Poll

Which map do you agree with the most?

Flat Earth Map #1
5 (38.5%)
Flat Earth Map #2
2 (15.4%)
levee's new map
6 (46.2%)

Total Members Voted: 13

Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With

  • 191 Replies
  • 48557 Views
*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7249
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #30 on: May 05, 2010, 03:50:30 AM »
Your wording cannot hide the fact that my map answer immediately any and all questions, the ones that could not be answered using the one in which the continents are distributed around the North Pole.

Hawaii - Sydney flight duration: 9hrs 45 min

Please locate Hawaii precisely on the map, and you will see that you do not have to go over three continents...

You wrote: The video shows that the sun never fully sets at the poles during the time when it's daylight. The RE model has no problem explaining this...

No, you got it all wrong...here is the video:



NOT ANYTHING RESEMBLING in the slightest way the theory of the sun in the round earth scenario; the Sun makes several arcs of a circle paths, each time stopping clearly and going a direction/angle incompatible with the round earth theory; it disproves immediately what we have been taught all along about the Sun.

I prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that there are no big bang/space time continuum theories; I show that there is no attractive gravity, I present the best proofs for the existence of the aether, with regards to the Sun, I present the Faint Young Sun Paradox, the Sun Neutrino Paradox and the proof that shows the impossibility of a spherically shaped sun.

Only then I go on to try to explain the path of the Sun above the flat earth...and, so far, I have shown that this path must be composed/made up of several arcs of a circle...

Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #31 on: May 05, 2010, 03:58:22 AM »
Quote from: levee
...the Sun makes several arcs of a circle paths, each time stopping clearly and going a direction/angle incompatible with the round earth theory...

You know the Earth is tilted, right?  The sun isn't actually "never-ending" at the geographic poles. It lasts for about six months each and they fully trade places during each equinox.  Half the year, the north geographic pole is lit while the south is in darkness; the other half of the year is the other way around.  This makes perfect sense on a round planet.  You either don't understand or don't want to concede.

Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #32 on: May 05, 2010, 04:06:48 AM »
Quote from: levee
Please locate Hawaii precisely on the map, and you will see that you do not have to go over three continents...


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7249
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #33 on: May 05, 2010, 04:20:42 AM »
I have already proved that the collision which supposedly was at the origin of the ~23.5 degrees tilt, could not have occurred in the first place, please do your homework and read what I write. You assume that the earth has a tilt; please explain to us ellipsis why the
movement of the solar planetary system toward the star Vega is completely incompatible with the first law of Kepler.  The tridimensional orbits of the Sun/Planets, would be circular helices on a right cylinder, which completely contradicts the planar eliptical orbits of the planets, in the heliocentric theory. A planar eliptical orbit would be possible if and only if the whole system is at rest (with respect to the rest of the Galaxy, in the round earth theory), and not moving toward Vega with 20 km/s.

The movement of the Sun (galactic orbit):

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/3817/scan0001v.jpg

http://biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg

The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion, according to O. Lodge, must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.

What did you say about conceding?

Here are videos which prove once and for all the real size of the Sun:

The Sun, just 1 km behind the ISS, with a diameter of 1000/phi:







Sun - Mercury transit, same size/diameter of Mercury as that of the ISS...





Moon - ISS transit; same distance between the Moon and the ISS, same diameter as that of the Sun...




The shape of the Sun is that of a disk, just like all the other planets/stars...

THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY FRED BRUENJES IN ANTARCTICA, PROVE THAT THE MOON DOES NOT CAUSE THE SOLAR ECLIPSE and that the size of the Black Sun matches exactly the size/diameter of the Sun.

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/index.html




Now, you also missed the true location of Hawaii, but I do not blame you...here is my version (the black spot approximately denotes Hawaii, with regard to your version; on the map we could move this spot to fit a better place if needed, that is, to the north-west, to suit a Tokyo - Honolulu flight or a Seattle - Honolulu flight, for example, but IT IS NOT located where you said it was):

« Last Edit: May 05, 2010, 04:32:45 AM by levee »

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #34 on: May 05, 2010, 04:34:43 AM »
I have already proved that the collision which supposedly was at the origin of the ~23.5 degrees tilt, could not have occurred in the first place, please do your homework and read what I write.

If you have disproved beyond doubt how none of the things you mentioned could possibly occur, then please, throw me a link to your peer reviewed article/s. If the powers that be who put together Icarus or any other peer reviewed journal wouldn't accept such a paper, then perhaps I can find it in Scientific American? If the calculations have any merit, then there's no stopping you.

Sarcasm aside, you need only look at the tilts of Uranus and it's respective rings to show that catastrophic impacts have occurred in our Solar System's past. I'll let someone else have a turn and butcher the next sentence.

Since when did the ISS get recognition for existing by FE'rs? The earth should have slammed into it years ago.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2010, 04:47:09 AM by Deceiver »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7249
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #35 on: May 05, 2010, 04:46:37 AM »
Now, a gaseous nebula approaching the form of a disk involves several things. Because of the rotating motion of the whole nebula, a centrifugal force was in action, and we are told that parts of matter more on the periphery broke up into rings. Matter must have been concentrated in just a tiny sector of those rings, given the distance (the diameter) of the rings themselves (in our case, about 150 million kilometers).

Given the fact that there is no such thing as an attractive kind of gravitation, to get from a disk to a sphere, a tangential force of compression which would produce circumferential shortening/radial shrinkage (on the equatorial plane) would have been needed. To get from a disk (transversal cross section in the shape of an ellipse, with the eccentricity very close to unity, about 0.9995) to a sphere (eccentricity of about 0.314), given the centrifugal force of rotation, would have been impossible.

A rotating nebula could not produce satellites revolving in two directions (moons of Uranus, three of the satellites of Jupiter, 1 of Saturn, and one of Neptune). Venus rotates retrogradely, completely unexplained by modern science.

Being smaller than the Earth, the moon completed earlier the process of cooling and shrinkage and a has a lighter specific weight than the Earth. The moon was produced, it is assumed, from the superificial layers of the earth's body; this assumption means that the origin of the moon was not simultaneous with that of the earth; that is, the earth had to undergo a process of leveling (cooling) before the moon parted from the earth. Therefore, we are told that a stupendous collision took place between a heavenly body and the earth, but this collision MUST HAVE TAKEN PLACE AFTER THE EARTH COOLED DOWN, that is 3.9 billion years ago (4.6 billion years - gaseous nebula, 4.5 billion years - incandescent conglomerate of matter and elements). Such a collision would have melted completely the surface of the earth; this in sharp contrast with the facts we are told: 3.85 billion years ago, DNA appeared out of nowhere. Also, in the official storyline, this collision would have been responsible for the 23.5 degree tilt, but such a collision would have disrupted completely any axial rotation, not to mention the orbital motion.


Impossibility of a spherically shaped sun:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=24706#p24706


You mention Uranus, without understanding that there is no way for a heliocentric system to have existed in the first place...

Our sun has an extremely small rotational motion, that is, it is turning slowly. This 'angular momentum' is far too small to have evolved from a gas cloud. If our sun came from a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to have been a billion times as much as it is now, in order for our planets to be flung out and orbit it as fast as they do. How could it have lost all of its rotational motion?

A full 99.5 percent of all the angular momentum in the solar system is concentrated in the planets, yet a staggering 99.8 percent of all the mass in our solar system is located in our sun! To an astrophysicist this is both astounding and unexplainable. There is no known mechanical process which could accomplish this transfer of momentum from the sun to its planets.

Our sun is rotating far too slowly to have been formed from a gas cloud that was rotating at high speed. To say it another way: the planets have far too much angular momentum in comparison with the sun. They are moving fast around the sun, while the sun itself is turning very slowly.

In the heliocentric system, Jupiter itself has 60 percent of the planetary angular motion. Evolutionary theory cannot account for this. This strange distribution was the primary cause of the downfall of the nebular hypothesis. To satisfy the theory, the sun would originally have had to spin at an extremely high speed. But instead, it rotates slowly.

David Layzer, a Harvard University astronomer, could find no solution to the angular momentum problem. If our sun had been part of a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to be a billion times as much as it now possesses. How it could have lost all but one ten-millionth of one percent of its theorized original angular momentum has never been explained. In addition, Layzer explains, if the sun lost nearly all of its momentum, why did the planets and moons retain so much of theirs?

'Except in the Earth-Moon system (which is exceptional in other respects as well), the primary [the planet] carries the bulk of the angular momentum, instead of the satellites . . This circumstance aggravates the theoretical difficulty presented by the slow rotation of the Sun, for if the Sun has somehow managed to get rid of the angular momentum it would be expected to have, according to the nebular hypotheses, why have the planets not done likewise?' David Layzer, 'Cosmogony,' in McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Vol. 3, p. 564.

One-third of the 60 moons in our solar system have retrograde (backward) orbits, which are the opposite of the rotational direction of their respective planets. Theories of cosmology cannot explain backwards-orbiting moons.


And here you can find the COMPLETE demonstration of the impossibility of a heliocentric planetary system:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=551
« Last Edit: May 05, 2010, 04:48:11 AM by levee »

Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #36 on: May 05, 2010, 04:47:21 AM »
Levee, how did you expect me to find Hawaii if you didn't even have it on your map at the time?  ::)  You instead have a few black lines in a place where it looks like Hawaii could be (and where Hawaii actually is in the second map).  Additionally, if "we can move the spot to a better place if needed" to suit different paths of travel, then it's a pretty sucky map.  On a globe, none of that spot-moving is needed, accurate predictions can always be made, and it is mostly to scale (you'll rarely find a globe that accounts for the slight bulge at the equator, for example, so I feel compelled to throw in the "mostly" qualifier).

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7249
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #37 on: May 05, 2010, 04:50:33 AM »
ellipsis, you have chosen not to answer to any of the facts I mentioned here; they destroy completely and immediately any round earth theory, as you well know by now.

No, the map is the best we have so far; Hawaii was not originally drawn on that map, that is why we must place those islands in such a way to satisfy the flight times I mentioned (Tokyo - Honolulu, Seattle - Honolulu).

As for the ISS, I explained right from the beginning that it uses the Nikola Tesla Cosmic Ray Device to function (as do the satellites); here my version differs greatly from the official FAQ.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2010, 04:52:58 AM by levee »

Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #38 on: May 05, 2010, 04:55:10 AM »
Your "facts," (quotations for sarcasm) had nothing to do with what I said.
I'm also quite curious how you think heavy elements are formed without gravity, but I'll leave that for now.

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #39 on: May 05, 2010, 04:56:46 AM »
Now, a gaseous nebula approaching the form of a disk involves several things. Because of the rotating motion of the whole nebula, a centrifugal force was in action, and we are told that parts of matter more on the periphery broke up into rings. Matter must have been concentrated in just a tiny sector of those rings, given the distance (the diameter) of the rings themselves (in our case, about 150 million kilometers).

Given the fact that there is no such thing as an attractive kind of gravitation, to get from a disk to a sphere, a tangential force of compression which would produce circumferential shortening/radial shrinkage (on the equatorial plane) would have been needed. To get from a disk (transversal cross section in the shape of an ellipse, with the eccentricity very close to unity, about 0.9995) to a sphere (eccentricity of about 0.314), given the centrifugal force of rotation, would have been impossible.

A rotating nebula could not produce satellites revolving in two directions (moons of Uranus, three of the satellites of Jupiter, 1 of Saturn, and one of Neptune). Venus rotates retrogradely, completely unexplained by modern science.

Being smaller than the Earth, the moon completed earlier the process of cooling and shrinkage and a has a lighter specific weight than the Earth. The moon was produced, it is assumed, from the superificial layers of the earth's body; this assumption means that the origin of the moon was not simultaneous with that of the earth; that is, the earth had to undergo a process of leveling (cooling) before the moon parted from the earth. Therefore, we are told that a stupendous collision took place between a heavenly body and the earth, but this collision MUST HAVE TAKEN PLACE AFTER THE EARTH COOLED DOWN, that is 3.9 billion years ago (4.6 billion years - gaseous nebula, 4.5 billion years - incandescent conglomerate of matter and elements). Such a collision would have melted completely the surface of the earth; this in sharp contrast with the facts we are told: 3.85 billion years ago, DNA appeared out of nowhere. Also, in the official storyline, this collision would have been responsible for the 23.5 degree tilt, but such a collision would have disrupted completely any axial rotation, not to mention the orbital motion.


Impossibility of a spherically shaped sun:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=24706#p24706


You mention Uranus, without understanding that there is no way for a heliocentric system to have existed in the first place...

Our sun has an extremely small rotational motion, that is, it is turning slowly. This 'angular momentum' is far too small to have evolved from a gas cloud. If our sun came from a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to have been a billion times as much as it is now, in order for our planets to be flung out and orbit it as fast as they do. How could it have lost all of its rotational motion?

A full 99.5 percent of all the angular momentum in the solar system is concentrated in the planets, yet a staggering 99.8 percent of all the mass in our solar system is located in our sun! To an astrophysicist this is both astounding and unexplainable. There is no known mechanical process which could accomplish this transfer of momentum from the sun to its planets.

Our sun is rotating far too slowly to have been formed from a gas cloud that was rotating at high speed. To say it another way: the planets have far too much angular momentum in comparison with the sun. They are moving fast around the sun, while the sun itself is turning very slowly.

In the heliocentric system, Jupiter itself has 60 percent of the planetary angular motion. Evolutionary theory cannot account for this. This strange distribution was the primary cause of the downfall of the nebular hypothesis. To satisfy the theory, the sun would originally have had to spin at an extremely high speed. But instead, it rotates slowly.

David Layzer, a Harvard University astronomer, could find no solution to the angular momentum problem. If our sun had been part of a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to be a billion times as much as it now possesses. How it could have lost all but one ten-millionth of one percent of its theorized original angular momentum has never been explained. In addition, Layzer explains, if the sun lost nearly all of its momentum, why did the planets and moons retain so much of theirs?

'Except in the Earth-Moon system (which is exceptional in other respects as well), the primary [the planet] carries the bulk of the angular momentum, instead of the satellites . . This circumstance aggravates the theoretical difficulty presented by the slow rotation of the Sun, for if the Sun has somehow managed to get rid of the angular momentum it would be expected to have, according to the nebular hypotheses, why have the planets not done likewise?' David Layzer, 'Cosmogony,' in McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Vol. 3, p. 564.

One-third of the 60 moons in our solar system have retrograde (backward) orbits, which are the opposite of the rotational direction of their respective planets. Theories of cosmology cannot explain backwards-orbiting moons.


And here you can find the COMPLETE demonstration of the impossibility of a heliocentric planetary system:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=551

As planetary geology is my specialization, I'm very familiar with nebula, unusual orbital mechanics, planetary rings, and that sort of thing. Not trying to attack you here, but your post is utterly bogus.

I'm not sure where you managed to learn this stuff, but you're way off here, starting with your basic assumptions.  Aside from your assertion that the gas giants contain the bulk of the solar systems angular momentum, and the age of the earth, I don't think there was another true statement in that entire post. It would take a great deal of my time to go through each paragraph point by point explaining why these 'problems' aren't really problems at all. So I'll direct you to some literature.

For starters, I recommend reading Giant Planets of Our Solar System: Atmospheres, Composition, and Structure, by Patrick Irwin. The first few chapters deal with the solar nebula, angular momentum, and even the satellite issues. Based on some of your other posts, I assume you can handle basic calculus.

I also recommend reading Planetary Ring Systems, by Miner, Wessen, and Cuzzi. It's a pretty easy book more for the general public than academia, as there isn't much math in it.

Lastly, the explanation you give for the evolution of the earth and moon is not fully developed. I can see that you spent some time thinking about the issue, but the fundamentals are still not there. I don't know of any texts that explain the evolution of the earth in detail without assuming a great deal of geology background... so I can't help you there. Best to go to databases and have wiki handy. As far as publications, I recommend reading papers from Icarus.

Both books are published by Springer/Praxis. Other than that, I'm not sure where to point you.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2010, 06:12:54 AM by Deceiver »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42687
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #40 on: May 05, 2010, 05:40:49 AM »
THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY FRED BRUENJES IN ANTARCTICA, PROVE THAT THE MOON DOES NOT CAUSE THE SOLAR ECLIPSE and that the size of the Black Sun matches exactly the size/diameter of the Sun.

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/index.html



Levee, you do realize that this photograph is a composite of 4 photos, don't you?  In this link, the author explains how the photo was created: http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite_photo.html
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Sliver

  • 557

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #42 on: May 05, 2010, 09:37:23 AM »
Map #2 disproved:

http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll?qscr=fexp&flag=q&city1=Honolulu&citd1=Sydney%2C+Australia&date1=10/9/2010&time1=720&cAdu=1&cSen=&cChi=&cInf=&infs=2&tktt=3&trpt=1&ecrc=&eccn=&qryt=8&load=1&airp1=&dair1=&rdct=1

Honolulu, Hawaii to Sydney, Australia. They are on the opposite ends of this particular map, and any attempt to not fly over land would probably double the time, but a nonstop flight is around 10 and a half hours.

EDIT: I guess this would apply to Levee's map also.


Disproved? Yeah right. Can you prove that those flights couldn't take place on that map?
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #43 on: May 05, 2010, 09:41:04 AM »
Disproved? Yeah right. Can you prove that those flights couldn't take place on that map?

They could, but the times wouldn't match with what we observe, so something's scaled wrongly.  It's either his MS Paint map, the planet, or the gauges on every last airplane.  Care to cast a vote?

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #44 on: May 05, 2010, 12:34:56 PM »
Disproved? Yeah right. Can you prove that those flights couldn't take place on that map?

They could, but the times wouldn't match with what we observe, so something's scaled wrongly.  It's either his MS Paint map, the planet, or the gauges on every last airplane.  Care to cast a vote?


I already have, and it's weel known which model I support (the second map or something like it). You say he "could" disprove it, the implication being that he hasn't. Drawing things on MS paint doesn't prove anything about the shape of the Earth.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #45 on: May 05, 2010, 12:38:12 PM »
Disproved? Yeah right. Can you prove that those flights couldn't take place on that map?

They could, but the times wouldn't match with what we observe, so something's scaled wrongly.  It's either his MS Paint map, the planet, or the gauges on every last airplane.  Care to cast a vote?


I already have, and it's weel known which model I support (the second map or something like it). You say he "could" disprove it, the implication being that he hasn't. Drawing things on MS paint doesn't prove anything about the shape of the Earth.

How was the map created?
The conspiracy do train attack-birds

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #46 on: May 05, 2010, 12:41:04 PM »
Does it matter?
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #47 on: May 05, 2010, 12:44:52 PM »
Does it matter?

How can you support a map over another if it was created either by distorting a round earth map or guessing?
The conspiracy do train attack-birds

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #48 on: May 05, 2010, 12:45:53 PM »
Disproved? Yeah right. Can you prove that those flights couldn't take place on that map?

They could, but the times wouldn't match with what we observe, so something's scaled wrongly.  It's either his MS Paint map, the planet, or the gauges on every last airplane.  Care to cast a vote?


I already have, and it's weel known which model I support (the second map or something like it). You say he "could" disprove it, the implication being that he hasn't. Drawing things on MS paint doesn't prove anything about the shape of the Earth.

A map without a scale on it is not usable. Until you can figure that out, the only way to disprove your theory is by tearing it's underlying concepts piece by piece.. You have absolutely no way of directly, unquestionably (ie FE standards) confirming your flat earth hypothesis without getting that most basic requirement settled. A map that is at most conceptual, hardly supports a FE viewpoint if it has no use when applied to reality.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2010, 12:53:10 PM by Deceiver »

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #49 on: May 05, 2010, 01:00:11 PM »
The top speed of the plane which makes the Hawaii-Sydney flight (A 767) is 568 Mph.

The only figure I can find for the diameter of the earth was 24,900 miles. Going off that, I measured the straight-line distance between Hawaii and Sydney on map #2 to be around 23,000 miles. Divide that by 568 mph, and you get a flight time of about 41 hours.

This doesn't even take into account the fact that the people on board would notice they were flying over land when there is not supposed to be any. Detouring around the landmasses in the way would greatly increase the time required.

Please explain how this would be possible if the earth were truly configured like map #2?

Every flat earth map has this same problem because you invariably get points which are too far apart. The moment a FE'er can produce a map which does not have these discrepancies is the moment I start to take them a bit more seriously.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #50 on: May 05, 2010, 01:08:47 PM »
Does it matter?

How can you support a map over another if it was created either by distorting a round earth map or guessing?


Because it provides a useful way of explaining a particular concept. Simple enough really.


A map without a scale on it is not usable. Until you can figure that out, the only way to disprove your theory is by tearing it's underlying concepts piece by piece.. You have absolutely no way of directly, unquestionably (ie FE standards) confirming your flat earth hypothesis without getting that most basic requirement settled. A map that is at most conceptual, hardly supports a FE viewpoint if it has no use when applied to reality.


Okay, so you also agree it has not been disproven.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #51 on: May 05, 2010, 01:12:41 PM »
Why this map and not that map then?
The conspiracy do train attack-birds

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #52 on: May 05, 2010, 01:14:07 PM »
Okay, so you also agree it has not been disproven.

Sure. I also agree that a spider-dragon named Jim that lives somewhere in the Philipines hasn't been disproven either.
Unfortunately, just like FE, that statement has no basis. There is no reason I should believe it in the first place.

It should certainly not be thrown under the classification of 'theory'.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2010, 01:17:17 PM by Deceiver »

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #53 on: May 05, 2010, 01:14:14 PM »
The top speed of the plane which makes the Hawaii-Sydney flight (A 767) is 568 Mph.

The only figure I can find for the diameter of the earth was 24,900 miles. Going off that, I measured the straight-line distance between Hawaii and Sydney on map #2 to be around 23,000 miles. Divide that by 568 mph, and you get a flight time of about 41 hours.

This doesn't even take into account the fact that the people on board would notice they were flying over land when there is not supposed to be any. Detouring around the landmasses in the way would greatly increase the time required.

Please explain how this would be possible if the earth were truly configured like map #2?


Wilmore should answer this, since he admires this model (and I mean answer it, not just pour scorn on GD's post, which his usual deflection technique). He should attempt to answer it without throwing in any questions of his own (his other deflection technique to avoid difficult questions) and while he's at it he should explain how the Sun is able to move at a constant rate across the sky in his model.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #54 on: May 05, 2010, 01:19:13 PM »
Yeah I just want to know how it might be possible for planes to consistently make 40 hour trips in 10 hours. Please help me to understand.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #55 on: May 05, 2010, 01:27:27 PM »
Yeah I just want to know how it might be possible for planes to consistently make 40 hour trips in 10 hours. Please help me to understand.


Damned if I know or care. My point is that you need to show it would take 40 hours on that map. I don't believe it would.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #56 on: May 05, 2010, 01:30:31 PM »
Yeah I just want to know how it might be possible for planes to consistently make 40 hour trips in 10 hours. Please help me to understand.


Damned if I know or care. My point is that you need to show it would take 40 hours on that map. I don't believe it would.

Again Wilmore, without a scale, you can't show anything on that map. Your map wasn't even developed by any type of surveying techniques. It's just a distorted picture of a map that already existed. Please quit acting as if your map has some quantifiable basis in which it can be conclusively tested against.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2010, 01:34:34 PM by Deceiver »

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #57 on: May 05, 2010, 01:32:38 PM »
Oh right, the burden of proof is on me. How silly of me.

Because the claim that a 767 can't go faster than 600 mph is so obviously more fantastic than the claim that it could go over 2000 mph.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #58 on: May 05, 2010, 01:36:23 PM »
Again Wilmore, without a scale, you can't show anything on that map. Please quit acting as if your map has some quantifiable basis in which it can be tested against.


I'm not "acting" like anything. He claimed he had disproved that model. In fact, he hasn't even presented evidence against it.


Oh right, the burden of proof is on me. How silly of me.

Because the claim that a 767 can't go faster than 600 mph is so obviously more fantastic than the claim that it could go over 2000 mph.


You made the claim that the map was disproven, so yes, the burden of proof is on you.


Furthermore, I'm not claiming 747s can go faster than 2,000mph. I'm just not sure they'd need to.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #59 on: May 05, 2010, 01:40:31 PM »
Again Wilmore, without a scale, you can't show anything on that map. Please quit acting as if your map has some quantifiable basis in which it can be tested against.


I'm not "acting" like anything. He claimed he had disproved that model. In fact, he hasn't even presented evidence against it.


Oh right, the burden of proof is on me. How silly of me.

Because the claim that a 767 can't go faster than 600 mph is so obviously more fantastic than the claim that it could go over 2000 mph.


You made the claim that the map was disproven, so yes, the burden of proof is on you.


Furthermore, I'm not claiming 747s can go faster than 2,000mph. I'm just not sure they'd need to.

Neither has any FE'r presented evidence FOR the map, despite the dozens of times this issue has cropped up on the forums.
The burden of proof is never on the person claiming against something -- it is on the person who is claming for something. Proving that your map has basis is not his responsibility, it's yours. Once that has been accomplished, it's up to someone else to discredit what you have proposed. You may as well discredit Jim my dragon-spider. You can't under any circumstances prove that he doesn't exist.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2010, 01:44:03 PM by Deceiver »