Climates?

If earth was flat woundnt the climates all be the same. Like how do explain the equator and a ice wall is impossible if the earth was flat because the climates would all be like the equator.

Especially when he links to pages that he wrote.  It's as if he's declaring himself an authority.

Looking at Tom Bishops link....


Why would the Sun sometimes focus light down and sometimes focus light on an angle?

That doesn't make any sense.

Looking at Tom Bishops link....


Why would the Sun sometimes focus light down and sometimes focus light on an angle?

That doesn't make any sense.

Quote from: Taylor on April 07, 2010, 02:57:09 PM

Looking at Tom Bishops link....


Why would the Sun sometimes focus light down and sometimes focus light on an angle?

That doesn't make any sense.

Well not only that but he forgets that north of the equator is winter when south is summer. So maybe he can explain why a sun directly over the equator would be hotter to one side of the equator and cooler on the other.

Maybe he can also explain why the sun is round from wherever you look at it and maybe he can also explain why the winter sun looks lower in the sky than the summer sun?

Over to you Tom Bishop.

Tom I add a few things to your diagram and suddenly it makes no sense! Maybe you can solve the mysteries, esp as Melbourne and Tokyo are equidistant either side of the equator?

Well, for starters,  in FET the sun is not over the equator in the northern hemiplane summer.

Quote from: markjo on April 07, 2010, 07:41:02 PM

Well, for starters,  in FET the sun is not over the equator in the northern hemiplane summer.

It's NOT! But Tom clearly says the where the sun points down it is hottest. That has to be the equator.

He writes;

"The question, "why is the equator warmer than the poles" may be answered by the following illustration:--
When sunlight shines from overhead (on left), one square foot of sunlight falls on one square foot of ground. When it shines at a shallow angle (on right), each square foot of sunlight spreads out over many feet of ground."

Now is he going to say that the hottest parts of the planet are not indeed the equator?

The equator is closest to the sun during the middle of spring/autumn. The tropics are the closest points in their respective summers.

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 07, 2010, 07:53:00 PM

The equator is closest to the sun during the middle of spring/autumn. The tropics are the closest points in their respective summers.

We know that because we understand the earth's orbit around the sun. But by Tom's diagram it would be impossible for Tokyo and Australia to have the different seasonal mean temperatures that we know they do have, given the equator between them. If the sun does shift north (which it would have to a fair way given the reduced size of the FET sun) then Australia would snow over in winter.

Quote from: EarthISroundISproven on April 07, 2010, 08:01:37 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 07, 2010, 07:53:00 PM

The equator is closest to the sun during the middle of spring/autumn. The tropics are the closest points in their respective summers.

We know that because we understand the earth's orbit around the sun. But by Tom's diagram it would be impossible for Tokyo and Australia to have the different seasonal mean temperatures that we know they do have, given the equator between them. If the sun does shift north (which it would have to a fair way given the reduced size of the FET sun) then Australia would snow over in winter.

You're making assumptions about the FE sun's size and distance and effects thereof. Don't.

*Tom Bishop Impression*

Read the Wiki then read "Earth Not a Globe".

*end Tom Bishop Impression*

Tom I add a few things to your diagram and suddenly it makes no sense! Maybe you can solve the mysteries, esp as Melbourne and Tokyo are equidistant either side of the equator? Also days are longer in summer and shorter in Winter. You might wanna rethink your theory on Temperarture Variations then, yes?

What's hilarious about this is that having made a big song and dance about how Tom just refers people to the wiki, Earth Not a Globe and the FAQ, RE'ers show exactly why they need to do all these things.

Quote from: Lorddave on April 07, 2010, 06:27:13 PM

*Tom Bishop Impression*

Read the Wiki then read "Earth Not a Globe".

*end Tom Bishop Impression*

Tell us honestly: have you done either?

Or,how about tom just cites the book in an arguement.It makes no sense to tell people to read an entire book when you can save them time like that.especially when its a book that writes about heaven and hell.

Toms Wiki entries are all bullshit though. Everythinhg he says is just hot gas.

Quote from: Skeleton on April 08, 2010, 03:41:11 PM

Toms Wiki entries are all bullshit though. Everythinhg he says is just hot gas.

Sooo....

Can we shoot him into space?

Quote from: Lorddave on April 08, 2010, 03:49:05 PM

Quote from: Skeleton on April 08, 2010, 03:41:11 PM

Toms Wiki entries are all bullshit though. Everythinhg he says is just hot gas.

Sooo....

Can we shoot him into space?

Yes plz!

Err seeing as part of that diagram came from Toms Wiki, yes I have been there. In fact it is so child like in it's science that my whole reason fro being here is to show just how dumb it is. See no FEer can argue the point on the mapping thing because I KNOW what I'm talking about. So you resort to playground ridicule instead of for example developing a mathematical counter arguement to something like say Gnomonic projection. Tell you what...why don't you tell me why that couldn't possible work even though it does?

I've read some of the entries.  Not all of them in one sitting but I've looked for some things in there. 
I tried reading "Earth is not a Globe" and didn't get past the first chapter before I realized that this was going to be nothing more than someone justifying their observations with whatever he wanted.