Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - zarg

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 38
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The horizon is curved.
« on: June 12, 2012, 08:34:27 PM »
Can any FE'er tell me why the horizon is curved?

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: June 12, 2012, 08:29:22 PM »
Tom made those claims about the map from the 1800s. He clearly refers to the map being from the 1800s in his post, and refers exclusively to it. No matter how you interpret his post, it doesn't support your claims, because he's clearly talking about the map from the 1800s in that post.

Exactly, he says they are all based on that hundreds-year-old FES design. The modern azimuthal equidistant map that the FES now displays as their own supposedly evolved directly from that map, and the fact that it's a RET-based calculation is explained by the concept of people deriving the mathematics backward from the image, rather than the other way around.

This is either true, or it isn't. It's not a complicated question. The purpose of this thread was to determine how many people share Tom's opinion. If they do, I'd like some documentation to support the allegation.

3
Then correction is useful for the purpose of warning noobs.

4
If noobs are taking him seriously, then we can't just ignore him.
Correction isn't very useful if the person being corrected refuses to accept it.

You realize these sentiments are contradictory?

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 26, 2012, 06:29:43 PM »
We did not claim a FE'er created the 2007 map. We claimed a FE'er made the map from 2008, which is a different map.

No, it is not a different map. It's a different file. It's the same map reuploaded in a new format with the same description.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.jpg

Quote
This file has been superseded by File:Flat earth.png. It is recommended to use the other file. Please note that deleting superseded images requires consent.
Reason to use the other file: "A PNG version of this file is now available."

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.png

Both files are clearly of the same map. One has transparency and graticules overlaid, the other doesn't; that is the only difference. You are being laughably dishonest by claiming they are unique creations.



... post his response here and substantiate your currently baseless claims

Tom already did confirm my explanation of his view on the first page. If you think that his "yes" meant "no", you're going to have to substantiate that.

6
Flat Earth General / Re: Greatest Zetetic
« on: May 26, 2012, 12:33:13 AM »
Don't bring up James Randi.  That SOB owes Tom a million dollars and refuses to pay up.

Aww. :(

I think iwanttobelieve needs to make a "James Randi/Other SOBs Appreciation thread".

7
Flat Earth General / Re: Greatest Zetetic
« on: May 25, 2012, 06:34:35 PM »
But James Randi is still alive in the 21st century. You'll have to organize a competition between Jim and Master Wil to be sure.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The horizon is curved.
« on: May 25, 2012, 03:56:20 PM »
And still no explanation.

9
Hopefully, a FE'er who supports that map might offer their viewpoint on why it works.

There is no viewpoint on why it works:

How and why the sun switches gears is, of course, unknown. This mystery can be included amongst the many mysteries of the heavens.

And, as for why nobody notices the bizarre sun behavior:

You can't say what observers on the equator experience on the day the sun switches gears. These are third world countries on the equator. Who is to notice if the sun rises slightly to the right and sets slightly to the left?

The people there are more concerned with spearing zebras for dinner, knitting loincloths, and coming to terms with a permanent body oder. They are not interested in studying alternative world models.

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antarctica?
« on: May 22, 2012, 05:24:04 PM »
Antarctica is a separate continent.
It has been fully explored, mapped and people live there.
if an Ice wall exists it is Far beyond Antarctica.
What make the most sense that this "wall" is not a wall at all, but a barrier...
This is where our spherical suns light never shines upon our planar Earth.

Whats is beyond? UnKnown....but Master James has some interesting theories.

I'm afraid I'm having trouble figuring out what the hell you just said. If there is an ice wall, it's beyond Antarctica? The geographic and magnetic south poles have both been proven to be in Antarctica. And what do you mean, not a wall, but a barrier. Are you suggesting some magical, wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey barrier of some metaphysical property?
And what do you mean, our spherical sun's light never shines or planar Earth? A) There are probably less than a thousand people who've been to college and believe the idea that Earth is planar, B) why would Earth be planar while Sol is spherical, and C) What do you mean, sunlight never shines on Earth? That entire thing made no sense.

What he means is that the sun never shines in the area beyond the ice wall, and "ice wall" is a metaphor.

Although most of the Flat Earth folk here wouldn't consider iwanttobelieve their spokesman, it is a common recourse in topics like this one -- to say "Well, we have this other theory where [something that addresses the issue]", in this case it would be "Antarctica really is a continent and the rim is further out". Of course, none of the alternate ideas are consistent with the original one, so eventually a sufficiently fatal incompatibility will be pointed out and force them to say "It works in the first theory though. Most of us don't subscribe to this one anyway". In other words, it's an endless ping-pong between half-explanations and the issues never really get addressed.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 22, 2012, 05:01:36 PM »
you've since reworded and watered them down in order to make them look justifiable.

No, I haven't. This is what watering down to make oneself look justifiable looks like:

He says some things are possible, and that some things are more likely than other things (without saying either is the case).

::)



Wil, is the 2007 file a RE map, or is it a FE map?

Why does it matter, when no-one was talking about it?

Why do you continue to stall -- why not just answer the question?

It matters because you claimed that the map was created by a FE'er. When faced with clear evidence that the creator was a RE'er, you pretended that he could have "switched sides" in the intervening years. You gloss over the fact that the latest map is merely a reformat of the original file.

I understand that you just want to be able to claim that your map is the brainchild of the FE community, rather than admit that you lazily leeched the work of a bored RE'er, but there are easier ways to do this than by blatantly denying the obvious fact that these two files are of the same map.



He does not say the maps were stolen from us, or that the formulae were concocted after the fact.

Yes, he does. Again, if you have trouble following that, refer to the clarification in the fourth reply:

I was trying to be succinct, not vague. It's a common idiom, at least in my experience, and I didn't think it would cause any confusion. What I mean is that Tom claimed that the map in the FAQ was not produced by -- nor based on something produced by -- the formula which produces a map that looks exactly like it. Rather, they invented it from scratch on their own, and then after it already existed, Round Earthers cleverly devised a formula to transform the globe into that configuration.

Now, are you going to continue to broadcast your poor reading comprehension skills, or are you going to take my advice and ask Tom if this is indeed what he meant? I'll even save you some time by just directing you to reply #7.




The FE maps are wrong. In shape and distances.

For the purposes of this discussion, I don't even care whether the distances are wrong. Thork told us that FE'ers use distortion purposefully, to "emphasise" certain regions. What I want to know is which map they used as a starting point and how those distortions, or "emphases", were mapped out from it. I'm especially curious as to how a 2-dimensional circular map is transformed to result in a different 2-dimensional circular map; in my experience the only way to create two different usable maps with the same 2D shape is by starting from a 3D one.

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 21, 2012, 12:11:04 AM »
Had the file from 2008 been uploaded in 2007, you would not have that case at all. So, indeed, this question is relevant to your claim. You are dodging it, because you know full well that the necessary implication is ludicrous.

But the map you originally linked to is the one from 2008. It's the one that's been under discussion from the start. You're the one who's trying to shift the goalposts.

Wil, is the 2007 file a RE map, or is it a FE map?



Do you claim that Tom does not claim that it is likely that the UN stole their map design from the FES? Yes or no.
Do you claim that Tom does not claim that the northern azimuthal formula was designed to copy a FES design? Yes or no.

If by "does claim" you mean would claim or does believe, then I have no opinion on the matter. I am not a psychic.

However, if by "does claim" you mean did claim or has stated, then no, he has not, as anyone can see.

As "anyone" can see? Who might those people be? Everyone else seems to understand what I'm saying and agrees with the fact that this is what Tom had claimed -- including Tom. Why don't you ask him what he meant? Hey Tom, what did you mean when you said this:

Has it ever occurred to anyone that FEers were lazy about their map and just colored in the UN flag?

Has it occurred to you that FES was in existence about 100 years before the UN was formed, and it's more likely that the UN stole that map from us?

and this:

You're telling me this is a coincidence?

I can make a mathematical formula to draw swastikas on graphic calculators. It doesn't mean that I invented the swastika.

?



Finally, why is the wording above different to what you had in the OP? Your claims are so watered down at this point that I can see through them.

Actually, for a 10-page thread, this has remained remarkably true to the original topic. The OP remains unedited, and I stand by it. Further clarification is found in the fourth reply. My analysis of Tom's posts in the referenced thread are the same on page 1 as they are on page 10.

You jumped into this thread without having read the background material. That's fine, on its own. The trouble is where you went with it: In true Zetetic tradition, you have crafted a conspiracy theory -- wherein you paint me as a lying malevolent spin doctor who crafted this whole thread to smear Tom Bishop --  to make reality conform to those initial uninformed impressions, rather than modify the impressions to conform to reality.

13
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Pathetic, bad, victimising moderation.
« on: May 20, 2012, 05:54:36 PM »
Oh, wait! Nobody believes that here, either.

You still never explained how you know this.  :(

14
As far as the UN being "implicitly" RE, I've never heard the UN referred to as a RE organization.

99% of the organizations in the world are implicitly RE. If you didn't know what "implicit" means, you could have just said so, or looked it up.

15
The explanation with the least number of assumptions is the simplest explanation.

The ability to simplify complex processes through flippant wording doesn't reduce the number of assumptions required.

I don't understand -- why do you cling to this facade of scientific reasoning? It would be so much easier if you'd just be consistent and claim that Occam's Razor is as unreliable as you claim the rest of modern science's methods of finding truth are. You'll get no argument that OR isn't foolproof; just stop pretending you're using it when you're not.

16
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Pathetic, bad, victimising moderation.
« on: May 20, 2012, 12:30:30 PM »
At some point, somebody other than me derails the topic and posts appear which are no longer relevant to it. These posts are ignored by the moderators.

They aren't ignored, since the moderators are usually participants.


What is this other purpose, then?
Probably to perma ban TK. It would be my goal of I was a mod.

You apparently misunderstood. The subject of that sentence (the "they") was "threads", not "mods".

Anyway, I'm wondering what the purpose of the threads is too. If you've realized what ethic they operate under and that they don't respond to review, it's most sensible to resign to the fact that one must look to other forums for sanity; preferably ones that aren't largely overseen by teenagers from a community founded on dogma.

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 19, 2012, 12:57:30 PM »
Ask again for a non-distorted FE map ignoring the fact that you don't have a non-distorted RET one either.

The true nature of the earth has nothing to do with whether a map is distorted. Learn a thing or two about cartography and try to wrap your thick head around what is meant by a "distorted map".

The globe is the map that we start from. I am asking which map you start from, how it was developed, and how you transform it to produce your projections.

18
Even if there isn't a conspiracy, then NASA must be ridiculously incompetent.  I really don't see how a thread like this is compatible with FET.

How would they be incompetent? It wouldn't be their fault for not realizing that sustained spaceflight is impossible, as FET dictates. Don't they get points for trying really hard?

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 18, 2012, 10:43:15 PM »
The globe is not mathematically derived from any other map. Thus, it's not a transformation.
So the globe is not derived from an oblate spheroid? How then can you claim that its a map of earth?

Read what you just replied to again. An oblate spheroid is not a map.


Well by approximation we think the earth is a flat disk. We believe its sufficiently flat and disk shaped that mapping it as a disk is useful for navigation. Please refer to the FAQ for such a map.

Please clarify whether the map in the FAQ is the baseline, or a projection.


You claim to use distortion as an aid. In RET we do the same. I have shown you our baseline that we distort and the method we use to distort it. All I'm asking is for the same from you.
No, you haven't showed me how you convert an oblate spheroid into a globe.

The globe is our baseline that we distort to create projections. Do you understand what these words mean?


So your 'baseline' or starting point is an oblate spheroid.

I'll take that as a no.

The globe is the map that we start from. I am asking which map you start from, how it was developed, and how you transform it to produce your projections.

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 18, 2012, 01:32:20 PM »
Please leave, research, and come back when you learn what distortion is.

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 18, 2012, 01:29:41 PM »
You apply no transformations to make an oblate spheroid fit on a globe? Now you are just lying.

No I'm not. Please learn the terminology. We're talking about geometry. You claimed to be a cartographer, remember? Transformation is like the one I showed in the wolfram mathworld link. The Mercator is mathematically derived from the globe. The globe is not mathematically derived from any other map. Thus, it's not a transformation.


How do you transform an oblate spheroid onto a globe? Please answer.

By approximation. We believe the shape of Earth is sufficiently spherical that mapping it onto a sphere is useful for navigation. Any imperfections in the sphere model are transferred to other projections such as Mercator because they are simply distortions.

You claim to use distortion as an aid. In RET we do the same. I have shown you our baseline that we distort and the method we use to distort it. All I'm asking is for the same from you.

22
Does anyone understand this?

It brings the concept that "travelling in one direction for long enough brings you to the same point you started from" (which I assume is something that Lactantius suggests, though I haven't read it in a while) to its logical conclusion: travelling upwards would bring you to the underside of Earth.

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 18, 2012, 01:13:57 PM »
We apply no transformations. It is therefore not distorted, even if it's not a completely flawless rendering of reality. What part of distortion does not mean imperfect do you not understand?

What is your base map and how do you transform it to produce the others?

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 18, 2012, 01:03:47 PM »
No. For the third time, the globe is the base map. It has no distortions in cartographic terms. It is not a projection.
How do you map an oblate spheroid onto a sphere with no distortions? You are wrong. You have no perfect map. Do not demand one from me.

I am asking for the map upon which your distortions are based. For RE, that is the globe map. What is yours?
And I have told you several times that there is such a map in the FAQ. Its not perfect. It has distortion. Just like your globes. Not having a perfect map is in no way proof that earth cannot be flat. You don't have a non-distorted version of an oblate spheroid either. Why are you making me repeat myself? Its very simple.

Again, I am not asking for a perfect map. Distortion does not mean "less than perfect". Distortion is a deliberate tool in cartography. You clearly implied that your maps were deliberately distorted when you said "If I want to make the polar regions more prominent, I'll use a Mercator. Distorting maps is just an aid to help the reader."

In RET, we start with the globe and apply transformations as follows: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MercatorProjection.html

Now tell me the process for FET. What is the original map and what transformations do you apply to that original to result in your distorted maps?

25
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Ichimaru Gin is a sourpuss
« on: May 17, 2012, 11:43:39 PM »
It is kind of rubbish though. Maximum lame. I mean, he's already done the standard newb 'put LW in your avatar' move. This is just sinking to a level that nobody here wants to see. Time for The Knowledge to be less of a newb methinks. This is not Never Never Land.

But what if Thork did it? "Oh Thork, you put a peanut in my nose. You card!" Eh? Am I right or am I right or am I right?

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 17, 2012, 11:37:36 PM »
Answer this question:

What exactly are you trying to say? That Trekky was a lost RE'er when he uploaded Flat_earth.jpg, and a year later he had reformed and uploaded a True Zetetic rendering, Flat_earth.png?


Please work on your chronology, phrasing, etc. You're trying to conflate different claims, and roll the clock back on everything I've said since that quote. Ain't gonna work.


All I am saying is that Trekky can reasonably be construed as part of FES at the time he uploaded the map. That's all I have to say, because it's all Tom actually said.

Had the file from 2008 been uploaded in 2007, you would not have that case at all. So, indeed, this question is relevant to your claim. You are dodging it, because you know full well that the necessary implication is ludicrous.



Are you suggesting it's somehow less "weasely" to make up stuff, or pretend someone said something they didn't say?

I am not the one doing so. You are, and you were being weasely by suddenly pretending that you're undecided on the matter when confronted with the suggestion to find out the actual truth.

Bottom line:
Do you claim that Tom does not claim that it is likely that the UN stole their map design from the FES? Yes or no.
Do you claim that Tom does not claim that the northern azimuthal formula was designed to copy a FES design? Yes or no.

27
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Ichimaru Gin is a sourpuss
« on: May 17, 2012, 08:20:03 PM »
It was an amusing picture of something with Wilmore's head and details superimposed on it, and it was relevant to a low content post already placed there by John Davis.

So nothing to do with the shape of the Earth?  Isn't that a round about ad hominem?

Not even a little bit.

Guys, you only get to invoke your shiny latin fallacies when someone is trying to present a logical proposition. A defaced avatar is not an argument.

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 17, 2012, 05:52:18 PM »
No. For the third time, the globe is the base map. It has no distortions in cartographic terms. It is not a projection.
How do you map an oblate spheroid onto a sphere with no distortions? You are wrong. You have no perfect map. Do not demand one from me.

You said that you distort maps, not that your maps are imperfect. I am not demanding a perfect map. I am asking for the map upon which your distortions are based. For RE, that is the globe map. What is yours?

29
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 17, 2012, 04:52:39 PM »
No. For the third time, the globe is the base map. It has no distortions in cartographic terms. It is not a projection. You cannot have a distorted map by definition unless you have a non-distorted base. What is your base?

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 17, 2012, 04:40:09 PM »
A globe can be a map but a disk can't? Have you been drinking?

I didn't say a disk can't be a map. I'm asking you where this mythical disk map is. I have shown you the globe map which is the basis for RE distortions. Can you show me the disk map which is the basis for FE distortions?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 38