Couple of questions regarding the FAQ?

I've just been reading your FAQ to get a better idea of what you FE'ers believe, but I had a couple questions:

1) Why does the sky look significantly different in North America compared to South America? If we're on a disk we should all see approximately the same night sky no?

2) What is GPS and how does it work?

3) Something that looks a lot like the ISS can be seen with an amateur telescope. What is that?

Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"

Circumference: 78,225 miles
Diameter: 24,900 miles

Since you have a model of the earth where it's a disk, shouldn't the distance between say, the Falkland Islands and South Africa appear different from the distance under the round earth model? This should be calculable based on container ships' routes and so forth.

Q: "Please explain sunrises/sunsets."

A: It's a perspective effect. Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it's disappearing because everything gets smaller, and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.

If this is in fact the explanation, then we would observe the sun remaining in the sky getting dimmer and dimmer. It would never drop below the horizon or appear to. However it does appear to drop below the edge of the Earth, meaning nobody would be getting any light anywhere once it dropped below the edge of the earth. What is the reason for this observation?

We have a board specifically for Questions & Clarification, please use it.

I've just been reading your FAQ to get a better idea of what you FE'ers believe, but I had a couple questions:

1) Why does the sky look significantly different in North America compared to South America? If we're on a disk we should all see approximately the same night sky no?

No, the sky seen above the Antarctic is a different portion then that seen above the Arctic, simply because of the change in lateral position.

2) What is GPS and how does it work?

Global positioning systems use high altitude devices to track objects on the ground, though the only difference might be the mechanisms used for prolonged flight.

3) Something that looks a lot like the ISS can be seen with an amateur telescope. What is that?

The ISS? Not necessarily as advertised though.

Since you have a model of the earth where it's a disk, shouldn't the distance between say, the Falkland Islands and South Africa appear different from the distance under the round earth model? This should be calculable based on container ships' routes and so forth.

Shipping routes are imperfect, and many variables affect the time and direction of a voyage. It's impossible to produce accurate maps using only time and direction. Early maps of East continents were horribly disfigured (when compared to current versions) just by using land travel. Taking compass readings to keep correcting poorly curved paths, accounting for wind speed, or possible currents makes it impossible.

If this is in fact the explanation, then we would observe the sun remaining in the sky getting dimmer and dimmer. It would never drop below the horizon or appear to. However it does appear to drop below the edge of the Earth, meaning nobody would be getting any light anywhere once it dropped below the edge of the earth. What is the reason for this observation?

Perspective is not the unanimous answer. I submit to the bendy light theory.

That's a shame because light doesn't bend as required by FET.

Have you tested this?

Quote from: regis on October 11, 2009, 01:19:18 PM

That's a shame because light doesn't bend as required by FET.

Have you tested this?

How would you falsifiably test for the bendiness of light?

Quote from: Soze on October 11, 2009, 01:10:04 PM

Shipping routes are imperfect, and many variables affect the time and direction of a voyage.

But the differences between reality and that proposed by the flat earth are immense.

Yeah, this should be the first red-flag to go up. When a theory that is supposed to be "scientific" falls back on wrong turns and folds in maps to explain why entire continents are TEN TIMES further away from each other than they should be, you know you've just entered the world of the lunatic fringe.

This point has been raised so many times and never answered with even a modest amount of respect. Pretty much anyone with a basic grasp of spatial relations can work out that the flat earth map is way, way out when it comes to the southern hemisphere, but this relatively simple, straightforward question has never been given a serious response.

At one stage, Tom Bishop tried to explain a six-day difference in flight times on "scheduling". And he's meant to be the smartest guy in the room.

But the differences between reality and that proposed by the flat earth are immense.

Can you provide a single source to back up this claim?

That's a shame because light doesn't bend as required by FET.

Can you provide a single source to back up this claim?

Quote from: regis on October 11, 2009, 01:19:18 PM

But the differences between reality and that proposed by the flat earth are immense.

Can you provide a single source to back up this claim?

Dude, how about your own FAQ:

Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"
Circumference: 78,225 miles
Diameter: 24,900 miles

From that you can quite easily compare distances.

For example. An eastbound plane flying from Hobart, Australia to the Falkland Islands travels about 12000 kilometers (according to the spherical earth model).

Comparatively, if we assume the flat earth model, an eastbound flight from Hobart to the Falklands covers about 40,000 kilometers.

And things obviously get more extreme as you move further south.

Quote from: Parsifal on October 12, 2009, 08:51:18 AM

Quote from: regis on October 11, 2009, 01:19:18 PM

But the differences between reality and that proposed by the flat earth are immense.

Can you provide a single source to back up this claim?

Dude, how about your own FAQ:

Quote from: The God Damned Flat Earth FAQ

Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"
Circumference: 78,225 miles
Diameter: 24,900 miles

From that you can quite easily compare distances.

For example. An eastbound plane flying from Hobart, Australia to the Falkland Islands travels about 12000 kilometers (according to the spherical earth model).

Comparatively, if we assume the flat earth model, an eastbound flight from Hobart to the Falklands covers about 40,000 kilometers.

And things obviously get more extreme as you move further south.

That does nothing to back up the claim that was made.

I'm confused...

The claim was:

Since you have a model of the earth where it's a disk, shouldn't the distance between say, the Falkland Islands and South Africa appear different from the distance under the round earth model? This should be calculable based on container ships' routes and so forth.

Which received the response:

Shipping routes are imperfect, and many variables affect the time and direction of a voyage. It's impossible to produce accurate maps using only time and direction. Early maps of East continents were horribly disfigured (when compared to current versions) just by using land travel. Taking compass readings to keep correcting poorly curved paths, accounting for wind speed, or possible currents makes it impossible.

This was then countered with:

But the differences between reality and that proposed by the flat earth are immense.

To which you requested:

Can you provide a single source to back up this claim?

So, to summarise:

The initial claim was that distances between global locations in the southern hemisphere would be calculably inaccurate. The suggestion was made that this discrepancy could be due to difficulties in making accurate measurements due to various forces acting on a ship in transit. This was countered by saying that the discrepancy was far too large to be accounted for by things such as windspeeds and ocean currents. You asked for evidence to support that this discrepancy in distances was as large as had been suggested. I cited dimensions from the Flat Earth FAQ that show large, (in the order of a factor of three, thereabouts), in the distances as calculated by both models of the earth.

For the purposes of clarity, I used the example of an aircraft, rather than a ship, which is less prone to deviation due to environmental factors, but regardless, a difference in distance of approximately 28,000 kilometers is far too large to be accounted for by environmental factors.

This is not even taking in to account that any environmental disturbances would be random, and thus, we would be seeing discrepancies randomly spread across 0 to 28,000 kilometers. To be wrong is one thing, but to be wrong by the same amount every time is statistically unlikely.

Quote from: regis on October 11, 2009, 01:19:18 PM

But the differences between reality and that proposed by the flat earth are immense.

Can you provide a single source to back up this claim?

Seeing as you live in the southern hemiplane, why don't you go out and measure one degree of longitude and tell us if it matches FET predictions or RET predictions?  That way you can cite yourself as a source.

Quote from: regis on October 11, 2009, 01:19:18 PM

That's a shame because light doesn't bend as required by FET.

Can you provide a single source to back up this claim?

How is he supposed to prove a negative?  I thought that it was your responsibility to support your position that light does bend as required by FET with falsifiable evidence.

Shine a laser across a long stretch of water. If the beam on the receiving end arrives at a higher altitude it's evidence that the beam has curved upwards. If the beam on the receiving end does not arrive at a higher altitude it's evidence that the beam has traveled on a straight path.

Shine a laser across a long stretch of water. If the beam on the receiving end arrives at a higher altitude it's evidence that the beam has curved upwards. If the beam on the receiving end does not arrive at a higher altitude it's evidence that the beam has traveled on a straight path.

Sorry Tom, but the Equivalence Principle of Bendy Light^TM clearly states that there is no test that can be performed that can tell the difference between light traveling straight on a round earth and light bending on a flat earth.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2009, 12:42:01 PM

Shine a laser across a long stretch of water. If the beam on the receiving end arrives at a higher altitude it's evidence that the beam has curved upwards. If the beam on the receiving end does not arrive at a higher altitude it's evidence that the beam has traveled on a straight path.

Sorry Tom, but the Equivalence Principle of Bendy Light^TM clearly states that there is no test that can be performed that can tell the difference between light traveling straight on a round earth and light bending on a flat earth.

Then why are you asking for evidence?

Quote from: markjo on October 12, 2009, 01:23:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2009, 12:42:01 PM

Shine a laser across a long stretch of water. If the beam on the receiving end arrives at a higher altitude it's evidence that the beam has curved upwards. If the beam on the receiving end does not arrive at a higher altitude it's evidence that the beam has traveled on a straight path.

Sorry Tom, but the Equivalence Principle of Bendy Light^TM clearly states that there is no test that can be performed that can tell the difference between light traveling straight on a round earth and light bending on a flat earth.

Then why are you asking for evidence?

*sigh* Did I forget the sarcasm tag again?  I'm asking for falsifiable evidence for Bendy Light/Electromagnetic Acceleration.  Because there are two possible explanations for the same results, your proposed experiment is inconclusive and therefore inadmissible as evidence.

The initial claim was that distances between global locations in the southern hemisphere would be calculably inaccurate. The suggestion was made that this discrepancy could be due to difficulties in making accurate measurements due to various forces acting on a ship in transit. This was countered by saying that the discrepancy was far too large to be accounted for by things such as windspeeds and ocean currents. You asked for evidence to support that this discrepancy in distances was as large as had been suggested. I cited dimensions from the Flat Earth FAQ that show large, (in the order of a factor of three, thereabouts), in the distances as calculated by both models of the earth.

For the purposes of clarity, I used the example of an aircraft, rather than a ship, which is less prone to deviation due to environmental factors, but regardless, a difference in distance of approximately 28,000 kilometers is far too large to be accounted for by environmental factors.

This is not even taking in to account that any environmental disturbances would be random, and thus, we would be seeing discrepancies randomly spread across 0 to 28,000 kilometers. To be wrong is one thing, but to be wrong by the same amount every time is statistically unlikely.

Do you have any evidence that FE predictions differ from reality or not?

Seeing as you live in the southern hemiplane, why don't you go out and measure one degree of longitude and tell us if it matches FET predictions or RET predictions?  That way you can cite yourself as a source.

I am not sure how best to go about doing this. Longitude can be measured easily enough using the stars, but measuring a straight-line distance between two points one degree of longitude apart could prove difficult, given that the terrain around here is far from flat and there are countless private properties along any straight line here in the city.

How is he supposed to prove a negative?  I thought that it was your responsibility to support your position that light does bend as required by FET with falsifiable evidence.

He is the one making the claim that light does not bend. If he cannot back it up, I expect him to retract it.

Quote from: markjo on October 12, 2009, 12:03:28 PM

Seeing as you live in the southern hemiplane, why don't you go out and measure one degree of longitude and tell us if it matches FET predictions or RET predictions?  That way you can cite yourself as a source.

I am not sure how best to go about doing this. Longitude can be measured easily enough using the stars, but measuring a straight-line distance between two points one degree of longitude apart could prove difficult, given that the terrain around here is far from flat and there are countless private properties along any straight line here in the city.

You're smart, you'll figure something out.  See if your university has a surveying class and suggest it as a class project.

Quote from: markjo on October 12, 2009, 12:03:28 PM

How is he supposed to prove a negative?  I thought that it was your responsibility to support your position that light does bend as required by FET with falsifiable evidence.

He is the one making the claim that light does not bend. If he cannot back it up, I expect him to retract it.

FE'ers make negative claims all the time and say that they have no obligation to prove a negative, so why should regis be held to a higher standard?

Do you have any evidence that FE predictions differ from reality or not?

You're not making much sense here dude. Are you asking me to "prove" that flights aren't consistently delayed by several days? Are you asking me to provide evidence that passengers flying from Australia to South America aren't stuck in the air for days on end? Are you asking me to demonstrate the fact that the 40,000 kilometer flight path predicted by FET is well outside the range of any passenger aircraft in operation today?

Is that right?

You're smart, you'll figure something out.  See if your university has a surveying class and suggest it as a class project.

The possibility that the professors at my University are members of the Conspiracy cannot be ruled out, and as such any results I obtain from such a project cannot be trusted.

FE'ers make negative claims all the time and say that they have no obligation to prove a negative, so why should regis be held to a higher standard?

Please don't hold me accountable for what FEers have said. As long as I haven't made any unsubtantiated claims (and I don't think I have), I am fully entitled to request evidence for the claims of others.

You're not making much sense here dude. Are you asking me to "prove" that flights aren't consistently delayed by several days? Are you asking me to provide evidence that passengers flying from Australia to South America aren't stuck in the air for days on end? Are you asking me to demonstrate the fact that the 40,000 kilometer flight path predicted by FET is well outside the range of any passenger aircraft in operation today?

Is that right?

Yes.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2009, 01:42:51 PM

Quote from: markjo on October 12, 2009, 01:23:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2009, 12:42:01 PM

Shine a laser across a long stretch of water. If the beam on the receiving end arrives at a higher altitude it's evidence that the beam has curved upwards. If the beam on the receiving end does not arrive at a higher altitude it's evidence that the beam has traveled on a straight path.

Sorry Tom, but the Equivalence Principle of Bendy Light^TM clearly states that there is no test that can be performed that can tell the difference between light traveling straight on a round earth and light bending on a flat earth.

Then why are you asking for evidence?

*sigh* Did I forget the sarcasm tag again?  I'm asking for falsifiable evidence for Bendy Light/Electromagnetic Acceleration.

It does not and can not exist, so why ask for it?

Quote from: Tristan on October 13, 2009, 02:17:13 AM

Are you asking me to provide evidence that passengers flying from Australia to South America aren't stuck in the air for days on end?

Yes.

Um... okay then crazy person.

Go to: http://www.sydneyairport.com.au/SACL/International-Arrivals.html

There, you'll see the details of flights arriving at Sydney airport from (amongst other places) Buenos Aires and Johannesburg. As you can see, today's scheduled flights have landed within minutes of their expected arrival time.

I understand that this is a pretty small sample, but feel free to log on and check every day to widen the pool. Let me know when you read that a flight has been delayed in the air by 48 hours, although I'm pretty sure I'll read it in the news.

Um... okay then crazy person.

Go to: http://www.sydneyairport.com.au/SACL/International-Arrivals.html

There, you'll see the details of flights arriving at Sydney airport from (amongst other places) Buenos Aires and Johannesburg. As you can see, today's scheduled flights have landed within minutes of their expected arrival time.

I understand that this is a pretty small sample, but feel free to log on and check every day to widen the pool. Let me know when you read that a flight has been delayed in the air by 48 hours, although I'm pretty sure I'll read it in the news.

Where is your evidence that they departed on schedule?

Quote from: Tristan on October 13, 2009, 05:28:54 AM

Um... okay then crazy person.

Go to: http://www.sydneyairport.com.au/SACL/International-Arrivals.html

There, you'll see the details of flights arriving at Sydney airport from (amongst other places) Buenos Aires and Johannesburg. As you can see, today's scheduled flights have landed within minutes of their expected arrival time.

I understand that this is a pretty small sample, but feel free to log on and check every day to widen the pool. Let me know when you read that a flight has been delayed in the air by 48 hours, although I'm pretty sure I'll read it in the news.

Where is your evidence that they departed on schedule?

Dude, this is getting beyond a joke:

http://www.aa2000.com.ar/ - Buenos Aires Int'l Airport. Departures. Departed 17 minutes late.

Jo'burg doesn't have an online departure time, but you can call them if you like. Alternatively, you can try www.qantas.com.au and look up the departure time.

If you seriously need to be spoon-fed to this degree, no wonder you think the earth is flat. Sheesh.

Dude, this is getting beyond a joke:

http://www.aa2000.com.ar/ - Buenos Aires Int'l Airport. Departures. Departed 17 minutes late.

Now, can you prove that the flights which depart on schedule are the same flights which arrive on schedule the supposed number of hours later?

If you seriously need to be spoon-fed to this degree, no wonder you think the earth is flat. Sheesh.

If you could point out where I expressed a belief that the Earth is flat, that would be great. Thanks.

Okay. This is where I get off.

Now, can you prove that the flights which depart on schedule are the same flights which arrive on schedule the supposed number of hours later?

No. I can't. For obvious reasons, I cannot obtain the personal details of every passenger and ask them to sign a statutory declaration. And even if I could, I can't prove that they weren't all lying/mistaken/wizards. And if you push for it, I can't actually prove to you that I'm even a real person and not just a figment of your imagination. For all you know, you're the only real person in the world. Everyone else is just a hallucination. Or a Robot. Or a wizard.

But, y'know if it makes you happier to think that every person who has ever claimed to have traveled/lived in the southern hemisphere is a secret government operative operating a global conspiracy to fool you into thinking that air travel is several times slower, less efficient and more costly than it should be, you go right ahead.

Oh, and no, I can't point to where you expressed the belief that the earth was flat, but that doesn't make what you're saying right or intelligible.

Oh, and no, I can't point to where you expressed the belief that the earth was flat, but that doesn't make what you're saying right or intelligible.

I'm saying nothing, I just wanted to know if regis had any evidence to back up his claims. None has yet been provided, so I will have to assume that they are baseless.

Yes. http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/

I have already debunked this page elsewhere.

Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

Maxwell's equations only work in an inertial frame of reference.

NO INERTIA FOR REGIS.

Parsifal hands out the inertia around here, and you don't get any of it.

I doubt it.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=32431.msg810399;topicseen#msg810399

Last time I checked the horizon wasn't accelerating in any direction away from me.

You are not in an inertial frame of reference.

Quote

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=32431.msg810399;topicseen#msg810399

Your "debunking" is pretty weak and includes a massive amount of circular logic and appeal to ignorance.

Point out this "circular logic".