More reasons the Wilmore Model is crap

In the Wilmore model of the flat earth (the one with Antarctica as a distinct continent) the sun travels from right to left across the disc. It then has to quickly zoom back again to the right side once it reaches the left edge. How the hell does it do this given that the sun can be observed to always move at a nearly constant speed? Also how does it illuminate some parts of the left side and the right side simultaneously whilst leaving some bits inbetween in darkness?
I request an advocate of this model come forth and explain these shortcomings, otherwise we can conclude the model is wrong.

It is possible that there are three Suns, which orbit the Earth instead of circling above it. While one Sun is directly above it, the other two are beneath. While one is directly beneath, one of them is in the west where it is afternoon, and the other is in the east where it is morning.

It is possible that there are three Suns, which orbit the Earth instead of circling above it. While one Sun is directly above it, the other two are beneath. While one is directly beneath, one of them is in the west where it is afternoon, and the other is in the east where it is morning.

Seriously? I lol'd.

It is possible that there are three Suns, which orbit the Earth instead of circling above it. While one Sun is directly above it, the other two are beneath. While one is directly beneath, one of them is in the west where it is afternoon, and the other is in the east where it is morning.

No, it's not possible. No, I am not going to explain why only for you to go "prove xyz of supporting theory is valid" ad infinitum. Not because I can't, but because I don't want to.

Guys, is he kidding with the "three suns" thing?  I'm not sure.

No, it's not possible.

This claim is unsupported, and therefore invalid.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 24, 2010, 11:18:39 AM

No, it's not possible.

This claim is unsupported, and therefore invalid.

As was your claim. Stalemate. Except yours does not fit observed evidence. Thus I win.

As was your claim. Stalemate. Except yours does not fit observed evidence. Thus I win.

I only claimed that it was possible for there to be three Suns. In other words, that is one possible explanation. If you wish to disprove it, by all means do so. I'm all ears; or rather, all eyes, given the medium through which we are communicating.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 24, 2010, 11:26:45 AM

As was your claim. Stalemate. Except yours does not fit observed evidence. Thus I win.

I only claimed that it was possible for there to be three Suns. In other words, that is one possible explanation. If you wish to disprove it, by all means do so. I'm all ears; or rather, all eyes, given the medium through which we are communicating.

Perhaps you'd like to support your claim that 3 suns are possible.  Perhaps a scale diagram would help illuminate your position.  Remember, you made the claim, so you need to support it.

I request an advocate of this model come forth and explain these shortcomings, otherwise we can conclude the model is wrong.

I'm sorry, but there really is no other way to say this:


You're dumb and you say dumb things.


This model is incomplete. The movements of the celestial bodies have yet to be explained within this model, primarily because most FE'ers have spent their time working on the standard model. However, the fact that the model is complete does not mean you can "conlude the model is wrong". Furthermore, if it had happened that I was away and nobody came into defend it, this would have been an even more stupid argument. Please fail less.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 24, 2010, 10:49:37 AM

I request an advocate of this model come forth and explain these shortcomings, otherwise we can conclude the model is wrong.

I'm sorry, but there really is no other way to say this:


You're dumb and you say dumb things.


This model is incomplete. The movements of the celestial bodies have yet to be explained within this model, primarily because most FE'ers have spent their time working on the standard model. However, the fact that the model is complete does not mean you can "conlude the model is wrong". Furthermore, if it had happened that I was away and nobody came into defend it, this would have been an even more stupid argument. Please fail less.

Firstly, thanks for the untrue personal attack.
Secondly, there is a difference between a model which is "incomplete" and a model which is insoluble because it can never be made to fit observed data. You neglect that every model will bring with it predictions - in other words if a model is correct then at least on a cursory level it should match what you see. The scientific approach is to say "well this model predicts we would see so and so, but we don't, and we cannot find a way to make what we do see match the model. Perhaps the model is incorrect."
But you don't do that. You take the model as an absolute unchangeable constant. If you run up against something that cannot be made to fit it you just say "it's incomplete, we haven't found the explanation yet." And you can go on saying that until the end of time, because you will never contemplate that just maybe your model is where the fault lies. So you can always use that as an argument.
Tell you what, how about I say the earth is a pointed cone, with the tip centred on Paris. The base of the cone is resting in a massive flat desert of sand which stretches infinitely in every direction, with the cone being the only feature, thousands of miles tall. You might say "this cone model is ludicrous - if it were the case then we would observe xyz, and we don't observe that."
And I could defend myself by saying "This model is incomplete. The xyz phenomenon has yet to be explained within this model. However, the fact that the model is complete does not mean you can "conclude the model is wrong".

So your argument is reduced to absurdity because it can be applied to every single model of the earth one can think of. There's only one that fits observed data, and to be honest even the standard flat earth model explains this better than yours does. But you are saying, in essence, "observed data is irrelevant because anything can be made to fit, we just don't know how."

But then what would I know, I'm dumb and I say dumb things.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 24, 2010, 11:26:45 AM

As was your claim. Stalemate. Except yours does not fit observed evidence. Thus I win.

I only claimed that it was possible for there to be three Suns. In other words, that is one possible explanation. If you wish to disprove it, by all means do so. I'm all ears; or rather, all eyes, given the medium through which we are communicating.

I could also claim that it's possible for monkeys to be born from the asses of donkeys, and because I only said it was possible it would be up to you to disprove me.  And of course you understand that I would take any video of a monkey actually being born from a monkey vagina to be fake and part of a conspiracy to hide the truth!

to be honest even the standard flat earth model explains this better than yours does.

I disagree. The standard model, where Antarctica is some sort of giant rim-continent is simply incompatible with many voyages taken over land and sea on a regular basis. As for the need for a theory that matches observable phenomona, I agree 100%. However, the idea that you can conclude the model is wrong because it is incomplete is absurd. I have no problem admitting that the model is incomplete, and that this is not satisfactory. My aim is to encourage other FE'ers to think about this model, because I just don't think any one of us is going to fill in the blanks by ourselves.


As for stating that if no-one came into this thread to defend the model, you were entitled to conclude that the model is not only wrong, that was a dumb thing to say on every possible level.

As for stating that if no-one came into this thread to defend the model, you were entitled to conclude that the model is not only wrong, that was a dumb thing to say on every possible level.

OK I concur that that might be a little harsh. But so far no defence of your model has been suggested, apart from that by Parsifal (which is plain silly and does not work) and yours (which isn't a defence, it's an excuse and can be applied to every single piece of wrong science ever dreamed up, as I have shown).

And you are wrong when you say the standard model doesn't explain the sun better than yours does. At least on that one the sun moves at near constant speed without needing to ping back to the other side of the earth suddenly. Yours explains Antarctica better than the standard model, but this thread concerns the movements of the sun.

I too want FE'ers to think about your model. I want them to think about it and come to the conclusion that it cannot be made to fit the real world.

You must surely be aware that I believe light bends in some capacity. I do not believe that the sun whizzes around the Earth at huge speeds. I believe that its observed movement is constant, though its apparent position may not necessarily correspond to its actual position. You are most likely confused, believing that images such as the following represented my actual beliefs concerning the sun's movement:





That is how I believe light is distributed across the Earth, however, it is not how I believe the Sun moves. I believe the effect is produced by the bending of light, so you can essentially ignore the Sun's movements in the above diagram. This is why I am so excited by John's Aetheric Eddification Theory, as I think it lends itself very well to the above model. However, to my knowledge he is developing it with the standard model in mind, and I would like to see John consider how his idea would function within the above model.

Wow, just wow.  Ignorance is staggering.

You must surely be aware that I believe light bends in some capacity. I do not believe that the sun whizzes around the Earth at huge speeds. I believe that its observed movement is constant, though its apparent position may not necessarily correspond to its actual position. You are most likely confused, believing that images such as the following represented my actual beliefs concerning the sun's movement:

That is how I believe light is distributed across the Earth, however, it is not how I believe the Sun moves. I believe the effect is produced by the bending of light, so you can essentially ignore the Sun's movements in the above diagram. This is why I am so excited by John's Aetheric Eddification Theory, as I think it lends itself very well to the above model. However, to my knowledge he is developing it with the standard model in mind, and I would like to see John consider how his idea would function within the above model.

Wonderful, didn't really count how many things you believe there. Anyway, wheres the data that supports these frivolous beliefs? A single testable evidence would be great too.

Are you claiming that I should have used some other, more certain term? Because if you are, then you're a dolt. As for evidence, as I said, the model is incomplete. I do not claim to have evidence supporting an incomplete model.

Are you claiming that I should have used some other, more certain term? Because if you are, then you're a dolt. As for evidence, as I said, the model is incomplete. I do not claim to have evidence supporting an incomplete model.

So go complete your model and get back to us.  We'll leave you alone until you do.  OK guys?  We can leave Wilmore alone until he completes his model?

Are you claiming that I should have used some other, more certain term? Because if you are, then you're a dolt. As for evidence, as I said, the model is incomplete. I do not claim to have evidence supporting an incomplete model.

No one cares what you personally believe in. Keep it to yourself until you can back it up with at least a valid theory. So far, you have shown no valid theories, let alone a single evidence for any of your fairytale-like beliefs. So again, keep your fantasies to yourself if you cannot live with the truth. And the truth is, the Earth isn't flat.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 25, 2010, 02:45:28 PM

Are you claiming that I should have used some other, more certain term? Because if you are, then you're a dolt. As for evidence, as I said, the model is incomplete. I do not claim to have evidence supporting an incomplete model.

No one cares what you personally believe in. Keep it to yourself until you can back it up with at least a valid theory. So far, you have shown no valid theories, let alone a single evidence for any of your fairytale-like beliefs. So again, keep your fantasies to yourself if you cannot live with the truth. And the truth is, the Earth isn't flat.

What, you claim to 'know' the 'truth'? Please, take your childish assertions elsewhere. To claim anything more than belief is pure hubris, no matter what theory you're discussing. For example, I believe in the theory of evolution, but I cannot possibly claim to 'know' that evolution is 'true', and nor for that matter can you. The same goes for any theory or model.

I do not believe that the sun whizzes around the Earth at huge speeds.

Looks like the sun is hauling ass pretty good as it goes from west to east.

^

REAL



^

FAKE

^

Bullshit



^

Real

Fixed your post.  Well, at least until you can offer proof to the contrary.

thanks for the fix

i was being sarcastic

thanks for the fix

i was being sarcastic

Sorry.  For some reason I thought Wilmore posted that.  My bad.

Actually, Wilmores 'model' of the Sun is actually correct about what parts of the Earth are illuminated, just, they put it onto a Flat Earth map instead.

They get all their information from RE sources and convert them to fit FE, that's it.

Quote from: Rob Valensky on April 25, 2010, 03:18:30 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 25, 2010, 02:45:28 PM

Are you claiming that I should have used some other, more certain term? Because if you are, then you're a dolt. As for evidence, as I said, the model is incomplete. I do not claim to have evidence supporting an incomplete model.

No one cares what you personally believe in. Keep it to yourself until you can back it up with at least a valid theory. So far, you have shown no valid theories, let alone a single evidence for any of your fairytale-like beliefs. So again, keep your fantasies to yourself if you cannot live with the truth. And the truth is, the Earth isn't flat.

What, you claim to 'know' the 'truth'?

Of course, anyone with a functional brain knows what the shape of the Earth is. All your questions are so lame and childish. Read my previous posts and stay in silence.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 25, 2010, 11:27:34 AM

I do not believe that the sun whizzes around the Earth at huge speeds.

Looks like the sun is hauling ass pretty good as it goes from west to east.

That is how I believe light is distributed across the Earth, however, it is not how I believe the Sun moves.

Of course, anyone with a functional brain knows what the shape of the Earth is.

So you believe that you can say this with 100% certainty, something real scientists never claim? You must reveal your new method of inquiry to the world at large, so that we can all modify our language use appropriately.

Quote from: markjo on April 25, 2010, 04:51:56 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 25, 2010, 11:27:34 AM

I do not believe that the sun whizzes around the Earth at huge speeds.

Looks like the sun is hauling ass pretty good as it goes from west to east.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 25, 2010, 11:27:34 AM

That is how I believe light is distributed across the Earth, however, it is not how I believe the Sun moves.

Quote from: Rob Valensky on April 26, 2010, 04:04:50 AM

Of course, anyone with a functional brain knows what the shape of the Earth is.

So you believe that you can say this with 100% certainty, something real scientists never claim? You must reveal your new method of inquiry to the world at large, so that we can all modify our language use appropriately.

WE ALL WELIEVE THAT THE WERTH IS WOUND WECAUSE WE HAVE PROOF.