bring you back to the North-centric iteration.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on November 13, 2011, 09:59:44 PM
I shall answer your gravity challenge much the way you answered mine. Gravity causes people to stick to the Earth's surface. challenge complete.
Ah, I guess my humour is lost on you. Let me explain: You see, you've asked me to explain FET WITH including UA. Now you're changing your request, which is quite a low blow. But hey, what else could I expect from you? :)

Like I said, I'll give you a real answer when you give me one of a FET that doesn't include UA.
Sure, the Davis model uses gravity on an infinite plane.
Just to keep track of these, that's the fourth request that you're making trying to avoid the gravity question. :)

A map that doesn't preserve distance and area is quite useless as a map.
Well, I guess that's it for pretty much all Round Earth navigation. Very rarely do you see people use globs to direct vessels, and yet they find quite a lot of use in their flat maps.

What I want is a map in which distances and areas are the same as what has been measured. Basically, I want a map of the mechanical distances between points on the Earth.
I have already suggested a globe as such a map (and I've done so in this thread, as well as another thread you've been posting in. You haven't read them. For shame!), keeping in mind that, much like any other maps, it has its significant downfalls.

Also, how is crossing Antarctica represent a fractal?
After crossing Antarctica you end up in the South-centric iteration of the Earth. Crossing one of the poles again will bring you back to the North-centric iteration.

So, basically you're saying that mechanically the Earth is a sphere. Therefore by your own admission, the Earth is a sphere. With that final victory I'm off to bed. I'll crumple your other ideas tomorrow if I get around to it.  ;D
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 13, 2011, 10:15:37 PM
So, basically you're saying that mechanically the Earth is a sphere.
No. Once again, you're pretending that I said something I didn't say. Is this a reading comprehension issue, or a "debate strategy"?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 14, 2011, 04:28:16 AM
PlanetPizzaz dosen't know the difference between a sphere and something flat: he keeps on providing maps of a RE saying that they work for a FE.
So for him RE = FE.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 14, 2011, 04:30:41 AM
PlanetPizzaz dosen't know the difference between a sphere and something flat: he keeps on providing maps of a RE saying that they work for a FE.
So for him RE = FE.
lol
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: markjo on November 14, 2011, 06:13:37 AM
Also, how is crossing Antarctica represent a fractal?
After crossing Antarctica you end up in the South-centric iteration of the Earth. Crossing one of the poles again will bring you back to the North-centric iteration.
I hate to tell you this, but that isn't one of the properties of fractals.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 14, 2011, 07:40:11 AM
We don't live in a "Lion, Witch and Wardrobe" world!

If so, I cannot wait for an theory.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Zogg on November 14, 2011, 03:58:01 PM
Read the opening post. We are speaking of an isometric map (up to a scale factor), which should exist if the earth is flat.
The problem with this is that you make assumptions about FET. You ask us to prove your theory, which you deliberately create to be impossible.
Two can play that game: Please explain RET without resorting to gravitation, as it is known that gravitation is not true due to its observed anomalies from reality. This should be doable if the Earth is round.

It's not at all the same: To be precise, the only implicite condition that goes in here is that the earth is simply connected, which hold for both FET and RET. Besides, it's only necesary for the "one map is enough" claim.

So your "challenge" has nothing to do with my argument. I might as well challenge you to do a reverse salto through a hoop while whistling "La cucaracha" (which has nothing to do with either challenge but assumes the roundness of the hoop).

Before you take refuge to your standard pseudo-counter-argument "You are assuming RET": No, the claim "If it's flat, then there is an isometric flat map" holds for any simply connected two-dimensional Riemann manifold, embedded or not - sphere, plane, pseudo-sphere, hyperboloid, whatever. So, without any RE assumptions: Either the earth is flat and has a flat isometric map, or it's not flat.

As mentionned before, we are considering eath approximated as smooth manifold here, not as fractal (your other pseudo-counter-argument).
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: randall_55 on November 14, 2011, 05:46:54 PM
After crossing Antarctica you end up in the South-centric iteration of the Earth. Crossing one of the poles again will bring you back to the North-centric iteration.

HAHAHA this actually made me laugh out loud. Funniest thing I have read today. Thanks for brightening my day :)
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 15, 2011, 01:19:32 AM
PlanetPizzaz dosen't know the difference between a sphere and something flat: he keeps on providing maps of a RE saying that they work for a FE.
So for him RE = FE.
lol

That's the way PP answers tough questions, now.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 15, 2011, 04:47:38 AM
  • You asking me to explain RET, with omitting an element which is integral part of this theory.
Correct.

  • I was asking you to produce a flat map,  which is possible under a condition that can mathematically be deduced from the initial claim of your theory.
Incorrect. It is possible under a condition that can (perhaps) be deduced from your theory. However, it directly contradicts an integral part of my theory.

the claim "If it's flat, then there is an isometric flat map" holds for any simply connected two-dimensional Riemann manifold, embedded or not - sphere, plane, pseudo-sphere, hyperboloid, whatever.
The Earth is not a "simply connected two-dimensional Riemann manifold" (an abstract concept, entirely unobservable in reality). The Earth is the Earth (a real body that actually exists and can be observed). It is also not "embedded" or "not embedded", as these are, again, entirely abstract terms that do not apply to reality in any way.

As mentionned before, we are considering eath approximated as smooth manifold here
The problem with this is that you make assumptions about FET. You ask us to prove your theory, which you deliberately create to be impossible.

That's the way PP answers tough questions, now.
lol
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 15, 2011, 05:56:51 AM

  • I was asking you to produce a flat map,  which is possible under a condition that can mathematically be deduced from the initial claim of your theory.
Incorrect. It is possible under a condition that can (perhaps) be deduced from your theory. However, it directly contradicts an integral part of my theory.


Ergo your theory is wrong.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Zogg on November 15, 2011, 06:43:00 AM
The Earth is not a "simply connected two-dimensional Riemann manifold" (an abstract concept, entirely unobservable in reality). The Earth is the Earth (a real body that actually exists and can be observed). It is also not "embedded" or "not embedded", as these are, again, entirely abstract terms that do not apply to reality in any way.

Your rhetorical confusion smoke bomb "it's not a smooth surface" is getting old. I could use the same pseudo-argument against FET:

"The Earth is not "flat" (an abstract concept, entirely unobservable in reality). The Earth is the Earth (a real body that actually exists and can be observed)."
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 15, 2011, 07:29:54 AM
If a flat object can be observed, a map shouldn't be too difficult to draw.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 15, 2011, 07:47:54 AM
If a flat object can be observed, a map shouldn't be too difficult to draw.

I mean, even a ROUND earth can't be observed, but we have globes that are pretty freaking accurate.  Even flat maps of the Earth, they have to distort the land closer to the poles to make it fit on a flat map.  It's retarded.  Anyone can look at a picture of Earth and SEE that Africa is not that much bigger than Europe.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 15, 2011, 07:57:54 AM
If they can't even produce a FE map, what about the rest of the theory.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 15, 2011, 08:04:50 AM
If they can't even produce a FE map, what about the rest of the theory.

It sucks!  I mean, even video game designers can make up maps for shit that doesn't really exist.  The only way a flat earth works is if it's spoked like a wagon wheel.  Maybe it is shaped like a wagon wheel.  And when you fly over australia, you just don't notice the gaps because you warp through them.  ...like in the Langoliers.  Maybe everyone just falls asleep.  But, no... that doesn't work because we can see the southern hemisphere and it's not spoked...

Oh, I got it!!!  Maybe the Earth is freaking ROUND!!!
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 15, 2011, 08:35:28 AM
Your rhetorical confusion smoke bomb "it's not a smooth surface" is getting old.
Are you saying that the Earth is smooth? Why, my friend, have you ever seen a mountain or a valley?

"The Earth is not "flat" (an abstract concept, entirely unobservable in reality). The Earth is the Earth (a real body that actually exists and can be observed)."
An example of something flat that can be observed very easily is a closed book. It is not abstract at all.
Can you show me a "Riemann manifold" in reality, and explain some of its common properties?

Anyone can look at a picture of Earth and SEE that Africa is not that much bigger than Europe.
Indeed. With the scaling rules of FE in mind, you can see that on FE maps as well.

but we have globes that are pretty freaking accurate.
Ah, that explains it. You haven't read much on this site and just joined the angry yelling people, because you thought that would be fun. You see, a globe is a fairly good map of the flat Earth. It just happens to have its inaccuracies, much like any other map.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 15, 2011, 08:48:42 AM
Your rhetorical confusion smoke bomb "it's not a smooth surface" is getting old.
Are you saying that the Earth is smooth? Why, my friend, have you ever seen a mountain or a valley?

"The Earth is not "flat" (an abstract concept, entirely unobservable in reality). The Earth is the Earth (a real body that actually exists and can be observed)."
An example of something flat that can be observed very easily is a closed book. It is not abstract at all.
Can you show me a "Riemann manifold" in reality, and explain some of its common properties?

Anyone can look at a picture of Earth and SEE that Africa is not that much bigger than Europe.
Indeed. With the scaling rules of FE in mind, you can see that on FE maps as well.

but we have globes that are pretty freaking accurate.
Ah, that explains it. You haven't read much on this site and just joined the angry yelling people, because you thought that would be fun. You see, a globe is a fairly good map of the flat Earth. It just happens to have its inaccuracies, much like any other map.

Nothing new or interesting or true.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 15, 2011, 08:50:38 AM
Anyone can look at a picture of Earth and SEE that Africa is not that much bigger than Europe.
Indeed. With the scaling rules of FE in mind, you can see that on FE maps as well.

Ah, yes.  The scaling rules of FE.  So, you've changed math so that your theory works.  We don't do that in science.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 15, 2011, 08:51:41 AM
This is the most anti-climacticly named thread for some time. The ultimate challenge is to regurgitate the information we handed out in other threads a few weeks ago?
We are dining on scraps. :(

That's because we're debating about shit that already got settled 600 years ago.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 15, 2011, 09:10:33 AM
Ah, yes.  The scaling rules of FE.  So, you've changed math so that your theory works.  We don't do that in science.
Oh, really? I guess that's that for string theory, geocentrism, wave-particle duality, gravitation, and many other scientific concepts that changed the understanding science as it had existed before.
In fact, I thought it's religion that's set in stone and unchanging, not science. Thank you for clarifying that.

Nothing new or interesting or true.
lol
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 15, 2011, 09:45:14 AM
Oh, really? I guess that's that for string theory, geocentrism, wave-particle duality, gravitation, and many other scientific concepts that changed the understanding science as it had existed before.
In fact, I thought it's religion that's set in stone and unchanging, not science. Thank you for clarifying that.

Yeah but, what you're doing is taking a conclusion and changing science so that it fits.  It would be like saying "on a flat earth, round means flat.  So, we must live on a flat earth."  You know?  Like, "in a flat earth, my imagination is reality.  Thus, we live on a flat earth."  No, it doesn't work that way.  True, science is based on conclusions, but we base science on KNOWN conclusions that are obvious.  Like, we came up with the concept of gravity to explain WHY things fall.  Obviously, things fall.  Okay, why do things fall?  Now we have a question.  We run experiments to come up with results that we then fit into a theory to answer that question.  What flat earth does is say, "Hey, the earth is flat!  Now, let's find some fringe ridiculousness to prove it!"  Flat Earth is a conclusion with no science, no proof, no evidence... nothing.  There are no REAL astronomers that actually lend the theory ANY credence at all.  Everyone who has ever been in space and actually SEEN the Earth will tell you it's round.  You can take ANY conclusion and come up with a bunch of garbage to explain your conclusion... doesn't make it correct.

And btw, can you please get this guy a map?  I actually wanna see this too.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Archibald on November 15, 2011, 10:09:58 AM
Oh, really? I guess that's that for string theory, geocentrism, wave-particle duality, gravitation, and many other scientific concepts that changed the understanding science as it had existed before.
In fact, I thought it's religion that's set in stone and unchanging, not science. Thank you for clarifying that.

Yeah but, what you're doing is taking a conclusion and changing science so that it fits.  It would be like saying "on a flat earth, round means flat.  So, we must live on a flat earth."  You know?  Like, "in a flat earth, my imagination is reality.  Thus, we live on a flat earth."  No, it doesn't work that way.  True, science is based on conclusions, but we base science on KNOWN conclusions that are obvious.  Like, we came up with the concept of gravity to explain WHY things fall.  Obviously, things fall.  Okay, why do things fall?  Now we have a question.  We run experiments to come up with results that we then fit into a theory to answer that question.  What flat earth does is say, "Hey, the earth is flat!  Now, let's find some fringe ridiculousness to prove it!"  Flat Earth is a conclusion with no science, no proof, no evidence... nothing.  There are no REAL astronomers that actually lend the theory ANY credence at all.  Everyone who has ever been in space and actually SEEN the Earth will tell you it's round.  You can take ANY conclusion and come up with a bunch of garbage to explain your conclusion... doesn't make it correct.

And btw, can you please get this guy a map?  I actually wanna see this too.

This is your argument but only conformed to my own standing, ''there is not evidence for a round earth, you are taking something that was thought to have been discovered long ago and trying to say its real, even though theres no proof or evidence''.  But there is right?  There is evidence for a round earth right?  Just as there is evidence of a flat earth, you are just jumping to invalid conclusions instead of actually locating all of the information which many people from various times ranging from ancient to contemporary have brought forth.  Why not attempt to debunk that instead of just posting seemingly authoritative statemeants about an alleged lack of experimentation.  Its making you seem quite unskilled my dear, we both know thats not true. 
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Zogg on November 15, 2011, 10:43:41 AM
Your rhetorical confusion smoke bomb "it's not a smooth surface" is getting old.
Are you saying that the Earth is smooth? Why, my friend, have you ever seen a mountain or a valley?

You are saying that the Earth is flat? Why, my friend, have you ever seen a mountain or a valley?

What you are actually saying by "earth is flat" is that (A) Earth can be approximated by a flat surface. My claim is that (B) Earth can be approximated by a smooth surface. (Note that if (A) then (B), so if you say that (B) is wrong, (A) must be wrong as well.)

"The Earth is not "flat" (an abstract concept, entirely unobservable in reality). The Earth is the Earth (a real body that actually exists and can be observed)."
An example of something flat that can be observed very easily is a closed book. It is not abstract at all.

Even the flattest book has some surface structure, at least at microscopic level, and isn't 100% flat. However, it's

Can you show me a "Riemann manifold" in reality...?

I show you a Riemann manifold in reality when you show me a plane in reality.

...and explain some of its common properties?

Let's consider only two-dimenstional manifolds for simplicity.
(http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/3485/manifold.png)
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 15, 2011, 02:04:55 PM
This is your argument but only conformed to my own standing, ''there is not evidence for a round earth, you are taking something that was thought to have been discovered long ago and trying to say its real, even though theres no proof or evidence''.  But there is right?  There is evidence for a round earth right?  Just as there is evidence of a flat earth, you are just jumping to invalid conclusions instead of actually locating all of the information which many people from various times ranging from ancient to contemporary have brought forth.  Why not attempt to debunk that instead of just posting seemingly authoritative statemeants about an alleged lack of experimentation.  Its making you seem quite unskilled my dear, we both know thats not true.

No, there's not.  As far as proof goes, this is more like what I see:
(http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i464/Krista7714/Scale.jpg)
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 15, 2011, 02:18:11 PM
You are saying that the Earth is flat? Why, my friend, have you ever seen a mountain or a valley?
[...]
Even the flattest book has some surface structure, at least at microscopic level, and isn't 100% flat. However, it's
[...]
I show you a Riemann manifold in reality when you show me a plane in reality.
Ah, so you've entered the good old realm of semantics trolling. Sadly, since this forum is quite old, the understanding of "flat" here has been explained quite a few times.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on November 15, 2011, 03:06:18 PM
Let it be known from hence forth that Pizza Planet endorses the idea that the world has curvature and is therefore round.

... Or something like that, since his arguments for the world being flat are basically 'I can ignore mathematics and change the meaning of the world round to flat and flat to round.' After that display of FE'ness, I can only assume that a victory dance of some sort is done either physically or mentally. 
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 15, 2011, 03:37:53 PM
Let it be known from hence forth that Pizza Planet endorses the idea that the world has curvature and is therefore round.
Please don't put words in my mouth. You make both of us look silly.

... Or something like that, since his arguments for the world being flat are basically 'I can ignore mathematics and change the meaning of the world round to flat and flat to round.'
Not at all.

I can only assume that a victory dance of some sort is done either physically or mentally. 
I actually do that more often than I should, and that's in my own opinion. I think you can now imagine just how incredibly often that happens.
I have no regrets.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 15, 2011, 08:30:21 PM
Let it be known from hence forth that Pizza Planet endorses the idea that the world has curvature and is therefore round.

... Or something like that, since his arguments for the world being flat are basically 'I can ignore mathematics and change the meaning of the world round to flat and flat to round.' After that display of FE'ness, I can only assume that a victory dance of some sort is done either physically or mentally.

THANK YOU!!!  You can't prove that 2+2=6 by changing the meaning of the number 2 to a quantity of 3.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 16, 2011, 12:19:33 AM
You can't prove that 2+2=6 by changing the meaning of the number 2 to a quantity of 3.
Well, then it's a good thing that no one here does that.

You can, however, prove that luminiferous aether doesn't exist by performing an experiment whose result gives two possible outcomes, and just dismissing one.
Science is a truly curious thing.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 16, 2011, 06:37:25 AM
Well, then it's a good thing that no one here does that.

You can, however, prove that luminiferous aether doesn't exist by performing an experiment whose result gives two possible outcomes, and just dismissing one.
Science is a truly curious thing.

Good thing aether was disproven before the 1900's.

And.... what experiment?  And what does it have to do with changing the laws of scale to force a flat earth map to make sense?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 16, 2011, 07:18:01 AM
And.... what experiment?
The Michelson–Morley experiment, of course. How did you manage to reference it in your post without knowing what it is?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 16, 2011, 07:45:26 AM
And.... what experiment?
The Michelson–Morley experiment, of course. How did you manage to reference it in your post without knowing what it is?

I didn't reference it, you did.  I just asked what you were talking about.

And, it seems to me that there wasn't really much ambiguity at all.  Remember, this is a website.  If you throw out an argument, all I have to do is open a new tab to fact-check you.  And... I will.  So for instance, when Tom Bishop tries to imply that Stephen Hawking is a religious person, debunking that claim is a fairly simple task.

Either way, the validity of MMX has absolutely zero bearing on the subject at hand.  Let's not get off-subject.  You're right, science is a curious thing.  But, not in this case.  The world is round.  It was proven as such centuries ago, and is one of the simplest truths in the history of man.  The only thing curious about it is the fact that in the 21st century, there are those who doubt it.

You bringing up MMX in order to prove the validity of doubt in RE Theory is like saying, "you can't prove that 2+2=4 because a FEW people believe that a subatomic particle experiment in Switzerland MAY have disproven Einstein's theory of Relativity."
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 16, 2011, 07:53:11 AM
PP is very at patronizing, but not very good at explaining FET.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: markjo on November 16, 2011, 08:27:17 AM
And.... what experiment?
The Michelson–Morley experiment, of course. How did you manage to reference it in your post without knowing what it is?
Which observed result of Michelson–Morley supports the existence of aether?  ???
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 16, 2011, 08:38:19 AM
And.... what experiment?
The Michelson–Morley experiment, of course. How did you manage to reference it in your post without knowing what it is?
Which observed result of Michelson–Morley supports the existence of aether?  ???

I think in some of the earlier experiments there was a margin of error that some believed proved the existence of ether.  I'm not an expert on ether because... well, it doesn't exist.  Funny that I've found myself an amateur expert on Flat Earth Theory even though that doesn't exist either...
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 16, 2011, 09:35:48 AM
Which observed result of Michelson–Morley supports the existence of aether?  ???
The Michelson-Morley experiment allows two possible conclusions. One of them is that luminiferous aether doesn't exist. In an attempt to encourage people to read about the experiment, I won't post the other possibility here, but I'll PM it to you. I would appreciate it if you kept it to yourself.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 16, 2011, 09:43:45 AM
Which observed result of Michelson–Morley supports the existence of aether?  ???
The Michelson-Morley experiment allows two possible conclusions. One of them is that luminiferous aether doesn't exist. In an attempt to encourage people to read about the experiment, I won't post the other possibility here, but I'll PM it to you. I would appreciate it if you kept it to yourself.

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!! 

Original question:  "Can I see a map?"
Response: Michelson-Morley... and Ether... and global warming... and... um... stuff!!!
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Zogg on November 16, 2011, 11:08:32 AM
Which observed result of Michelson–Morley supports the existence of aether?  ???
The Michelson-Morley experiment allows two possible conclusions. One of them is that luminiferous aether doesn't exist. In an attempt to encourage people to read about the experiment, I won't post the other possibility here, but I'll PM it to you. I would appreciate it if you kept it to yourself.

No need to play the mysterious patronizing supermind: Those who know the Michelson-Morley experiment are aware that it's based on the assumption that the earth rotates - an assumption that is accepted as fact by REers but doubted by FEers. So, for a FEer, this experiment neither proves nor disproves ether.

(On a side-note, I always find it strange when FEers argue in terms of Relativity Theory, for exemple by explaining that the earth accelerates but never reaches light speed, despite the fact that on a non-rotating earth, Michelson-Morley would not lead to the questions that eventually led to the Relativity Theory.)

If I ever start pretending to be FEer, just for fun, I will possibly build my argumentation around the lines of "Flat Earth is more plausible than Relativity, thus Ockham's Razor favours FET, bla bla bla...". Which would be complete nonsense, of course.

Back to topic: Can we see a map ?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: markjo on November 16, 2011, 11:11:21 AM
Which observed result of Michelson–Morley supports the existence of aether?  ???
The Michelson-Morley experiment allows two possible conclusions. One of them is that luminiferous aether doesn't exist. In an attempt to encourage people to read about the experiment, I won't post the other possibility here, but I'll PM it to you. I would appreciate it if you kept it to yourself.
I didn't ask about the possible conclusions.  I asked about the observed results of the experiment.  Well designed experiments always allow for multiple conclusions, however those results of the experiment don't.  BTW, as I recall, Michelson-Morley originally assumed that aether does exist.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 16, 2011, 12:04:24 PM
I didn't ask about the possible conclusions.  I asked about the observed results of the experiment.
The results allowed for two conclusions. That's what I originally meant to say.

BTW, as I recall, Michelson-Morley originally assumed that aether does exist.
That is correct.

No need to play the mysterious patronizing supermind: Those who know the Michelson-Morley experiment are aware that it's based on the assumption that the earth rotates - an assumption that is accepted as fact by REers but doubted by FEers. So, for a FEer, this experiment neither proves nor disproves ether.
Congratulations - you have entirely missed the point!
First things first, I am approaching these results from the mainstream science point of view (that includes RET).
Feel free to come back once you actually read about the experiment, rather than "quote" what "those who know the MM experiment" know.

Original question:  "Can I see a map?"
Back to topic: Can we see a map ?
And now for another enthralling episode of "PizzaPlanet says it again!":
I've already shown you a few maps, and so did the others. You may dislike the maps (in which case please click the link in my signature), but that doesn't make them any less seen by you.
To answer your question very shortly: Yes, you can see a map, assuming your eyes are fine.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 16, 2011, 12:20:39 PM
And now for another enthralling episode of "PizzaPlanet says it again!":
I've already shown you a few maps, and so did the others. You may dislike the maps (in which case please click the link in my signature), but that doesn't make them any less seen by you.
To answer your question very shortly: Yes, you can see a map, assuming your eyes are fine.

I think what he (and all of us) would like is a map with political boundaries drawn, that demonstrates the distances between cities as given by real surveyors who follow Earthling science.

I really don't think you can use a scientific experiment that relies on RE Theory to prove FE Theory... especially when you're willing to drop the laws of scale just to make the science fit your theories.

But, I would like everyone to just drop the whole MMX thing.  PP is doing something they call in psychology called "fact-stacking."  He knows his argument (in this case, FE Theory) is flimsy and doesn't hold weight, so he has an arsenal of distractions to take your mind off the difficult questions when they come up. PP is using MMX as a smoke-screen to show off how smart he supposedly is hoping that we'll loose sight of the original argument.  Okay, let's just assume PP is right about MMX.  Who cares?  Let him think he's right.  It does nothing to prove FE Theory, and it does nothing to disprove RE Theory.  We're here to talk about the shape of the Earth, not ether or light or 130-year-old experiments.

Now... can we PLEASE see a map!!?!??!?!?!
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 16, 2011, 12:26:24 PM
I think what he (and all of us) would like is a map with political boundaries drawn
Why do political boundaries matter?

that demonstrates the distances between cities as given by real surveyors who follow Earthling science.
This has been explained over and over in this thread as long as the main distance consistency thread on the fora.

I really don't think you can use a scientific experiment that relies on RE Theory to prove FE Theory...
Of course. As I said many times, any proof of the Earth's shape that initially assumes its rotundity is not proof. Thank you for agreeing.

But, I would like everyone to just drop the whole MMX thing.
Yes, running away from an argument you don't have an answer to is an excellent strategy.

Now... can we PLEASE see a map!!?!??!?!?!
But of course. You can see it by going to the first page of this debate and viewing the third post in this thread.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 16, 2011, 01:37:25 PM
This thread has no reason to be more than 3 posts long. I'll say it again: it's only wrong because you make assumptions which are not true. The distances in FET are different from the ones in RET.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Zogg on November 16, 2011, 01:40:30 PM
I've already shown you a few maps...

I am of course speaking of a length-preserving map, as asked for in the opening post. If the Gauss Curvature of earth is zero, such a map should exist, but FEers have so far failed to provide it. (If it's not zero, the earth is not flat.)

This thread has no reason to be more than 3 posts long. I'll say it again: it's only wrong because you make assumptions which are not true. The distances in FET are different from the ones in RET.

If this thread is so long, it's because FEers still haven't posted said map. Instead, they are making excuses after excuses why such a map doesn't exist in FE geometry, but without ever establishing this geometry (They can't even determine it's curvature).
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 16, 2011, 01:42:38 PM
I am of course speaking of a length-preserving map, as I said about 371624 times. If the Gauss Curvature of earth is zero, such a map should exist, but FEers have so far failed to provide it. (If it's not zero, the earth is not flat.)
Well, yes, the fact that you refuse to accept certain facts and cling to your religion of mathematics does make it quite tedious. But hey, I can say it for the n+1st time. Your RET assumptions do not apply outside of RET.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 16, 2011, 01:46:04 PM
I think what he (and all of us) would like is a map with political boundaries drawn
Why do political boundaries matter?

that demonstrates the distances between cities as given by real surveyors who follow Earthling science.
This has been explained over and over in this thread as long as the main distance consistency thread on the fora.

Of course. As I said many times, any proof of the Earth's shape that initially assumes its rotundity is not proof. Thank you for agreeing.
So... any proof that the Earth is round is not real proof?  Isn't that a little dismissive?

Yes, running away from an argument you don't have an answer to is an excellent strategy.
You're not baiting me into that.  Anyways, that seems to be exactly how you got us all arguing about MMX and not FE Theory.  Couldn't handle the question, so you changed the subject.  Look at the monkey!  Look at the silly monkey!

But of course. You can see it by going to the first page of this debate and viewing the third post in this thread.

I think what he (and all of us) would like is a map with political boundaries drawn
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 16, 2011, 01:48:07 PM
Let's put this thing to bed once and for all.

We're asking for a political map that explains the geographically scaled earth as we know it on a flat map.

He says he can't do it because in a flat world, the laws of scale somehow changes.

Doesn't make any sense, and I don't buy it, but that's his explanation.

All the rest is just arguing in circles.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 16, 2011, 01:49:29 PM
I've already shown you a few maps...

I am of course speaking of a length-preserving map, as asked for in the opening post. If the Gauss Curvature of earth is zero, such a map should exist, but FEers have so far failed to provide it. (If it's not zero, the earth is not flat.)

This thread has no reason to be more than 3 posts long. I'll say it again: it's only wrong because you make assumptions which are not true. The distances in FET are different from the ones in RET.

If this thread is so long, it's because FEers still haven't posted said map. Instead, they are making excuses after excuses why such a map doesn't exist in FE geometry, but without ever establishing this geometry (They can't even determine it's curvature).

(http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/idl_html_help/images/maps06.gif)

Happy?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 16, 2011, 01:50:50 PM
Doesn't make any sense, and I don't buy it, but that's his explanation.
Thank you. Someone finally understands.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Zogg on November 16, 2011, 01:52:09 PM
Well, yes, the fact that you refuse to accept certain facts and cling to your religion of mathematics does make it quite tedious. But hey, I can say it for the n+1st time. Your RET assumptions do not apply outside of RET.

Saying nonsense n+1 times doesn't make it less nonsense. "Flat -> Gauss curvature zero -> euclidean -> flat map" holds for any surface and doesn't use any RE assumptions. 
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 16, 2011, 01:53:01 PM
I've already shown you a few maps...

I am of course speaking of a length-preserving map, as asked for in the opening post. If the Gauss Curvature of earth is zero, such a map should exist, but FEers have so far failed to provide it. (If it's not zero, the earth is not flat.)

This thread has no reason to be more than 3 posts long. I'll say it again: it's only wrong because you make assumptions which are not true. The distances in FET are different from the ones in RET.

If this thread is so long, it's because FEers still haven't posted said map. Instead, they are making excuses after excuses why such a map doesn't exist in FE geometry, but without ever establishing this geometry (They can't even determine it's curvature).

(http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/idl_html_help/images/maps06.gif)

Happy?

NO!!!  We want a map that includes political boundaries!!!  A map with borders and countries and cities and states and all that goodness.  Not a sillhouette, not a satellite image... we want a MAP with names and coordinates!  Like, something that came from someone who knows what they're talking about!
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on November 16, 2011, 02:01:27 PM
I am of course speaking of a length-preserving map, as I said about 371624 times. If the Gauss Curvature of earth is zero, such a map should exist, but FEers have so far failed to provide it. (If it's not zero, the earth is not flat.)
Well, yes, the fact that you refuse to accept certain facts and cling to your religion of mathematics does make it quite tedious. But hey, I can say it for the n+1st time. Your RET assumptions do not apply outside of RET.

Mathematics are the same no matter if the Earth is a sphere, plane, or hyperbola.

The validity of mathematics is an assumption made by both RET and FET. Live with it.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 16, 2011, 02:02:19 PM
This one doesn't have cities, but it's political.

(http://www.geoatlas.com/medias/maps/world%20maps%20and%20globes/polar/po65l699r98/Polar_pol1.jpg)
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 16, 2011, 02:03:53 PM
I am of course speaking of a length-preserving map, as I said about 371624 times. If the Gauss Curvature of earth is zero, such a map should exist, but FEers have so far failed to provide it. (If it's not zero, the earth is not flat.)
Well, yes, the fact that you refuse to accept certain facts and cling to your religion of mathematics does make it quite tedious. But hey, I can say it for the n+1st time. Your RET assumptions do not apply outside of RET.

Mathematics are the same no matter if the Earth is a sphere, plane, or hyperbola.

The validity of mathematics is an assumption made by both RET and FET. Live with it.

Not so. It's been questioned a few times. For instance, by Ichi.

Also, i is a copout.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Zogg on November 16, 2011, 02:05:26 PM
(http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/idl_html_help/images/maps06.gif)
Happy?

Depends. Is this map length preserving?

If it isn't this is not what we asked for.

If it is, Australia is stretched in east-west directions by a factor of about four, compared to official local maps. Do you really think Australians won't notice?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 16, 2011, 02:06:00 PM
(http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/idl_html_help/images/maps06.gif)
Happy?

Depends. Is this map length preserving?

If it isn't this is not what we asked for.

If it is, Australia is stretched in east-west directions by a factor of about four, compared to official local maps. Do you really think Australians won't notice?

Look at the other one I posted. It's hard to miss.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Zogg on November 16, 2011, 02:23:52 PM
Look at the other one I posted. It's hard to miss.

Well, let's look at the other one you posted, and compare the shape of Australia with "official" maps:
(http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/1329/australiai.png)
If your map is length-preserving, that means that "official" maps would be distorted by more than the factor 2, including roads, flight distances, crop fields, streets, large buildings etc.

Do you really think nobody would notice?

Edit: Take for example the Tallaringa Conservation Park, located above the letter "S" of "South Australia" on the Google map. On the Google map, its" N-S-diameter is larger than it's E-W-diameter; on your map it would be the other way round.

Another example is the Syney airport which has an east-west runway and a north-south runway. On Google maps, the latter is longer, on your map it would be shorter.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on November 16, 2011, 02:52:00 PM
I am of course speaking of a length-preserving map, as I said about 371624 times. If the Gauss Curvature of earth is zero, such a map should exist, but FEers have so far failed to provide it. (If it's not zero, the earth is not flat.)
Well, yes, the fact that you refuse to accept certain facts and cling to your religion of mathematics does make it quite tedious. But hey, I can say it for the n+1st time. Your RET assumptions do not apply outside of RET.

Mathematics are the same no matter if the Earth is a sphere, plane, or hyperbola.

The validity of mathematics is an assumption made by both RET and FET. Live with it.

Not so. It's been questioned a few times. For instance, by Ichi.

Also, i is a copout.
So you disbelieve the most basic of mathematics, and yet you often cite Special Relativity, dark energy, etc., which are based heavily on mathematics.  Just look at the gabbeldy gook on this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy)
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 16, 2011, 03:06:43 PM
If your map is length-preserving, that means that "official" maps would be distorted by more than the factor 2, including roads, flight distances, crop fields, streets, large buildings etc.
This is, of course, entirely untrue, for reasons explained many times now.

Also, I'm pretty sure that according to RET the Google Maps representation of Australia. I am basing this off your own claim that it's impossible to project Australia on a flat surface without distorting it; and yet, you didn't notice that, and decided to use it as your template. Perhaps it's not so outlandish of a claim that people wouldn't notice, after all?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on November 16, 2011, 03:15:36 PM
If your map is length-preserving, that means that "official" maps would be distorted by more than the factor 2, including roads, flight distances, crop fields, streets, large buildings etc.
This is, of course, entirely untrue, for reasons explained many times now.

Also, I'm pretty sure that according to RET the Google Maps representation of Australia. I am basing this off your own claim that it's impossible to project Australia on a flat surface without distorting it; and yet, you didn't notice that, and decided to use it as your template. Perhaps it's not so outlandish of a claim that people wouldn't notice, after all?
That map is roughly correct.  FE map is extremely distorted.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Zogg on November 16, 2011, 03:21:31 PM
Also, I'm pretty sure that according to RET the Google Maps representation of Australia. I am basing this off your own claim that it's impossible to project Australia on a flat surface without distorting it; and yet, you didn't notice that, and decided to use it as your template. Perhaps it's not so outlandish of a claim that people wouldn't notice, after all?

Of course, in RET, any map of Austrialia has some distortions. But first, distortions of local maps (projection on a plane tangential to a point at the center of the observed area) are small and far from factor 2, and negligable for relatively small areas such as the Sydney airport. Secondly, the distortions are well known and considered in length calculations done by professional carthographers, airline experts etc. 
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Zogg on November 16, 2011, 03:53:07 PM
EmperorZhark asked in the opening post :

Using this:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0759496.html

Or any reliable source on distances between cities,

Find any FE map large enough to contains all continents, including Antarctica, consistant with the distances given above.

Well, let's mark two of the distances in said source on your map:

(http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/3245/flightmapx.jpg)

According to the source, the distance from LA to Cairo is longer than the distance from Sydney to Cape Town. On the map it's waaaay shorter - even if you pass on a "direct line" over Asia and Africa. Hence the map is not what we were asking for.

Try again.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on November 16, 2011, 05:25:08 PM
If your map is length-preserving, that means that "official" maps would be distorted by more than the factor 2, including roads, flight distances, crop fields, streets, large buildings etc.
This is, of course, entirely untrue, for reasons explained many times now.

Also, I'm pretty sure that according to RET the Google Maps representation of Australia. I am basing this off your own claim that it's impossible to project Australia on a flat surface without distorting it; and yet, you didn't notice that, and decided to use it as your template. Perhaps it's not so outlandish of a claim that people wouldn't notice, after all?

This is Pizza-code for "A round Earth would create distortions if we map it to a plane, a flat Earth would not... Therefore since we observe a distortion that is explainable by RET and not by FET, we must... CLAIM THE EARTH IS FLAT"

I will translate more, as more text becomes available.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 16, 2011, 06:15:59 PM
So, I understand the general concept that if you stretch an object, it will measure the same if you also stretch the unit of measure by the same rate.  Consider:

(http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i464/Krista7714/pencilstretch.jpg)
If you widen an object, and then widen the unit of measure by the same ratio, you get what appears to be a wider object that measures the same.  So, if you increase a pencil x2 and then increase the size of an inch by 2, voila... the pencil appears bigger, but mathematically measures the same.  So here, what we've done is changed science to give a disproven theory credence.

The problem with that is this:
(http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i464/Krista7714/unevenratio.jpg)
Now, you have a situation where a unit of measure changes depending on its orientation.

Nobody has ever recorded this to be the case under any natural circumstance on the planet.  Now, if things grew "wider" in the South Pole, things should grow more "narrow" in the North Pole.  So, the distortion should have the opposite effect in the Northern Hemisphere.  However, like the Southern Hemisphere, an inch is the same size whether it runs N-S or E-W.

Flat Earthers attempt to explain this phenomenon with something called Electromagnetic Acceleration... which is the same principle that powers a rail gun.  Basically, their theory states that there is an electromagnetic force that gets stronger (or weaker) towards the edge of the world, which causes light to bend, giving off the illusion that something is wider than it is long.

One problem is, more than likely light can not be bent by electromagnetic acceleration. 
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-4125.html
http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2009

This is mainly due to the theory of relativity.  Some physicists believe it could be possible, but it has never been proven.  One reason is that nobody has ever had the resources to produce an electromagnet with the kind of power a physicist would consider necessary in bending light in that fashion.  Theoretically, the Earth could provide that vehicle in the way FE Theorists suggest.  If the world is flat, the ice shelf would provide a sufficient enough size to house that kind of force.  But, there is no proof of that force, there is no proof that anything like this is happening, and there is no proof that it would even work.  Essentially, using EAT to explain FE Theory is to explain a debunked myth with an unproven phenomenon... in contradiction of a proven fact reinforced with proven science.  It's like saying, "Santa Clause can fly without upwards propulsion because he gives his reindeer magic dust.  That proves that your parents didn't buy your Christmas presents at the store."

Some FE Theorists suggest that in the dark, objects in the southern hemisphere shrink to the normal size we see when we look at satellite images of the earth.  That phenomenon is completely advocated in the FE community.  However, nobody in the FE community has explained why satellite images of land mass in the southern hemisphere more closely resemble the RE Model, nor have they explained what fills in the gaps that this supposed shrinking would create.  If the Earth is one solid object (which is one thing we can ALL agree on), if Australia, South America and Africa shrink, somewhere the ocean would need to either stretch or split to accommodate for the redistribution of volume.  Somewhere along the lines, you still have an unexplained distortion, or something has to give.

My question is, why would the continents change shape because of the absence of light?  The whole thing about light bending shouldn't have anything to do with a luminous source like a "light bulb," but the overall concept of appearance.  A flat Earth map should "look" the same in the night as it would in the day.  None of this matter though.  FET hinges on the idea that the continents are actually wider.  It's the only way to explain the southern hemisphere having more surface area, but the same measure of ratio.  Thus, the distortion wouldn't be an illusion, it would be an actual physical phenomenon.

Another curious aspect about FE Theory is flight path in the northern hemisphere.  As shown in a previous post, a flight from NY to Tokyo would go over the top of the Earth rather than around it like a line of longitude.  This phenomenon holds water in FE Theory.  The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line.  On a flat version of a RE map, this would appear as a curved path.  However, on the round earth, it ALSO appears as a straight line.  So, this particular flight path doesn't prove OR disprove FE or RE.  However, flights that take place in the Southern Hemisphere (say, a flight from Johannesburg to Melbourne) arches downward:
(http://www.southafrica.to/transport/Airlines/cheap-flights-from-South-Africa/cheap-flights-from-Johannesburg/Johannesburg-Melbourne.jpg)

Flight paths in the Northern Hemisphere curve in the opposite direction than flight paths in the Southern Hemisphere simply because the Southern Hemisphere is a geometric mirror of the Northern Hemisphere.

Even when you go from Northern Hemisphere to Southern, your flight path takes an "S" pattern because a straight line across a sphere depicted on a RE Map changes direction at the equator.  That's because the equator is the divide between the halves:
(http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=lax-syd)

If it were a conspiracy, not only would NASA be lying about it, but every commercial airline employee and every crop-duster on the planet would have to be in on it, too.

What Zogg is trying to prove is that you can't come up with a map that depicts a Flat Earth [and] accurately explains the proven geometry and geography of the Earth, as well as modern aviation methodology.  You're creating a speculated map that has never been proven, then providing a lot of circumstantial, unproven and very unlikely explanations to justify it.

A flight from Sydney to Australia is 14 hours non-stop, which is well short of the time needed to fly the 6,843 miles from point A to point B on a Flat Earth map, and WAY short of the time needed to fly the distance that the used flight path would actually take on the a flat earth.  Or, you could pay attention to REAL science, and assume that the flight path and the flight time DOES make sense, and that it DOES make a straight line by considering the following picture.  It is the ONLY way the geometry makes sense, and we've got pictures to prove it on top of everything else!  Or, you can choose to believe in a lot of flimsy debunked bull backed by a lot of junk science and conspiracy theories.

(http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i464/Krista7714/flightpathbottom.jpg)
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 16, 2011, 06:48:56 PM
If your map is length-preserving, that means that "official" maps would be distorted by more than the factor 2, including roads, flight distances, crop fields, streets, large buildings etc.
This is, of course, entirely untrue, for reasons explained many times now.

Also, I'm pretty sure that according to RET the Google Maps representation of Australia. I am basing this off your own claim that it's impossible to project Australia on a flat surface without distorting it; and yet, you didn't notice that, and decided to use it as your template. Perhaps it's not so outlandish of a claim that people wouldn't notice, after all?

This is Pizza-code for "A round Earth would create distortions if we map it to a plane, a flat Earth would not... Therefore since we observe a distortion that is explainable by RET and not by FET, we must... CLAIM THE EARTH IS FLAT"

I will translate more, as more text becomes available.

Even though the flat version of a flat earth model depicts more of a distortion than a flat version of the round earth model. hahaha  Especially since a spherical globe accurately depicts what we see in satellite images closer than anything else.  I wonder if he's ever considered that to be the case because the globe actually represents the geometric shape of the earth...
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on November 16, 2011, 07:04:25 PM
If your map is length-preserving, that means that "official" maps would be distorted by more than the factor 2, including roads, flight distances, crop fields, streets, large buildings etc.
This is, of course, entirely untrue, for reasons explained many times now.

Also, I'm pretty sure that according to RET the Google Maps representation of Australia. I am basing this off your own claim that it's impossible to project Australia on a flat surface without distorting it; and yet, you didn't notice that, and decided to use it as your template. Perhaps it's not so outlandish of a claim that people wouldn't notice, after all?

This is Pizza-code for "A round Earth would create distortions if we map it to a plane, a flat Earth would not... Therefore since we observe a distortion that is explainable by RET and not by FET, we must... CLAIM THE EARTH IS FLAT"

I will translate more, as more text becomes available.

Even though the flat version of a flat earth model depicts more of a distortion than a flat version of the round earth model. hahaha  Especially since a spherical globe accurately depicts what we see in satellite images closer than anything else.  I wonder if he's ever considered that to be the case because the globe actually represents the geometric shape of the earth...

But if he admitted the Earth is round, how ever would he claim that the Earth is flat?  ???
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 16, 2011, 07:16:17 PM
Besides, how come Australia looks like this from space?
(http://www.spacetime.com.au/IMAGES/earth-large.jpg)

Wouldn't it look all stupid and distorted like it appears on the FE map?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 17, 2011, 02:15:41 AM
Well, let's mark two of the distances in said source on your map:

(http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/3245/flightmapx.jpg)
Why have you chosen to follow such weird arched paths? No wonder your results don't line up if you're not following straight lines. Also, the "even longer" line is the shortest of the lines you've drawn. What is it "even longer" than?

This is Pizza-code for "A round Earth would create distortions if we map it to a plane, a flat Earth would not... Therefore since we observe a distortion that is explainable by RET and not by FET, we must... CLAIM THE EARTH IS FLAT"
Putting words in my mouth won't get this discussion very far. What I said was: If you would like to show me what shape Australia is, as a reference point to then show that Australia doesn't look like I claim it does, please make sure that the shape of Australia you present isn't one that you have explicitly stated to be absolutely incorrect.

Of course, I am now going to follow my traditional conduct, and point out that two can play that game.

What you guys have done is RE'er code for:
"This is a circle:
(http://sethoscope.net/devil-stick/triangle/triangle.png)

This is a FE circle:
(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/5048/ellipse.png)

THEY CLEARLY LOOK DIFFERENT SO FET IS WROOOOOOOOOOONG!"
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 17, 2011, 02:20:14 AM
Krista, I've skimmed through your post (sorry, it is a bit long; I'll give it a proper read later on). Thank you for giving this thought and coming up with a serious response, rather than just attempting mockery.

You are absolutely correct in the fact that my scaling model depends on orientation. Furthermore, it also depends on distance from the North Pole. However, this only applies to optically viewed "distances" and only when scaled down. In other words - it only applies to small pictures of the whole Earth (maps). The distortion is present in optically measured "distances" in reality too, but, due to the lack of a good reference point, it would be largely unnoticeable.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 17, 2011, 03:42:38 AM
Well, let's mark two of the distances in said source on your map:

(http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/3245/flightmapx.jpg)
Why have you chosen to follow such weird arched paths? No wonder your results don't line up if you're not following straight lines. Also, the "even longer" line is the shortest of the lines you've drawn. What is it "even longer" than?


Not straight lines?

Longer line shortes distance?

Might be true on RE. I don't see any FE here (no map, no math).
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Zogg on November 17, 2011, 04:10:09 AM
Why have you chosen to follow such weird arched paths? No wonder your results don't line up if you're not following straight lines. Also, the "even longer" line is the shortest of the lines you've drawn. What is it "even longer" than?

EmperorZark asked for a length-preserving map. Tausami posted this map ans an answer, so I supposed it was thought to be length-preserving. Now you are saying that the longest line on the map is the shortest on earth - in other words, it's not length-preserving. Hence this is not the map we were asking for.

So, either give us the map we were asking for (such a map exists for all flat surfaces), or admit that such a map does not exist (which implies that earth is not flat).
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 17, 2011, 06:01:35 AM
What you guys have done is RE'er code for:
"This is a circle:
(http://sethoscope.net/devil-stick/triangle/triangle.png)

This is a FE circle:
(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/5048/ellipse.png)

THEY CLEARLY LOOK DIFFERENT SO FET IS WROOOOOOOOOOONG!"

You gotta admit though... FET or RET, the "Pizza-code" comment was pretty humorous.  And, while we're on the subject, your profile picture is making it very hard to concentrate on mounting a sophisticated argument!  :P

So, I've been arguing that in order to make FE work, you have to change the math so the geometry makes sense.  Case in point, the diagram above isn't a circle, it's an oval.  That was kind of my point.  We're not comparing apples and oranges, we're comparing mandarin oranges and tangerines.  So, if there were a continent that was a circle with an equal radius in every direction, in order for it to work on a FE map, it wouldn't be a circle, it would be an oval. 

Maybe I'm just completely missing something you're saying.  I mean, because you explained the "stretching" with EAT.  The FAQ basically refers to EAT as "[paraphrasing] a magnetic field stretching light."  Am I just misunderstanding how that produces the phenomenon we're talking about?

Because I mean, the flight path stuff... it's not like driving a car.  You don't just drive in one direction and get there when you get there... in flight, they use proven calculations that accurately estimate arrival times based on distance and speed.  We're not talking about a small discrepency... we're talking about the difference between abotu 1,500 miles and over 7,000.  However EAT explains this geometric distortion, it either has to explain ALL of this in full, or something else has to be at play here.

And, of course his arched flight path is the longest.  If the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line, ANYTHING else would be longer.

Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Ski on November 17, 2011, 06:26:32 AM
Planes rarely use a straight line route. They follow jet streams. The shortest route is longer.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: markjo on November 17, 2011, 06:33:00 AM
Planes rarely use a straight line route. They follow jet streams. The shortest route is longer.

What if there is no jet stream going where the plane is going?  What if the jet stream is going the wrong way?  Oh, and the shortest route is always the shortest, just not always fastest.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 17, 2011, 06:38:53 AM
Planes rarely use a straight line route. They follow jet streams. The shortest route is longer.

What???  Please remember that I'm in front of a computer and all I have to do is look up what you're saying to find out if it holds water.


Yes, in some cases, but not going from Sydney to Johannesburg.  Like they'll go over the Pacific between Tokyo and LA, but even Tokyo to Washington DC (which I've flown twice), they go over the hemisphere.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 17, 2011, 09:19:15 AM
Guess what?

If you tried to draw a map of the Earth using tables of distances between cities, the only map you could draw would be a globe. You could never ever draw a FE map.

So, does the impossibility of a FE map means that FE is impossible?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Zogg on November 17, 2011, 09:44:20 AM
So, does the impossibility of a FE map means that FE is impossible?

I guess it depends how you define "flat".

If "flat" means "uncurved", then flat things are locally euclidean, which implies the existence of a flat, length-preserving map. Hence, if there isn't a map, there isn't any flatness. In consequence, the answer is "Yes".

If "flat" means "flatly flatish with flat flatness - but I'm not sure what this means, and I don't want to make any claims about curvature or decide on any particular geometry", then the answer is "No".

If "flat" means "I don't really believe this crap but I'm pretending to do so, as I consider defending an undefendable position a mental challenge", then the answer is "<insert confusing statement here>".
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 17, 2011, 10:59:15 AM
Guess what?

If you tried to draw a map of the Earth using tables of distances between cities, the only map you could draw would be a globe. You could never ever draw a FE map.

That's exactly what I was trying to explain to them.  A flat map that displays accurate distances is a square peg in a round hole.  They try to play it off by saying "but RE'ers can portray a spherical earth on a flat map" as if that proves something.  We CAN'T portray a spherical earth on a flat map.  Either the map gets distorted or it gets cut or warped.  But hey... our flat version of the round earth is STILL a lot more accurate than their flat version of a flat earth... They claim the earth is the same X/Y, 2-dimensional shape as a paper map, and they STILL can't come up with a map that accurately depicts actual distances...

...unless you wanna believe in hypothetical magical electromagnetic fields that have never been proven.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 17, 2011, 11:19:21 AM
And the only FE maps they provide are RE maps!
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 17, 2011, 11:24:56 AM
And the only FE maps they provide are RE maps!

...with huge oceans or warped land.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 17, 2011, 12:02:48 PM
And no scale, of course.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 17, 2011, 12:11:48 PM
Guess what?

If you tried to draw a map of the Earth using tables of distances between cities, the only map you could draw would be a globe. You could never ever draw a FE map.

So, does the impossibility of a FE map means that FE is impossible?

Only with RE distances
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 17, 2011, 12:14:16 PM
Then provide us with FE distances! (never done before)
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 17, 2011, 12:46:26 PM
Then provide us with FE distances! (never done before)

Alright. It'll take me a while, though, and I'm not sure whether I actually have a clue what I'm doing.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 17, 2011, 01:09:14 PM
OK, Im eagerly waiting.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 17, 2011, 01:11:15 PM
Now you are saying that the longest line on the map is the shortest on earth
No, I am saying that you have marked the shortest line on the map as "even longer", without specifying what it is "even longer" than.

Once again you attempt to put words in my mouth. Does this problem stem from your childhood, perhaps? If you'd like to talk about it, I should be able to offer some help.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 17, 2011, 01:13:45 PM
Alright, here's an equation for the length of the disk (what in RET would be lines of latitude) in kilometers. Note that it only works for negative values (below the equator)

(|X|445.277963)+40,075.016686

Where X= the degree of latitude. I can probably get distances between cities, too, but it'll take a lot longer.

BTW, are there any specific cities you want the distances between?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 17, 2011, 01:22:08 PM
Alright, here's an equation for the length of the disk (what in RET would be lines of latitude). Note that it only works for negative values (below the equator)

|X|445.277963

Where X= the degree of latitude. I can probably get distances between cities, too, but it'll take a lot longer.

BTW, are there any specific cities you want the distances between?

No no... we don't want you to concoct distances between cities.  We know the distances between cities.  We want you to reconcile those distances with a flat-earth map.

"|X|445.277963" doesn't mean anything in Earth-speak.  You're gonna have to tell us what that means.  And please don't say, "you don't know what that means? No wonder you're all stupid!"  We're not stupid, we're ignorant.  So please... enlighten us.  What is that?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 17, 2011, 01:43:15 PM
Alright, here's an equation for the length of the disk (what in RET would be lines of latitude). Note that it only works for negative values (below the equator)

|X|445.277963

Where X= the degree of latitude. I can probably get distances between cities, too, but it'll take a lot longer.

BTW, are there any specific cities you want the distances between?

No no... we don't want you to concoct distances between cities.  We know the distances between cities.  We want you to reconcile those distances with a flat-earth map.

"|X|445.277963" doesn't mean anything in Earth-speak.  You're gonna have to tell us what that means.  And please don't say, "you don't know what that means? No wonder you're all stupid!"  We're not stupid, we're ignorant.  So please... enlighten us.  What is that?

I'm sorry I didn't add labels. I assumed that you could figure out that I was talking about lengths (although I admit that I forgot to state that it's in kilometers). Also, I forgot to add the length of the equator. That's fixed now.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 17, 2011, 01:59:10 PM
Alright, here's an equation for the length of the disk (what in RET would be lines of latitude). Note that it only works for negative values (below the equator)

|X|445.277963

Where X= the degree of latitude. I can probably get distances between cities, too, but it'll take a lot longer.

BTW, are there any specific cities you want the distances between?

No no... we don't want you to concoct distances between cities.  We know the distances between cities.  We want you to reconcile those distances with a flat-earth map.

"|X|445.277963" doesn't mean anything in Earth-speak.  You're gonna have to tell us what that means.  And please don't say, "you don't know what that means? No wonder you're all stupid!"  We're not stupid, we're ignorant.  So please... enlighten us.  What is that?

I'm sorry I didn't add labels. I assumed that you could figure out that I was talking about lengths (although I admit that I forgot to state that it's in kilometers). Also, I forgot to add the length of the equator. That's fixed now.

You mean, the diameter?  If the distance between the north and south pole (radius) is 12,800km, why would it not be 12,800km x 2? (diameter = radius x 2, right?)  So, where do all those other numbers come from?

Do you mean to say the diameter is 445.277963km + 40,075.016686km?  So, the diameter is 40,520.294649 km?  Why wouldn't you just say it that way? 

I think I'm just lost.  Does anyone else understand what he's saying?

Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 17, 2011, 02:02:36 PM
Now you are saying that the longest line on the map is the shortest on earth
No, I am saying that you have marked the shortest line on the map as "even longer", without specifying what it is "even longer" than.

Once again you attempt to put words in my mouth. Does this problem stem from your childhood, perhaps? If you'd like to talk about it, I should be able to offer some help.

Is it not obvious that he intended the "longest" line to be compared to the other lines drawn on the map?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 17, 2011, 02:17:13 PM
Alright, here's an equation for the length of the disk (what in RET would be lines of latitude). Note that it only works for negative values (below the equator)

|X|445.277963

Where X= the degree of latitude. I can probably get distances between cities, too, but it'll take a lot longer.

BTW, are there any specific cities you want the distances between?

No no... we don't want you to concoct distances between cities.  We know the distances between cities.  We want you to reconcile those distances with a flat-earth map.

"|X|445.277963" doesn't mean anything in Earth-speak.  You're gonna have to tell us what that means.  And please don't say, "you don't know what that means? No wonder you're all stupid!"  We're not stupid, we're ignorant.  So please... enlighten us.  What is that?

I'm sorry I didn't add labels. I assumed that you could figure out that I was talking about lengths (although I admit that I forgot to state that it's in kilometers). Also, I forgot to add the length of the equator. That's fixed now.

You mean, the diameter?  If the distance between the north and south pole (radius) is 12,800km, why would it not be 12,800km x 2? (diameter = radius x 2, right?)  So, where do all those other numbers come from?

Do you mean to say the diameter is 445.277963km + 40,075.016686km?  So, the diameter is 40,520.294649 km?  Why wouldn't you just say it that way? 

I think I'm just lost.  Does anyone else understand what he's saying?

I'm talking about lines of latitude, as I said.

BTW, the distance between NYC and Sydney is ~29524.6 km.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on November 17, 2011, 02:54:35 PM
Alright, here's an equation for the length of the disk (what in RET would be lines of latitude) in kilometers. Note that it only works for negative values (below the equator)

(|X|445.277963)+40,075.016686

Where X= the degree of latitude. I can probably get distances between cities, too, but it'll take a lot longer.

BTW, are there any specific cities you want the distances between?
Is the first term supposed to be multiplied?  And is it supposed to be an absolute value?  If so, since it only works for negative values, couldn't you just put -445.277963X+40,075.016686?

I don't understand it anyway.  So, if, according to the FAQ, the diameter of the entire disc is 40,073 km, then the diameter of only the Northern Hemisphere should be 20,036.5 km, and the circumference of the NH (equator), should be C=(pi)(diameter), so we will get 62,946.5212 km for the equator.

In any case, this conclusion fixes nothing, because the lengths are still distorted.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 17, 2011, 02:57:48 PM
Alright, here's an equation for the length of the disk (what in RET would be lines of latitude) in kilometers. Note that it only works for negative values (below the equator)

(|X|445.277963)+40,075.016686

Where X= the degree of latitude. I can probably get distances between cities, too, but it'll take a lot longer.

BTW, are there any specific cities you want the distances between?
Is the first term supposed to be multiplied?  And is it supposed to be an absolute value?  If so, since it only works for negative values, couldn't you just put -445.277963X+40,075.016686?

I don't understand it anyway.  So, if, according to the FAQ, the diameter of the entire disc is 40,073 km, then the diameter of only the Northern Hemisphere should be 20,036.5 km, and the circumference of the NH (equator), should be C=(pi)(diameter), so we will get 62,946.5212 km for the equator.

In any case, this conclusion fixes nothing, because the lengths are still distorted.

Yes, it is supposed to be multiplied, and yes, it is an absolute value sign. And this clearly means that the FAQ is wrong, because the Equator is that long (the actual length changes a couple feet each year. I don't know why). And, again, the lengths are difference in FET.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 17, 2011, 02:59:33 PM
I explained it all again here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51811.0
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on November 17, 2011, 03:13:21 PM
Well, this is all just great, but it solves nothing!  Now we know the distances on the distorted Earth, which are no good anyway because the equator is 40,075.0 km. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator#Exact_length_of_the_Equator)  But mostly, we still don't know why the places more south are all wrong.  And if you don't know why the equator changes, then how do you know it happens?  Somehow I doubt you measured it every year accurately enough to find a discrepancy of a few feet.  Also on the plane you would have seen that the Earth is round.  Where did that even come from?  Did you just make that up right now?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 17, 2011, 03:16:34 PM
Well, this is all just great, but it solves nothing!  Now we know the distances on the distorted Earth, which are no good anyway because the equator is 40,075.0 km. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator#Exact_length_of_the_Equator)  But mostly, we still don't know why the places more south are all wrong.  And if you don't know why the equator changes, then how do you know it happens?  Somehow I doubt you measured it every year accurately enough to find a discrepancy of a few feet.  Also on the plane you would have seen that the Earth is round.  Where did that even come from?  Did you just make that up right now?

What, exactly, does any of that have to do with anything? I added the change in as a little sidebar because I found it interesting.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on November 17, 2011, 03:21:12 PM
Well, this is all just great, but it solves nothing!  Now we know the distances on the distorted Earth, which are no good anyway because the equator is 40,075.0 km. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator#Exact_length_of_the_Equator)  But mostly, we still don't know why the places more south are all wrong.  And if you don't know why the equator changes, then how do you know it happens?  Somehow I doubt you measured it every year accurately enough to find a discrepancy of a few feet.  Also on the plane you would have seen that the Earth is round.  Where did that even come from?  Did you just make that up right now?
But where did you find that fact from?  Where did you find any of these numbers from at all?  They don't even make sense.  The equator is wrong.
What, exactly, does any of that have to do with anything? I added the change in as a little sidebar because I found it interesting.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 17, 2011, 03:23:48 PM
Well, this is all just great, but it solves nothing!  Now we know the distances on the distorted Earth, which are no good anyway because the equator is 40,075.0 km. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator#Exact_length_of_the_Equator)  But mostly, we still don't know why the places more south are all wrong.  And if you don't know why the equator changes, then how do you know it happens?  Somehow I doubt you measured it every year accurately enough to find a discrepancy of a few feet.  Also on the plane you would have seen that the Earth is round.  Where did that even come from?  Did you just make that up right now?
But where did you find that fact from?  Where did you find any of these numbers from at all?  They don't even make sense.  The equator is wrong.
What, exactly, does any of that have to do with anything? I added the change in as a little sidebar because I found it interesting.

It's not wrong. It's more accurate. I used the same number as you, just with more decimal places.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on November 17, 2011, 03:28:00 PM
Well, this is all just great, but it solves nothing!  Now we know the distances on the distorted Earth, which are no good anyway because the equator is 40,075.0 km. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator#Exact_length_of_the_Equator)  But mostly, we still don't know why the places more south are all wrong.  And if you don't know why the equator changes, then how do you know it happens?  Somehow I doubt you measured it every year accurately enough to find a discrepancy of a few feet.  Also on the plane you would have seen that the Earth is round.  Where did that even come from?  Did you just make that up right now?
But where did you find that fact from?  Where did you find any of these numbers from at all?  They don't even make sense.  The equator is wrong.
What, exactly, does any of that have to do with anything? I added the change in as a little sidebar because I found it interesting.

It's not wrong. It's more accurate. I used the same number as you, just with more decimal places.
It is more accurate, but it's inconsistent with FET.  Remember this?

So, if, according to the FAQ, the diameter of the entire disc is 40,073 km, then the diameter of only the Northern Hemisphere should be 20,036.5 km, and the circumference of the NH (equator), should be C=(pi)(diameter), so we will get 62,946.5212 km for the equator.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 17, 2011, 03:32:47 PM
Well, this is all just great, but it solves nothing!  Now we know the distances on the distorted Earth, which are no good anyway because the equator is 40,075.0 km. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator#Exact_length_of_the_Equator)  But mostly, we still don't know why the places more south are all wrong.  And if you don't know why the equator changes, then how do you know it happens?  Somehow I doubt you measured it every year accurately enough to find a discrepancy of a few feet.  Also on the plane you would have seen that the Earth is round.  Where did that even come from?  Did you just make that up right now?
But where did you find that fact from?  Where did you find any of these numbers from at all?  They don't even make sense.  The equator is wrong.
What, exactly, does any of that have to do with anything? I added the change in as a little sidebar because I found it interesting.

It's not wrong. It's more accurate. I used the same number as you, just with more decimal places.
It is more accurate, but it's inconsistent with FET.  Remember this?

So, if, according to the FAQ, the diameter of the entire disc is 40,073 km, then the diameter of only the Northern Hemisphere should be 20,036.5 km, and the circumference of the NH (equator), should be C=(pi)(diameter), so we will get 62,946.5212 km for the equator.

the FAQ is wrong
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on November 17, 2011, 03:37:20 PM
Well, this is all just great, but it solves nothing!  Now we know the distances on the distorted Earth, which are no good anyway because the equator is 40,075.0 km. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator#Exact_length_of_the_Equator)  But mostly, we still don't know why the places more south are all wrong.  And if you don't know why the equator changes, then how do you know it happens?  Somehow I doubt you measured it every year accurately enough to find a discrepancy of a few feet.  Also on the plane you would have seen that the Earth is round.  Where did that even come from?  Did you just make that up right now?
But where did you find that fact from?  Where did you find any of these numbers from at all?  They don't even make sense.  The equator is wrong.
What, exactly, does any of that have to do with anything? I added the change in as a little sidebar because I found it interesting.

It's not wrong. It's more accurate. I used the same number as you, just with more decimal places.
It is more accurate, but it's inconsistent with FET.  Remember this?

So, if, according to the FAQ, the diameter of the entire disc is 40,073 km, then the diameter of only the Northern Hemisphere should be 20,036.5 km, and the circumference of the NH (equator), should be C=(pi)(diameter), so we will get 62,946.5212 km for the equator.

the FAQ is wrong
Well, fine.  So the diameter of the Earth is 25,512.5374 km, and we still have exactly the same distortions that have no effect on plane flights that happen every day.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 17, 2011, 04:41:48 PM
We already went over that.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Zogg on November 17, 2011, 04:57:19 PM
Now you are saying that the longest line on the map is the shortest on earth
No, I am saying that you have marked the shortest line on the map as "even longer", without specifying what it is "even longer" than.

You need glasses. On the map, the green line is the longest of the three lines, as eyerybody can verify with a ruler. The left red line has a length of about 420 pixels, the right red line of 830, the green line of more than 1000. (The length in centimeters or inches depends on the screen size and resolution.) Yet you just called said 1000-pixel-long line "the shortest line on the map" - I have marked your sentence red for you - which is pure nonsense. As I supposed you are neither blind nor stupid, I supposed you were saying it's the shortest concerning the metrics on earth, not concerning the (euclidean) metrics on the map where it is the longest.

Once again you attempt to put words in my mouth.

Fact is, the green line is actually the longest line (1000 pixels > 830 pixels), and fact is that you called it the shortest. Did you mean the shortest on earth (in which case I didn't anything in your mouth) or on the map (in which case you are implying that 1000 < 830, and even 1000 < 420) ?

Does this problem stem from your childhood, perhaps? If you'd like to talk about it, I should be able to offer some help.

Once again you are using personal insults when cornered. Nothing new.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 17, 2011, 08:18:18 PM
(the actual length changes a couple feet each year. I don't know why). And, again, the lengths are difference in FET.

The earth is fatter around than it is over the top+bottom because the earth spins on it's axis.  It's the exact same phenomenon behind Saturn's rings.  Whenever you have debris within' the roche radius, debris spirals into a planet in a perpendicular fashion to it's axis.  If you take a wet ball and and spin it end-over-end in the air, you'll notice the water flings off in a path perpendicular to its rotational axis.  Also, if you spin anything big enough with enough velocity, it will distort.  Especially as big as the world is and as fast as it rotates.  You just proved the earth is round.

Let's get back to this map and how the measurements don't add up and the length of the green line.  I took the map Zogg uploaded and gave it a little Trig.

Of course I can't measure miles on my computer monitor, so I blew the image up to it's actual size in photoshop (my display is 1280x1024, which proves an even 1:1 ratio) and did some measurements.  The red line drawn between Sydney and Cape Town is 9.63".  Now, we can all agree that the North Pole is the center  of the map.  The distance between Cape Town and the North Pole as well as the distance between Sydney and the North Pole is 5.25".  Now that we have a triangle with known measurements of all 3 sides, we can deduce that the angle between the two distances is 133 degrees.  Since the distances are equal and they are the same distance from the center, we can now assume a radius of 5.25".  Since we have 2 lines of radius with a given length, and we know the degree of separation between the two, we can figure out the distance of the arc that joins them.  Thus, we can deduce that the green line roughly measures 12.16".  So, how long is that?  Well, if 9.63" = 6,843 miles, we can determine mileage that would be covered in 12.16" using a ratio of 1 to 710.59.  This Makes the green flight path a whopping 8,640 miles.  So, according to the flat earth map, roudn earth pilots are taking an 8,640-mile journey in the time it takes to travel only 6,843 miles.  BUT... if you measure the radius between the center point and the middle of the green arc, you'll get a wider radius.  This means that the length of the green line is actually GREATER than the values I've provided.

8,640 > 6,843.  Thus, the green line is longer.  What's more, the distance from Los Angeles to Cape Town is actually over 9,000 miles, which should be LONGER than the green line indicated on the map (which is the actual used flight path).  However, the distance between L.A. and Cape Town on the FE map only measures around 8", which is 33% SHORTER than the used flight path between Sydney and Cape Town.

What Zogg is indicating in this map is that it takes a shorter amount of time to complete the used flight path between Sydney and Cape Town than it takes to complete the used flight path between LA and Cairo.  But, according to the map, it should take twice as LONG because the 4.75" line connecting LA and Cairo on the flat earth map should only translate to around 3,375 miles.  The Flat Earth Map just doesn't work.

(http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/5469/femeasurements.jpg)

So, I've explained how the map doesn't work in real world math.  It's not "Round Earth math," it's called geometry.  If the math I've used works to explain the measurements of every single circle in the world, why the hell would it change when it comes to measuring a circular, flat world... unless the given shape of the world is incorrect?  The only way proven theories of geometry apply to Earth like it does to every other thing in existence is if the world is spherical... which... amazingly is EXACTLY how it appears when you look at it.

Now, you'll have to forgive me for not providing the same measurements in FE math... where you use different laws of geometry to measure the world than you do to measure EVERYTHING ELSE.  FE'ers made up flat earth math, so FE'ers are the only ones who know how to do it.  If you can explain the distances provided using "flat earth math (which just... sounds incredibly STUPID even THINKING about the very term)," we would love to see it.  Don't just give us a map that doesn't look anything like the world and say, "we can't prove it, and we can't explain why it's different than every other logical conclusion, but it just is because... well, prove it isn't!"
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 18, 2011, 12:33:32 AM
I'm surprised to see that instead of coming up with a twisted theory about why FE maps have to be different from the reality, they chose to defy simple geometry.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 18, 2011, 08:02:15 AM
Fact is, the green line is actually the longest line.
Perhaps under RET geometry.

Once again you are using personal insults when cornered. Nothing new.
Actually, I was sincerely offering help. You compulsively keep distorting what other people say to make it match your imagination of what's going on. Believe me or not, that is a problem. If you'd rather seek a professional, feel free to, but my offer still stands.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Zogg on November 18, 2011, 10:15:10 AM
Fact is, the green line is actually the longest line.
Perhaps under RET geometry.

On the map. In centimeters. Or inches. Measured with a tape rule. Is it so difficult for you to compare the length of three lines on a plane? Any six years old kid could do that.

It's funny that a guy who can't even handle a tap rule is offering me psychological help for my supposed problems. No thanks. ;D
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on November 18, 2011, 11:36:09 AM
Fact is, the green line is actually the longest line.
Perhaps under RET geometry.

Once again you are using personal insults when cornered. Nothing new.
Actually, I was sincerely offering help. You compulsively keep distorting what other people say to make it match your imagination of what's going on. Believe me or not, that is a problem. If you'd rather seek a professional, feel free to, but my offer still stands.

It is quite simple. We can calculate the theoretical distance between two points on a RE and FE. We then compare that value to what is actually known (i.e. measured) and conclude that distances in the real world math those predicted by RET and not by FET.

No amount of bendy light or bendy math will change this fact.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 18, 2011, 12:47:09 PM
But you calculate them following some strange paths that, contrary to your belief, do not constitute straight lines.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 18, 2011, 01:16:18 PM
Fact is, the green line is actually the longest line.
Perhaps under RET geometry.

Once again you are using personal insults when cornered. Nothing new.
Actually, I was sincerely offering help. You compulsively keep distorting what other people say to make it match your imagination of what's going on. Believe me or not, that is a problem. If you'd rather seek a professional, feel free to, but my offer still stands.

It is quite simple. We can calculate the theoretical distance between two points on a RE and FE. We then compare that value to what is actually known (i.e. measured) and conclude that distances in the real world math those predicted by RET and not by FET.

No amount of bendy light or bendy math will change this fact.

The distance is measured via the map, you know.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 18, 2011, 01:29:39 PM
Not really. Your mistaking cause and consequences:maps are drawn FROM distances.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 18, 2011, 01:35:42 PM
Not really. Your mistaking cause and consequences:maps are drawn FROM distances.

No. Cartographers didn't determine where Australia was by finding out how far away from every existing land mass it is.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 18, 2011, 01:57:30 PM
Perhaps under RET geometry.

Do you ever wonder why RET geometry works in the world we all live in and NOT on a Flat Earth map?

Do you ever wonder why RET geometry works in every other measurement except in measurements of YOUR understanding of the world... but not ours?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 18, 2011, 01:59:33 PM
But you calculate them following some strange paths that, contrary to your belief, do not constitute straight lines.

No, you gave us the straight lines.  You gave us a flat map with straight lines.  On a round earth, they are straight lines.  That's why they prove to be the shortest paths available... because we live on a round planet.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 19, 2011, 03:57:11 AM
Dear PlanetPizzaz, why don't you provide your own FE map with your straiht lines?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 19, 2011, 04:36:42 AM
Do you ever wonder why RET geometry works in the world we all live in[...]?
It doesn't.

Do you ever wonder why RET geometry works in every [...] measurement[...]?
It doesn't.

Dear PlanetPizzaz, why don't you provide your own FE map with your straiht lines?
I have done so several times.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 19, 2011, 05:39:41 AM
RET geometry works of course, because the curvature of the Earth doen't affect most of our everydays life.

I'm still waiting for a FE map with straight lines (not a RE map with circuar latitudes).
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 19, 2011, 06:25:51 AM
RET geometry works of course, because the curvature of the Earth doen't affect most of our everydays life.
Prove it.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 19, 2011, 06:43:08 AM
I'm not interested in proving RE.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 19, 2011, 06:48:10 AM
I'm not interested in proving RE.
Haha, oh wow.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 19, 2011, 09:03:46 AM
Its a question of validated theory endorsed by billions vs. questionable ideas.

FET has everything to prove.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 19, 2011, 09:51:24 AM
endorsed by billions
lol, argumentum ad populum.

I don't need to prove it, because it's popular!
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Sean on November 19, 2011, 10:07:09 AM
Its a question of validated theory endorsed by billions vs. questionable ideas.

FET has everything to prove.

This is The Flat Earth Society, we promote FET. We put forth information in why we believe the Earth is flat, and do the very best to support this argument given the few resources we have. People should come here either 1.) they find FET interesting and/or enlightening, or 2.) they believe our argument against a round earth is wrong or flawed. You have no interest in arguing that the earth is round? And it seems the first doesn't really apply to you, so why are you here?

We've presented our side, the burden of proof is on you.

(I see "we" to represent the society as a whole, I personally have had virtually no scientific contributions to FET)
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 19, 2011, 10:30:07 AM
RET geometry works of course, because the curvature of the Earth doen't affect most of our everydays life.

I'm still waiting for a FE map with straight lines (not a RE map with circuar latitudes).

We gave you a map. We gave you a political map. We even made a distance formula for you. You want something else now? Also, what, exactly, do you mean?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: General Disarray on November 19, 2011, 10:46:12 AM
Do you claim any of the maps you provided are accurate?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 19, 2011, 11:04:11 AM
endorsed by billions
lol, argumentum ad populum.

I don't need to prove it, because it's popular!

If you quote, don't cherry-pick, you'll look like a fraud: "validated theory".
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 19, 2011, 12:29:28 PM
Do you claim any of the maps you provided are accurate?

I do.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 19, 2011, 12:37:31 PM
They are accurate RE maps.

But a good RE map, whatever projection you use, will never make a FE map.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 19, 2011, 12:41:44 PM
"validated theory".
I've asked you to prove that it's "validated", but you didn't want to. Therefore, I see no reason to consider it "validated".
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 19, 2011, 12:46:20 PM
We were talking of geometry. I don't want to femonstrate geometry.

You can dismiss what you want, but still no FE map! Too lazy to provide one?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 19, 2011, 12:55:11 PM
We were talking of geometry. I don't want to femonstrate geometry.
No, we weren't. Also, if you don't want to femonstrate [sic] it, then don't explain me to consider it femonstrated [sic] or "validated".

You can dismiss what you want, but still no FE map! Too lazy to provide one?
You can dismiss all you want, but there's a FE map in the third post of this thread.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 19, 2011, 01:23:44 PM
You can dismiss all you want, but there's a FE map in the third post of this thread.

Yes, a nice RE map. Thanks for supporting RET.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 19, 2011, 01:50:52 PM
You can dismiss all you want
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 19, 2011, 02:06:49 PM
Repeating yourself wont transform your RE maps into FE maps.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 19, 2011, 02:20:38 PM
Repeating yourself wont transform your RE maps into FE maps.
lol
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 19, 2011, 04:00:00 PM
I forgot to add: the map should also work in the absence of light. (Does darness bend too?)

Here's a representation of the Earth in absolute darkness:
(http://cdn2.mamapop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/black.square.jpg)

This is PlanetPizzaz viw of the Earth at night (note that the night covers the entire world).

Though it's probably the most accurate FE map so far.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 20, 2011, 10:07:54 AM
the absence of light
absolute darkness
night
ITT: EmperorZhark admits to believing that"the absence of light" and/or "absolute darkness" means "night". Hilarity ensues once again.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 20, 2011, 10:42:17 AM
I was simplifying to give you the pleasure of patronizing me.

Now you can stop laughing and you can come up with a FE map. Not a RE map. You heard me? Not a RE map.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 20, 2011, 11:38:32 AM
I was simplifying to give you the pleasure of patronizing me.
Of course you were.

Now you can stop laughing and you can come up with a FE map. Not a RE map. You heard me? Not a RE map.
But of course. All the maps I have posted in this thread are FE maps. Same goes for the other members' maps.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on November 20, 2011, 11:49:31 AM
I was simplifying to give you the pleasure of patronizing me.
Of course you were.

Now you can stop laughing and you can come up with a FE map. Not a RE map. You heard me? Not a RE map.
But of course. All the maps I have posted in this thread are FE maps. Same goes for the other members' maps.

Giving a flat projection of a round Earth map does not constitute a flat Earth map. Try again.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 20, 2011, 11:56:52 AM
Giving a flat projection of a round Earth map does not constitute a flat Earth map.
This is something you have yet to elaborate on. You see, there is only one Earth. Regardless of its shape, we're talking about the same celestial body. Saying that a map is a map of one model but not the other is, to put it lightly, moronic. That is, of course, unless you have a valid reason to think that we live on different planets/celestial bodies of your favourite kind and flavour, in which case I'm very interested to hear about your ideas.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on November 20, 2011, 12:18:08 PM
Giving a flat projection of a round Earth map does not constitute a flat Earth map.
This is something you have yet to elaborate on. You see, there is only one Earth. Regardless of its shape, we're talking about the same celestial body. Saying that a map is a map of one model but not the other is, to put it lightly, moronic. That is, of course, unless you have a valid reason to think that we live on different planets/celestial bodies of your favourite kind and flavour, in which case I'm very interested to hear about your ideas.

Since you will not or cannot understand I will explain it to you. If you take a globe (i.e. a round Earth) and project it onto a 2 dimensional map, you will have distortions that come from a 3D object (sphere) being represented by a 2D object (map). If the Earth were actually flat, then there would be no distortions as you would be going from a 2D object (flat Earth) to another 2D object (map). A map of a round Earth would be quite different than a map of a flat Earth. The only condition that is placed on your map is that is matches known distances and preserved known areas. Doing so with no distortions would be evidence for a flat Earth, if it can only be done with distortions, it would be evidence for a non-flat (i.e. round) Earth.

Likewise from your post above, I would like to see how a spherical object is identical to a flat object, as you seem to believe. To put it lightly, the belief that a flat Earth would be identical to round Earth is moronic.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 20, 2011, 01:51:11 PM
But I'm not taking a globe. I'm taking the Earth. I also don't believe that the Earth is round. I'm not sure where you got all that from, but your bottom seems to be a plausible source.

Also, your explanation works perfectly valid under RET, but is highly contradictory to the principles of FET. Assuming the Earth's rotundity in an attempt to determine its shape is a fallacy.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: The Knowledge on November 20, 2011, 01:53:10 PM
I'm not sure where you got all that from, but your bottom seems to be a plausible source.


Argumentum ad posterium is a logical fallacy, Pizza.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 20, 2011, 01:57:57 PM
Argumentum ad posterium is a logical fallacy, Pizza.
Haha. This is the first post in this thread that actually has any value. I bow to you, sir.
However, that would be argumentum ad posteriora, if anything. Posterior doesn't really mean "buttocks" in Latin, contrary to common belief.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on November 20, 2011, 02:28:18 PM
But I'm not taking a globe. I'm taking the Earth. I also don't believe that the Earth is round. I'm not sure where you got all that from, but your bottom seems to be a plausible source.

Also, your explanation works perfectly valid under RET, but is highly contradictory to the principles of FET. Assuming the Earth's rotundity in an attempt to determine its shape is a fallacy.

Round Earth map: distortions from projection
Flat Earth map: no distortions from projection

Because no 2D map has been created (or it seems will ever be created) that preserves both distance and area, the only logical conclusion is that the Earth is round.

Lol, I love it that the "highly contradictory principle" to FET is that the Earth is flat.

While you may think its possible to have a flat Earth that isn't flat, I can assure it doesn't make a lot of sense. Try again and I'll give you some more constructive criticism.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 20, 2011, 02:43:28 PM
Round Earth map: distortions from projection
Flat Earth map: no distortions from projection
Incorrect.
An incorrect premise leads you to an incorrect conclusion.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on November 20, 2011, 02:53:48 PM
Round Earth map: distortions from projection
Flat Earth map: no distortions from projection
Incorrect.
An incorrect premise leads you to an incorrect conclusion.

Once again, absolutely no evidence or reasoning to back up your claim.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on November 20, 2011, 05:00:19 PM
Round Earth map: distortions from projection
Flat Earth map: no distortions from projection
Incorrect.
An incorrect premise leads you to an incorrect conclusion.
You just don't get it.

According to you, Earth is flat.  Flat = two-dimensional.  Two-dimensional means a plane, like a sheet of paper.  Maps are written on a sheet of paper.  Paper = Earth = 2-D = the same = no distortion!!!  How hard is this to understand?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 20, 2011, 06:17:57 PM
I've explained this countless times by now.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on November 20, 2011, 06:30:29 PM
I've explained this countless times by now.

An incorrect premise leads you to an incorrect conclusion.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 20, 2011, 06:44:58 PM
An incorrect premise leads you to an incorrect conclusion.
I appreciate your attempt, but you forgot to substantiate your claim.
You could learn a lot from The Knowledge. He's significantly more successful at being humorous.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 20, 2011, 07:37:33 PM
God, this is retarded!!!  I'm simply at a point where I just don't believe they think the earth is flat.  Not only am I not convinced that the world is flat, I'm actually convinced they're not being serious!  I just think the scientific debate is mentally stimulating. 

RE'ers, You're not gonna convince them of anything.  In their world, flat means round.  That's basically all they've proven.  That's the only explanation they've proven to me.  They distorted the flat version of a round earth map so that it's a circle, and they justify it with something called Flat Earth Math, which... explains a circle as having the exact same geometry as a sphere.  It's an illusion.  There is no "flat earth math" except in their minds, because apparently "flat" means "round."  It's the same.  The way they explain "flat earth math," they're explaining the behavior of a round earth.

It's like saying, "Dogs are snakes... if you use Snake-Dog grammar where, you switch the definitions of the word 'dog' and 'snake.'"
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Baron_Bread on November 21, 2011, 02:32:57 AM
Observe ad hominem please. It's not the objective to insult each other.
I suggest you dispense your massive incompetence somewhere else; you're waisting everyone's time here.
For example.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: The Knowledge on November 21, 2011, 04:45:06 AM
God, this is retarded!!!  I'm simply at a point where I just don't believe they think the earth is flat.  Not only am I not convinced that the world is flat, I'm actually convinced they're not being serious!  I just think the scientific debate is mentally stimulating. 

RE'ers, You're not gonna convince them of anything.  In their world, flat means round.  That's basically all they've proven.  That's the only explanation they've proven to me.  They distorted the flat version of a round earth map so that it's a circle, and they justify it with something called Flat Earth Math, which... explains a circle as having the exact same geometry as a sphere.  It's an illusion.  There is no "flat earth math" except in their minds, because apparently "flat" means "round."  It's the same.  The way they explain "flat earth math," they're explaining the behavior of a round earth.

It's like saying, "Dogs are snakes... if you use Snake-Dog grammar where, you switch the definitions of the word 'dog' and 'snake.'"

Yes, well done for realising it. Not a single person here thinks the earth is flat. Most of us long term RE'ers are not here to convince them, because we know they don't really believe it. The art is to paint them into a corner where FE cannot provide a solution to an observation. This has been done many times. You can spot an RE "win" when the FE'ers refuse to answer the questions or engage with the arguments. Examples of this:
Inertial Navigation Systems can detect the curved path that FE'ers claim is needed to go due east-west, proving it doesn't happen. FE response - no statement on whether INS can or cannot do this, as to confirm it disproves the curved path theory and to deny it leaves them without an explanation of why INS works at all.
The sun is observed to travel a full 360 degrees round the horizon in Antarctica in the summer. FE explanation - none (the sky mirror was suggested but would not replicate this effect so can be ignored).
Disproof of bendy light - in order to work, bendy light had to distort the position of a celestial object proportionally to its altitude above the horizon. It has been observed that this does not happen. FE response - blank denial that anyone ever mentioned this disproof, crazy!

You can also count a RE win when the FE'ers resort to defences like:
Claiming the scientific data you are citing is falsified or does not exist
Blaming it on the conspiracy
Citing an unknown law of physics with undefined parameters (e.g. John Davis's magic aether theory, which explains everything but you're not allowed to know how)
Denying that forum posts have happened
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 21, 2011, 04:47:03 AM
Disproof of bendy light - in order to work, bendy light had to distort the position of a celestial object proportionally to its altitude above the horizon. It has been observed that this does not happen. FE response - blank denial that anyone ever mentioned this disproof, crazy!
Oh, no, most of us agree that it's been mentioned. In fact, it's mentioned on a weekly basis, at the very least. It's just that the disproof has never been performed, and the RE'ers refuse to show it (I wonder why).
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 21, 2011, 05:41:29 AM
You should put it in the FAQ, then.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: The Knowledge on November 21, 2011, 06:06:02 AM
Disproof of bendy light - in order to work, bendy light had to distort the position of a celestial object proportionally to its altitude above the horizon. It has been observed that this does not happen. FE response - blank denial that anyone ever mentioned this disproof, crazy!
Oh, no, most of us agree that it's been mentioned. In fact, it's mentioned on a weekly basis, at the very least. It's just that the disproof has never been performed, and the RE'ers refuse to show it (I wonder why).

Lies. The disproof has been performed many thousands of times by both amateur and professional telescope users, who are able to point a telescope to the correct star simply by dialling in the coordinates for declination and right ascension, something which could not be done if the angular distance between stars was variable.
I suppose you're going to say that there's no evidence that telescope users do this, or that the telescope points to a different star and the astronomers don't realise. After all, I can't think of any other possible defence you could use.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: AllCanadianReject on November 21, 2011, 09:08:15 AM
I'd like to take a flat earther on a plane trip.  Let's lift off from a Toronto airport and fly east without making any adjustments.  You will eventually come back to Toronto and not hit this 150 foot wall of ice.  I bet nobody in Antarctica is an FE'er.  You guys also use a lot of history to back up your arguments.  As we all know, history is factual but it must be recorded properly.  Neither FE'ers or RE'ers are allowed to use history when arguing because Fe'ers have changed stuff for their benefit.  Columbus subduing his entire crew because they believed the Earth was round?  I'd love to see one guy go up against the crews of three ships.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Zogg on November 21, 2011, 09:35:39 AM
God, this is retarded!!!  I'm simply at a point where I just don't believe they think the earth is flat. ...
Yes, well done for realising it. Not a single person here thinks the earth is flat...

I agree, if you define "here" by "in Flat Earth Debate". (If you want to see what a debate with real FEers would look like, have a look to the "Believers" forum. Scary.)

I think most people here - FEers and longtime REers alike - consider it as kind of a game. One should not forget that the dice are loaded in favour of RET - to vary a Colbert quote, reality has a strong RE bias. It's like a sword combat where one side has wooden swords. Within the game, I am used to treat FEers like stubborn and narrow-minded children, but I actually have a great respect for some (supposed) pseudo-FEers who have skill to defend an actually undefendable position. For example Pizza who has raised confusion tactics to an art form and whose "RE metrics on FE geometry" approach has even some sort of internal consistency. (This is an outside-the-game remark, inside the game I never said that !!!)
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 21, 2011, 12:20:36 PM
The disproof has been performed many thousands of times by both amateur and professional telescope users, who are able to point a telescope to the correct star simply by dialling in the coordinates for declination and right ascension, something which could not be done if the angular distance between stars was variable.
The angular distance between stars is not variable, at least locally.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: The Knowledge on November 21, 2011, 01:51:43 PM
The disproof has been performed many thousands of times by both amateur and professional telescope users, who are able to point a telescope to the correct star simply by dialling in the coordinates for declination and right ascension, something which could not be done if the angular distance between stars was variable.
The angular distance between stars is not variable, at least locally.

Correct. Bendy light predicts that it would be. Therefore bendy light cannot be correct.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 21, 2011, 01:57:31 PM
Bendy light predicts that it would be.
Not at all.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: The Knowledge on November 21, 2011, 02:37:11 PM
Bendy light predicts that it would be.
Not at all.

Gonna back that up with a nice explanation? I bet not.

The whole way bendy light works is by adjusting the apparent position of an object by an amount proportional to that object's height above the horizon. Light coming vertically down shows a true position, light coming almost horizontally is the most curved, light somewhere in between is curved by a lesser amount. Do you dispute that? Go read the step by step explanation.
If that is indeed the case, then the angular distance between stars would vary. Parsec sets it out so clearly that you have no excuse not to understand the argument, so if you have issue with it then please explain WHY bendy light would not cause this effect.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Zogg on November 21, 2011, 03:02:18 PM
The same explanation as image:

(http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/3861/anglesstars.gif)

As you see, α < β. Of course, an image is not a proof - but as long as FEers don't agree a formula for bendy light, you'll have to content with an image.

Note that the same effet holds with the vertical angular diameter of any celestial body. When a celestial body descends visually to the horizon, its vertical angular diameter would decrease. As can be shown easily, its horizontal angular diameter would increase. In consequence, a round (discoid or spheroid) celestial body would visually deform to an ellipse.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: The Knowledge on November 21, 2011, 04:25:06 PM

Note that the same effet holds with the vertical angular diameter of any celestial body. When a celestial body descends visually to the horizon, its vertical angular diameter would decrease. As can be shown easily, its horizontal angular diameter would increase. In consequence, a round (discoid or spheroid) celestial body would visually deform to an ellipse.

Not quite correct - the horizontal diameter would remain the same.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 21, 2011, 04:51:52 PM
I suggest you dispense your massive incompetence somewhere else; you're waisting everyone's time here.

At least he isn't elbowing it.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Zogg on November 21, 2011, 05:14:43 PM

... As can be shown easily, its horizontal angular diameter would increase. ...

Not quite correct - the horizontal diameter would remain the same.

Actually, we were both wrong - it seems the horizontal angle would decrease as well. In consequence, the object would visually shrink in both width and height.

(http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3338/anglesstars2.gif)

Not sure whether this would hold in any cases, I need to think some more about it...
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: The Knowledge on November 21, 2011, 06:56:06 PM

... As can be shown easily, its horizontal angular diameter would increase. ...

Not quite correct - the horizontal diameter would remain the same.

Actually, we were both wrong - it seems the horizontal angle would decrease as well. In consequence, the object would visually shrink in both width and height.

(http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3338/anglesstars2.gif)

Not sure whether this would hold in any cases, I need to think some more about it...

I'm not sure I follow the diagram there, and in any case since bendy light only has a bendy component along one axis, the appearance of horizontal widths would remain the same as for normal light. The bending is supposed to be proportional to height above horizon and irrespective of azimuth. You are also applying an additional perspective effect in your diagrams and have observers at two different points, which clouds the issue and includes an assumption that the stars are on some sort of flat plane.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 22, 2011, 09:12:27 AM
Gonna back that up with a nice explanation? I bet not.
How am I supposed to explain that the RE'ers version of EAT is not EAT?
Like I've said many times before, and as I've explained with many anecdotes of varying rationality, RE'ers making up FET and FE'ers making up RET proves nothing about either model.

The same explanation as image:

(http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/3861/anglesstars.gif)

As you see, α < β. Of course, an image is not a proof - but as long as FEers don't agree a formula for bendy light, you'll have to content with an image.

Thank you for a mature approach. I admit that I misunderstood your claim about EAT. However, I think I'm still missing something. As far as my understanding goes, the very same would happen on RE:
(http://i.imgur.com/G41ru.png)

This is a direct consequence of the concept known as parallax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax), which is used in RET to determine the distance of stars from the Earth.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: The Knowledge on November 22, 2011, 11:03:16 AM
Gonna back that up with a nice explanation? I bet not.
How am I supposed to explain that the RE'ers version of EAT is not EAT?
Like I've said many times before, and as I've explained with many anecdotes of varying rationality, RE'ers making up FET and FE'ers making up RET proves nothing about either model.


What's this about different versions of "EAT"? (Please just call it bendy light, then the noobs can follow it). The whole purpose of bendy light is to give FE'ers a theory to explain why the sun, moon and stars appear to sink down over the horizon. In order to do this, any model of bendy light HAS to introduce a curvature to the light beam, which is greater the closer to horizontal the beam becomes. Unless your model of bendy light does this, it doesn't describe why objects sink over the horizon. So if the FE'er version of bendy light doesn't do this, then it doesn't explain sunsets.
It's like having different theories of magnetism - one theory might say the magnet attracts metal to it, another mught say the metal is pushed towards it by some other force. These theories cannot both be correct, however they can both describe the same phenomenon. Bendy light, if you are to claim it exists, requires light to bend, and by an amount proportional to the angle of the beam. The mechanism of bending doesn't matter.
I note you have presented no data, evidence or observations that dispute the disproof of bendy light.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 22, 2011, 11:06:17 AM
Disproof of bendy light - in order to work, bendy light had to distort the position of a celestial object proportionally to its altitude above the horizon. It has been observed that this does not happen. FE response - blank denial that anyone ever mentioned this disproof, crazy!
Oh, no, most of us agree that it's been mentioned. In fact, it's mentioned on a weekly basis, at the very least. It's just that the disproof has never been performed, and the RE'ers refuse to show it (I wonder why).

"I wonder why ba babbada babbada!!! I'm so smart!!!"  It might have something to do with how the benefit doesn't outweight the consequence.  Like, maybe the time it takes to explain it isn't worth NOT convincing the 5 people who believe in a flat earth.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 22, 2011, 11:09:11 AM
Disproof of bendy light - in order to work, bendy light had to distort the position of a celestial object proportionally to its altitude above the horizon. It has been observed that this does not happen. FE response - blank denial that anyone ever mentioned this disproof, crazy!
Oh, no, most of us agree that it's been mentioned. In fact, it's mentioned on a weekly basis, at the very least. It's just that the disproof has never been performed, and the RE'ers refuse to show it (I wonder why).
Lies. The disproof has been performed many thousands of times by both amateur and professional telescope users, who are able to point a telescope to the correct star simply by dialling in the coordinates for declination and right ascension, something which could not be done if the angular distance between stars was variable.
I suppose you're going to say that there's no evidence that telescope users do this, or that the telescope points to a different star and the astronomers don't realise. After all, I can't think of any other possible defence you could use.
Maybe they're using bendy telescopes :P
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 22, 2011, 11:14:39 AM
Gonna back that up with a nice explanation? I bet not.
How am I supposed to explain that the RE'ers version of EAT is not EAT?
Like I've said many times before, and as I've explained with many anecdotes of varying rationality, RE'ers making up FET and FE'ers making up RET proves nothing about either model.


What's this about different versions of "EAT"? (Please just call it bendy light, then the noobs can follow it). The whole purpose of bendy light is to give FE'ers a theory to explain why the sun, moon and stars appear to sink down over the horizon. In order to do this, any model of bendy light HAS to introduce a curvature to the light beam, which is greater the closer to horizontal the beam becomes. Unless your model of bendy light does this, it doesn't describe why objects sink over the horizon. So if the FE'er version of bendy light doesn't do this, then it doesn't explain sunsets.
It's like having different theories of magnetism - one theory might say the magnet attracts metal to it, another mught say the metal is pushed towards it by some other force. These theories cannot both be correct, however they can both describe the same phenomenon. Bendy light, if you are to claim it exists, requires light to bend, and by an amount proportional to the angle of the beam. The mechanism of bending doesn't matter.
I note you have presented no data, evidence or observations that dispute the disproof of bendy light.

See? Flat Earth Math.  Flat Earth Geometry, Flat Earth EAT.  If you substitute enough REAL logic with alternate logic, you can justify ANYTHING.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 22, 2011, 11:30:18 AM
Thank you for a mature approach. I admit that I misunderstood your claim about EAT. However, I think I'm still missing something. As far as my understanding goes, the very same would happen on RE:
(http://i.imgur.com/G41ru.png)

This is a direct consequence of the concept known as parallax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax), which is used in RET to determine the distance of stars from the Earth.

Yeah, but in your round earth diagram, you have 2 people looking at the same point.  In the flat earth diagram, you have people looking in different directions and seing the same thing.  I mean, if we both look in different directions,  won't we see different shit?

Look, I used Mickey Earth EAT and Mickey Earth Geometry to show this same phenomenon on a Mickey Earth!  Prove it's not right!  I read a 150 year old book written by a con artist which proves it!
(http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i464/Krista7714/MEarth.jpg)

...by the way, the whole backbone of the FE Movement is Sam Row-your-boat-entham's theory about perspective of sight.  Isn't all that dependent on light NOT being "bendy?"

I mean, look.  A flat earth mixed with flat earth math IS a round earth!!!  It's an illusion!!!
(http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i464/Krista7714/FEM.jpg)
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 22, 2011, 07:10:52 PM
It might have something to do with how the benefit doesn't outweight the consequence.
Oh, yes, I'm certain that's it.

Like, maybe the time it takes to explain it isn't worth NOT convincing the 5 people who believe in a flat earth.
Ah, yes, this is perfectly consistent with the fact that you're trying to convince people on this website about stuff.

Yeah, but in your round earth diagram, you have 2 people looking at the same point.  In the flat earth diagram, you have people looking in different directions and seing the same thing.  I mean, if we both look in different directions,  won't we see different shit?
Sorry, what? You're not even remotely close to right about either of the diagrams. In the RET diagram, you have two people looking at two points and seeing different things. In the FET diagram, you have two people looking at the very same two points and seeing different things. How you managed to get this wrong is somewhat beyond me.


...by the way, the whole backbone of the FE Movement is Sam Row-your-boat-entham's theory about perspective of sight.
Incorrect.

(http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i464/Krista7714/FEM.jpg)
Cute diagram. Yes, this is what EAT is about. Congratulations.

What's this about different versions of "EAT"?
There are no different version of EAT. There's EAT and RE'ers intentionally misinterpreted and misrepresented EAT.

The whole purpose of bendy light is to give FE'ers a theory to explain why the sun, moon and stars appear to sink down over the horizon.
Incorrect.

So if the FE'er version of bendy light doesn't do this, then it doesn't explain sunsets.
Indeed, seeing how EAT doesn't even attempt to explain sunsets - sunsets are explained by elementary perspective. I'm sure you've heard enough about this from Tom Bishop.

I note you have presented no data, evidence or observations that dispute the disproof of bendy light.
Mostly because there's no disproof to date. As I've pointed out with my little diagram, Zogg's disproof of EAT is invalid, since we'd observe the same results on both FET+EAT and RET.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: markjo on November 22, 2011, 07:27:31 PM
What's this about different versions of "EAT"?
There are no different version of EAT. There's EAT and RE'ers intentionally misinterpreted and misrepresented EAT.
Would that be similar to the way that FE'ers intentionally misinterpret and misrepresent RET?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 22, 2011, 07:32:03 PM
Would that be similar to the way that FE'ers intentionally misinterpret and misrepresent RET?
Indeed.
As you've made it clear that you haven't read this thread (or even the most recent posts) before you've posted, here's a highlight for you:

Like I've said many times before, and as I've explained with many anecdotes of varying rationality, RE'ers making up FET and FE'ers making up RET proves nothing about either model.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: markjo on November 22, 2011, 07:35:06 PM
Would that be similar to the way that FE'ers intentionally misinterpret and misrepresent RET?
Indeed.
As you've made it clear that you haven't read this thread (or even the most recent posts) before you've posted, here's a highlight for you:

Like I've said many times before, and as I've explained with many anecdotes of varying rationality, RE'ers making up FET and FE'ers making up RET proves nothing about either model.

I just like to hear (see) FE'ers admit that they deliberately misrepresent RET.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 22, 2011, 07:40:35 PM
I just like to hear (see) FE'ers admit that they deliberately misrepresent RET.
I personally try not to misrepresent it most of the time. When I do, it's usually as a form of mockery (and 3 out of 4 times the joke doesn't come across as a joke, unfortunately). For example, if someone asks me to explain FET without <essential FET principle goes here>, I ask them to explain RET without gravitation (which I believe to be very much essential for RET). Any other misrepresentations of mine are unintentional and should be corrected, preferably in a respectful manner.

On the other hand, there are many FE'ers and "FE'ers" who, in my opinion, misrepresent RET intentionally. Pretty much the same goes for RE'ers and FET - many are genuinely confused (It's difficult not to be!), but many are just taking the piss (see also: KristaGurl and "her" Mickey Mouse ranting. Say, isn't that breaking the troublemaking rule?)
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 23, 2011, 09:36:34 AM
I just like to hear (see) FE'ers admit that they deliberately misrepresent RET.
I personally try not to misrepresent it most of the time. When I do, it's usually as a form of mockery (and 3 out of 4 times the joke doesn't come across as a joke, unfortunately). For example, if someone asks me to explain FET without <essential FET principle goes here>, I ask them to explain RET without gravitation (which I believe to be very much essential for RET). Any other misrepresentations of mine are unintentional and should be corrected, preferably in a respectful manner.

On the other hand, there are many FE'ers and "FE'ers" who, in my opinion, misrepresent RET intentionally. Pretty much the same goes for RE'ers and FET - many are genuinely confused (It's difficult not to be!), but many are just taking the piss (see also: KristaGurl and "her" Mickey Mouse ranting. Say, isn't that breaking the troublemaking rule?)

But, the Mickey Mouse analogy is simply that... an analogy.  I'm not misrepresenting FET by comparing its idiocy to a concept that is obviously not true.  I mean, the world is obviously round.  Some say it's flat.  They back up that claim by changing math and inserting unproven variables like bendy light and sky gears.  My Mickey Earth Theory (MET) is an attempt to show that you can alter and nit-pick what science you choose to follow to back ANY conclusion.  So like, "bendy light" for instance... it's been disproven.  Now, you can say "it's a misconception" or "it's a part of a conspiracy," but you can't prove any of that.  You can say "the stars rotate because of sky gears," but you can't prove that.  You can say "we see a horizon because of bendy light," but you can't prove that.  When you tell us that there is no gravity, and that the earth is moving upwards due to some unknown, unproven, unseen "universal accelerator," but don't have the evidence to back it up, it sounds more like an excuse you use to believe whatever you want.  Quite frankly, that's fine with me.  I can't change how you interpret the shape of the Earth any more than I can change the devotion the North Korean people have for Kim Jung Il, so I'm not loosing any sleep over it.  I just find the scientific debate interesting.  I feel pretty comfortable in my position... where, I'm a part of a majority of scientists who follow simple mathematics to prove the exact thing that I believe, as opposed to being a part of the fringe group with no proof.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: KristaGurl on November 23, 2011, 10:02:56 AM
Oh, yes, I'm certain that's it.
So, you DO agree or DON'T agree?  Cause like... astronomers' field of study is the universe, which involves a lot of understanding and scientific discovery.  They probably don't have time to convince a fringe group of people of shit that is obvious to the rest of us.  So, "conspiracy" vs. "they just don't have the time to convince people of obvious stuff..."  I'm going with the second one. 

And yes, here I am.  I'm not convincing you of anything, and I know that.  I just think it's a rather mentally stimulating way to waste half the day.  I'm not in a world where there's a serious threat that anyone who actually matters is gonna be convinced the world is flat.  Flat Earthers aren't trying to raise my taxes, so I could care less.  But, the Junior Varisity back-yard astronomers who believe in RET and use this debate as a hobby are actually doing a pretty good job of shooting down the top minds in FET.  Perhaps the real scientists are off doing more important things because we're doing just fine by ourselves.  ...or, it's a conspiracy.

Yeah, but in your round earth diagram, you have 2 people looking at the same point.  In the flat earth diagram, you have people looking in different directions and seing the same thing.  I mean, if we both look in different directions,  won't we see different shit?
Sorry, what? You're not even remotely close to right about either of the diagrams. In the RET diagram, you have two people looking at two points and seeing different things. In the FET diagram, you have two people looking at the very same two points and seeing different things. How you managed to get this wrong is somewhat beyond me.
Then, I'm retarded.  In the RET diagram, I see 2 people looking at 1 point in the sky.  2 straight lines converging on ONE point.  In the FET diagram, I see one person looking almost straight ahead, and one person looking almost stright up, but SOMEHOW seeing the same thing.  The MET (Mickey Earth Theory) diagram makes as much sense.  And, I will continue to use Mickey Earth Theory to prove that something made up can be presented so that it makes sense to those who choose not to question it.

...by the way, the whole backbone of the FE Movement is Sam Row-your-boat-entham's theory about perspective of sight.
Incorrect.
Far be it for me to lump you in with other FE'ers, but...

Q: "Why do you believe the Earth is flat?"

A:  It looks that way up close. In our local reference frame, it appears to take a flat shape, ignoring obvious hills and valleys. In addition, Samuel Rowbotham et al. performed a variety of experiments over a period of several years that show it must be flat. They are all explained in his book, which is linked at the top of this article.

...With the exception of "et al," it sounds like Row-your-boat-entham is the Karl Marx of the FE Movement, and his journal of flawed, failed, disproven experiments and debunked conclusions are the manifesto.

(http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i464/Krista7714/FEM.jpg)
Cute diagram. Yes, this is what EAT is about. Congratulations.
Do you get the irony I'm trying to display here, though?  Between line of sight and the world, one of them is curved and one of them is straight.  We can PROVE that line of sight is straight and we can PROVE the earth is curved.  Yet, you believe that line of sight is curved and the earth is straight.  Why?  Can you prove it?  "Bendy light."  Yeah, okay, can you prove it?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 23, 2011, 12:16:59 PM
...With the exception of "et al," it sounds like Row-your-boat-entham is the Karl Marx of the FE Movement, and his journal of flawed, failed, disproven experiments and debunked conclusions are the manifesto.
Welcome to FES. Stay awhile and lurk. The FAQ has been waiting for an update for something like two years, because no one in charge cares enough to do something about it.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 23, 2011, 12:50:01 PM
Did she seriously just compare the FAQ to the Communist Manifesto? That's seriously insulting to Marxism.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: The Knowledge on November 23, 2011, 02:29:29 PM
...With the exception of "et al," it sounds like Row-your-boat-entham is the Karl Marx of the FE Movement, and his journal of flawed, failed, disproven experiments and debunked conclusions are the manifesto.
Welcome to FES. Stay awhile and lurk. The FAQ has been waiting for an update for something like two years, because no one in charge cares enough to do something about it. nobody has found any theories that make sense to put in it.

FixEd

Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Zogg on November 23, 2011, 11:34:21 PM
Thank you for a mature approach. I admit that I misunderstood your claim about EAT. However, I think I'm still missing something. As far as my understanding goes, the very same would happen on RE:
(http://i.imgur.com/G41ru.png)

This is a direct consequence of the concept known as parallax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax), which is used in RET to determine the distance of stars from the Earth.

You are absolutely right - but the parallax effect is very, very small, as according to RET, the stars are lightyears away. In consequence, at a given moment, the same star is seen  from everywhere on earth in the same direction, plus or minus 0.00000002°. That means, two stars have always the same angular distance, up to a tiny variation.
(http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/7154/parallax.gif)

The perceived difference in the star's position come from the different orientations of the observers, not from different positions.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 23, 2011, 11:38:47 PM
Oh, yeah, the claim that stars are very small and very close to us is just another portion of FAQ lunacy.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 28, 2011, 10:43:46 AM
We should name FAQ FWA: Frequently Wrong Answers.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on November 28, 2011, 08:39:30 PM
Y'know, I know you guys do not have such a great FAQ, but here's a crazy idea:  make a new FAQ.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 29, 2011, 01:43:13 PM
And a new wiki. And a book.

Funny it's taking so long.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 29, 2011, 01:51:32 PM
And a new wiki. And a book.

Funny it's taking so long.

We have a new wiki. Daniel's incompetence has caused it to be down. With any luck, it'll be back up soon.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 29, 2011, 03:15:44 PM
The wiki is working.

Look for instance at this long and argumented demonstration:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Undersea_Cables
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 29, 2011, 03:19:56 PM
The wiki is working.

Look for instance at this long and argumented demonstration:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Undersea_Cables

Oh. I wasn't informed. I'll have to get to work.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 29, 2011, 03:25:58 PM
The problem is that most of your FE'ers fellows are very lazy.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: markjo on November 29, 2011, 03:53:17 PM
The wiki is working.

Look for instance at this long and argumented demonstration:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Undersea_Cables (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Undersea_Cables)

Oh. I wasn't informed. I'll have to get to work.

Look closer at the URL.  That's a copy of the wiki on the .net site, not the "official" wiki on this site.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on November 29, 2011, 04:44:46 PM
The wiki is working.

Look for instance at this long and argumented demonstration:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Undersea_Cables (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Undersea_Cables)

Oh. I wasn't informed. I'll have to get to work.

Look closer at the URL.  That's a copy of the wiki on the .net site, not the "official" wiki on this site.

Yeah, but I thought that it was still down, too. So long as all of the data carries over when we make the change, there's no reason not to work on it.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 29, 2011, 09:47:15 PM
Look closer at the URL.  That's a copy of the wiki on the .net site, not the "official" wiki on this site.
Considering the fact that the "Wiki" link on the main page (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/) of TFES links to the .net Wiki, I'd venture to say it's pretty official.

Also, I was not aware it's up either. Lol, communication. Time to write an update on the FEW fora.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 01, 2011, 10:03:41 AM
Both the FAQ and the wiki need a FE map (not the fake ones that you provide us).
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 02, 2011, 02:56:28 AM
By the way, if Earth was created as a disc, why has it got to be flat and perfectly round?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Ski on December 02, 2011, 08:21:22 AM
It's not likely to be perfectly round any more than it is perfectly flat.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 02, 2011, 08:28:27 AM
According to your maps, the Earth is flat (a variation of +/- 8 or 10 km over a diameter of + 12,000 km, less than 0,1%) and perfectly round (lest we get a more detailed map).
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Ski on December 02, 2011, 08:33:04 AM
It's simply a representation of the known world. I wouldn't be so bold to claim anything about that which has not been explored. Traditionally, the world has always been depicted as a disc or, alternatively, with four corners.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on December 02, 2011, 10:26:31 AM
It's simply a representation of the known world. I wouldn't be so bold to claim anything about that which has not been explored. Traditionally, the world has always been depicted as a disc or, alternatively, with four corners.

The only problem with using these maps is that distances and areas are not preserved. A true FE map would be capable of doing this while remaining a 2D representation.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 02, 2011, 10:34:28 AM
It's simply a representation of the known world. I wouldn't be so bold to claim anything about that which has not been explored. Traditionally, the world has always been depicted as a disc or, alternatively, with four corners.

Unexplored world?
Four corners?

And why is it almost perfectly flat?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Rushy on December 02, 2011, 10:35:40 AM
Its well known in cartography that 2D models skew known distances. This is why you see 2D maps with areas of the earth that look sliced at the top and bottom, so that distances are not exaggerated.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: The Knowledge on December 02, 2011, 12:22:30 PM
It's simply a representation of the known world. I wouldn't be so bold to claim anything about that which has not been explored. Traditionally, the world has always been depicted as a disc or, alternatively, with four corners.

That doesn't mean that it's correct, just because it's traditional.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 02, 2011, 05:31:00 PM
It's simply a representation of the known world. I wouldn't be so bold to claim anything about that which has not been explored. Traditionally, the world has always been depicted as a disc or, alternatively, with four corners.

That doesn't mean that it's correct, just because it's traditional.

And just because that post was correct doesn't mean it added anything to the conversation.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on December 02, 2011, 09:15:57 PM
I think an interesting point that I pointed out earlier but was ignored is that the people of the Rennaisance began to suspect the Earth was a sphere when they started noticing slight distortions if they tried to draw out a 2-D map, especially, for example, when Vasco de Gama went all the way around Africa and mapped it.  Even during the Middle Ages, the upper class and well-educated knew that the Earth was round (so records show).  The most compelling evidence was the round shadow of the Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse, which you've failed to explain.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: The Knowledge on December 03, 2011, 02:35:09 AM
It's simply a representation of the known world. I wouldn't be so bold to claim anything about that which has not been explored. Traditionally, the world has always been depicted as a disc or, alternatively, with four corners.

That doesn't mean that it's correct, just because it's traditional.

And just because that post was correct doesn't mean it added anything to the conversation.

Incorrect. Added the invalidation of citing tradition as a defence of earth shape. Your post, however, adds zilch.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 03, 2011, 04:55:38 AM
I think an interesting point that I pointed out earlier but was ignored is that the people of the Rennaisance began to suspect the Earth was a sphere when they started noticing slight distortions if they tried to draw out a 2-D map, especially, for example, when Vasco de Gama went all the way around Africa and mapped it.  Even during the Middle Ages, the upper class and well-educated knew that the Earth was round (so records show).  The most compelling evidence was the round shadow of the Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse, which you've failed to explain.

Dear Tausami, read this instead of arguing with The Knowledge.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 03, 2011, 02:31:00 PM
Its a question of validated theory endorsed by billions vs. questionable ideas.

FET has everything to prove.
lol, argumentum ad populum.

I don't need to prove it, because it's popular!
No, not quite, Pizza.

The applicable fallacy (on your part, of course) is burden of proof.

Note: I restored Zhark's original quote, undoing your subtle deception (quoting only the phrase "endorsed by millions", ignoring the more damning "validated" vs. "questionable" part).
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2011, 03:07:02 PM
Great to see that we have a wiki of some kind working.

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander

This is my favorite article on the Wiki.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2011, 03:13:44 PM
Its a question of validated theory endorsed by billions vs. questionable ideas.

FET has everything to prove.
lol, argumentum ad populum.

I don't need to prove it, because it's popular!
No, not quite, Pizza.

The applicable fallacy (on your part, of course) is burden of proof.

Note: I restored Zhark's original quote, undoing your subtle deception (quoting only the phrase "endorsed by millions", ignoring the more damning "validated" vs. "questionable" part).

The burden isn't on skeptics to prove popular opinion (ie. religion) wrong. The burden is on the people making the claim. The burden of proof is always on the claimants and never on the skeptics.

See: http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Burden_of_Proof
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Rushy on December 03, 2011, 04:09:27 PM
Its a question of validated theory endorsed by billions vs. questionable ideas.

FET has everything to prove.
lol, argumentum ad populum.

I don't need to prove it, because it's popular!
No, not quite, Pizza.

The applicable fallacy (on your part, of course) is burden of proof.

Note: I restored Zhark's original quote, undoing your subtle deception (quoting only the phrase "endorsed by millions", ignoring the more damning "validated" vs. "questionable" part).

The burden isn't on skeptics to prove popular opinion (ie. religion) wrong. The burden is on the people making the claim. The burden of proof is always on the claimants and never on the skeptics.

See: http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Burden_of_Proof

Which is why FET has no unified theory, it could too easily be proven false.

I say there are mermaids in a small pond. You can look in the pond and see there are no mermaids. I am wrong. However, if I say there are mermaids in the ocean, you can not possibly search the entire ocean for mermaids, and therefore you will never be able to prove me incorrect. However, when I make the more ridiculous assumption, in the science community, the burden of proof would be on me, not you (regarding the mermaids). Here you are telling people the earth is flat with nothing other than textual evidence. While we have multiple pictures, videos, and experiments that can be done using a telescope.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: markjo on December 03, 2011, 04:14:42 PM
The burden isn't on skeptics to prove popular opinion (ie. religion) wrong. The burden is on the people making the claim. The burden of proof is always on the claimants and never on the skeptics.

See: http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Burden_of_Proof

First of all, if the "skeptic" makes a negative claim, then that counts as a claim and the skeptic does incur a burden of proof for that negative claim.

Secondly, it generally isn't considered very good form to cite yourself as a reference (especially when that citation is of questionable quality).
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on December 03, 2011, 04:34:53 PM
I think an interesting point that I pointed out earlier but was ignored is that the people of the Rennaisance began to suspect the Earth was a sphere when they started noticing slight distortions if they tried to draw out a 2-D map, especially, for example, when Vasco de Gama went all the way around Africa and mapped it.  Even during the Middle Ages, the upper class and well-educated knew that the Earth was round (so records show).  The most compelling evidence was the round shadow of the Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse, which you've failed to explain.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 03, 2011, 04:39:27 PM
The burden of proof is always on the claimants and never on the skeptics.

See: http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Burden_of_Proof

Thank you, but I'm already perfectly aware of what burden of proof is. Otherwise I wouldn't have pointed it out. Ironically, as per the wording of your own wiki article that you posted, this discussion is certainly one of the most clear-cut examples wherein your claims are the ones where the burden of proof lies:

Quote
If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

The subject that you are "skeptics" on is, essentially, observation itself. While you wouldn't say it in so many words, you do freely admit that "the most easily observable" perception is one of curvature, and you explain this by making claims about how light distorts our "naive" observations. Thus it's up to you to back up those claims.

Judging by what I've seen in this thread, your solution now will be to redefine "burden of proof" such that your position becomes correct; just as you questionably redefine observable physics to fit your preconceived model. Perhaps you should update your wiki article?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Ski on December 03, 2011, 04:49:50 PM
The only problem with using these maps is that distances and areas are not preserved. A true FE map would be capable of doing this while remaining a 2D representation.

I have already stated many times that to my mind the lack of a complete and verifiably accurate map is the biggest hinderance to the modern flat earth movement. On this point, I am now, as always, in complete and utter agreement with you. I am not sure what you else you could possibly want from me on this score other than to rub our noses in something beyond the capability of the members of this forum. Mapping the surface of the earth is certainly beyond our ability as individuals or a whole.
Neither does your constantly associated assertion that my grandfather's globe is accurate prove the veracity of that claim.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Ski on December 03, 2011, 04:53:27 PM
I think an interesting point that I pointed out earlier but was ignored is that the people of the Rennaisance began to suspect the Earth was a sphere when they started noticing slight distortions if they tried to draw out a 2-D map, especially, for example, when Vasco de Gama went all the way around Africa and mapped it.  Even during the Middle Ages, the upper class and well-educated knew that the Earth was round (so records show).  The most compelling evidence was the round shadow of the Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse, which you've failed to explain.

This is the most ridiculous post in the sequence. I can't imagine why you posted it twice in an attempt to get it answered. Do you have any evidence at all of for your baseless assertion in the first sentence? Any citation of reputable source?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on December 03, 2011, 05:03:38 PM
The only problem with using these maps is that distances and areas are not preserved. A true FE map would be capable of doing this while remaining a 2D representation.

I have already stated many times that to my mind the lack of a complete and verifiably accurate map is the biggest hinderance to the modern flat earth movement. On this point, I am now, as always, in complete and utter agreement with you. I am not sure what you else you could possibly want from me on this score other than to rub our noses in something beyond the capability of the members of this forum. Mapping the surface of the earth is certainly beyond our ability as individuals or a whole.
Neither does your constantly associated assertion that my grandfather's globe is accurate prove the veracity of that claim.

While the FES hasn't physically walked around with a ruler to accurately map the Earth, methods exist for creating a map that don't depend on first hand measurement. For example, if we take the known distances between cities in the northern and southern hemispheres and try to put them in a 3D space so that all the distances between each city are accurate, the shape you will get is a sphere.

I'm not trying to make the FES do something that is beyond their power to do, I'm trying to get them to do something that is possible, and entirely necessary if the Flat Earth movement is to continue. I apologize if I appear to press this issue too often, but it is one of the easiest proofs for the shape of the Earth.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Ski on December 03, 2011, 05:08:28 PM
While the FES hasn't physically walked around with a ruler to accurately map the Earth, methods exist for creating a map that don't depend on first hand measurement. For example, if we take the known distances between cities in the northern and southern hemispheres and try to put them in a 3D space so that all the distances between each city is accurate, the shape you will get is a sphere.

This only really applies to distances between points on landmasses. I agree that landmasses are already generally correctly modeled. To my knowledge, noone is disagreeing with this.  It is the oceanic distances on which we are in disagreement.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on December 03, 2011, 05:18:27 PM
While the FES hasn't physically walked around with a ruler to accurately map the Earth, methods exist for creating a map that don't depend on first hand measurement. For example, if we take the known distances between cities in the northern and southern hemispheres and try to put them in a 3D space so that all the distances between each city is accurate, the shape you will get is a sphere.

This only really applies to distances between points on landmasses. I agree that landmasses are already generally correctly modeled. To my knowledge, noone is disagreeing with this.  It is the oceanic distances on which we are in disagreement.

Even without the oceanic distances, it is only possible to map cities on the same continent on a sphere. If North and South America map accurately to a sphere, and Europe and Asia map to a sphere, along with Africa and Australia, how is it possible that each land mass exists with the curvature of a giant sphere, yet the Earth is flat?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on December 03, 2011, 05:22:05 PM
I think an interesting point that I pointed out earlier but was ignored is that the people of the Rennaisance began to suspect the Earth was a sphere when they started noticing slight distortions if they tried to draw out a 2-D map, especially, for example, when Vasco de Gama went all the way around Africa and mapped it.  Even during the Middle Ages, the upper class and well-educated knew that the Earth was round (so records show).  The most compelling evidence was the round shadow of the Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse, which you've failed to explain.

This is the most ridiculous post in the sequence. I can't imagine why you posted it twice in an attempt to get it answered. Do you have any evidence at all of for your baseless assertion in the first sentence? Any citation of reputable source?
I assure you, I didn't just make it up!  The only source I could find was in Dutch, after searching Wikipedia:

Klaus Anselm Vogel, "Sphaera terrae - das mittelalterliche Bild der Erde und die kosmographische Revolution," PhD dissertation Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, 1995, p. 19.

Or you can go here:

http://www.universe-galaxies-stars.com/Flat_Earth.html

At one point it says,

"A recent study of medieval concepts of the sphericity of the Earth noted that "since the eighth century, no cosmographer worthy of note has called into question the sphericity of the Earth." Of course it was probably not the few noted intellectuals who defined public opinion. It is difficult to tell what the wider population may have thought of the shape of the Earth - if they considered the question at all. It may have been as irrelevant to them as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is to most of our contemporaries."


I don't think that website made it up either, and I don't think Wikipedia is pretending that the Dutch thing says that when it doesn't.  Can anyone read Dutch?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Ski on December 03, 2011, 05:34:13 PM
I don't see anything about difficulties in the Renaissance mapping the routes of Vega without invoking globularism.

I have no doubt that most people in the Renaissance period thought the earth a globe.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 04, 2011, 02:46:43 AM
Whydon't you try yourself to draw a FE map with the distances that are aknowledged by everybody here?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: The Knowledge on December 04, 2011, 03:44:15 AM
The burden of proof is always on the claimants and never on the skeptics.

See: http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Burden_of_Proof

Thank you, but I'm already perfectly aware of what burden of proof is. Otherwise I wouldn't have pointed it out. Ironically, as per the wording of your own wiki article that you posted, this discussion is certainly one of the most clear-cut examples wherein your claims are the ones where the burden of proof lies:

Quote
If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

The subject that you are "skeptics" on is, essentially, observation itself. While you wouldn't say it in so many words, you do freely admit that "the most easily observable" perception is one of curvature, and you explain this by making claims about how light distorts our "naive" observations. Thus it's up to you to back up those claims.

Judging by what I've seen in this thread, your solution now will be to redefine "burden of proof" such that your position becomes correct; just as you questionably redefine observable physics to fit your preconceived model. Perhaps you should update your wiki article?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=44564.msg1105763#msg1105763

I think this is quite a good summary of the burden of proof debate.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 04, 2011, 04:09:42 AM
BOP set aside, wouldn't it be useful to have a FE map?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 04, 2011, 09:15:41 AM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=44564.msg1105763#msg1105763

I think this is quite a good summary of the burden of proof debate.

That post is all handwavey bullshit. The burden of proof "debate"? There is no "debate" about what BOP is. It's not some philosophical mystery. The definition is simple and clear: The burden is always on the person making a new claim. Period.

That Earth is a sphere may have been a new claim hundreds of years ago, but it is far from it today. Those purporting that belief already had their turn bearing the burden, and their proof has long been demonstrated. Now it's your turn. You are now putting forth new laws of physics, making accusations of conspiracy, and so forth. These are new claims.

If you expect your side to ever have any credence whatsoever, you will need to accept the fact that at this point you do carry the burden of proof, and act accordingly. You could start with a map.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: The Knowledge on December 04, 2011, 09:48:43 AM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=44564.msg1105763#msg1105763

I think this is quite a good summary of the burden of proof debate.

That post is all handwavey bullshit. The burden of proof "debate"? There is no "debate" about what BOP is. It's not some philosophical mystery. The definition is simple and clear: The burden is always on the person making a new claim. Period.

That Earth is a sphere may have been a new claim hundreds of years ago, but it is far from it today. Those purporting that belief already had their turn bearing the burden, and their proof has long been demonstrated. Now it's your turn. You are now putting forth new laws of physics, making accusations of conspiracy, and so forth. These are new claims.

If you expect your side to ever have any credence whatsoever, you will need to accept the fact that at this point you do carry the burden of proof, and act accordingly. You could start with a map.

But the whole point of that post is that people don't agree on a definition of who has the burden of proof. YOU say "The burden is always on the person making a new claim" but someone else says something different. Do a search on the entire forum and I don't think you'll find a single instance where there has been complete agreement on who has the burden of proof. I couldn't find one when I searched. Just from this thread:
Zarg: "The burden is always on the person making a new claim"
Markjo: "if the "skeptic" makes a negative claim, then that counts as a claim and the skeptic does incur a burden of proof for that negative claim."
Tom Bishop: "The burden of proof is always on the claimants and never on the skeptics."
Irushwithcvs: "However, when you make the more ridiculous assumption, in the science community, the burden of proof would be on me, not you "

See? several contradictory angles. However, what really clouds the issue is the nature of what is defined as a "claim":

RE'er : "The earth is obviously round. You claim it is flat, therefore burden of proof is on you."
FE'er : "The earth is obviously flat. You claim it is round, therefore the burden of proof is on you."
Result: no agreement on who should carry the burden of proof. Every viewpoint on any issue can be described as a "claim".
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: markjo on December 04, 2011, 09:51:13 AM
That post is all handwavey bullshit. The burden of proof "debate"? There is no "debate" about what BOP is. It's not some philosophical mystery. The definition is simple and clear: The burden is always on the person making a new claim. Period.


Not really.  In a debate, both sides have a burden to prove their arguments.  However, the burden is not always the same for both sides.  Generally the side with the less accepted argument incurs the greater burden.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Rushy on December 04, 2011, 09:59:37 AM
You also have to remember Occam's Razor when thinking about burden of proof. If you have two assumptions, you go with the one that makes more sense and has more solid evidence behind it. For example in Universal Acceleration Vs. Gravity, gravity is the victor because it makes the least assumptions.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: markjo on December 04, 2011, 10:01:12 AM
Markjo: "if the "skeptic" makes a negative claim, then that counts as a claim and the skeptic does incur a burden of proof for that negative claim."


Just as an FYI: The reason that I put "skeptic" in quotes is because most FE'ers (especially Tom) are not actual skeptics but  pseudoskeptics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism).
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Rushy on December 04, 2011, 10:04:26 AM
Irushwithcvs: "However, when you make the more ridiculous assumption, in the science community, the burden of proof would be on me, not you "

This was a grammatical error on my part. In the context of my paragraph it should have been known what I meant. The first "you" should be "I" within the quotation.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 04, 2011, 10:12:25 AM
Irushwithcvs: "However, when you make the more ridiculous assumption, in the science community, the burden of proof would be on me, not you "

This was a grammatical error on my part. In the context of my paragraph it should have been known what I meant. The first "you" should be "I" within the quotation.

Oh really? If I said that the String Theory isn't true, the burden of proof would be on me.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Rushy on December 04, 2011, 10:42:42 AM
Irushwithcvs: "However, when you make the more ridiculous assumption, in the science community, the burden of proof would be on me, not you "

This was a grammatical error on my part. In the context of my paragraph it should have been known what I meant. The first "you" should be "I" within the quotation.

Oh really? If I said that the String Theory isn't true, the burden of proof would be on me.

Like Markjo said, if you're offering a negative hypothesis, yes, yes it would be. If you're simply saying that string theory isn't true, it wouldn't be.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2011, 11:14:39 AM
That post is all handwavey bullshit. The burden of proof "debate"? There is no "debate" about what BOP is. It's not some philosophical mystery. The definition is simple and clear: The burden is always on the person making a new claim. Period.


Not really.  In a debate, both sides have a burden to prove their arguments.  However, the burden is not always the same for both sides.  Generally the side with the less accepted argument incurs the greater burden.

Not true. The side with the less accepted argument does not incur greater burden. The side with the most unobserved or unsubstantiated claims bears the most burden.

Say that we're living in the 1400's. Everyone believes in the existence of witches and witchcraft. Doctors believe it, scientists believe it, everyone takes for granted that witches exist. Even the king himself believes it. Is the burden of proof on the skeptic questioning the existence of witches to prove that witches don't exist and there is no such thing as witchcraft, or is the burden of proof on everyone else to prove that witches do exist and that witchcraft actually occurs?

Space travel clearly contains the most unobserved and unsubstantiated claims. It is claimed that NASA has developed rockets which can breach escape velocity, that NASA has landed men on the moon, and has sent robots to mars, and sends space ships to explore the solar system. These claims are unsubstantiated. NASA never went through any kind of peer review with the Apollo missions, for example. Indeed, there is much evidence (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/The_Conspiracy) that the Apollo missions were staged.

Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 04, 2011, 11:20:08 AM
That post is all handwavey bullshit. The burden of proof "debate"? There is no "debate" about what BOP is. It's not some philosophical mystery. The definition is simple and clear: The burden is always on the person making a new claim. Period.


Not really.  In a debate, both sides have a burden to prove their arguments.  However, the burden is not always the same for both sides.  Generally the side with the less accepted argument incurs the greater burden.

Not true. The side with the less accepted argument does not incur greater burden. The side with the most unobserved or unsubstantiated claims bears the most burden.

Say that we're living in the 1400's. Everyone believes in the existence of witches and witchcraft. Doctors believe it, scientists believe it, everyone takes for granted that witches exist. Even the king himself believes it. Is the burden of proof on the skeptic questioning the existence of witches to prove that witches don't exist, or is the burden of proof on everyone else to prove that they do?

Space travel clearly contains the most unobserved and unsubstantiated claims. It is claimed that NASA has developed rockets which can breach escape velocity, that NASA has landed men on the moon, and has sent robots to mars. These claims are unsubstantiated. NASA never went through any kind of peer review with the Apollo missions. Indeed, there is much evidence (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/The_Conspiracy) that the Apollo missions were staged.

There is much evidence that the so-called evidence that Apollo missions were staged are bogus. They were, in a way, peer reviewed by thousands of scientist from every possible nationality who would have detected any possible fraud.

Since there are much more people saying that men did land on the Moon, doesn't the burden of proof fall upon you?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: The Knowledge on December 04, 2011, 11:23:09 AM
See? This is exactly what the other thread was talking about - everybody's disagreeing, as always, about who burden of proof lies with. When are you guys gonna realise that mentioning burden of proof never ever helps any arguments for either side?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2011, 11:25:57 AM
That post is all handwavey bullshit. The burden of proof "debate"? There is no "debate" about what BOP is. It's not some philosophical mystery. The definition is simple and clear: The burden is always on the person making a new claim. Period.


Not really.  In a debate, both sides have a burden to prove their arguments.  However, the burden is not always the same for both sides.  Generally the side with the less accepted argument incurs the greater burden.

Not true. The side with the less accepted argument does not incur greater burden. The side with the most unobserved or unsubstantiated claims bears the most burden.

Say that we're living in the 1400's. Everyone believes in the existence of witches and witchcraft. Doctors believe it, scientists believe it, everyone takes for granted that witches exist. Even the king himself believes it. Is the burden of proof on the skeptic questioning the existence of witches to prove that witches don't exist, or is the burden of proof on everyone else to prove that they do?

Space travel clearly contains the most unobserved and unsubstantiated claims. It is claimed that NASA has developed rockets which can breach escape velocity, that NASA has landed men on the moon, and has sent robots to mars. These claims are unsubstantiated. NASA never went through any kind of peer review with the Apollo missions. Indeed, there is much evidence (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/The_Conspiracy) that the Apollo missions were staged.

There is much evidence that the so-called evidence that Apollo missions were staged are bogus. They were, in a way, peer reviewed by thousands of scientist from every possible nationality who would have detected any possible fraud.

Since there are much more people saying that men did land on the Moon, doesn't the burden of proof fall upon you?

Claiming that the Apollo missions did not happen (witches don't exist) is a negative claim. You are asking us to prove a negative.

Claiming that the Apollo missions did happen (whiches exist) is a positive claim which could easily be proven.

For example, NASA could let an interested third party disassemble one of the Lunar Landers which are displayed in museums, to prove that 6 billion dollars worth of engineering actually went into it. Without such demonstration people will look at the available evidence and conclude that the Lunar Lander was thrown together with junk yard parts and stationary supplies over a weekend (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander).
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 04, 2011, 11:30:52 AM
That post is all handwavey bullshit. The burden of proof "debate"? There is no "debate" about what BOP is. It's not some philosophical mystery. The definition is simple and clear: The burden is always on the person making a new claim. Period.


Not really.  In a debate, both sides have a burden to prove their arguments.  However, the burden is not always the same for both sides.  Generally the side with the less accepted argument incurs the greater burden.

Not true. The side with the less accepted argument does not incur greater burden. The side with the most unobserved or unsubstantiated claims bears the most burden.

Say that we're living in the 1400's. Everyone believes in the existence of witches and witchcraft. Doctors believe it, scientists believe it, everyone takes for granted that witches exist. Even the king himself believes it. Is the burden of proof on the skeptic questioning the existence of witches to prove that witches don't exist, or is the burden of proof on everyone else to prove that they do?

Space travel clearly contains the most unobserved and unsubstantiated claims. It is claimed that NASA has developed rockets which can breach escape velocity, that NASA has landed men on the moon, and has sent robots to mars. These claims are unsubstantiated. NASA never went through any kind of peer review with the Apollo missions. Indeed, there is much evidence (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/The_Conspiracy) that the Apollo missions were staged.

There is much evidence that the so-called evidence that Apollo missions were staged are bogus. They were, in a way, peer reviewed by thousands of scientist from every possible nationality who would have detected any possible fraud.

Since there are much more people saying that men did land on the Moon, doesn't the burden of proof fall upon you?

Claiming that the Apollo missions did not happen (witches don't exist) is a negative claim. You are asking us to prove a negative.

Claiming that the Apollo missions did happen (whiches exist) is a positive claim which could easily be proven.

For example, NASA could let an interested third party disassemble one of the Lunar Landers in a museum, to prove that 6 billion dollars worth of engineering actually went into it. Without such demonstration people will look at the available evidence and conclude that the Lunar Lander was thrown together with junk yard parts and stationary supplies over a weekend (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander).

There are people who try to proce that those missions were faked; you do not want to do it, OK. So you say, because your link is a way of saying that the Lunar Module is a fake.

But those missions did happen. That's all.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2011, 11:36:35 AM
Quote from: EmperorZhark
Since there are much more people saying that men did land on the Moon, doesn't the burden of proof fall upon you?

No, it doesn't. That's an appeal to popularity fallacy. People believe in a lot of things which are not true. Astrology, Ghosts, Miracles, Angles, Luck, the existence of William Shakespeare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question).

The fact that people believe it does not make it true, or evidence that it is true.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 04, 2011, 11:38:48 AM
Quote from: EmperorZhark
Since there are much more people saying that men did land on the Moon, doesn't the burden of proof fall upon you?

No, it doesn't. That's an appeal to popularity fallacy. People believe in a lot of things which are not true. Astrology, Ghosts, Miracles, Angles, Luck, the existence of William Shakespeare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question).

The fact that people believe it does not make it true, or evidence that it is true.

Too many evidences that man went on the Moon.

Too many evidences that it was impossible to fake.

You really have to do better than this, Tom.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2011, 11:42:31 AM
Quote
Too many evidences that man went on the Moon.

Incorrect. The "evidence" NASA produces actually suggests that they did NOT go to the moon.

See the Apollo Moonbuggy Problems (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Apollo_Moonbuggy_Problems) article on the Wiki for instance.

Quote
Too many evidences that it was impossible to fake.

What evidence?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 04, 2011, 11:48:37 AM

Incorrect. The "evidence" NASA produces actually suggests that they did NOT go to the moon.

See the Apollo Moonbuggy Problems (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Apollo_Moonbuggy_Problems) article on the Wiki for instance.
Quote

This has been debunked. Look on the internet. See Mythbusters for instance.

Quote
Too many evidences that it was impossible to fake.
What evidence?

Start with good sense: a conspiracy involving so many people, so many organizations, for so many years?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2011, 11:55:00 AM

This has been debunked. Look on the internet. See Mythbusters for instance.

Mythbusters did not discuss the images in my link. Please demonstrate that the images in the link have been debunked.

Quote
Start with good sense: a conspiracy involving so many people, so many organizations, for so many years?

That assertion doesn't sound like "Too many evidences that it was impossible to fake."

Obviously NASA wouldn't need to hire or contract with many tens of thousands of people to build a genuine space program and genuine ships that work in space if they're not running a real space program and not really sending things into space.

Obviously NASA doesn't need to hire a 2500 strong support and engineering staff to work on a 6 billion dollar Lunar Lander if it just needs to be thrown together by a couple guys over a weekend after a trip to the junk yard.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 04, 2011, 11:58:28 AM
This has been debunked. Look on the internet. See Mythbusters for instance.

Further evidence that you are reading what you want to read and nothing else.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 04, 2011, 12:09:57 PM
Obviously you have no idea how a scientific program works.

Obviously you don't know how to look on the internet.

Obviously you look only what interest you.

Obviously, to go bac to the topic, you don't have a FE map.

Obviously I am no going to bother until you provide a FE map.

Obviously you are going to provide a RE map telling me it's a FE map.

Etc.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: markjo on December 04, 2011, 12:23:11 PM
Claiming that the Apollo missions did not happen (witches don't exist) is a negative claim. You are asking us to prove a negative.
If you make a claim, are you not obligated to prove that claim even if it is a negative claim?

Claiming that the Apollo missions did happen (whiches exist) is a positive claim which could easily be proven.
Not when you refuse to accept any of the evidence provided.

For example, NASA could let an interested third party disassemble one of the Lunar Landers which are displayed in museums, to prove that 6 billion dollars worth of engineering actually went into it. Without such demonstration people will look at the available evidence and conclude that the Lunar Lander was thrown together with junk yard parts and stationary supplies over a weekend (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander).
Why ask NASA when you could ask Grumman Aerospace (you know, the guys that claim to have spent the $6 billion to design and build the LEMs)?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 04, 2011, 12:34:29 PM
Have fun:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

(3 seconds of intense search in Google)
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2011, 12:51:33 PM
Quote from: markjo
If you make a claim, are you not obligated to prove that claim even if it is a negative claim?

Negative claims don't have to be proven. I don't have to prove that ghosts "don't" exist in a discussion on the existence of ghosts. The person mumbling in favor of the existence of ghosts needs to prove that ghosts exist.

Quote from: markjo
]Not when you refuse to accept any of the evidence provided.

I looked at the evidence. I did not dismiss the evidence without assessment. The moonbuggy images tell us quite clearly that NASA's Apollo missions were a sham.

Quote from: markjo
Why ask NASA when you could ask Grumman Aerospace (you know, the guys that claim to have spent the $6 billion to design and build the LEMs)?

Grumman Aerospace is a hand of NASA. Government Contractors are public-private entites beholden to the government. When I speak of NASA I'm talking about NASA and the contractors it does its work through. The entity called NASA does not actually employ many people and is mostly managerial.

Grumman is little more than a temp agency which hires out people to the government. Government contractors work in government facilities with government clearances. They get their direction from government managers. It is appropriate to say that anyone working for a government contractor is working for the government.

If you've ever worked for a government contractor you would know this to be true.

Have fun:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

(3 seconds of intense search in Google)

The rover is only addressed in three points, none of which discusses the things in the Apollo Moonbugy Problems Page (http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Apollo_Moonbuggy).
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Rushy on December 04, 2011, 12:56:58 PM
Have fun:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

(3 seconds of intense search in Google)

Quote
The hoax advocates like to paint the picture that they are soldiers in a war against government corruption and stand for truth and justice. The thing I find most bothersome about the hoax advocates is their repeated failure to apply the scientific method, that is, the principles of discovery and demonstration considered necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. The hoax advocates routinely observe a phenomenon; they usually call it an anomaly, dream up one possible explanation for the anomaly, and then jump straight to the conclusion that their explanation is the correct one. They universally fail to put their claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them. It is this failing that irreparably damages the credibility of the hoax advocates.

He just crushed every single conspiracy theory in a paragraph. I envy that ability.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 04, 2011, 01:33:36 PM
Have fun:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

(3 seconds of intense search in Google)

Quote
The hoax advocates like to paint the picture that they are soldiers in a war against government corruption and stand for truth and justice. The thing I find most bothersome about the hoax advocates is their repeated failure to apply the scientific method, that is, the principles of discovery and demonstration considered necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. The hoax advocates routinely observe a phenomenon; they usually call it an anomaly, dream up one possible explanation for the anomaly, and then jump straight to the conclusion that their explanation is the correct one. They universally fail to put their claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them. It is this failing that irreparably damages the credibility of the hoax advocates.

He just crushed every single conspiracy theory in a paragraph. I envy that ability.

No, he didn't. He used argumentum ad hominems over and over again, and your desire to be correct caused you to agree with him.

Obviously you have no idea how a scientific program works.

Obviously you don't know how to look on the internet.

Obviously you look only what interest you.

Obviously, to go bac to the topic, you don't have a FE map.

Obviously I am no going to bother until you provide a FE map.

Obviously you are going to provide a RE map telling me it's a FE map.

Etc.

Evidence please.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2011, 01:40:45 PM
Quote
The hoax advocates like to paint the picture that they are soldiers in a war against government corruption and stand for truth and justice. The thing I find most bothersome about the hoax advocates is their repeated failure to apply the scientific method, that is, the principles of discovery and demonstration considered necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. The hoax advocates routinely observe a phenomenon; they usually call it an anomaly, dream up one possible explanation for the anomaly, and then jump straight to the conclusion that their explanation is the correct one. They universally fail to put their claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them. It is this failing that irreparably damages the credibility of the hoax advocates.

He just crushed every single conspiracy theory in a paragraph. I envy that ability.

That paragraph is nonsense. He incorrectly contends that hypothesis, experimentation and conclusion are not used in cataloging NASA's hoaxery.

Please look at the article in question:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Apollo_Moonbuggy_Problems

In the very first image, for example, the investigator looked at the four images in a panorama and made the hypothesis that the left Rover tracks were passing into a 4 foot deep crater. The investigator experiments by pasting together the panorama shots, and indeed, the left Rover tires have impossibly passed through a crater. Conclusion: NASA fakery

In the trackless Lunar Rover photos the investigator finds one trackless photo and hypothesizes that if some of the pictures depict miniature sets, or if a crane was transporting the Rover in place, there should be more trackless Rover photos. The author performs an experiment by searching through NASA's photos and finding other images where the Rover does not leave tracks in the moon dust (despite footprints abundant). Conclusion: NASA fakery
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Rushy on December 04, 2011, 01:42:48 PM
Continuing to cite yourself as a reference is just further reason not to believe anything you say.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2011, 01:48:01 PM
Continuing to cite yourself as a reference is just further reason not to believe anything you say.

The pictures come from NASA, not me.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Rushy on December 04, 2011, 01:49:38 PM
Continuing to cite yourself as a reference is just further reason not to believe anything you say.

The pictures come from NASA, not me.

How am I supposed to know you didn't photoshop those pictures to meet your own needs?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2011, 02:00:16 PM
Continuing to cite yourself as a reference is just further reason not to believe anything you say.

The pictures come from NASA, not me.

How am I supposed to know you didn't photoshop those pictures to meet your own needs?

Because if you are suspicious you can easily do a reverse image search on Google and find that the images on NASA's site are exactly the same as the ones on the Wiki page:

http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/LARGE/GPN-2000-001117.jpg

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2008/04/21/21apr_ducttape_resources/ducttape_apollo17_big.jpg
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Rushy on December 04, 2011, 02:10:57 PM
Maybe FET has an elite hacker photoshopper that uploaded subtle changes to the pictures in an attempt to discredit NASA?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 04, 2011, 02:27:27 PM
Maybe FET has an elite hacker photoshopper that uploaded subtle changes to the pictures in an attempt to discredit NASA?

NASA would notice that.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 04, 2011, 02:28:18 PM
It's interesting to see that you stick to your 2 or 3 feebles examples of supposed hoax (no; I don't have an answer for everything) but that more than 20 hoax debunking cause no problem with you.

The so-called hoax about the American Flag has been widely debunked, and you have no problem with it! That's the problem with conspirationists: they stick to details to avoid seing the big picture: men landed and the Moon and almost everything is explainable!

But I get it: men on the Moon => Earth is round. That's tough!
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2011, 02:28:33 PM
Maybe FET has an elite hacker photoshopper that uploaded subtle changes to the pictures in an attempt to discredit NASA?

NASA would notice that.

Accusing the Flat Earth Society of hacking into government servers and replacing mission photos is about the only thing RE'ers could do in a fruitless attempt to keep their beliefs alive.

RE'ers truly are brainwashed.

It's interesting to see that you stick to your 2 or 3 feebles examples of supposed hoax (no; I don't have an answer for everything) but that more than 20 hoax debunking cause no problem with you.

The so-called hoax about the American Flag has been widely debunked, and you have no problem with it! That's the problem with conspirationists: they stick to details to avoid seing the big picture: men landed and the Moon and almost everything is explainable!

Some of those moon hoax claims can be explained away, but the ones I included on the Wiki are the strongest ones and not easily explained.

No one can touch the images in that Moonbuggy Problems page with a 10 foot pole. You can't make up a lame static electricity/lighting/perspective excuse for that. The rover was clearly lowered in place for those shots.

The Apollo moon missions were indisputably faked.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 04, 2011, 02:31:25 PM
That was trolling, my good ol' Tom!
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on December 04, 2011, 02:49:52 PM
But I get it: men on the Moon => Earth is round.
Sorry, what?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 04, 2011, 03:27:21 PM
But I get it: men on the Moon => Earth is round.
Sorry, what?

Stop trolling!

lol
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2011, 04:46:13 PM
In the face of indisputable evidence that NASA is a fraud and the Apollo missions were faked the only response mustered is "you're trolling" and "lol."

RE'ers are in denial. It is sad to the extreme that they cannot come to terms with the fact that their authorities lying to them. Instead of beginning to seek, they bury their heads in ignorance and dogma, believing only what they are told to believe.

I understand that it is difficult to accept that everything you know about space science is a lie, but the evidence is just overwhelming: NASA is a fraud.   
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 04, 2011, 05:02:03 PM
Zarg: "The burden is always on the person making a new claim"
Markjo: "if the "skeptic" makes a negative claim, then that counts as a claim and the skeptic does incur a burden of proof for that negative claim."
Tom Bishop: "The burden of proof is always on the claimants and never on the skeptics."
Irushwithcvs: "However, when you make the more ridiculous assumption, in the science community, the burden of proof would be on me, not you "

See? several contradictory angles. However, what really clouds the issue is the nature of what is defined as a "claim".

My prediction has been validated:
Quote from: zarg
Judging by what I've seen in this thread, your solution now will be to redefine "burden of proof" such that your position becomes correct; just as you questionably redefine observable physics to fit your preconceived model.

You seem to be under the impression that the fact that you dispute the definitions of terms means that the entire subject is impossible and pointless to discuss, thus conveniently nullifying anyone's responsibility to deal with it.

Unfortunately for you, words do have actual definitions. Has it never occurred to you to check a source other than your own wiki?

And those statements are not contradictory. No one is denying that if you were merely skeptics, you would not hold the burden of proof that the claim is wrong. However as I already pointed out, you are not the "skeptics" here. Not only do you deny existent contrary proof, you hold your very own claims -- indeed, you even freely call it a "theory" -- and refuse to accept the responsibility to prove it!


Quote from: Tom Bishop
Negative claims don't have to be proven. I don't have to prove that ghosts "don't" exist in a discussion on the existence of ghosts.

Even to look at evidence and say "this is not evidence" is an assertion that you need to back up. For instance, following your ghost analogy: Ghost-believer says: "Ghosts exist because I felt something brush past me in an empty room." He has made an assertion and provided evidence; he's good so far. Only after you dispute his evidence with a valid counter-argument (such as demonstrating that wind could have created the same effect) is Ghost-believer once again obligated to provide more evidence.


But, I'm sure that when markjo says "negative", he means "opposing", not just simple denial. And a conspiracy theory is an opposing hypothesis. Your claims about light are opposing hypotheses. And so forth.


Quote from: Tom Bishop
Funny how in the face of indisputable evidence that NASA is a fraud

I don't think you understand what that word, "indisputable", means. There are documents that do exactly that: dispute your cited evidence, point by point. Nothing in your sources (which, again, is yourself!) is new, I've seen it before and it has all been thoroughly shot down years ago. It no longer has any value outside of cheap sensationalist TV programs. This information takes no time at all to find if you are simply honest enough to allow yourself to look at both sides and stop being lazy.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Rushy on December 04, 2011, 05:30:13 PM
Accusing the Flat Earth Society of hacking into government servers and replacing mission photos is about the only thing RE'ers could do in a fruitless attempt to keep their beliefs alive.

RE'ers truly are brainwashed.

Are you telling me that instantly denying photographic proof is a strategy used only by desperate brainwashed fools?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2011, 05:35:30 PM
Quote from: zarg
Even to look at evidence and say "this is not evidence" is an assertion that you need to back up. For instance, following your ghost analogy: Ghost-believer says: "Ghosts exist because I felt something brush past me in an empty room." He has made an assertion and provided evidence; he's good so far. Only after you dispute his evidence with a valid counter-argument (such as demonstrating that wind could have created the same effect) is Ghost-believer once again obligated to provide more evidence.

The ghost believer would need to prove that ghosts exist. If that's all he has, then fine. The burden is on him to prove the existence of ghosts, not anyone to prove that ghosts don't exist.

Asking someone to prove that ghosts don't exist is ridiculous. No one is ever burdened with proving a negative.

Quote from: zarg
But, I'm sure that when markjo says "negative", he means "opposing", not just simple denial. And a conspiracy theory is an opposing hypothesis. Your claims about light are opposing hypotheses. And so forth.

The conspiracy theory is entirely validated by the indisputable evidence which demonstrates that NASA is a fraud. I've provided evidence that a conspiracy exists. The only thing you guys can muster against it is "maybe you hacked into NASA's servers and planted those damning mission photographs there."

Quote from: zarg
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Funny how in the face of indisputable evidence that NASA is a fraud

I don't think you understand what that word, "indisputable", means. There are documents that do exactly that: dispute your cited evidence, point by point. Nothing in your sources (which, again, is yourself!) is new, I've seen it before and it has all been thoroughly shot down years ago. It no longer has any value outside of cheap sensationalist TV programs. This information takes no time at all to find if you are simply honest enough to allow yourself to look at both sides and stop being lazy.

Again, the sources for the images is NASA, not myself.

But if you are so adamant that it has been debunked before, please find documents which debunk the images in the below link:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Apollo_Moonbuggy_Problems
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: The Knowledge on December 04, 2011, 05:45:06 PM
Have fun:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

(3 seconds of intense search in Google)

Quote
The hoax advocates like to paint the picture that they are soldiers in a war against government corruption and stand for truth and justice. The thing I find most bothersome about the hoax advocates is their repeated failure to apply the scientific method, that is, the principles of discovery and demonstration considered necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. The hoax advocates routinely observe a phenomenon; they usually call it an anomaly, dream up one possible explanation for the anomaly, and then jump straight to the conclusion that their explanation is the correct one. They universally fail to put their claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them. It is this failing that irreparably damages the credibility of the hoax advocates.

He just crushed every single conspiracy theory in a paragraph. I envy that ability.

No, he didn't. He used argumentum ad hominems over and over again, and your desire to be correct caused you to agree with him.

Jeez, this guy is obsessed with trotting out accusations of fallacy in latin. Give it a rest, why don't you? I wouldn't mind so much if you were usually right, but here you're wrong again. Argumentum ad hominem is attempting to discredit an argument that someone puts forward by attacking them personally.
Here, the quote describes the methods commonly used by hoax advocates, and describes them - accurately - as lacking in verification. Attacking an argument on the basis of lacking verification is not argumentum ad hominem (as it attacks the argument logically with no comment on the poster), and describing the practice as being a common thing is also not argumentum ad hominem (as it criticises the poster but does not attempt to discredit the argument they put forward in terms of merit). Combining these two things should be called the Tausami Fallacy.
Similarly:
Saying "John Davis is a troll" is neither argumentum ad hominem nor the George Spock fallacy.
Saying "Pizza Planet's experiment was conducted with all the rigor that one would expect from a chimpanzee in a cake shop" is also not argumentum ad hominem.
Saying "Your theory has to be nonsense because it is supported by Tom Bishop" is, interestingly, a sort of argumentum ad hominem by proxy AND a kind of George Spock fallacy at the same time, though evidence would suggest it is very likely to be a 100% true statement.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 04, 2011, 06:38:10 PM
Have fun:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

(3 seconds of intense search in Google)

Quote
The hoax advocates like to paint the picture that they are soldiers in a war against government corruption and stand for truth and justice. The thing I find most bothersome about the hoax advocates is their repeated failure to apply the scientific method, that is, the principles of discovery and demonstration considered necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. The hoax advocates routinely observe a phenomenon; they usually call it an anomaly, dream up one possible explanation for the anomaly, and then jump straight to the conclusion that their explanation is the correct one. They universally fail to put their claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them. It is this failing that irreparably damages the credibility of the hoax advocates.

He just crushed every single conspiracy theory in a paragraph. I envy that ability.

No, he didn't. He used argumentum ad hominems over and over again, and your desire to be correct caused you to agree with him.

Jeez, this guy is obsessed with trotting out accusations of fallacy in latin. Give it a rest, why don't you? I wouldn't mind so much if you were usually right, but here you're wrong again. Argumentum ad hominem is attempting to discredit an argument that someone puts forward by attacking them personally.
Here, the quote describes the methods commonly used by hoax advocates, and describes them - accurately - as lacking in verification. Attacking an argument on the basis of lacking verification is not argumentum ad hominem (as it attacks the argument logically with no comment on the poster), and describing the practice as being a common thing is also not argumentum ad hominem (as it criticises the poster but does not attempt to discredit the argument they put forward in terms of merit). Combining these two things should be called the Tausami Fallacy.
Similarly:
Saying "John Davis is a troll" is neither argumentum ad hominem nor the George Spock fallacy.
Saying "Pizza Planet's experiment was conducted with all the rigor that one would expect from a chimpanzee in a cake shop" is also not argumentum ad hominem.
Saying "Your theory has to be nonsense because it is supported by Tom Bishop" is, interestingly, a sort of argumentum ad hominem by proxy AND a kind of George Spock fallacy at the same time, though evidence would suggest it is very likely to be a 100% true statement.

No, this quote is the epitome of an ad hominem. Just because it doesn't blatantly say that we're retarded doesn't mean it isn't strongly implying it.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: markjo on December 04, 2011, 06:48:04 PM
Quote from: markjo
If you make a claim, are you not obligated to prove that claim even if it is a negative claim?

Negative claims don't have to be proven. I don't have to prove that ghosts "don't" exist in a discussion on the existence of ghosts. The person mumbling in favor of the existence of ghosts needs to prove that ghosts exist.

Fine.  The moon landings were not faked.  The earth is not flat.  There are two negative claims that I don't have to prove.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 04, 2011, 07:02:09 PM
It's interesting to see that you stick to your 2 or 3 feebles examples of supposed hoax (no; I don't have an answer for everything) but that more than 20 hoax debunking cause no problem with you.

Falaciae compositio.

That was trolling, my good ol' Tom!
But I get it: men on the Moon => Earth is round.
Sorry, what?

Stop trolling!

lol

George Scott fallacy



And if one is accused of many fallacies, one should not assume that this is the accuser's hobby.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on December 04, 2011, 08:45:26 PM
Quote
The hoax advocates like to paint the picture that they are soldiers in a war against government corruption and stand for truth and justice. The thing I find most bothersome about the hoax advocates is their repeated failure to apply the scientific method, that is, the principles of discovery and demonstration considered necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. The hoax advocates routinely observe a phenomenon; they usually call it an anomaly, dream up one possible explanation for the anomaly, and then jump straight to the conclusion that their explanation is the correct one. They universally fail to put their claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them. It is this failing that irreparably damages the credibility of the hoax advocates.

He just crushed every single conspiracy theory in a paragraph. I envy that ability.

That paragraph is nonsense. He incorrectly contends that hypothesis, experimentation and conclusion are not used in cataloging NASA's hoaxery.

Please look at the article in question:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Apollo_Moonbuggy_Problems

In the very first image, for example, the investigator looked at the four images in a panorama and made the hypothesis that the left Rover tracks were passing into a 4 foot deep crater. The investigator experiments by pasting together the panorama shots, and indeed, the left Rover tires have impossibly passed through a crater. Conclusion: NASA fakery

In the trackless Lunar Rover photos the investigator finds one trackless photo and hypothesizes that if some of the pictures depict miniature sets, or if a crane was transporting the Rover in place, there should be more trackless Rover photos. The author performs an experiment by searching through NASA's photos and finding other images where the Rover does not leave tracks in the moon dust (despite footprints abundant). Conclusion: NASA fakery

The real question is not why are there no tracks in certain pictures, it should be why would nasa (assuming they faked the landings) occasionally include tracks, (showing that it was not an oversight to not include them) and not include them in other photos.  its obvious that a rover should have tracks, so why would nasa purposfully not include them in such a big claim such as (we landed on the moon).

Assuming that nasa has outsmarted most of the worlds population for quite some time now is it just as unreasonable that they would forget to leave tracks behind their rover photos?

Its more reasonable to conclude that the astronauts quickly lifted and moved the rover for a better angle photograph than it is to assume that the entire missions were faked.  The rover would not have been particularly heavy, an easy two man lift on the moon, it was only 77.2 pounds.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2011, 09:48:47 PM
The real question is not why are there no tracks in certain pictures, it should be why would nasa (assuming they faked the landings) occasionally include tracks, (showing that it was not an oversight to not include them) and not include them in other photos.  its obvious that a rover should have tracks, so why would nasa purposfully not include them in such a big claim such as (we landed on the moon).

You RE'ers also occasionally ask "How could NASA pull off a perfect scam with no mistakes?"

Well, this is a mistake.

My guess is that they were trying to set up specifically choreographed scenes and were moving it around with a crane. The people filming the hoax aren't necessarily the brightest crayons in the box.

You're assuming that the people working for NASA are smart, and that NASA is actually hiring the best and the brightest. The best and the brightest cuts into money that could otherwise be going towards another private mansion in the Alps.

Quote
Assuming that nasa has outsmarted most of the worlds population for quite some time now is it just as unreasonable that they would forget to leave tracks behind their rover photos?

No. It's unreasonable to assume that NASA would hire the best and the brightest for their hoax operation when the motive is to make a profit.

Quote
Its more reasonable to conclude that the astronauts quickly lifted and moved the rover for a better angle photograph than it is to assume that the entire missions were faked.  The rover would not have been particularly heavy, an easy two man lift on the moon, it was only 77.2 pounds.

Why would they be carrying the rover across the lunar surface? The rover is a distance away from any tracks in some of those images. The rover is supposed to be carrying them. They aren't supposed to be carrying the rover. That's the whole point of the rover in the first place.

http://apolloanomalies.com/images/ALSJ/AS15-88-11902HR.jpg

http://apolloanomalies.com/images/ALSJ/AS17-143-21836HR.jpg

http://apolloanomalies.com/images/ALSJ/AS17-143-21932HR.jpg

Look at the above images. There are no tracks leading up to the rover anywhere, at any angle. The astronauts didn't just angle it. They would have had to pick it up and carry it a ways.

The astronaut's entire dialogue are recorded throughout the missions. I've gone through them in the past. I guarantee you that there's nothing like "Hey Huston, hold on while we pick up the rover."

Besides, it's ridiculous that they would pick up the rover to get a shot at a certain angle. If they want a certain angle of the rover all they would need to do is position themselves around it.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 04, 2011, 09:56:32 PM
The ghost believer would need to prove that ghosts exist. If that's all he has, then fine. The burden is on him to prove the existence of ghosts, not anyone to prove that ghosts don't exist.

Asking someone to prove that ghosts don't exist is ridiculous. No one is ever burdened with proving a negative.

You just ignored most of what I said. Please read it again and try to comprehend. I never said you would be expected to prove the absence of ghosts.


But if you are so adamant that it has been debunked before, please find documents which debunk the images in the below link:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Apollo_Moonbuggy_Problems

Honestly, do you really want to pursue this? Are you suggesting that such debunking is nonexistent? Please. All you're doing is embarrassing yourself and proving your own laziness.

The answer you're looking for is already right here in this thread, in the link Zhark posted after searching for mere moments, if you had actually bothered to at least skim it:

Quote
The Lunar Module weighed about 17 tons, yet the astronauts' feet seem to have made a deeper impression in the lunar dust.

The hoax advocates often quote the weight of the Lunar Module as 16 to 18 tons (weights varied mission to mission). This was the LM's Earth weight when fully fueled and included about 9 tons of descent stage propellant. By the time the LM reached the surface, its weight in lunar gravity was only about 2,700 lbs. With four 37-inch diameter footpads, the load on the surface was about 90 lbs/ft2. Neil Armstrong's fully suited weight on the Moon was 58 lbs. His boots covered an area of about one square foot, giving a load of 58 lbs/ft2. In Armstrong's own words "the LM footpads are only depressed in the surface about 1 or 2 inches". On the other hand, the footprints of the astronauts were depressed only a fraction of an inch, although people often exaggerate their depth.
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm (http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm)
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2011, 10:09:34 PM
Quote
You just ignored most of what I said. Please read it again and try to comprehend. I never said you would be expected to prove the absence of ghosts.

Well that's the topic you were replying to. The burden of proof is solely on the ghost claimant. If the ghost claimant presents some kind of evidence for the existence of ghosts it's the skeptic's duty to challenge it, just as I have been challenging the Apollo mission photographs here.

Quote
Honestly, do you really want to pursue this? Are you suggesting that such debunking is nonexistent? Please. All you're doing is embarrassing yourself and proving your own laziness.

The answer you're looking for is already right here in this thread, in the link Zhark posted after searching for mere moments, if you had actually bothered to at least skim it:

Quote
The Lunar Module weighed about 17 tons, yet the astronauts' feet seem to have made a deeper impression in the lunar dust.

The hoax advocates often quote the weight of the Lunar Module as 16 to 18 tons (weights varied mission to mission). This was the LM's Earth weight when fully fueled and included about 9 tons of descent stage propellant. By the time the LM reached the surface, its weight in lunar gravity was only about 2,700 lbs. With four 37-inch diameter footpads, the load on the surface was about 90 lbs/ft2. Neil Armstrong's fully suited weight on the Moon was 58 lbs. His boots covered an area of about one square foot, giving a load of 58 lbs/ft2. In Armstrong's own words "the LM footpads are only depressed in the surface about 1 or 2 inches". On the other hand, the footprints of the astronauts were depressed only a fraction of an inch, although people often exaggerate their depth.
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm (http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm)

The Lunar Module is not the Lunar Rover.

How embarrassing.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on December 04, 2011, 10:13:20 PM
The real question is not why are there no tracks in certain pictures, it should be why would nasa (assuming they faked the landings) occasionally include tracks, (showing that it was not an oversight to not include them) and not include them in other photos.  its obvious that a rover should have tracks, so why would nasa purposfully not include them in such a big claim such as (we landed on the moon).

You RE'ers also occasionally ask "How could NASA pull off a perfect scam with no mistakes?"

Well, this is a mistake.

My guess is that they were trying to pose with the rover in specifically choreographed scenes and were moving it around with a crane. The people filming the hoax aren't necessarily the brightest crayons in the box.

You're assuming that the people working for NASA are smart, and that NASA is actually hiring the best and the brightest. The best and the brightest cuts into money that could otherwise be going towards another private mansion in the Alps.

Quote
Assuming that nasa has outsmarted most of the worlds population for quite some time now is it just as unreasonable that they would forget to leave tracks behind their rover photos?

No. It's unreasonable to assume that NASA is hiring the best and the brightest for their hoax operation.

Quote
Its more reasonable to conclude that the astronauts quickly lifted and moved the rover for a better angle photograph than it is to assume that the entire missions were faked.  The rover would not have been particularly heavy, an easy two man lift on the moon, it was only 77.2 pounds.

Why would they be carrying the rover across the lunar surface? The rover is a distance away from any tracks in some of those images. The rover is supposed to be carrying them. They aren't supposed to be carrying the rover.

http://apolloanomalies.com/images/ALSJ/AS15-88-11902HR.jpg

http://apolloanomalies.com/images/ALSJ/AS17-143-21836HR.jpg

http://apolloanomalies.com/images/ALSJ/AS17-143-21932HR.jpg

Look at the above images. There are no tracks leading up to the rover anywhere, at any angle. The astronauts didn't just angle it. They would have had to pick it up and carry it a ways.

The astronaut's entire dialogue are recorded throughout the missions. I've gone through them in the past. I guarantee you that there's nothing like "Hey Richard, help me pick up the rover."

Besides, it's ridiculous that they would pick up the rover to get a shot at a certain angle. If they want a certain angle of the rover all they would need to do is position themselves around it.

First all of those photos would only require the rover to be moved one car width or so to remove any tracks from the photo.  Second, NASA does hire the best and the brightest, and a major portion of their expenses are to third parties for designing and producing the equipment that they use.  My grandfather was vice president of Collins radio during the Apollo missions, and he was contracted to produce the radio equipment.  He attended Stanford University, and he was not cheap.  So before you go insulting the intelligence of NASA employees and those contracted by NASA (recipients of NASA funds) please first consult my signature and consider if the person who said that would be part of the "best and brightest", because in my opinion you have no clue who the "best and brightest" are.

Alas, you did not answer my question, I know you think its a mistake, and I'm not assuming that NASA hires the best and the brightest, but by looking at photos where they included tracks, its obvious that they know that there should be tracks visible in photos(assuming they are faking them).  That is why some of the photos have tracks presumably.  So why would they decide to not include tracks in some of their photos?

And i have done tons of photos of cars (look at my picture) and every time i do i always wish i could just pick the car up and move it to exactly where i wish, but alas, its not 77.2 pounds.  That being said two astronauts moving the rover for a greaat picture seems less "ridiculous" than a NASA conspiracy.

What I am saying Tom, is that instead of going "the lunar rover made no tracks, that must mean CONSPIRACY OF ENTIRE LUNAR EXPIDITIONS!" perhaps a less radical assumption is in order.  For instance, maybe the 77.2 spread over 4 tires is not always enough to create noticeable tracks on cameras from 40 to 50 years ago.  There are a whole slew of explanations that are more reasonable than a NASA hoax, but you just ignore them and go straight for whatever supports your other ideas.

Sure NASA could have hoaxed everything, but it is far from the most likely option.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 04, 2011, 10:30:15 PM
Quote
You just ignored most of what I said. Please read it again and try to comprehend. I never said you would be expected to prove the absence of ghosts.

Well that's the topic you were replying to. The burden of proof is solely on the ghost claimant. If the ghost claimant presents some kind of evidence for the existence of ghosts it's the skeptic's duty to challenge it, just as I have been challenging the Apollo mission photographs here.
It's not on the ghost claimant if he has provided evidence and you have failed to provide a valid counter-argument. You haven't countered any of the vast amounts of evidence that the moon expedition did take place; instead you have a paltry amount of contrary evidence that has already been countered over and over throughout the years with no follow-up arguments. It's your move, but you choose to keep winding the game back to the first move as if the previous ones never happened.


Quote
The Lunar Module is not the Lunar Rover.

How embarrassing.

Indeed, that fact is embarrassing, for you -- because the rover is even smaller and lighter than the module and the tires have a much wider surface area than the feet, meaning the explanation about the module is even more applicable to the rover. Or did you even bother to read the explanation to see if it answered your question? I thought not. Laziness.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 05, 2011, 12:42:11 AM

Well that's the topic you were replying to. The burden of proof is solely on the ghost claimant. If the ghost claimant presents some kind of evidence for the existence of ghosts it's the skeptic's duty to challenge it, just as I have been challenging the Apollo mission photographs here.

Quote

Weren't you the one claiming that man didn't land on the Moon?

Come on lazy man, do some work if you want to prove the contrary!
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Moon squirter on December 05, 2011, 05:46:59 AM
Quote
You just ignored most of what I said. Please read it again and try to comprehend. I never said you would be expected to prove the absence of ghosts.

Well that's the topic you were replying to. The burden of proof is solely on the ghost claimant. If the ghost claimant presents some kind of evidence for the existence of ghosts it's the skeptic's duty to challenge it, just as I have been challenging the Apollo mission photographs here.

Tom, the burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim, proponent or sceptic.

This is not law.  This is not "presumption of innocence" for the defendant (sceptic).   This is reality. 
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: The Knowledge on December 05, 2011, 05:47:14 AM
Have fun:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

(3 seconds of intense search in Google)

Quote
The hoax advocates like to paint the picture that they are soldiers in a war against government corruption and stand for truth and justice. The thing I find most bothersome about the hoax advocates is their repeated failure to apply the scientific method, that is, the principles of discovery and demonstration considered necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. The hoax advocates routinely observe a phenomenon; they usually call it an anomaly, dream up one possible explanation for the anomaly, and then jump straight to the conclusion that their explanation is the correct one. They universally fail to put their claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them. It is this failing that irreparably damages the credibility of the hoax advocates.

He just crushed every single conspiracy theory in a paragraph. I envy that ability.

No, he didn't. He used argumentum ad hominems over and over again, and your desire to be correct caused you to agree with him.

Jeez, this guy is obsessed with trotting out accusations of fallacy in latin. Give it a rest, why don't you? I wouldn't mind so much if you were usually right, but here you're wrong again. Argumentum ad hominem is attempting to discredit an argument that someone puts forward by attacking them personally.
Here, the quote describes the methods commonly used by hoax advocates, and describes them - accurately - as lacking in verification. Attacking an argument on the basis of lacking verification is not argumentum ad hominem (as it attacks the argument logically with no comment on the poster), and describing the practice as being a common thing is also not argumentum ad hominem (as it criticises the poster but does not attempt to discredit the argument they put forward in terms of merit). Combining these two things should be called the Tausami Fallacy.
Similarly:
Saying "John Davis is a troll" is neither argumentum ad hominem nor the George Spock fallacy.
Saying "Pizza Planet's experiment was conducted with all the rigor that one would expect from a chimpanzee in a cake shop" is also not argumentum ad hominem.
Saying "Your theory has to be nonsense because it is supported by Tom Bishop" is, interestingly, a sort of argumentum ad hominem by proxy AND a kind of George Spock fallacy at the same time, though evidence would suggest it is very likely to be a 100% true statement.

No, this quote is the epitome of an ad hominem. Just because it doesn't blatantly say that we're retarded doesn't mean it isn't strongly implying it.

Tausami, you really need to understand that "argumentum ad hominem" is NOT just "being insulting about someone". It is attempting to discredit an argument by discrediting the person pitching the argument. For example "Tausami's theory is rubbish because he's a smelly, rotting chicken carcass" IS ad hominem, whereas "Tausami's theory can be ignored because he refuses to supply evidence to back it up and fails to put his claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them" is NOT ad hominem, as the non-application of rigorous science is not a personal attack on Tausami, but an attack on the quality of presented evidence.
Additionally, the statement "Hoax advocates are retarded" is NOT an ad hominem, merely an insult. To say "The argument pitched by hoax advocates is wrong BECAUSE they are retarded" IS an ad hominem. Do you see the difference?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 06, 2011, 12:52:25 PM
Have fun:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

(3 seconds of intense search in Google)

Quote
The hoax advocates like to paint the picture that they are soldiers in a war against government corruption and stand for truth and justice. The thing I find most bothersome about the hoax advocates is their repeated failure to apply the scientific method, that is, the principles of discovery and demonstration considered necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. The hoax advocates routinely observe a phenomenon; they usually call it an anomaly, dream up one possible explanation for the anomaly, and then jump straight to the conclusion that their explanation is the correct one. They universally fail to put their claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them. It is this failing that irreparably damages the credibility of the hoax advocates.

He just crushed every single conspiracy theory in a paragraph. I envy that ability.

No, he didn't. He used argumentum ad hominems over and over again, and your desire to be correct caused you to agree with him.

Jeez, this guy is obsessed with trotting out accusations of fallacy in latin. Give it a rest, why don't you? I wouldn't mind so much if you were usually right, but here you're wrong again. Argumentum ad hominem is attempting to discredit an argument that someone puts forward by attacking them personally.
Here, the quote describes the methods commonly used by hoax advocates, and describes them - accurately - as lacking in verification. Attacking an argument on the basis of lacking verification is not argumentum ad hominem (as it attacks the argument logically with no comment on the poster), and describing the practice as being a common thing is also not argumentum ad hominem (as it criticises the poster but does not attempt to discredit the argument they put forward in terms of merit). Combining these two things should be called the Tausami Fallacy.
Similarly:
Saying "John Davis is a troll" is neither argumentum ad hominem nor the George Spock fallacy.
Saying "Pizza Planet's experiment was conducted with all the rigor that one would expect from a chimpanzee in a cake shop" is also not argumentum ad hominem.
Saying "Your theory has to be nonsense because it is supported by Tom Bishop" is, interestingly, a sort of argumentum ad hominem by proxy AND a kind of George Spock fallacy at the same time, though evidence would suggest it is very likely to be a 100% true statement.

No, this quote is the epitome of an ad hominem. Just because it doesn't blatantly say that we're retarded doesn't mean it isn't strongly implying it.

Tausami, you really need to understand that "argumentum ad hominem" is NOT just "being insulting about someone". It is attempting to discredit an argument by discrediting the person pitching the argument. For example "Tausami's theory is rubbish because he's a smelly, rotting chicken carcass" IS ad hominem, whereas "Tausami's theory can be ignored because he refuses to supply evidence to back it up and fails to put his claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them" is NOT ad hominem, as the non-application of rigorous science is not a personal attack on Tausami, but an attack on the quality of presented evidence.
Additionally, the statement "Hoax advocates are retarded" is NOT an ad hominem, merely an insult. To say "The argument pitched by hoax advocates is wrong BECAUSE they are retarded" IS an ad hominem. Do you see the difference?

It is an ad Hominem if the entirety of the argument is an insult.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 06, 2011, 01:17:18 PM

http://apolloanomalies.com/images/ALSJ/AS15-88-11902HR.jpg

http://apolloanomalies.com/images/ALSJ/AS17-143-21836HR.jpg

http://apolloanomalies.com/images/ALSJ/AS17-143-21932HR.jpg

Look at the above images. There are no tracks leading up to the rover anywhere, at any angle. The astronauts didn't just angle it. They would have had to pick it up and carry it a ways.


If there's a problem with the tracks of the rover, it remains a problem wherever the pictures were taken. Footprints but no Rover tracks pose the same problem on Earth or on the Moon. And why should they have devised a complex staging with a crane? Why not push the Rover?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: The Knowledge on December 06, 2011, 01:51:42 PM

It is an ad Hominem if the entirety of the argument is an insult.

No, it's an ad hominem if the basis of the argument rests on an insult.
For god's sake, read this and then shut up about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on December 06, 2011, 06:02:52 PM
In the face of indisputable evidence that NASA is a fraud and the Apollo missions were faked the only response mustered is "you're trolling" and "lol."

RE'ers are in denial. It is sad to the extreme that they cannot come to terms with the fact that their authorities lying to them. Instead of beginning to seek, they bury their heads in ignorance and dogma, believing only what they are told to believe.

I understand that it is difficult to accept that everything you know about space science is a lie, but the evidence is just overwhelming: NASA is a fraud.

But I do think the authorities are lying.  NASA wasn't faked, that wasn't the point.  It was to use up production without increasing the quality of living.  The same with nuclear weapons, and anti-communist/anti-terrorist escapades, et cetera.  However, there is one thing that it is impossible to deny:  the Earth is round.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 06, 2011, 06:33:06 PM

It is an ad Hominem if the entirety of the argument is an insult.

No, it's an ad hominem if the basis of the argument rests on an insult.
For god's sake, read this and then shut up about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem

Semantics. That's what I meant.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on December 06, 2011, 07:33:49 PM

It is an ad Hominem if the entirety of the argument is an insult.

No, it's an ad hominem if the basis of the argument rests on an insult.
For god's sake, read this and then shut up about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem

Semantics. That's what I meant.
"Entirety" and "basis" mean very different things.  And the answer is, if it's the basis.  Even if there's something else involved, it's still a fallacy if the basis is an insult.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 07, 2011, 11:38:31 AM
In the face of indisputable evidence that NASA is a fraud and the Apollo missions were faked the only response mustered is "you're trolling" and "lol."

RE'ers are in denial. It is sad to the extreme that they cannot come to terms with the fact that their authorities lying to them. Instead of beginning to seek, they bury their heads in ignorance and dogma, believing only what they are told to believe.

I understand that it is difficult to accept that everything you know about space science is a lie, but the evidence is just overwhelming: NASA is a fraud.

You're not getting this kind of answers.

Do type "moon hoax debunking" on Google and you'll get some answers.

And anyway the so-clled proofs are only indirect proofs: it is not by saying "hey this thing dosn't make sense" that you prove it did'nt happen.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: The Knowledge on December 07, 2011, 01:00:56 PM

It is an ad Hominem if the entirety of the argument is an insult.

No, it's an ad hominem if the basis of the argument rests on an insult.
For god's sake, read this and then shut up about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem


Semantics. That's what I meant.

No, it's not semantics, it's actually something completely different. Here's an illustrative example:
Tausami's stinking argument, which I find offensive and makes me want to vomit, is rubbish of the worst order, just like he usually trots out, and fails because of the utterly laughable conceit that a chicken powered car would be capable of generating the energy required to reach the moon. How stupid.

Tausami would class that as an ad hominem, but it isn't. The entire post is insulting, but ONLY attacks the argument (that a chicken powered car could reach the moon) on the basis that the car could not generate enough energy. Despite references to the effect of the argument on the reader, and references to Tausami's less than shining post history, these are not held to have any bearing on why the argument fails.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Rushy on December 07, 2011, 01:08:35 PM
Please remember that a troll is someone who repeatedly makes the wrong argumentative choices or decisions by making small subtle and usually annoying mistakes. For example, Tausami repeatedly stating logical fallacies are in places they are not really present or feigning complete misunderstanding of their definition.

Occam's Razor: Does someone really not understand their definition under repeated circumstances or is that person purposfully making mistakes? The latter is more likely due to physical evidence that Tausami can not learn any new ideas. Therefore the first choice makes more assumptions than the latter. The latter is deemed true until further evidence is presented.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 12, 2011, 09:51:42 AM
Occam's razor only works with a proper theory, not with a hypothesis such as FE.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Rushy on December 12, 2011, 10:13:41 AM
Occam's razor only works with a proper theory, not with a hypothesis such as FE.

Did...did you even read my post?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: TheUnseenForce on December 14, 2011, 06:55:58 PM
Well this has gotten off topic. Still no map?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: dado on December 15, 2011, 08:05:00 AM
is it too much to ask for you fe's to post a map? If you are going to be posting links to 25 page threads then you can as well post a map here. So please do it. I'm curious. And then lets go from there.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Thork on December 15, 2011, 08:08:09 AM
is it too much to ask for you fe's to post a map? If you are going to be posting links to 25 page threads then you can as well post a map here. So please do it. I'm curious. And then lets go from there.
Maybe you should read the thread? There are maps and explanations right from the very first page.
Title: Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 15, 2011, 08:10:10 AM
I forgot to add: the map should also work in the absence of light. (Does darness bend too?)

Here's a representation of the Earth in absolute darkness:
(http://cdn2.mamapop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/black.square.jpg)

That's the kind of answer you get from a FE'er.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 15, 2011, 12:29:20 PM
is it too much to ask for you fe's to post a map? If you are going to be posting links to 25 page threads then you can as well post a map here. So please do it. I'm curious. And then lets go from there.
Maybe you should read the thread? There are maps and explanations right from the very first page.

No one has posted a FE map that both:

a) claims to be a UNIFORMLY scaled representation of the PHYSICAL reality of Earth
b) can be reconciled with known distances

All anyone has done is post RET-derived maps and say that mysterious properties of light and/or some bizarre variable map-scaling method account for the "apparent" shape of the map. We are asking for the "real" shape.

Imagine that there's a type of radar sitting high above Earth emitting perfectly straight, perpendicular beams which bounce off the surface and back. Using this data the radar constructs a computer model of what it "sees". What would this model look like?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Thork on December 15, 2011, 01:29:05 PM
This thread is asking the exact same questions as This thread (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50926.msg1248579#msg1248579)

Maybe a mod will merge the two? They are both about map projection.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 15, 2011, 03:02:35 PM
May be we get answers from this one?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on December 18, 2011, 06:23:16 PM
May be we get answers from this one?

Maybe we won't.  This is the shape of Africa based on known distances.

(http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/ventrilock/ventrilock1106/ventrilock110600018/9701377-3d-illustration-of-africa-reprensented-by-a-continent-gray-on-white-background.jpg)

There is no possible right map.  No such thing.  An accurate FE map is impossible.  Therefore, the Earth is not flat.  It just can't be.  I can't see any way.

It is, without a doubt, the ultimate challenge for FE'ers.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 20, 2011, 08:38:57 AM
The shape of Africa is based on wrong distances. This really is not a particularly difficult subject. The incorrect distances are based around the assumed distances on a Round Earth. There wasn't a person who walked across Africa with a pedometer.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 20, 2011, 08:52:33 AM
The shape of Africa is based on wrong distances. This really is not a particularly difficult subject. The incorrect distances are based around the assumed distances on a Round Earth. There wasn't a person who walked across Africa with a pedometer.

You're quite lonely here. Show us why the distances are wrong. Show us what right distances are.

Do you really think Africa was measured using a pedometer?

You're both ridiculous and ignorant.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 20, 2011, 08:56:18 AM
The shape of Africa is based on wrong distances. This really is not a particularly difficult subject. The incorrect distances are based around the assumed distances on a Round Earth. There wasn't a person who walked across Africa with a pedometer.

You're quite lonely here. Show us why the distances are wrong. Show us what right distances are.

Do you really think Africa was measured using a pedometer?

You're both ridiculous and ignorant.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51811.0

And no, I don't. That's the point. Cartographers determined the distance via maps made of it.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: ClockTower on December 20, 2011, 09:14:29 AM
The shape of Africa is based on wrong distances. This really is not a particularly difficult subject. The incorrect distances are based around the assumed distances on a Round Earth. There wasn't a person who walked across Africa with a pedometer.

You're quite lonely here. Show us why the distances are wrong. Show us what right distances are.

Do you really think Africa was measured using a pedometer?

You're both ridiculous and ignorant.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51811.0

And no, I don't. That's the point. Cartographers determined the distance via maps made of it.
strawman much?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 20, 2011, 09:25:04 AM
The shape of Africa is based on wrong distances. This really is not a particularly difficult subject. The incorrect distances are based around the assumed distances on a Round Earth. There wasn't a person who walked across Africa with a pedometer.

You're quite lonely here. Show us why the distances are wrong. Show us what right distances are.

Do you really think Africa was measured using a pedometer?

You're both ridiculous and ignorant.

Yeah, right. And those distances are never double or triple-checked. In which century do you live?

Show us why the distances are wrong. Show us what right distances are. (not the thred where momentia proves you wrong)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51811.0

And no, I don't. That's the point. Cartographers determined the distance via maps made of it.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 20, 2011, 09:47:01 AM
Sure they are. Via the same system. Or satellites, which are such a reliable source.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 20, 2011, 10:03:59 AM
Sure they are. Via the same system. Or satellites, which are such a reliable source.

Even if what you say made sense, how could measurement devices could constantly give exactly the same errors?

Show us why the distances are wrong. Show us what right distances are. (not the thred where momentia proves you wrong)
And if you got distances, you'd be able to draw a map of Africa.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 20, 2011, 02:33:23 PM
Tausami. Show us what right distances are.

How about this:

Imagine that there's a type of radar sitting high above Earth emitting perfectly straight, perpendicular beams which bounce off the surface and back. Using this data the radar constructs a computer model of what it "sees". What would this model look like?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 20, 2011, 03:37:52 PM
Tausami. Show us what right distances are.

How about this:

Imagine that there's a type of radar sitting high above Earth emitting perfectly straight, perpendicular beams which bounce off the surface and back. Using this data the radar constructs a computer model of what it "sees". What would this model look like?

(http://www.geoatlas.com/medias/maps/world%20maps%20and%20globes/polar/po65l699r98/Polar_pol1.jpg)


Sure they are. Via the same system. Or satellites, which are such a reliable source.

Even if what you say made sense, how could measurement devices could constantly give exactly the same errors?

Show us why the distances are wrong. Show us what right distances are. (not the thred where momentia proves you wrong)
And if you got distances, you'd be able to draw a map of Africa.

They give the same errors because they use the same system. The map readings are based on the idea that the Earth is round, and the distances are calculated as such. The satellite readings are manipulated by the Conspiracy.

Momentia doesn't prove me wrong in that 'thred'. He offers an improved equation, because it hadn't occurred to me to use cosigns.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 20, 2011, 04:38:09 PM
Tausami. Show us what right distances are.

How about this:

Imagine that there's a type of radar sitting high above Earth emitting perfectly straight, perpendicular beams which bounce off the surface and back. Using this data the radar constructs a computer model of what it "sees". What would this model look like?

(http://www.geoatlas.com/medias/maps/world%20maps%20and%20globes/polar/po65l699r98/Polar_pol1.jpg)


Sure they are. Via the same system. Or satellites, which are such a reliable source.

Even if what you say made sense, how could measurement devices could constantly give exactly the same errors?

Show us why the distances are wrong. Show us what right distances are. (not the thred where momentia proves you wrong)
And if you got distances, you'd be able to draw a map of Africa.

They give the same errors because they use the same system. The map readings are based on the idea that the Earth is round, and the distances are calculated as such. The satellite readings are manipulated by the Conspiracy.

Momentia doesn't prove me wrong in that 'thred'. He offers an improved equation, because it hadn't occurred to me to use cosigns.

Oh, another map made by RE'ers!
Oh, a nice projection of a sphere!

And if I follow what you say, it's either mistakes or conspiracy which gives RE distances. And they are always coherent. And they work, contrarily to your completely and utterly flawed gibberish.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 20, 2011, 04:51:52 PM
Do you have Alzheimer's? I posted the exact same map on page 12.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 20, 2011, 05:24:14 PM
Tausami. Read carefully.

Imagine that there's a type of radar sitting high above Earth emitting perfectly straight, perpendicular beams which bounce off the surface and back. Using this data the radar constructs a computer model of what it "sees". What would this model look like?

I said the probe sends perfectly straight perpendicular beams down. There should be no distortion, no changing scale. Australia is obviously not as large as Russia. Your map is obviously not what the probe would detect. Post a correct map. I'm asking for physical reality, not "polar projection".
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 20, 2011, 05:26:21 PM
Tausami. Read carefully.

Imagine that there's a type of radar sitting high above Earth emitting perfectly straight, perpendicular beams which bounce off the surface and back. Using this data the radar constructs a computer model of what it "sees". What would this model look like?

I said the probe sends perfectly straight perpendicular beams down. There should be no distortion, no changing scale. Australia is obviously not as large as Russia. Your map is obviously not what the probe would detect. Post a correct map. I'm asking for physical reality, not "polar projection".

You're still operating under the assumption that RET measurements are correct, which they are not.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 20, 2011, 05:34:17 PM
So you're telling me that a polar projection of RET's globe, with a variable scale based upon an arbitrarily chosen 75 degrees north, just happens to be an accurate physical representation of the true Flat Earth?

How does that work?

Why 75 degrees?

Is Australia as large as Russia? Yes or no.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 20, 2011, 05:39:07 PM
So you're telling me that a polar projection of RET's globe, with a variable scale based upon an arbitrarily chosen 75 degrees north, just happens to be an accurate physical representation of the true Flat Earth?

How does that work?

Why 75 degrees?

Is Australia as large as Russia? Yes or no.

What does the Arctic circle have to do with anything? For unknown (to me) reasons, the lines of latitude stop at the Arctic circle, but if you were to continue them, they'd all meet together at 90 degrees. They could have ended at any point and it would be exactly the same. Why is it important?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 20, 2011, 05:43:27 PM
How was that relevant to my post at all? You answered precisely zero of my questions. Try again.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: ClockTower on December 20, 2011, 06:47:18 PM
Momentia doesn't prove me wrong in that 'thred'. He offers an improved equation, because it hadn't occurred to me to use cosigns.
You've already admitted that you have no evidence that the map you've provided is accurate. Why are you still defending your fantasy?

Also, before complaining about the "thred" typo, you might want to learn how to spell "cosines".
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: TheUnseenForce on December 20, 2011, 09:23:48 PM
26 pages, no correct  FE maps. Looks like FET is false. Everybody go home.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: El Cid on December 21, 2011, 12:12:58 AM
If Australia is really bigger than the U.S., then why aren't they a world power?  U.S. became a world power after WWI because of its size, industrialization and economy.  Australia is big (in fe) and industrialized.

Also, if South America is quite a bit larger than the rest of the world, then why, when Spain colonized it, did they not become a huge world power, with the same reasoning?  It should have had a hugely greater effect.

In fact, you can apply FET to any number of historic events.  Somebody should rewrite history.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 21, 2011, 12:48:15 AM
Do you have Alzheimer's? I posted the exact same map on page 12.

Yep, you're doing the same mistakes again and again. Zero in cartography and geometry.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 21, 2011, 01:17:28 PM
Momentia doesn't prove me wrong in that 'thred'. He offers an improved equation, because it hadn't occurred to me to use cosigns.
You've already admitted that you have no evidence that the map you've provided is accurate. Why are you still defending your fantasy?

Also, before complaining about the "thred" typo, you might want to learn how to spell "cosines".

As I said, it works in FET.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 21, 2011, 01:18:47 PM
How was that relevant to my post at all? You answered precisely zero of my questions. Try again.

Because I was asking you to explain. What does 75 degrees north have to do with anything.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: ClockTower on December 21, 2011, 02:19:33 PM
Momentia doesn't prove me wrong in that 'thred'. He offers an improved equation, because it hadn't occurred to me to use cosigns.
You've already admitted that you have no evidence that the map you've provided is accurate. Why are you still defending your fantasy?

Also, before complaining about the "thred" typo, you might want to learn how to spell "cosines".

As I said, it works in FET.
Just so you know: saying it doesn't make it true.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 21, 2011, 02:21:17 PM
Momentia doesn't prove me wrong in that 'thred'. He offers an improved equation, because it hadn't occurred to me to use cosigns.
You've already admitted that you have no evidence that the map you've provided is accurate. Why are you still defending your fantasy?

Also, before complaining about the "thred" typo, you might want to learn how to spell "cosines".

As I said, it works in FET.
Just so you know: saying it doesn't make it true.

It isn't true in RET. It is true in FET.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: ClockTower on December 21, 2011, 02:24:34 PM
Momentia doesn't prove me wrong in that 'thred'. He offers an improved equation, because it hadn't occurred to me to use cosigns.
You've already admitted that you have no evidence that the map you've provided is accurate. Why are you still defending your fantasy?

Also, before complaining about the "thred" typo, you might want to learn how to spell "cosines".

As I said, it works in FET.
Just so you know: saying it doesn't make it true.

It isn't true in RET. It is true in FET.
I never said it was true in RET. What are you arguing?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 21, 2011, 03:08:43 PM
How was that relevant to my post at all? You answered precisely zero of my questions. Try again.

Because I was asking you to explain. What does 75 degrees north have to do with anything.

Tausami, the point is that the map you gave was based on arbitrarily chosen values. For instance, using the exact same formula as your map, this one can be generated:

(http://i.imgur.com/mobM9.gif)

As you can see, the physical distances are all different. Because it's not a distance-preserving map. Yet you claim that the version you posted is indeed the physical reality of Earth. My question is, why does the particular iteration (of a formula based upon RET assumptions, no less) that you posted happen to be the correct one? Why not the one above?

And you still haven't answered the most basic question: Is Australia as large as Russia? Yes or no.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 21, 2011, 06:22:08 PM
How was that relevant to my post at all? You answered precisely zero of my questions. Try again.

Because I was asking you to explain. What does 75 degrees north have to do with anything.

Tausami, the point is that the map you gave was based on arbitrarily chosen values. For instance, using the exact same formula as your map, this one can be generated:

(http://i.imgur.com/mobM9.gif)

As you can see, the physical distances are all different. Because it's not a distance-preserving map. Yet you claim that the version you posted is indeed the physical reality of Earth. My question is, why does the particular iteration (of a formula based upon RET assumptions, no less) that you posted happen to be the correct one? Why not the one above?

And you still haven't answered the most basic question: Is Australia as large as Russia? Yes or no.

I can't tell you for certain, because I've yet to circumnavigate the world. And I see what you're saying and the answer is that it's impossible for me to tell until my circumnavigation.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 21, 2011, 08:16:03 PM
Well I'll save you some trouble and tell you what the results are. Millions of people have relied on these maps for at least 500 years. All versions of this type of map are correct, as long as they're used for travelling outward from the center. That's because they're all projections of a sphere. If these were maps of a Flat Earth as you claim, it would be impossible for more than one version to simultaneously be reliable using the exact same method of measurement (from the center). But they are. Explain.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: davidmhw on December 22, 2011, 02:04:26 AM
Sorry. New here and I'm having trouble believing this is a serious debate. One question to any FE'ers out there. Have any of you actually left your own country/continent? Very simple to disprove your 'theory'. I've been on every continent except Australia and Antarctica. In fact I've circumnavigated the globe about 3 times. It's not flat. I promise. I've flown from South Africa to Singapore to Calgery, Canada. Stayed a few weeks, continued on to New York, then London, Paris, back down through Africa to Cape Town. I've been the other way round too. There, an eye witness account. If anyone has completed a similar trip and still believes in FET, please respond with a counter argument. Thank you.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 22, 2011, 09:20:39 AM
Sorry. New here and I'm having trouble believing this is a serious debate. One question to any FE'ers out there. Have any of you actually left your own country/continent? Very simple to disprove your 'theory'. I've been on every continent except Australia and Antarctica. In fact I've circumnavigated the globe about 3 times. It's not flat. I promise. I've flown from South Africa to Singapore to Calgery, Canada. Stayed a few weeks, continued on to New York, then London, Paris, back down through Africa to Cape Town. I've been the other way round too. There, an eye witness account. If anyone has completed a similar trip and still believes in FET, please respond with a counter argument. Thank you.

You get that circumnavigation is entirely possible on a flat Earth, right?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 22, 2011, 11:16:52 AM
If these were maps of a Flat Earth as you claim, it would be impossible for more than one version to simultaneously be reliable using the exact same method of measurement (from the center). But they are. Explain.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: PizzaPlanet on December 22, 2011, 08:04:29 PM
Sorry. New here and I'm having trouble believing this is a serious debate. One question to any FE'ers out there. Have any of you actually left your own country/continent?
Yes, and yes. I'm from Poland and I study in the United Kingdom. I have also made visits to numerous European countries and the United States of America.

Very simple to disprove your 'theory'. I've been on every continent except Australia and Antarctica. In fact I've circumnavigated the globe about 3 times.
Are you also an astronomer, sailor, military plane pilot and Luke Skywalker? Trust me, we get many people who claim they're a combination of these. They just forget to substantiate their claims.

It's not flat. I promise.
How have you established that?

I've flown from South Africa to Singapore to Calgery, Canada. Stayed a few weeks, continued on to New York, then London, Paris, back down through Africa to Cape Town. I've been the other way round too. There, an eye witness account.
Okay, so you've circumnavigated the Earth. That's great, but it proves nothing about the Earth's rotundity and/or flatness.

If anyone has completed a similar trip and still believes in FET, please respond with a counter argument. Thank you.
What exactly do you want a counter-argument for? You forgot to make a claim, other than "It's not flat, I promise". An excellent counter-argument to that would be "I assure you it is, in fact, flat".

If these were maps of a Flat Earth as you claim, it would be impossible for more than one version to simultaneously be reliable using the exact same method of measurement (from the center). But they are. Explain.
No, you explain. Why do you think it would be impossible for two different maps to be reliable? Try to be coherent this time. Also, this is not how you use bold letters. It just makes you look dumb.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 22, 2011, 09:47:46 PM
Quote
No, you explain. Why do you think it would be impossible for two different maps to be reliable?

Very well. I'll try to simplify this as much as I can.

Remember that distance can only be measured accurately on these maps for paths that come directly from the center.

On a round Earth, a path out of the north pole (http://www.geoatlas.com/medias/maps/world%20maps%20and%20globes/polar/po65l699r98/Polar_pol1.jpg) from anywhere within a cone of about 40 degrees (covering the appropriate degrees longitude) will arrive at Australia. Trace it on a globe to see how it works. That's why Australia looks large -- because it can be reached from a wide angle of paths. On the second map (http://i.imgur.com/mobM9.gif), Australia looks even larger (it's the big yellow splotch in the top left). That's because the point of origin -- the center -- can reach Australia from an even wider array of angles -- almost 90 degrees.

On a flat Earth, Australia is on the same plane as the starting point in both cases, which means it must actually be the size it appears to be on the map to fit inside that cone. Indeed, Tausami claims that his map is not distorted, but you probably don't know that as you obviously haven't been following along.

But it's a different size on the second map. So only one map can be correct if Earth is flat. Australia has only one size. Both maps cover the same amount of land, and Australia is roughly the same distance from the center in both maps. Australia cannot simultaneously fill (and only fill) a 40-degree cone and a 90-degree cone at the same distance.

Unless of course it's a projection of a sphere.

PizzaPlanet: Do you believe in FET?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: The Knowledge on December 23, 2011, 07:43:49 AM
Sorry. New here and I'm having trouble believing this is a serious debate. One question to any FE'ers out there. Have any of you actually left your own country/continent? Very simple to disprove your 'theory'. I've been on every continent except Australia and Antarctica. In fact I've circumnavigated the globe about 3 times. It's not flat. I promise. I've flown from South Africa to Singapore to Calgery, Canada. Stayed a few weeks, continued on to New York, then London, Paris, back down through Africa to Cape Town. I've been the other way round too. There, an eye witness account. If anyone has completed a similar trip and still believes in FET, please respond with a counter argument. Thank you.

You get that circumnavigation is entirely possible on a flat Earth, right?

No it isn't. Not until you've explained how INS fails to detect curvature of path to left or right.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 23, 2011, 01:22:03 PM
Sorry. New here and I'm having trouble believing this is a serious debate. One question to any FE'ers out there. Have any of you actually left your own country/continent? Very simple to disprove your 'theory'. I've been on every continent except Australia and Antarctica. In fact I've circumnavigated the globe about 3 times. It's not flat. I promise. I've flown from South Africa to Singapore to Calgery, Canada. Stayed a few weeks, continued on to New York, then London, Paris, back down through Africa to Cape Town. I've been the other way round too. There, an eye witness account. If anyone has completed a similar trip and still believes in FET, please respond with a counter argument. Thank you.

You get that circumnavigation is entirely possible on a flat Earth, right?

No it isn't. Not until you've explained how INS fails to detect curvature of path to left or right.

Because the amount of turning considered to be 'zero' is actually the amount required to circumnavigate.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on December 23, 2011, 01:24:57 PM
Sorry. New here and I'm having trouble believing this is a serious debate. One question to any FE'ers out there. Have any of you actually left your own country/continent? Very simple to disprove your 'theory'. I've been on every continent except Australia and Antarctica. In fact I've circumnavigated the globe about 3 times. It's not flat. I promise. I've flown from South Africa to Singapore to Calgery, Canada. Stayed a few weeks, continued on to New York, then London, Paris, back down through Africa to Cape Town. I've been the other way round too. There, an eye witness account. If anyone has completed a similar trip and still believes in FET, please respond with a counter argument. Thank you.

You get that circumnavigation is entirely possible on a flat Earth, right?

No it isn't. Not until you've explained how INS fails to detect curvature of path to left or right.

Because the amount of turning considered to be 'zero' is actually the amount required to circumnavigate.

How is a non-negative non-zero curvature considered to be 'zero' ?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: The Knowledge on December 23, 2011, 02:15:21 PM
Sorry. New here and I'm having trouble believing this is a serious debate. One question to any FE'ers out there. Have any of you actually left your own country/continent? Very simple to disprove your 'theory'. I've been on every continent except Australia and Antarctica. In fact I've circumnavigated the globe about 3 times. It's not flat. I promise. I've flown from South Africa to Singapore to Calgery, Canada. Stayed a few weeks, continued on to New York, then London, Paris, back down through Africa to Cape Town. I've been the other way round too. There, an eye witness account. If anyone has completed a similar trip and still believes in FET, please respond with a counter argument. Thank you.

You get that circumnavigation is entirely possible on a flat Earth, right?

No it isn't. Not until you've explained how INS fails to detect curvature of path to left or right.

Because the amount of turning considered to be 'zero' is actually the amount required to circumnavigate.

No, completely wrong. Stop making shit up (am I allowed to borrow the standard anti-Bishop response for this?)
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 23, 2011, 02:24:44 PM
Sorry. New here and I'm having trouble believing this is a serious debate. One question to any FE'ers out there. Have any of you actually left your own country/continent? Very simple to disprove your 'theory'. I've been on every continent except Australia and Antarctica. In fact I've circumnavigated the globe about 3 times. It's not flat. I promise. I've flown from South Africa to Singapore to Calgery, Canada. Stayed a few weeks, continued on to New York, then London, Paris, back down through Africa to Cape Town. I've been the other way round too. There, an eye witness account. If anyone has completed a similar trip and still believes in FET, please respond with a counter argument. Thank you.

You get that circumnavigation is entirely possible on a flat Earth, right?

No it isn't. Not until you've explained how INS fails to detect curvature of path to left or right.

Because the amount of turning considered to be 'zero' is actually the amount required to circumnavigate.

How is a non-negative non-zero curvature considered to be 'zero' ?

Because the INS is coded. It has a point which it considers to be no curvature. And that point is not actually no curvature.

Also, developed by NASA. Not suspicious or anything.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: The Knowledge on December 23, 2011, 03:48:57 PM


Because the INS is coded. It has a point which it considers to be no curvature. And that point is not actually no curvature.

Also, developed by NASA. Not suspicious or anything.

Yay, Tausami even provides his own bullshit at the same time as showing he has no clue how INS works or what it does.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 24, 2011, 02:57:24 PM


Because the INS is coded. It has a point which it considers to be no curvature. And that point is not actually no curvature.

Also, developed by NASA. Not suspicious or anything.

Yay, Tausami even provides his own bullshit at the same time as showing he has no clue how INS works or what it does.

If I had no idea, I wouldn't know that it was by NASA, now would I?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 24, 2011, 07:13:10 PM
1. They're not by NASA.
2. Stop derailing.

If these were maps of a Flat Earth as you claim, it would be impossible for more than one version to simultaneously be reliable using the exact same method of measurement (from the center). But they are. Explain.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 24, 2011, 07:30:37 PM
1. They're not by NASA.
2. Stop derailing.

If these were maps of a Flat Earth as you claim, it would be impossible for more than one version to simultaneously be reliable using the exact same method of measurement (from the center). But they are. Explain.

1. Sure they are. Wernher von Braun (Nazi war criminal) invented it for the American rockets he made. On a side note, I find it amusing that the conspiracy was started by ex-Nazis.

2. Sorry.

The second map is not in any way, shape, or form accurate. If there's one distance NASA couldn't possibly lie about, it's the width of the Atlantic Ocean between America and Europe.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 24, 2011, 10:21:26 PM
I'm sorry, I didn't notice that you misspelled "Nazi". NASA is pronounced slightly differently and is not the same thing.

Anyway, please pay attention. I have explained multiple times already that this type of map projection is accurate only for paths from the center. And the second map does work just as accurately for that as yours does, even though it's based on a different center. This can't work with a 2D shape.

And you still haven't explained why a formula for projecting one axis from an arbitrary point on RET's sphere just happens to be the accurate FET reality for both axes.

Oh and, now NASA is lying about distances on a map? Since when? You can't even keep your own conspiracy theories straight.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 25, 2011, 08:21:05 AM
I'm sorry, I didn't notice that you misspelled "Nazi". NASA is pronounced slightly differently and is not the same thing.

Anyway, please pay attention. I have explained multiple times already that this type of map projection is accurate only for paths from the center. And the second map does work just as accurately for that as yours does, even though it's based on a different center. This can't work with a 2D shape.

And you still haven't explained why a formula for projecting one axis from an arbitrary point on RET's sphere just happens to be the accurate FET reality for both axes.

Oh and, now NASA is lying about distances on a map? Since when? You can't even keep your own conspiracy theories straight.

*sigh*
Wernher von Braun was a Nazi. We went to an American jail after WWII, and was forced to work for us. He was one of the founders of NASA, and was instrumental in the design of the Saturn V rocket.

An of course NASA is lying about distances on a map. They didn't come up with the lie, but they have to work to keep it up. The Atlantic is too commonly traveled for them to lie about it successfully.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: markjo on December 25, 2011, 10:13:39 AM
1. They're not by NASA.
2. Stop derailing.

If these were maps of a Flat Earth as you claim, it would be impossible for more than one version to simultaneously be reliable using the exact same method of measurement (from the center). But they are. Explain.

1. Sure they are. Wernher von Braun (Nazi war criminal) invented it for the American rockets he made.

Only after he stole the idea from American rocket pioneer Robert Goddard.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 25, 2011, 12:20:04 PM
Quote
They didn't come up with the lie, but they have to work to keep it up.

I thought everyone at NASA believes the world is a sphere and maps are correct? You can't lie about something that you don't know is false.

And who was "working to keep it up" for the hundreds of years we used the same maps before NASA existed? Don't answer that. If you want to continue babbling about your myopic NASA obsession, please do so in a different thread. Please get back on topic:

I have explained multiple times already that this type of map projection is accurate only for paths from the center. And the second map does work just as accurately for that as yours does, even though it's based on a different center. This can't work with a 2D shape.

And you still haven't explained why a formula for projecting one axis from an arbitrary point on RET's sphere just happens to be the accurate FET reality for both axes.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Silverdane on December 26, 2011, 06:03:39 AM
Is it possible church teocracies, educators and other forms of medieval education are the very ones that promoted this RET myth in the first place?

Since education began with empires, it's intention was to convert many feeble young minds. By feeding them such lies as you currently operate.

The ammount of vomit peddled by educators in imperialist dogmatic cults such as Britain, Spain, France, Austria, Russia .... was beyond your ability to swallow.

They are the only ones who created this shameless delusion. That is the meaning of that stupid ball they hold in a hand. They control your head, by forcing you to think their lie of rotundity. They hold both the key to that lie, a tiny round ballette in their hand. Holding it, like the fate of the cultist idiots who worship RET.

Or the most likely scenario where RET was only accepted by the larger mass of peasants and commoners, whom contrary to all fantasy and fiction, were not the innocent, victims and moralistic good hearted individuals you see in every fanfiction movie about the Medieval or Fantasy ages.

They were in fact, imperialistic idiots, whom eagerly embraced any lie, even something as dimwitted as RET, because it proves your undying, eternal (almost sexual worship) form of devotion to your earthly leader. Whom you follow with such fervour you are ready to defy the entire Flat Earth, by pretending to believe in the lies of your cowardly leader.

That's what it symbolises. The symbolic conquest of the Earth, by holding it all at once, like you hold oranges or any round piece of something.

And most of you and your RET herd of sheeple are so far reduced to ignorance and unintelligence, by the vast amount of peasant heritage in your ancestry, that you have little chance to have had an intelligent FET believer in your ranks.

For example, in Europe. No one here has any proof the earth isn't flat. They just teach it in schools, like geography, history, maths, physics, chemistry, information, and so many others. When they're not even supposed to, they throw it in there, to further push their slimey agenda.

Do they prove this? Ever? Are they ... are they ever going to? If you ask any school teacher in Europe if they can literally prove the Earth isn't Flat .... do you think they will?

No. Zero chance of that happening. In all of bloody Europe, there isn't a simple person who teaches young slaves the RET Dogma who goes beyond fanatical worship of RET, to actually take the time to prove it. Or at least disprove FET, while they're at it.

Imagine that. All that stupid blaggardey civilisation and all their stupid failed empires aren't even capable, with all their massive resources .... to prove the Earth isn't Flat.

Basically this is just like the Medieval Ages, when they first sought to impose their RET idiocy. Only they have better painters now.

Before this, they had to hire painters and other such useless artists, to paint their lies, for others to be able to understand them. Imagine that.

Only you won't. You will never admit your cretinous Dogma was not even taken seriously by it's RET "suggestors" who also cannot even prove now, in the so called "21st century". That FET is "wrong", or RET "righter than right".

In fact, it's those same piglets that investigated ways for themselves to fly. It's not like anyone can just build an air craft, jump on it, hover above the world and prove it's flat. Nope.

Only the ones who tyranically control these things sought to promote their RET lies. Which is why most air crafts were devised in the first place. To get idiots, not much unlike yourself, to swallow their bile.

Again, I ask you from this very earth you stand upon. Can you prove, from the surface of this very earth you're currently ON, that it isn't flat?

Of course not.

Can you prove from the sea, the sea and earth aren't flat? Of course not.

Can you prove from the air, the sea, earth and air aren't also flat? Of course not.

Your impotence stinks to High Heaven. Little RET piglets should know their place. Lest they become bacon 'pon my Christmas table.

I thank you.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: jraffield1 on December 26, 2011, 12:30:34 PM
Is it possible church teocracies, educators and other forms of medieval education are the very ones that promoted this RET myth in the first place?

Since education began with empires, it's intention was to convert many feeble young minds. By feeding them such lies as you currently operate.

The ammount of vomit peddled by educators in imperialist dogmatic cults such as Britain, Spain, France, Austria, Russia .... was beyond your ability to swallow.

They are the only ones who created this shameless delusion. That is the meaning of that stupid ball they hold in a hand. They control your head, by forcing you to think their lie of rotundity. They hold both the key to that lie, a tiny round ballette in their hand. Holding it, like the fate of the cultist idiots who worship RET.

Or the most likely scenario where RET was only accepted by the larger mass of peasants and commoners, whom contrary to all fantasy and fiction, were not the innocent, victims and moralistic good hearted individuals you see in every fanfiction movie about the Medieval or Fantasy ages.

They were in fact, imperialistic idiots, whom eagerly embraced any lie, even something as dimwitted as RET, because it proves your undying, eternal (almost sexual worship) form of devotion to your earthly leader. Whom you follow with such fervour you are ready to defy the entire Flat Earth, by pretending to believe in the lies of your cowardly leader.

That's what it symbolises. The symbolic conquest of the Earth, by holding it all at once, like you hold oranges or any round piece of something.

And most of you and your RET herd of sheeple are so far reduced to ignorance and unintelligence, by the vast amount of peasant heritage in your ancestry, that you have little chance to have had an intelligent FET believer in your ranks.

For example, in Europe. No one here has any proof the earth isn't flat. They just teach it in schools, like geography, history, maths, physics, chemistry, information, and so many others. When they're not even supposed to, they throw it in there, to further push their slimey agenda.

Do they prove this? Ever? Are they ... are they ever going to? If you ask any school teacher in Europe if they can literally prove the Earth isn't Flat .... do you think they will?

No. Zero chance of that happening. In all of bloody Europe, there isn't a simple person who teaches young slaves the RET Dogma who goes beyond fanatical worship of RET, to actually take the time to prove it. Or at least disprove FET, while they're at it.

Imagine that. All that stupid blaggardey civilisation and all their stupid failed empires aren't even capable, with all their massive resources .... to prove the Earth isn't Flat.

Basically this is just like the Medieval Ages, when they first sought to impose their RET idiocy. Only they have better painters now.

Before this, they had to hire painters and other such useless artists, to paint their lies, for others to be able to understand them. Imagine that.

Only you won't. You will never admit your cretinous Dogma was not even taken seriously by it's RET "suggestors" who also cannot even prove now, in the so called "21st century". That FET is "wrong", or RET "righter than right".

In fact, it's those same piglets that investigated ways for themselves to fly. It's not like anyone can just build an air craft, jump on it, hover above the world and prove it's flat. Nope.

Only the ones who tyranically control these things sought to promote their RET lies. Which is why most air crafts were devised in the first place. To get idiots, not much unlike yourself, to swallow their bile.

Again, I ask you from this very earth you stand upon. Can you prove, from the surface of this very earth you're currently ON, that it isn't flat?

Of course not.

Can you prove from the sea, the sea and earth aren't flat? Of course not.

Can you prove from the air, the sea, earth and air aren't also flat? Of course not.

Your impotence stinks to High Heaven. Little RET piglets should know their place. Lest they become bacon 'pon my Christmas table.

I thank you.

Lol, the first documented arguments for a round Earth started with the ancient Greeks, not the middle ages. There was no "RET lie" for people to accept, they took the experiments that had been done before and the evidence available since 500 BC and made the logical assessment that the Earth is indeed round. Of course today this fact has been proven without a doubt by innumerable methods and experiments.

I believe that's check-mate  8)
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 26, 2011, 12:32:13 PM
Will someone please just let Silverdane into FEB already and close the door?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 26, 2011, 12:36:38 PM
Ignore him. He's just Levee's alt.

why a formula for projecting one axis from an arbitrary point on RET's sphere just happens to be the accurate FET reality for both axes.

I'm still not really sure what you mean by this. What formula?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 26, 2011, 12:55:36 PM
This one (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AzimuthalEquidistantProjection.html).

The formula is vitally dependent on the assumption that Earth is a sphere. Any map using this formula, which yours is just one of many, is accurate. This is impossible with anything but a sphere.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Pseudointellect on December 30, 2011, 02:18:37 AM
Every single flat earth map seems to be bent or distorted in a way that you would expect if it was actually a 2d projection of a 3d world. FISHY AINT IT, flat earthers?!?!
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 11:39:13 AM
Every single flat earth map seems to be bent or distorted in a way that you would expect if it was actually a 2d projection of a 3d world. FISHY AINT IT, flat earthers?!?!

Every single RET fanatic seems to be against the idea of digging.

Do you somehow fear digging deep in the Earth, because you think you will fall off the World, through it's bottom side?

I see 99% of RET in this world, I see 0% of RET actually digging .... tunnels vertically in the Earth's Crust, to prove that liniar travel through it, confirms the RET, in any way.

It does not. You RET people don't dig, you just fap your mouths spitting froth everywhere.

If all you billions of RET enthusiasts actually dug a tunnel from America to Europe, perfectly liniar, and beneath the Atlantic, this will prove the surface above that tunnel is curved.

Why don't you go ahead and dig, if you're so eager to prove your fat self.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 30, 2011, 11:40:58 AM
Every single flat earth map seems to be bent or distorted in a way that you would expect if it was actually a 2d projection of a 3d world. FISHY AINT IT, flat earthers?!?!

Is there any particular reason why it shouldn't be so? Actually, how else could it possibly be?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 30, 2011, 01:13:01 PM
The projection formulae are based on spherical geometry.

Again, this is your map (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AzimuthalEquidistantProjection.html). It is accurate for paths crossing the center, no matter where it's centered on. The diagram in this link shows a map centered on the equator. The official FE map is centered on the north pole. The one I posted above is centered on eastern USA. They are all the same formula, based on a sphere. They all work. How?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: ClockTower on December 30, 2011, 04:30:21 PM
Every single flat earth map seems to be bent or distorted in a way that you would expect if it was actually a 2d projection of a 3d world. FISHY AINT IT, flat earthers?!?!

Is there any particular reason why it shouldn't be so? Actually, how else could it possibly be?
Great point. Since the earth doesn't accurately project into a 2d map, then the Earth cannot be flat. Thanks!
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 04:32:51 PM
Great point. Since the earth doesn't accurately project into a 2d map, then the Earth cannot be flat. Thanks!

But what if it were flat? What if you're flogging a dead horse?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: ClockTower on December 30, 2011, 04:38:23 PM
Great point. Since the earth doesn't accurately project into a 2d map, then the Earth cannot be flat. Thanks!

But what if it were flat? What if you're flogging a dead horse?
It can't be based solely on TS's statement and deductive reasoning. Do you need help with the logic? If so, please ask a relevant question.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 04:49:03 PM
It can't be based solely on TS's statement and deductive reasoning. Do you need help with the logic? If so, please ask a relevant question.

Very well. Isn't RET exactly like Pyramidal Earth Theory, or Hollow Earth Theory, or Inner World Theory? You know the one where we actually live on the inside of a hollowed out world?

RET has no discernable, resonable arguments. Neither do any of those wild ridiculous theories, which many people across the flat earth are already taking seriously, despite only evidence for the Flat Earth presenting itself everywhere.

If I tell you most visible forms of geography are actually flat, would you try to contest this as well? Would you try to prove a flat table wasn't flat? Would you try to prove to me a flat lake isn't flat?

Well, would you?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: ClockTower on December 30, 2011, 04:55:59 PM
It can't be based solely on TS's statement and deductive reasoning. Do you need help with the logic? If so, please ask a relevant question.

Very well. Isn't RET exactly like Pyramidal Earth Theory, or Hollow Earth Theory, or Inner World Theory? You know the one where we actually live on the inside of a hollowed out world?

RET has no discernable, resonable arguments. Neither do any of those wild ridiculous theories, which many people across the flat earth are already taking seriously, despite only evidence for the Flat Earth presenting itself everywhere.

If I tell you most visible forms of geography are actually flat, would you try to contest this as well? Would you try to prove a flat table wasn't flat? Would you try to prove to me a flat lake isn't flat?

Well, would you?
No.
Yes.
False.
False.
Yes.
Yes. Indeed I have successfully. Ask Thork about perfectly flat glass.
Yes.

Saying something is true does not make it true.
Calling something flat does make it flat.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 04:58:42 PM
So ..... what?

Try answering the question individually, I have no patience to see which of your answers matches which of my questions.

I thank you.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: ClockTower on December 30, 2011, 05:03:27 PM
So ..... what?

Try answering the question individually, I have no patience to see which of your answers matches which of my questions.

I thank you.
Though I can't understand your broken English here, I did answer or respond to each question or comment individually. They are in order by sentence. Matching is very easy.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 05:06:44 PM
So if you lived in a world where Hollow Earth was the Ad Populous argument, would you always immediately accept the most popular of geographic theories?

If the same were true, only for Flat Earth, and everyone believe Flat Earth as they now believe Round Earth, which side would you be on?

If all those NASA pictures and whatever else is there, only supported the Earth's Flatness, what would you do then?

I am most curious, little one.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 05:16:44 PM
No.
Yes.
False.
False.
Yes.
Yes. Indeed I have successfully. Ask Thork about perfectly flat glass.
Yes.

Saying something is true does not make it true.
Calling something flat does make it flat.

I see. You have a phobia of Flatness. Flatophobia.

May I recommend therapy, little one?

The first step is being confronted directly with very large flat areas. Once you have passed the first stage, you will write "The Earth is Flat" on a board enough times.

Then you will ingest medication, that has been first smashed and flattened, to get you up and used with the idea of Flat Things.

Then we'll talk. Because talking to you until then, may be harmful to your ego, which refused to believe flat surfaces actually exist.

Now consider this the first step to your therapy against Flatophobia (Intellectual Exposure):

If enough people walk on a world of any form, for long enough .... would the pressure of their feet actually flatten that World out, since every step they take constantly pushes the world's surface into a flat earth?

Is this actually the best logical, historical and visual argument you have yet to hear for the Flat Earth?

Have you ever seen the two sides of any given flat sword? You realise that sword was flattened out with a flat hammer, to increase it's density, and make both it's sides into the flat looking surfaces you see?

Do you realise those swords are actually .... not spherical at all?

Consider this the second part of your Flatophobia Therapy (Direct Exposure):

(http://www.cbswords.com/images/samwisemc.jpg)

(http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/symbolism/sword_wavy.gif)

(http://www.go4costumes.com/stockimages/21359.jpg)

(http://www.scottishmist.com/assets/weapons/Celtic_Sword.jpg)

Now, would you very kindly say the first word that comes to your mind, as you look upon each of those (flat____) swords?

You're making progress, there !! Watch out, you might just come out of the Round Closet there, little one.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 30, 2011, 05:19:23 PM
If all those NASA pictures and whatever else is there, only supported the Earth's Flatness, what would you do then?

Show me an example of what NASA's pictures would look like in such a scenario, and I will answer this question.

Also stop spamming pictures of swords.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 05:25:11 PM
They would show very large pictures of the world, with very large horizons, and showing a semicircle with a lighter region, lit up by the sun shining towards it, with mostly twilight and darkness in the rest of the Flat Earth.

If NASA really put their minds towards this, they could fool the entire world the Earth is Flat, even if those pictures are just fakes, and not real.

Now imagine what they could do with actual real pictures of the Flat Earth. Yay !!!

Then the real exploration of the Other Worlds can begin. No more running in flat circles over Canada for you NASA losers.

Serious geography would have to change accordingly.

NASA does have the resources to fake a Flat Earth, most definately. Yet it doesn't. Perhaps it's too busy to fake only the Round Earth?

Hmmm, so many questions, and no answers you can provide.
TRAGIC !!
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 05:28:20 PM

Show me an example of what NASA's pictures would look like in such a scenario, and I will answer this question.

Also stop spamming pictures of swords.

Something like these, I'm guessing.

(http://makingmaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/flat-earth1.jpg)

(http://neosurrealismart.com/modern-art-prints/?images/final-frontier-voyager-fes-the-flat-earth-society.jpg)

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_x0tbqXdMlkc/TU-VuLfkVAI/AAAAAAAAAGQ/7SkmfXEsN3U/s1600/flat_earth-edit.jpg)

(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcREMe7cwyYTwG0uqDoYrdrcaGGiK-0AVBU8q3zFVyIiQRJsv0ixzVqczeny)
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 30, 2011, 06:59:27 PM

Show me an example of what NASA's pictures would look like in such a scenario, and I will answer this question.

Also stop spamming pictures of swords.

Something like these, I'm guessing.

<img>


Okay. Then my answer is: I would ask NASA to explain the discrepancies in latitudinal distances.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 07:15:09 PM
Okay. Then my answer is: I would ask NASA to explain the discrepancies in latitudinal distances.

You mean why Africa, Australia or Latin America aren't twelve times bigger in NASA's Earth Theory?

Depends on which maps you're going with.

If my guesstimate is right, the circular latitude of the Flat Earth at 45* in Europe and Canada, should have a diametre of ..... 10.000 km?

Which means in the outer Seas, Australia, Latin America and Africa should belong to a 45* southern latitude with a diametre of ...... 15.000 km?

And Antarctica should have a diametre of 20.000 km, at the Antarctic Circle, at about 90* latitude?

Is this right so far?

You would ask NASA why the Antarctic continents aren't twice the size of the Arctic continents, like Asia, Europe and North America?

Or did I misread the question?
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 30, 2011, 08:27:45 PM
Or did I misread the question?

Very probably.

I would want NASA to explain why the distance from a west coast to an east coast is different than what cartographers have been measuring for centuries.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 30, 2011, 09:42:13 PM
Every single flat earth map seems to be bent or distorted in a way that you would expect if it was actually a 2d projection of a 3d world. FISHY AINT IT, flat earthers?!?!

Is there any particular reason why it shouldn't be so? Actually, how else could it possibly be?
Great point. Since the earth doesn't accurately project into a 2d map, then the Earth cannot be flat. Thanks!

>implying that RET distances are accurate
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: ClockTower on December 30, 2011, 10:52:48 PM
Every single flat earth map seems to be bent or distorted in a way that you would expect if it was actually a 2d projection of a 3d world. FISHY AINT IT, flat earthers?!?!

Is there any particular reason why it shouldn't be so? Actually, how else could it possibly be?
Great point. Since the earth doesn't accurately project into a 2d map, then the Earth cannot be flat. Thanks!

>implying that RET distances are accurate
Nope. That implication is not needed to make that point.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 31, 2011, 02:19:45 AM
implying that RET distances are accurate

You're willing to accept that the distances are accurate for one specific iteration of a RET map: the north polar azimuthal equidistant projection. You haven't explained why this one is correct and none of the others are. You just say GPSes are lying and so forth.

So if the world is full of lying equipment, on what basis do you decide which one is correct?

Please note that an airline pilot will arrive exactly where and when he expects to, whether he is using this map:

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png)

or this one:

(http://i.imgur.com/mobM9.gif)

How do you know it's not the second map that is reality while GPS / INS / whatever lies to make the first one appear valid?

And if either of these do show the true distances of a Flat Earth, how do you explain the fact that the exact shapes can be generated using spherical geometry?

I've been trying to get you to answer these questions for over a week now. Please stop avoiding them.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: The Knowledge on December 31, 2011, 08:11:40 PM

How do you know it's not the second map that is reality while GPS / INS / whatever lies to make the first one appear valid?

And if either of these do show the true distances of a Flat Earth, how do you explain the fact that the exact shapes can be generated using spherical geometry?

I've been trying to get you to answer these questions for over a week now. Please stop avoiding them.

This topic has been raised before, when the FE'ers dismissed the possibility of a south pole centric map on the basis that "the north centric one is more widely accepted".
Tausami, come here! I need you! I just spotted a logical fallacy for you to quack about!
You're not gonna get a sensible answer from them, Zarg. You've won this round.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on December 31, 2011, 09:54:05 PM
I'm here. Sorry I've been so inactive.

Anyway, to Zarg:

1) My answer is the same as it was a week ago. Until an FE'er circumnavigates the disk and determines these things experimentally, there's no way to know for sure.

2 )They can't. A sphere can't have a bottom that is bigger than its top. For that matter, a sphere can't have bottom, but that's irrelevant.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on December 31, 2011, 11:11:46 PM
Until an FE'er circumnavigates the disk and determines these things experimentally, there's no way to know for sure.

So you finally admit that you don't know what a real FE map would look like. Why didn't you say so 29 pages ago?


They can't. A sphere can't have a bottom that is bigger than its top.

How many times do I have to explain this? These maps only work for paths through the center. When used as such, both are correct.

It has nothing to do with one side being bigger than the other.

Pick up a globe and try it yourself. Look down from the north pole and align the globe to the same rotation as your map, then trace a straight path outward at the angles shown here:

(http://i.imgur.com/eheJA.png)

You will find that your finger reaches the two edges of Australia just as the map predicts. Also, any angle south arrives at Antarctica, which is why it circles the whole map.

Now, do the same thing with the second map.

(http://i.imgur.com/87TWn.png)

Again, it works. That is how these maps are used. The math behind them is based on a sphere, which is why our globe test works. You're telling me that the first map is a map of a flat plane, and that the distances are correct for both axes, not just through the center.

You offer me no explanation for why the distortion generated by this sphere-based math happens to be the actual reality of a flat Earth.

You offer no explanation as to why one such map is correct while others of the same projection formula are not.

These maps are experimentally verified every day as they are constantly relied on successfully, and the idea that Earth is a sphere explains everything nicely; while you have nothing but fantasies that you admit have never been experimentally verified.

You have utterly failed the ultimate challenge.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on January 01, 2012, 11:13:16 AM
Until an FE'er circumnavigates the disk and determines these things experimentally, there's no way to know for sure.

So you finally admit that you don't know what a real FE map would look like. Why didn't you say so 29 pages ago?


They can't. A sphere can't have a bottom that is bigger than its top.

How many times do I have to explain this? These maps only work for paths through the center. When used as such, both are correct.

It has nothing to do with one side being bigger than the other.

Pick up a globe and try it yourself. Look down from the north pole and align the globe to the same rotation as your map, then trace a straight path outward at the angles shown here:

(http://i.imgur.com/eheJA.png)

You will find that your finger reaches the two edges of Australia just as the map predicts. Also, any angle south arrives at Antarctica, which is why it circles the whole map.

Now, do the same thing with the second map.

(http://i.imgur.com/87TWn.png)

Again, it works. That is how these maps are used. The math behind them is based on a sphere, which is why our globe test works. You're telling me that the first map is a map of a flat plane, and that the distances are correct for both axes, not just through the center.

You offer me no explanation for why the distortion generated by this sphere-based math happens to be the actual reality of a flat Earth.

You offer no explanation as to why one such map is correct while others of the same projection formula are not.

These maps are experimentally verified every day as they are constantly relied on successfully, and the idea that Earth is a sphere explains everything nicely; while you have nothing but fantasies that you admit have never been experimentally verified.

You have utterly failed the ultimate challenge.

Thanks for clearing up the issue. For some reason, I was reading your posts over and over again and not comprehending what you were complaining about. Maybe I was just tired. Whatever.

I've been repeating this over and over again throughout the thread. There's no way for me to know whether the distances displayed on the map are accurate until my circumnavigation attempt. However, the distance formula that momentia and I devoloped should be accurate, as it is based on mathematical properties and the assumption that the disk's circumference increases at the same rate throughout itself, which is hard to deny.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on January 01, 2012, 11:15:11 AM
Every single flat earth map seems to be bent or distorted in a way that you would expect if it was actually a 2d projection of a 3d world. FISHY AINT IT, flat earthers?!?!

Is there any particular reason why it shouldn't be so? Actually, how else could it possibly be?
Great point. Since the earth doesn't accurately project into a 2d map, then the Earth cannot be flat. Thanks!

>implying that RET distances are accurate
Nope. That implication is not needed to make that point.

Sure it is. If the real distances fit the FET model but not the RET model, then FET myst be right.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on January 01, 2012, 12:55:42 PM
I've been repeating this over and over again throughout the thread. There's no way for me to know whether the distances displayed on the map are accurate until my circumnavigation attempt.

No, what you and other FE'ers have been repeating over and over in this thread is your map, and pretending that it's accurate. If you were being honest you would have answered Zhark's challenge with "I don't know" instead of arguing for 29 pages. If you were being honest you would not have declared that the map I posted was inaccurate, because you have no idea. You're backpedaling. You lost.


However, the distance formula that momentia and I devoloped should be accurate, as it is based on mathematical properties and the assumption that the disk's circumference increases at the same rate throughout itself, which is hard to deny.

Of course the math works, because the projection is mathematically generated. You successfully reverse-engineered a RET map. Congratulations. How does this support FET again? Here's some more math for you: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AzimuthalEquidistantProjection.html (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AzimuthalEquidistantProjection.html)




Great point. Since the earth doesn't accurately project into a 2d map, then the Earth cannot be flat. Thanks!

>implying that RET distances are accurate
Nope. That implication is not needed to make that point.

Sure it is. If the real distances fit the FET model but not the RET model, then FET myst be right.

Guess what? Logical fallacy. Affirming a disjunct (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afonedis.html). RET distances being inaccurate would not mean that FET distances aren't also inaccurate.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on January 01, 2012, 01:16:01 PM
I've been repeating this over and over again throughout the thread. There's no way for me to know whether the distances displayed on the map are accurate until my circumnavigation attempt.

No, what you and other FE'ers have been repeating over and over in this thread is your map, and pretending that it's accurate. If you were being honest you would have answered Zhark's challenge with "I don't know" instead of arguing for 29 pages. If you were being honest you would not have declared that the map I posted was inaccurate, because you have no idea. You're backpedaling. You lost.

No. You wanted an FE map, so I provided one. I was the first to admit that I had no way of affirming whether or not it was accurate, and in light of the new evidence you've provided I must say that it probably isn't.

However, the distance formula that momentia and I devoloped should be accurate, as it is based on mathematical properties and the assumption that the disk's circumference increases at the same rate throughout itself, which is hard to deny.

Quote
Of course the math works, because the projection is mathematically generated. You successfully reverse-engineered a RET map. Congratulations. How does this support FET again? Here's some more math for you: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AzimuthalEquidistantProjection.html (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AzimuthalEquidistantProjection.html)

It doesn't support FET. It just gives the hard numbers, since they were being asked for. Are you seriously complaining that I respond to requests?


Quote
Great point. Since the earth doesn't accurately project into a 2d map, then the Earth cannot be flat. Thanks!

>implying that RET distances are accurate
Nope. That implication is not needed to make that point.

Sure it is. If the real distances fit the FET model but not the RET model, then FET myst be right.

Guess what? Logical fallacy. Affirming a disjunct (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afonedis.html). RET distances being inaccurate would not mean that FET distances aren't also inaccurate.

I think you missed that part. If the distances fit my formula and not the accepted distances, then I'm probably right. That's not a logical fallacy, it's deductive reasoning.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on January 01, 2012, 01:54:47 PM
No.

Yes:

The second map is not in any way, shape, or form accurate.

That's a pretty bold claim for someone who has no certainty of what is and isn't accurate.

Quit backpedaling.



Quote
Quote
Great point. Since the earth doesn't accurately project into a 2d map, then the Earth cannot be flat. Thanks!

>implying that RET distances are accurate
Nope. That implication is not needed to make that point.

Sure it is. If the real distances fit the FET model but not the RET model, then FET myst be right.

Guess what? Logical fallacy. Affirming a disjunct (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afonedis.html). RET distances being inaccurate would not mean that FET distances aren't also inaccurate.

I think you missed that part. If the distances fit my formula and not the accepted distances, then I'm probably right. That's not a logical fallacy, it's deductive reasoning.

The highlighted part is the fallacy. Clocktower never said the distances fit FET, he only said that whether they fit RET is irrelevant. You deduced that if the RET distances are wrong, then FET distances would be right. That's not logically valid. They could both be wrong.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on January 01, 2012, 02:08:25 PM
No.

Yes:

The second map is not in any way, shape, or form accurate.

That's a pretty bold claim for someone who has no certainty of what is and isn't accurate.

Quit backpedaling.

I have good reason to believe that. Again, it distorts the Atlantic Ocean, and that has too much traffic for the distances to be inaccurate.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Great point. Since the earth doesn't accurately project into a 2d map, then the Earth cannot be flat. Thanks!

>implying that RET distances are accurate
Nope. That implication is not needed to make that point.

Sure it is. If the real distances fit the FET model but not the RET model, then FET myst be right.

Guess what? Logical fallacy. Affirming a disjunct (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afonedis.html). RET distances being inaccurate would not mean that FET distances aren't also inaccurate.

I think you missed that part. If the distances fit my formula and not the accepted distances, then I'm probably right. That's not a logical fallacy, it's deductive reasoning.

The highlighted part is the fallacy. Clocktower never said the distances fit FET, he only said that whether they fit RET is irrelevant. You deduced that if the RET distances are wrong, then FET distances would be right. That's not logically valid. They could both be wrong.

Fair enough.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on January 01, 2012, 02:26:04 PM
I have good reason to believe that. Again, it distorts the Atlantic Ocean, and that has too much traffic for the distances to be inaccurate.

(http://img.removedfromgame.com/imgs/youserious.gif)

Qantas Airways have been flying out of Australia for almost a century, to 21 international destinations. You happily disregard an entire continent of eyewitnesses, but a distorted ocean is too much for you to swallow? That's just beautiful. Give me more, I'll get the popcorn.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on January 01, 2012, 02:37:59 PM
Argumentum ad ridiculum
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on January 01, 2012, 04:36:26 PM
Tausami, you really need to stop pretending you understand fallacies.

My belief that you're being ridiculous is my conclusion, not my basis.

My basis is the fact that your standards for determining accuracy are not fairly applied to both maps. You deny one based on distortion in a heavily travelled area, while you accept the other despite the same issue.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: ClockTower on January 01, 2012, 04:40:44 PM
Tausami, you really need to stop pretending you understand fallacies.
What he said. Clearly he was mocking your fantasy map and its implications.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on January 01, 2012, 04:43:07 PM
Tausami, you really need to stop pretending you understand fallacies.

My belief that you're being ridiculous is my conclusion, not my basis.

My basis is the fact that your standards for determining accuracy are not fairly applied to both maps. You deny one based on distortion in a heavily travelled area, while you accept the other despite the same issue.

Sorry, I meant reductio ad ricidulum
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on January 01, 2012, 04:46:52 PM
That's the same thing. ::)
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on January 01, 2012, 05:13:45 PM
That's the same thing. ::)

No, it's not. In an argumentum, the argument is flawed logically but is otherwise sound. In a reductio, one is trying to reduce the standing of the other argument. Reductio is Latin for reduction.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: ClockTower on January 01, 2012, 05:37:37 PM
That's the same thing. ::)

No, it's not. In an argumentum, the argument is flawed logically but is otherwise sound. In a reductio, one is trying to reduce the standing of the other argument. Reductio is Latin for reduction.
Do you think that 'reducio ad absurdum' is a fallacy? It's not. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: zarg on January 01, 2012, 09:08:03 PM
That's the same thing. ::)

No, it's not. In an argumentum, the argument is flawed logically but is otherwise sound. In a reductio, one is trying to reduce the standing of the other argument. Reductio is Latin for reduction.

Stop embarrassing yourself, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Argumentum simply means argument, and a "reductio" is a type of argument. Do you think you have invalidated my response by changing the word you used? I would have said the exact same thing had you said "reductio" in the first place.




Do you think that 'reducio ad absurdum' is a fallacy? It's not. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)

According to this page (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html), it seems "ridicule" and "absurdity" are treated as distinct, where the former refers to fallacy and the latter refers to a valid argument.
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: ClockTower on January 01, 2012, 10:45:06 PM
Do you think that 'reducio ad absurdum' is a fallacy? It's not. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)

According to this page (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html), it seems "ridicule" and "absurdity" are treated as distinct, where the former refers to fallacy and the latter refers to a valid argument.
You need to note that "Appeal to Ridicule" is a fallacy. "Reduction to the absurd" is a fine argument. 
Title: Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
Post by: Tausami on January 05, 2012, 12:29:03 PM
Do you think that 'reducio ad absurdum' is a fallacy? It's not. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)

According to this page (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html), it seems "ridicule" and "absurdity" are treated as distinct, where the former refers to fallacy and the latter refers to a valid argument.
You need to note that "Appeal to Ridicule" is a fallacy. "Reduction to the absurd" is a fine argument.

And this thread has officially devolved into an argument about romanic grammar.