61

Flat Earth Debate / Re: R.I.P. Antartica

« on: November 17, 2011, 01:22:55 PM »

Then why hasn't anyone in modern times crossed it, then flown/come back over to tell of their discovery?

You mean, like this?
http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/

I think the first person ever to fly over Antarctica was a Brittish colonel who did it in a hot air balloon.

You might want to look at this.

who me?  What for?

62

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers

« 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?

63

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers

« on: November 17, 2011, 11:24:56 AM »

And the only FE maps they provide are RE maps!

...with huge oceans or warped land.

64

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers

« 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.

65

Flat Earth General / Re: There are no real believers.

« on: November 17, 2011, 10:54:00 AM »

Why is it so absurd for so many people to believe in a flat earth? Why do all of us have to be trolls? People need to start thinking critically about what they are told everyday, just like Locke, Descartes and Spinoza did 500 years ago when they used their common sense and questioned things that seemed so obvious back then. Now their ides seam unquestionable to most people and when the Flat Earth Society starts thinking critically people act the exact same way they did towards those philosophers, they insult and defame.

Because every iota of scientific reason in combination with physical observability proves the earth is round.  NOTHING proves the earth is flat... NOTHING!  There is NO proof that the earth is flat not round... none of it.  There is a book full of faulty logic and junk science that suggests the earth could be flat, but it has since been debunked.  That is why it's hard to believe.  It is a concocted theory with no proof that has its roots in religious fundamentalism.  That is not science, and nowhere near enough to make me believe it.  Foret the religion... I need concrete proof.  FET doesn't have it.  I'm not going to throw over 2 decades worth of geographic and geometric understanding out the window just for the sake of "thinking outside the box." 

"It is a common misconception that thinking outside the box trumps conventional wisdom."  -Me

66

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Spinning World causing Equal Motion

« on: November 17, 2011, 09:07:00 AM »

One of the very few things that FE'ers generally agree on is that the flat earth does not rotate.

Oh, is that it?  I could see where that would throw a FE'er off...

Let me add this to it:
If you observe light moving around a disk and the observer is on track with the light sorce, the lit area would appear to rotate.  Like, if you're standing on a street and a car drives by, the road appears stationary and the car is moving.  If you're IN the car, the car appears stationary while the street appears to move.  Relativity of motion.  It all depends on where you are.  We have no images of the light moving as the Earth stays stationary, so FE'ers must agree that a time lapse video fo the earth rotating must come from the satellite following the light source, giving off the illusion that the light is stationary while the earth moves.

Now, given this... [see above]

67

Flat Earth General / Re: There are no real believers.

« on: November 17, 2011, 08:51:42 AM »

REers spread RE misinformation all the time.  Its because they like feeling smart and are confident in their beliefs. Have you ever heard someone spouting off nonsense about toliets flushing opposite depending on your hemisphere of locality?   

Yep.  And, look... I'll prove that it's misinformation FOR you:
http://www.snopes.com/science/coriolis.asp

See?  objectivity.  You can't disvalidate the mountain of misinformation spread around in your group by pointing out the anthill of misinformation spread around in my group.  Especially when FET is a solid bank of theories, and RET is open to objection and comes with a known pretense that we don't always have ALL the answers, and we're open to any truth as long as it can be proven as such.  Which, in my book, makes RET a science and FET more like a Religion.  And, by the way... why is the toilet flush myth a part of RET anyways?  How is that getting lumped into it?  It has no scientific basis... RE doesn't depend on the phenomenon... is it because some RE'ers believe it?  As if... a few people who happen to believe in RET are pedophiles, so pedophilia is a result of RET?

See, here's how it goes:

FET:
Bible says the world is flat -> Need to proove the world is flat -> Decide what science supports a flat earth theory -> FET Belief structure

RET:
Objective discovery -> Collected facts lean scientists to draw conclusions -> Theories prove those conclusions -> RET Belief structure.

Now consider this version of RET:
Reason to lie -> NASA needs to proove the world is round -> Decide what science supports a round earth theory -> RET Blief structure.

See, without a reason why NASA would be lying to us, I don't even see really any motivation behind RE misinformation even IF RET came from religious fanatics and occultists with alterior motives.  So, the FET chain of knowledge above makes sense, but the second version of the RET chain of knowledge doesn't.  It's simple algebra.  1+2=3.  But, you can't prove that a+2=3 without the value of a.  You guys are trying to convince us the equation equals three, but are telling us you don't know why a = 1.  That's dumb.

Sure, we can speculate, but FET has a KNOWN history based on religious propaganda.  RET has a KNOWN history based on objective scientific discovery and proof.  The only ones who disagree with that are fringe FE people who grasp at straws to discount opposing views.  See the difference?  So, now what you have, is a very tiny group following the age old saying, "we're right and everyone else is wrong."

68

Flat Earth General / Re: There are no real believers.

« on: November 17, 2011, 08:38:17 AM »

How is it different, exactly?  And isn't the question of magnitude kind of a subjective one?

Apparently so.  If ALL of the early FE people are religious, and there's NO concluding science to back it up, the motivation of misinformation plays a HUGE part in debunking the myth.  On the other hand, if a couple of the early RE people are allegedly occultist, and there is a PLOETHERA of science to back it up, it proves a lot more credible and a lot more solid.

The same can be said about a lot of scientific beliefs.  For example, does the fact that it was a priest who first proposed the Big Bang Theory automatically invalidate the principle?  Modern science would unequivocally say "no".  Does the fact that Newton was an alchemist invalidate the principles of physics he defined?  Again, modern science would say "no". 

No, because there is evidence to support the BBT and Newton's laws of physics.  In that case, it doesn't matter who invented it, the science validates it.  In FET, there is no validating science, so the natural quesiton is, "who started this nonsense, anyways?"  The wheel was probably invented by an idiot caveman.  The wheel is still valid, though.  Then again, the wheel has scientific and physical application.  FE doesn't.  It's fake science that was motivated by religious appologists.  I think the motivation is VERY relevant in this case.

69

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Spinning World causing Equal Motion

« on: November 17, 2011, 08:30:00 AM »

Hello?  Does nobody know the answer?  Or, am I retarded or do I not make sense???

Here, let me put it another way:


Get it?  If the earth as we saw it was just light going around in cirlces on a flat disk, the outer edges of the disk would appear to move faster than the inner edges.  So, if each white arrow above reflects a distance of motion over a fixed amount of time, the one on the right would have to reflect the distance of motion on a flat earth.  However, on the left, since the equator is the biggest part of the spherical earth, the equator appears to move faster than the poles... which is EXACTLY what happens.

Observe:

70

Flat Earth General / Re: There are no real believers.

« on: November 17, 2011, 07:56:56 AM »

It's at least as fascinating as the religious beliefs of flat earth history, which is the context in which I raised them.

No, it isn't.  It's not nearly the same, nor is it nearly of the same magnitude.

71

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spooky stuff

« on: November 17, 2011, 06:59:06 AM »

You simply showed how easy it is to take a flat ("head on") picture of a land mass and make it appear to be on a sphere. Everyone already knows this, I suspect, but it was nice of you to provide an example.

Now, I can't help you if you're not willing to help yourself.

That is exactly what i did.  I showed how the flat picture (which isn't actually flat, you're looking down on a convex land mass) is actually on the face of a sphere by rotating the picture and comparing that to the rotated portion of that area of the sphere!  All the while, using a picture provided by a FE Theorist!!!  What's the problem???  I don't see any FE'ers taking a deformed version of a southern continent and showing how that makes sense on a satellite image...  I'm taking a REAL picture and showing how it fits in a REAL scenario.  And you're using that to prove it could have been photoshopped???  But, the image that was supposed to have been photoshopped was introduced as legitimate by a FE believer!!!  Is the photo real or not???

The picture of the globe is not fabricated.  An example of a digitally fabricated picture of the Earth is this:

72

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers

« 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.

73

Flat Earth General / Re: There are no real believers.

« on: November 17, 2011, 06:28:18 AM »

Chemistry has its roots in alchemy should we dismiss the discoveries of chemistry?

Of course not. I'm not the one disparaging science because of it's roots.

Yeah you are.  You're disparaging NASA because their founders are allegedly occultists.  Why not try to explain that its roots don't matter because the science backs it up?  Probably because the science DOESN'T back it up.  Which takes me back to my initial argument.  It's disproven misinformation, and I can prove the motivation behind brainwashing people, because it was all orchestrated by religious nut-jobs who were clinging on to the Bible.

74

Flat Earth General / Re: There are no real believers.

« on: November 17, 2011, 06:26:28 AM »

The most famous of the occultists in NASA's history was Jack Parsons. NASA's fixation with the occult is well documented. Not surprisingly (to the well-acquainted, perhaps it is to you), Tsiolkovskii, too, was indeed an occultist.
I don't think the 99.99999999% of scientists who "know" that globularism is the "most fundamental scientific truth in human history" are all occultists; don't be absurd. I think they are simply mistaken. They take for granted the world view presented to them. How many of these scientists have ever given a second thought to the shape of the earth, do you think? How many have attempted to scientifically deduce it's shape?

A number cult is a cult based on numerology.

Hmm... John Whiteside Parsons... born 1914... died 1952. ...occultist (give you that) and world renouwned rocket scientist.  Writer of some of the earliest research into rockets in the US, and was a part of a group that was credited with providing the science that would later lead man into space.  Problem is, he never worked for NASA.  In fact, one year after the Soviets launched Sputnik 1, Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act, forming NASA in 1958... 6 years after Parsons died.

Tsiolkovskii... well, he didn't work for NASA either... or the JAEA or any government that has a satellite in space or American Airlines or Quantas (who offers nonstop flights from Sydney to Johannesburg OVER Antarctica).  He did write a number of works on astronautic theory.  Of course, most of these works are questionable at best and not applied to modern astonautics.  Partly because his works were written in the late 19th century... AFTER Rowbentham published HIS works... that have since been disproven.

As far as the speculation that the rest of everyone else just "takes it for granted," I'm not too sure that independent astronomers who actually seriously study the Earth would just take on faith that the world is round and not notice that it was flat.  ...or that the sun and moon are disks that are less than 100 miles away.  Or at least notice that something was amiss with the given science.  BUT... I can prove that the early founders and proponents of the modern FE movement WERE religious nut-jobs, and there doesn't seem to be any scientists in this day and age that take the idea seriously. 

75

Flat Earth General / Re: There are no real believers.

« on: November 17, 2011, 06:06:01 AM »

Chemistry has its roots in alchemy should we dismiss the discoveries of chemistry?

So does medicine.  So much for Tylenol!

76

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers

« on: November 17, 2011, 06:01:35 AM »

What you guys have done is RE'er code for:
"This is a circle:


This is a FE circle:


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! 

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.

77

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: China

« on: November 16, 2011, 08:16:00 PM »

GPS tracking.

A GPS would be entirely as successful at describing your path on any map of the Earth. Case in point: Mercator is commonly used in GPS.

hahaha WHAT??? The standard for use in Global Positioning is the WGS 84 model, which assumes a round Earth.  And, it just so happens to be... THE MOST ACCURATE!!!!!  People closer to the equator can get away with a mercator model because it doesn't distort towards the equator.

They certainly don't use the idiot FE model.  God help us.

78

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: China

« on: November 16, 2011, 08:04:20 PM »

The Earth is constantly accelerating upwards at a rate of approx 9.81 m/s/s.

How many miles upward has the Earth traveled since its creation?

Creation... see?  Religion.

79

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The FIRST, simple (and maybe nonexplained!!) objecton to FET

« on: November 16, 2011, 08:03:07 PM »

Oh, my God "they use GPS to get people lost."


ON the freaking South Pole!

Of course, being a part of the conspiracy doesn't count.  So, IF RE was the truth, who COULD prove RE Theory and not be a part of the conspiracy?

How about these people:
Roald Amundsen and his party on December 14, 1911
Sir Edmund Percival Hillary of New Zealand and Vivian Fuchs of England in 1958?  Who crossed clean over the continent via the South Pole and.... DIDN'T fall off the edge of the world.
How about all the other independent explorers who have succeeded in making the journey on TOP of all the Navy officers who have made it, and the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station that is located AT the pole.

They all a part of the conspiracy?  How about the soviets who participated in space exploration and saw it first hand?  How about the JAEA, or all the other countries who have satellite in orbit?  Or commercial airliners and their employees who successfully base their navigation on an RE model?  Or the 99.9999999999% of all scientists who actually know what they're talking about who agree that "round earth" is the most fundamental truth in the history of man kind?  They in on it, too?

80

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: how is this flat?

« on: November 16, 2011, 07:35:49 PM »

It's clearly another poorly made video from the Conspiracy (NASA, KFC). They do this all the time.

So, the argumentation is that this video doesn't show what you would expect according to FET, hence - as FET is true - it must be fabricated, hence it confirms the conspiracy theory, hence it indirectly confirms FET?

What a flawless logic!

P.S.: I didn't know Kentucky Fried Chicken is involved, as well. I'm shocked.

We have plenty of evidence for it.

Yep. They kill dinosaurs and serve them to us because they know the truth. I can find you some literature on the subject if you want.

Finally!  Evidence!  What is it???  Cause, it seems to me that when satellite photos and videos help the FE Theory, they actually prove something.  But, when they help the RE Theory, it's a part of a conspiracy.  It seems to me the conspiracy only exists when it's convenient.

The wiki is down. Tom might have it.

Well, since your wiki sucks, let me help you out with one that doesn't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
"The shape of the Earth approximates an oblate spheroid."

81

Flat Earth General / Re: There are no real believers.

« on: November 16, 2011, 07:20:28 PM »

I think it's the height of irony that you would attack the Flat Earth Movement because of its historic association with religion when globularism has it's roots in an ancient number-cult and NASA was founded by an occultist.

No, I think it's the lack of unbiased science and the lack of main-stream advocates not motivated by religion... vs. the abundance of unbiased believers in RET... and the pictures and evidence and geometry and math and geography and aviation and... well, common sense.

Who was the occultist?  And what about the Soviet astronauts?  Were they occultists, too?  And the JAEA?  And every country who has a satellite in orbit?  And 99.99999999999% of every scientist on Earth who knows that "globularism (not a word, but cool how you took a word and made it sound like a political movement" is the most fundamental scientific truth in human history? 

...and what the hell is a number cult?

82

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers

« on: November 16, 2011, 07:16:17 PM »

Besides, how come Australia looks like this from space?


Wouldn't it look all stupid and distorted like it appears on the FE map?

83

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spooky stuff

« on: November 16, 2011, 07:09:05 PM »

Funny that there's not a single cloud in the sky over the entirely of North America in these "head-on" satellite images.

Not to mention how easy it was to distort North America to make it look like it might on a sphere.

Yeah, I rotated the image.  Kinda like... what happens when the actual continent goes around on the face of the earth as IT rotates.  It was a lot easier than trying to stretch Australia, Africa and South America twice as wide as it should be and then passing it off as, "oh, unproven EAT proves this crap."  Trust me, NASA is full of it.  MY doctored pictures are the REAL deal.

Besides... that picture was introduced to this forum by a FE believer.  How come a picture is admissible if it supports FET, but when I prove it actually supports RET, all of a sudden it's a fabrication.  Either believe it's a hoax or not.  It's not a hoax when it's convenient for you.

84

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers

« 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...

85

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers

« 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:


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:

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:


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:


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.

86

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers

« 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).

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!

87

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: how is this flat?

« on: November 16, 2011, 01:50:45 PM »

It's clearly another poorly made video from the Conspiracy (NASA, KFC). They do this all the time.

So, the argumentation is that this video doesn't show what you would expect according to FET, hence - as FET is true - it must be fabricated, hence it confirms the conspiracy theory, hence it indirectly confirms FET?

What a flawless logic!

P.S.: I didn't know Kentucky Fried Chicken is involved, as well. I'm shocked.

We have plenty of evidence for it.

Yep. They kill dinosaurs and serve them to us because they know the truth. I can find you some literature on the subject if you want.

[/quote]

Finally!  Evidence!  What is it???  Cause, it seems to me that when satellite photos and videos help the FE Theory, they actually prove something.  But, when they help the RE Theory, it's a part of a conspiracy.  It seems to me the conspiracy only exists when it's convenient.

88

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers

« 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.

89

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers

« 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

90

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: how is this flat?

« on: November 16, 2011, 01:07:53 PM »

The sun and stars set into the earth due to perspective. Please read Earth Not a Globe on the topic.

No, I don't think that's right.  I made another post explaining why Rowbatham's theories on perspective are flawed... but, let me show you a diagram I made that shows why his theory doesn't answer my question:


The above shows a side perspective of a single point of vision (like a satellite camera) looking at a hypothetical flat Earth with a single lighted portion.  The big dot on the far left represents an eye.  The green and yellow line represents the earth, and the little dots on the right represent stars (of course not to scale). 

The white areas represent what you can see, and the grey areas represent what is either blocked by the earth or what is out of your field of vision.

On the green and yellow line, the yellow indicates a certain lit portion of flat earth.  The green is not lit, and therefore dark.  Now, when looking at the Earth from such a high elevation, the stars in the areas labeled C and E would be blocked by the darkened portion of the Earth, just as the stars in the area labeled D are blocked by the part of the earth you see in space.  The stars in portion A (and F, if the picture was big enough) ARE visible because there's nothing to block that line of sight.

In space, the lines of perspective that Rowbentham attempted to explain don't apply.  Perspective doesn't really come to a fixed point like lines of perspective in artwork... vision goes on for equal distances in every direction within that field of vision, limited only by a fixed distance and/or a blocking object (in this case, the earth).

So, given the diagram above, if the Earth were flat, this is what you would see from space:

If the green represented the lit portion of flat Earth from space, it should be a part of a massive disk that still blocks the stars behind it because it's still in your line of sight, but invisible because it isn't lighted.  So, what you would see is a lit portion of the earth, surrounded by a black invisible mass, followed THEN by stars in the background. 

Instead, what you see is this:

This indicates the lit portion of the earth with stars on all sides directly at the horizon.  This is possible because the unlit portions of the earth are on the other side of it, and thus not blocking the stars.

Please remember, Rowbentham's theories of perspective in ENaG are artistic in nature, and don't accurately represent the laws of human perspective.  When you look straight ahead, the earth appears to come to a horizon because a (seemingly) flat, visible surface (the ground) is being introduced.  The sky, on the otherhand, stretches on for infinity.  If the ground were not there, every direction in your field of vision would stretch on for infinity.  This is why you see stars at night from a billion light years away rather than a black sky slanting down to a fixed point in space.