1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Star distance and parallax

« on: February 27, 2009, 09:30:06 AM »

I'm convinced that no one on these boards actually believes any of this, and claims to purely for the fun of egging people on.  Hence, any argument that can positively debunk FET doesn't get responded to so it will fall of the page and new people will come to further attempt to debunk FET.

There's a similar forum out there that's a spoof of Westboro Baptist Church's beliefs.  I don't recall the name of it, but wiki them, and you'll see their entire purpose is to poke fun at extremist Christian views while trolling the people that come to their forums.  Apparently, they've won a lawsuit against a Christian group who claims that their satire is a hate crime.  It's pretty laughable when you think about it.

Anyways, I'm sure there's a few people out there that actually believe in FET, and a few of them might actually frequent this board. But they definitely make up the minority.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Latitudes

« on: February 26, 2009, 09:22:30 PM »

I guess I should have just stuck with my original assumption that all of the so called "FET's" here realized they were all full of hot air from the get go.

Trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Latitudes

« on: February 26, 2009, 05:41:05 AM »

Or, the southern suggested route:  Chile to South Africa.  South Africa to Australia

Those trips aren't circumnavigating the earth, or taking the "long way" between South America and Australia. They're all passing over a shared path.

Map it out, it doesn't matter.  It's still a much longer path on the FE model.

And I've flown both ways on the northern path.  From Illinois to NY, then to Germany.  On the trip back, we were able to find a cheaper flight that was a connector through China.

Now, quite obviously, on the FE model, the southern trip should take roughly three times as long (I haven't done the math, so this is an estimate) as the northern trip would.  If it doesn't, we have a glaring issue.

It doesn't.  You have a glaring issue.

China isn't in the Southern Hemisphere.

Do you even read?

And I've flown both ways on the northern path.  From Illinois to NY, then to Germany.  On the trip back, we were able to find a cheaper flight that was a connector through China.

Did I not just say that I flew both ways on the northern path right there?

Have you checked out how a compass works in FET? it might help you understand this.

It doesn't matter.

I'm noticing that not a single person has been able to address the issue directly, and instead continues to attempt to deflect it.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Latitudes

« on: February 25, 2009, 03:37:59 PM »

Multiple flights.

This isn't rocket science here.  You can easily fly from California to New York, then from New York to Europe.  From Europe to China.  From China to Japan.

Or, the southern suggested route:  Chile to South Africa.  South Africa to Australia.

On a flat Earth model, the distance, one way, or the opposite way, should be much greater in the southern trip than the northern.

And I've flown both ways on the northern path.  From Illinois to NY, then to Germany.  On the trip back, we were able to find a cheaper flight that was a connector through China.

Now, quite obviously, on the FE model, the southern trip should take roughly three times as long (I haven't done the math, so this is an estimate) as the northern trip would.  If it doesn't, we have a glaring issue.

It doesn't.  You have a glaring issue.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Latitudes

« on: February 25, 2009, 02:06:33 PM »

No need.

http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/faqs.html

It was a fun trip.

What does that short flight a sort distance along the ice wall prove about anything?

That, despite the belief that no one is allowed close to the "ice wall", people are able to get close to the ice wall.

I'm still interested on your theory on the first point.  Travelling from Chile to Australia should take much, much longer than it does to travel from California to Japan.  But it doesn't.  A simple counter could be that our maps aren't accurate, but that would simply mean that the trips the opposite way should be even MORE skewed, but they aren't.

The miles do not add up to FE theory.  Quite a blunder in a theory to neglect to include simple addition.  You could argue that the air speed is different in the southern hemisphere, which is extremely easy to disprove.  You could also attempt to argue that even airlines are in on the conspiracy, including all pilots that travel across continents, as well as boaters.  You could even attempt to argue that the planes travelling in the southern hemisphere have some sort of hyper drive mechanism, or time dilation unit.  I'd point out the silliness of such a claim, but it seems pointless when those claims are at least slightly more feasible than a "flat Earth".

I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone would actually support a flat Earth theory, obviously.  But you never know, people deny simple fact all the time.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Latitudes

« on: February 25, 2009, 10:16:08 AM »

The problem here is that people justify their zealous beliefs to ridiculous lengths, trying to satisfy themselves.  Admitting you're wrong is very difficult, especially when you build your life around a concept.  I'm a born again atheist as of six months ago, and I'll be twenty-seven in a month.  I was literally crying, scared at my realization.  But when I got over it, I started to study the theories behind the big bang, evolution, abiogenesis, etc...  And I found them fascinating, and even comforting.

Admitting when you're wrong is difficult, but it comes with a certain sort of bliss.

That's great. I suggest you to peruse the Flat Earth Literature when you want start crying scared in realization again

No need.

http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/faqs.html

It was a fun trip.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Latitudes

« on: February 24, 2009, 06:42:44 PM »

Well, anyone with a little bit of sense, the internet, and about 10 minutes to do the research can find out how long the flights take.  When you add up the numbers, you'll notice that something is incredibly off.  Unless, of course, you're part of the vast majority who believes in a round Earth.

The problem here is that people justify their zealous beliefs to ridiculous lengths, trying to satisfy themselves.  Admitting you're wrong is very difficult, especially when you build your life around a concept.  I'm a born again atheist as of six months ago, and I'll be twenty-seven in a month.  I was literally crying, scared at my realization.  But when I got over it, I started to study the theories behind the big bang, evolution, abiogenesis, etc...  And I found them fascinating, and even comforting.

Admitting when you're wrong is difficult, but it comes with a certain sort of bliss.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Latitudes

« on: February 24, 2009, 01:25:17 PM »

It wouldn't really matter that much.  With the flat earth model, the southern continents would have to be stretched out (from a RE'ers point of view), or the ocean between the continents would.  You'd still have a huge problem when trying to add up the distance around the globe south of the equator.  A flight from California to Japan should take substantially less time than a flight from Chile to Australia.

Yet they take close to the same amount of time, both around 12 hours.

This presents an obvious conundrum for FE theorists.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Latitudes

« on: February 24, 2009, 11:51:03 AM »

I fully expected this to be a troll site.  And I'm positive that many of the so called "FE'ers" are just trolls here for some fun.  But all of my research shows that some FE'ers are 100% genuine in their beliefs.

Since they appear like they are set on proving their theory, I've come up with a plan that would allow them to do such.  If I had a theory that I proclaimed loudly and wasn't completely sure of myself, I wouldn't want to test it either.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Latitudes

« on: February 24, 2009, 11:19:16 AM »

Latitude as we measure it (angle to Polaris above the horizon from a given point in the northern hemisphere) is incompatible with FET.

Which is precisely why it qualifies as a good test.

If you should happen to find someone willing to put the money up for this, I volunteer to be a the recorder on either flight.  I would prefer to be the observer on the southern flight, just in case.

Well, I figure the population who is making the outlandish claim in comparison to everyone else should be the one shouldering the responsibility of proving their claim.  I shouldn't claim that their exists a delicious layer of chocolate a thousand miles under the surface of the earth, and say that it's everyone else's responsibility to prove it.

I am perfectly happy in providing an infallible test, however.

We're not making any claims.  We discussing a theory among ourselves and you came here, trying to disprove something we think may be true.  You have to prove your claim.

I am not attempting to prove or disprove anything.  I am simply providing a test that a Flat Earth theorist could use to prove or disprove their own theory.

I claim nothing.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Latitudes

« on: February 24, 2009, 10:54:08 AM »

Latitude as we measure it (angle to Polaris above the horizon from a given point in the northern hemisphere) is incompatible with FET.

Which is precisely why it qualifies as a good test.

If you should happen to find someone willing to put the money up for this, I volunteer to be a the recorder on either flight.  I would prefer to be the observer on the southern flight, just in case.

Well, I figure the population who is making the outlandish claim in comparison to everyone else should be the one shouldering the responsibility of proving their claim.  I shouldn't claim that their exists a delicious layer of chocolate a thousand miles under the surface of the earth, and say that it's everyone else's responsibility to prove it.

I am perfectly happy in providing an infallible test, however.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Latitudes

« on: February 24, 2009, 10:20:48 AM »

An accurate map is of no importance in this test.  Attempt to draw a map that would show that the n35 and s35 latitude lines are similar, but the world is still flat.  It's impossible without breaking other latitude lines.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Latitudes

« on: February 23, 2009, 09:44:58 PM »

Interesting concept, and I have a test that can prove/disprove your theory once and for all.  It's actually quite simple, but would involve a bit of a budget.

Your map of Earth shows that the northern latitude line 35, and southern latitude line 35 (I chose 35 simply because it passes directly over major lands) as having substantially different sizes, while a RE's perspective would be that there are arguably identical in circumference.  I propose a "race" of sorts.  If two planes were to fly at relatively similar speeds, then they should take the same amount of time to circle the "globe" on either n35 or s35 latitude lines.  If your flat theory is actually correct, then the southern plane should not be able to keep up with the northern plane's time in any form whatsoever.

It would be impossible to deny the earth being spherical in shape if the planes had extremely similar times.  On the other hand, if the southern plane is constantly taking three or four times as long to make the same trip as the northern plane, you have some extremely solid evidence that would be nigh impossible to disprove.