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
  • 48543 Views
?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #60 on: May 05, 2010, 01:44:00 PM »
My god its like arguing with a brick wall.

I just explained why it would be necessary to fly that fast. Using the only information available, my eyeballs, and a ruler, I estimated the distance the plane would have to travel to go from Hawaii to Australia on map #2. That distance would take 41 hours to fly in a 767 at its top speed, yet it consistently takes about 10 hours in the real world.

What's so hard to understand about that, honestly?
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #61 on: May 05, 2010, 01:56:05 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.


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

Wilmore is seen here employing Bishop's Razor (a denial of reality akin to "no, I think you're wrong and that's that") rather than accepting that GD has shown it would take 40 hours by virtue of very simple mathematics. If Wilmore wishes to dispute GD's claim, he is disputing the very nature of the mathematical calculations used.
The phrase "you need to show it would take 40 hours on that map" is not only something that's already been done but is also an attempt by Wilmore to deflect the question back on the questioner, a similar tactic to that which I described him commonly using which is to throw in another question to deflect a critique.

And let's hear no more "burden of proof" debate, it's a semantic argument and utterly meaningless.
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 #62 on: May 05, 2010, 02:14:14 PM »
Let me put it this way. for the purposes of my calculation, I only made 3 assumptions:

1) Map #2 is an accurate representation of how the Earth looks.
2) The diameter of Earth is 24,900 miles.
3) The top flight speed of a Boeing 767 is 568 MPH

Which of those assumptions are wrong, and for what reasons?
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #63 on: May 05, 2010, 03:37:09 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.

Even if the burden of proof is not on you, do you even have any proof for it?

Again, why this map and not that map?
The conspiracy do train attack-birds

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #64 on: May 05, 2010, 04:25:32 PM »
My god its like arguing with a brick wall.

I just explained why it would be necessary to fly that fast. Using the only information available, my eyeballs, and a ruler, I estimated the distance the plane would have to travel to go from Hawaii to Australia on map #2. That distance would take 41 hours to fly in a 767 at its top speed, yet it consistently takes about 10 hours in the real world.

What's so hard to understand about that, honestly?


So tell me, have you measured the actual course/distance of an aircraft, and compared it with that map, or did you just pull a bunch of numbers out of your head? I'm not interested in what might happen. If you want to 'disprove' the map, you need actual data regarding distance/route speed and time. At the moment you have only the latter, and only if we assume that the flight will actually take that long.


Wilmore is seen here employing Bishop's Razor (a denial of reality akin to "no, I think you're wrong and that's that") rather than accepting that GD has shown it would take 40 hours by virtue of very simple mathematics. If Wilmore wishes to dispute GD's claim, he is disputing the very nature of the mathematical calculations used.
The phrase "you need to show it would take 40 hours on that map" is not only something that's already been done but is also an attempt by Wilmore to deflect the question back on the questioner, a similar tactic to that which I described him commonly using which is to throw in another question to deflect a critique.

And let's hear no more "burden of proof" debate, it's a semantic argument and utterly meaningless.


TD is seen here preaching about 'very simple mathematics', whilst at the same time talking out of his ass. The fact that GD has not provided any figures regarding distance alone shows that he has not "shown it would take 40 hours by virtue of very simple mathematics". Please tell me where these calculations are? Because they're not in this thread.


What's more, debates about theoretical flights are totally academic. Theoretical flights cannot disprove a given model. If they could, I could invent a magical flight whereby a 747 went from New York to London in 17 minutes, and claim to have disproven RET. You need actual data, unless you want to throw empiricism out the window.
"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

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #65 on: May 05, 2010, 04:36:59 PM »
My god its like arguing with a brick wall.

I just explained why it would be necessary to fly that fast. Using the only information available, my eyeballs, and a ruler, I estimated the distance the plane would have to travel to go from Hawaii to Australia on map #2. That distance would take 41 hours to fly in a 767 at its top speed, yet it consistently takes about 10 hours in the real world.

What's so hard to understand about that, honestly?


So tell me, have you measured the actual course/distance of an aircraft, and compared it with that map, or did you just pull a bunch of numbers out of your head? I'm not interested in what might happen. If you want to 'disprove' the map, you need actual data regarding distance/route speed and time. At the moment you have only the latter, and only if we assume that the flight will actually take that long.


First off, the route is not important, the distance is.

The data I have is the flight time of a commercial airliner on a trip from Hawaii to Australia, and the maximum possible speed of that airliner.

In order for the plane to make the trips it does on a world that looks like map #2, it would have to:
a) fly over 2000 MPH
b) the world would have to be about 1/4 the diameter listed in the FAQ.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #66 on: May 05, 2010, 04:42:18 PM »
Basic algebra for Wilmore.  Speed = distance/time

If we know any two of these, we can find the third.  If we know the speed, we can try out different distances and get different lengths of time passed.  If we know the distance and time we can work out the speed of travel.  Presuming the map is at least roughly to scale, that's all he's done.  If you honestly have trouble with this then I'd be surprised if you made it through junior high.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #67 on: May 05, 2010, 04:45:18 PM »
You want my calculations? Here they are:

I measured the diameter of map #2 on my screen to be 16 cm. I measured the distance from Hawaii to Australia to be a bit under 15 cm, again on that same map on my screen. The diameter of the earth from the FAQ is 24900 miles.

To get the distance from Hawaii to Australia in miles:

16cm/24900 miles = 15cm/x miles, so x = (15/16)*24900 miles = 23344 miles.

To get the time it would take a jet flying at 568 m/hr:

23344 m / (568 m/hr) = 41.10 hours

Simple enough, now point out where I am wrong.
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 #68 on: May 05, 2010, 05:14:07 PM »
First off, the route is not important, the distance is.

The data I have is the flight time of a commercial airliner on a trip from Hawaii to Australia, and the maximum possible speed of that airliner.

In order for the plane to make the trips it does on a world that looks like map #2, it would have to:
a) fly over 2000 MPH
b) the world would have to be about 1/4 the diameter listed in the FAQ.


Actually, the route is important, because a) winds can effect speeds, and b) if you're measuring things 'as the crow flies' with a ruler, you may not be accurately calculating the distance travelled on a RE map.


Basic algebra for Wilmore.  Speed = distance/time

If we know any two of these, we can find the third.  If we know the speed, we can try out different distances and get different lengths of time passed.  If we know the distance and time we can work out the speed of travel.  Presuming the map is at least roughly to scale, that's all he's done.  If you honestly have trouble with this then I'd be surprised if you made it through junior high.


Yes, and up until now we had no idea what figures he was using for distance. I don't have trouble with algebra, I'm just not psychic.


You want my calculations? Here they are:

I measured the diameter of map #2 on my screen to be 16 cm. I measured the distance from Hawaii to Australia to be a bit under 15 cm, again on that same map on my screen. The diameter of the earth from the FAQ is 24900 miles.

To get the distance from Hawaii to Australia in miles:

16cm/24900 miles = 15cm/x miles, so x = (15/16)*24900 miles = 23344 miles.

To get the time it would take a jet flying at 568 m/hr:

23344 m / (568 m/hr) = 41.10 hours

Simple enough, now point out where I am wrong.


First of all, the figure given in the FAQ refers exclusively to map 1. I'm pretty sure the diameter in the second model is smaller, though it has never been worked out. Secondly, your 'ruler routes' are not the routes that would actually be taken.


Finally, you need to understand something, which is that only empirical data matters. The thing is, I don't even think Hawaii and Australia are as depicted on that map. I find it hard to believe that Australia is so wildly distorted, or that Hawaii could be so far away from Japan. However, I'm not going to make any positive claims about it without empirical data. I don't have that, so I keep my mouth shut about it.


That map is essentially used as a rough guide to communicate the concept of a FE with Antarctica as a distinct continent rather than the rim continent, and as it's just a projection based of RE maps, undoubtedly contains many errors. But people can't just go around claiming to have proven this or that based on theoretical planes and boats. We need real data, not MS paint scribbles.
"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

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #69 on: May 05, 2010, 05:34:02 PM »


No, the route is not important, because the route I calculated is the shortest possible route. Any real route would be much longer. And I am not focusing on proving RE here, just disproving this particular FE map. And a tailwind cannot possibly add over 1500 mph to an airplane's speed, which would be what is required to make the trip on time.

All I claimed was that using the map as shown, the route from Hawaii to Australia by 767 would have to be at the very least 41 hours, and that any route that did not fly over land (so as to continue deceiving the passengers) would have to be many hours longer than that.

And you said:

Quote
I find it hard to believe that Australia is so wildly distorted, or that Hawaii could be so far away from Japan.

so you understand the problems with all the FE maps that have been worked out so far. Show me a flat map which accurately represents the world and agrees with flight times, and you have just made a major step towards proving FE.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #70 on: May 05, 2010, 07:18:05 PM »
...your 'ruler routes' are not the routes that would actually be taken.

On a flat Earth map, yes, a straight line would be the basic path taken.  Since there hasn't been a single flat Earth map able to agree with observed travel distance, the "it must be a conspiracy" thing has to come up to cling to the notion.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #71 on: May 05, 2010, 08:20:03 PM »
So we've got eight votes and only three FE'ers saying which map they believe is correct.  Each one picked a different map, by the way.  So who are the other voters?

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #72 on: May 05, 2010, 08:24:35 PM »
That map is essentially used as a rough guide to communicate the concept of a FE with Antarctica as a distinct continent rather than the rim continent, and as it's just a projection based of RE maps, undoubtedly contains many errors. But people can't just go around claiming to have proven this or that based on theoretical planes and boats. We need real data, not MS paint scribbles.

Get a fucking testable map already then.

Enough with hiding behind your rough guides and models, sit down and actually do something to help your goddamn cause rather than sticking your finger up your ass.

How do you expect anyone to be swayed into FE if all you have is a fucking kindergarten grade drawing - because that's basically all you have in the mapping world.

Make it work.

Last time I checked, planes and boats aren't theoretical, your maps are.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2010, 08:26:16 PM by flyingmonkey »

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #73 on: May 05, 2010, 10:50:01 PM »
They will now say that they don't have the budget to go out and map the whole world, but I submit that is not necessary.

They have access to the same flight data that we do by looking on any travel website, so all that remains is to work up a theoretical rough map which actually fits with that flight data. If the earth is indeed flat, this should be easy to do, as they would just be representing reality.

Still waiting for a FE map that works. We might be waiting a while.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #74 on: May 05, 2010, 11:18:13 PM »
They will now say that they don't have the budget to go out and map the whole world, but I submit that is not necessary.

They have access to the same flight data that we do by looking on any travel website, so all that remains is to work up a theoretical rough map which actually fits with that flight data. If the earth is indeed flat, this should be easy to do, as they would just be representing reality.

Still waiting for a FE map that works. We might be waiting a while.

RE'r makes an assertion against some FE premise.
FE'r requests that RE'r prove this to be the case, using 'evidence'.
RE'r does this by using math, or by showing a logical fallacy.
FE'r then falls back on the "it's only a conceptual idea, no specifics have been developed yet. So that doesn't disprove anything".

Pretty sure this sums up 95pct of the threads on this forum. The other 5pct falls under blatant ignoring of the facts, conspiracy, or some excuse... not having funding to prove something in which there is a high degree of passion being a good one.

<facepalm>
« Last Edit: May 05, 2010, 11:32:18 PM by Deceiver »

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #75 on: May 06, 2010, 01:50:11 AM »


No, the route is not important, because the route I calculated is the shortest possible route. Any real route would be much longer. And I am not focusing on proving RE here, just disproving this particular FE map. And a tailwind cannot possibly add over 1500 mph to an airplane's speed, which would be what is required to make the trip on time.

All I claimed was that using the map as shown, the route from Hawaii to Australia by 767 would have to be at the very least 41 hours, and that any route that did not fly over land (so as to continue deceiving the passengers) would have to be many hours longer than that.

And you said:

Quote
I find it hard to believe that Australia is so wildly distorted, or that Hawaii could be so far away from Japan.

so you understand the problems with all the FE maps that have been worked out so far. Show me a flat map which accurately represents the world and agrees with flight times, and you have just made a major step towards proving FE.


All of this is irrelevant. Without empirical data, the model has not been disproved, and that's all I've ever disputed.


Get a fucking testable map already then.

Enough with hiding behind your rough guides and models, sit down and actually do something to help your goddamn cause rather than sticking your finger up your ass.

How do you expect anyone to be swayed into FE if all you have is a fucking kindergarten grade drawing - because that's basically all you have in the mapping world.

Make it work.

Last time I checked, planes and boats aren't theoretical, your maps are.


We've been through this, so lurk more. The degree of expense and effort involved is too great. I'm in college at the moment, and I cannot afford the time or the expense. If cartography is so easy, why did it take RE'ers so long to finalise their maps, despite huge investment?


They will now say that they don't have the budget to go out and map the whole world, but I submit that is not necessary.

They have access to the same flight data that we do by looking on any travel website, so all that remains is to work up a theoretical rough map which actually fits with that flight data. If the earth is indeed flat, this should be easy to do, as they would just be representing reality.

Still waiting for a FE map that works. We might be waiting a while.


Can you read?


only empirical data matters.


Theoretical maps don't prove anything. Empirical data must be the basis of any such endeavour, not theoretical models and theoretical flights. I'm not interested in what's possible on a map, just whether or not that map can accomodate real data.


RE'r makes an assertion against some FE premise.
FE'r requests that RE'r prove this to be the case, using 'evidence'.
RE'r does this by using math, or by showing a logical fallacy.
FE'r then falls back on the "it's only a conceptual idea, no specifics have been developed yet. So that doesn't disprove anything".


Please invest in a dictionary.
"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 #76 on: May 06, 2010, 02:31:10 AM »


No, the route is not important, because the route I calculated is the shortest possible route. Any real route would be much longer. And I am not focusing on proving RE here, just disproving this particular FE map. And a tailwind cannot possibly add over 1500 mph to an airplane's speed, which would be what is required to make the trip on time.

All I claimed was that using the map as shown, the route from Hawaii to Australia by 767 would have to be at the very least 41 hours, and that any route that did not fly over land (so as to continue deceiving the passengers) would have to be many hours longer than that.

And you said:

Quote
I find it hard to believe that Australia is so wildly distorted, or that Hawaii could be so far away from Japan.

so you understand the problems with all the FE maps that have been worked out so far. Show me a flat map which accurately represents the world and agrees with flight times, and you have just made a major step towards proving FE.

All of this is irrelevant. Without empirical data, the model has not been disproved, and that's all I've ever disputed.


Get a fucking testable map already then.

Enough with hiding behind your rough guides and models, sit down and actually do something to help your goddamn cause rather than sticking your finger up your ass.

How do you expect anyone to be swayed into FE if all you have is a fucking kindergarten grade drawing - because that's basically all you have in the mapping world.

Make it work.

Last time I checked, planes and boats aren't theoretical, your maps are.


We've been through this, so lurk more. The degree of expense and effort involved is too great. I'm in college at the moment, and I cannot afford the time or the expense. If cartography is so easy, why did it take RE'ers so long to finalise their maps, despite huge investment?


They will now say that they don't have the budget to go out and map the whole world, but I submit that is not necessary.

They have access to the same flight data that we do by looking on any travel website, so all that remains is to work up a theoretical rough map which actually fits with that flight data. If the earth is indeed flat, this should be easy to do, as they would just be representing reality.

Still waiting for a FE map that works. We might be waiting a while.


Can you read?


only empirical data matters.


Theoretical maps don't prove anything. Empirical data must be the basis of any such endeavour, not theoretical models and theoretical flights. I'm not interested in what's possible on a map, just whether or not that map can accomodate real data.


RE'r makes an assertion against some FE premise.
FE'r requests that RE'r prove this to be the case, using 'evidence'.
RE'r does this by using math, or by showing a logical fallacy.
FE'r then falls back on the "it's only a conceptual idea, no specifics have been developed yet. So that doesn't disprove anything".


Please invest in a dictionary.

In all fairness Lord Wilmore, I have some level of deep respect for you and your ability to put up with our near-constant attacks and condescension (especially mine, anyway).

With that out of the way, this statement,
"Theoretical maps don't prove anything. Empirical data must be the basis of any such endeavour, not theoretical models and theoretical flights. I'm not interested in what's possible on a map, just whether or not that map can accomodate real data."
or this one
"Without empirical data, the model has not been disproved, and that's all I've ever disputed."
you are making a rather bold proclamation of a double standard, or a willingness to accept a claim without backing, in the least.

Where is the empirical data for any of these maps? Or how can your maps possibly accommodate real data? They can't, as you have already said. Same applies to any other FE claim or RE claim. The RE maps are exceedingly reliable and accurate, by any standard. Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there again. It's a pretty solid detractor to credibility when you throw those kinds of comments willy nilly.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2010, 02:35:55 AM by Deceiver »

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #77 on: May 06, 2010, 06:44:27 AM »
So you are willing to support an entire theory which has no empirical evidence to back it up, but whenever someone opposes that theory, you just get to call their evidence non-empirical and disregard it?

And why is my evidence invalid? Airlines and airports keep records of their flights which are readily available online. Flight 451 made the trip today just as scheduled. Both the departing and arriving airports have records of the trip.

Besides, would you even believe me if I said I had taken the trip myself and timed it?
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 #78 on: May 06, 2010, 07:35:29 AM »
In all fairness Lord Wilmore, I have some level of deep respect for you and your ability to put up with our near-constant attacks and condescension (especially mine, anyway).


Thanks, I think maintaining civil debate is important, though sometimes it's hard not to vent one's irritation. Besides, after four years here it's hard to get offended.


Where is the empirical data for any of these maps? Or how can your maps possibly accommodate real data? They can't, as you have already said. Same applies to any other FE claim or RE claim. The RE maps are exceedingly reliable and accurate, by any standard. Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there again. It's a pretty solid detractor to credibility when you throw those kinds of comments willy nilly.


There is plenty of data which supports the idea that Antarctica is a distinct continent which exists in roughly that area. In contrast, I have yet to see any evidence which supports the 'Antarctica as a rim continent' model, and plenty that is inconsistent with it.


So you are willing to support an entire theory which has no empirical evidence to back it up, but whenever someone opposes that theory, you just get to call their evidence non-empirical and disregard it?


See above.


And why is my evidence invalid? Airlines and airports keep records of their flights which are readily available online. Flight 451 made the trip today just as scheduled. Both the departing and arriving airports have records of the trip.


It's invalid because all it proves is that aircraft 1 got from A to B in so many hours. Without the route, it doesn't tell us where A and B are in relation to one another. Incidentally, any decent scientific study would require flight logs, or at least the actual data from the airport, not the status updates from a website.


Besides, would you even believe me if I said I had taken the trip myself and timed it?


Not if you just said 'yeah did this, earth iz rownd kay'. People don't really go in for accepting bald statements here. But if it was properly documented, and the test carried out in a scientific manner, yes, I'd believe you.
"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

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #79 on: May 06, 2010, 09:02:59 AM »
Is this any better? It includes the routes taken, and there is a link to other flights between the same airports.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/HAL451

To me, this shows pretty conclusively that flying between Hawaii and Sydney is possible in about 10 hours, and I pretty conclusively showed that on the map in question, that flight would not be possible (at the speeds of commercial jets) in under 40 hours regardless of the route. This is using the simple assumption that the shortest possible distance between two points on a flat surface is a straight line. I can derive the distance formula for you if you like.

I am still confused as to how this might be possible if the earth was in fact configured as is shown on map #2. Would you care to provide some calculations of your own?

I am only using the information that has been provided to me and that which is readily available on the internet, and like many FE'ers often say, I can't afford a plane ticket on that route to test it for myself.

Simply provide a more accurate map, even a theoretical one, and I and others would be happy to test it for validity.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #80 on: May 06, 2010, 01:18:36 PM »

We've been through this, so lurk more. The degree of expense and effort involved is too great. I'm in college at the moment, and I cannot afford the time or the expense. If cartography is so easy, why did it take RE'ers so long to finalise their maps, despite huge investment?


Because now that all the information is readily available to you to make such an endeavor, it should be relatively easy if you hold this theory so dear to your heart.

It took RE so long, because they had to gather all the available information, which you now have to use.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #81 on: May 06, 2010, 03:54:17 PM »
The wiki is very heavy on "FE is right because..." statements, but very light on "RE is wrong because..." statements, and that is what I am looking for here. I should probably make a separate thread about this.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Lorddave

  • 18282
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #82 on: May 06, 2010, 03:57:36 PM »
The wiki is very heavy on "FE is right because..." statements, but very light on "RE is wrong because..." statements, and that is what I am looking for here. I should probably make a separate thread about this.

Already did.
The answer is...

Well, there really isn't one.  I had a few guys respond but it mostly had to do with Gravity and NASA's mission to Mars.

FET isn't about RET being wrong because, it's about an "Alternate" way to explain things that can't/won't/aren't tested.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7249
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #83 on: May 07, 2010, 04:43:38 AM »
markjo, we have already talked about this...but here we go again...

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

The following pictures, taken by F. Bruenjes, show very clearly that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse, and more importantly, that the heavenly body known as the Black Sun is seen to be at just a few hundred km of distance from the photographer.




Now, here is the story behind this picture, all F. Bruenjes did is to change the color saturation, he did not change the size/distance of the Black Sun:



The framed image above is a highly processed composite of four images that's intended to be a more artistic representation of what the eclipse felt like. I have increased the color saturation slightly to better show the green thru red corona colors, otherwise the image is truthful.

HERE IS THE UNPROCESSED PICTURE:



Are you going to tell us that this star/planet is 384,000 km away from the photographer?


Here are the videos which prove, once and for all, that you (round earth supporters) have no idea about the world you live in:

The Sun/ISS/Mercury transit videos show clearly the real dimensions of the Sun: not 1.4 million km in diameter (or for that matter, 50 km/32 mi), but just 1000/PHI ~= 618 meters:








The Moon/ISS transits show the same diameter as that of the Sun:




There is no need to debate or argue about the shape of the Moon, it is clearly a flat disk, and furthermore, the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse.


Deceiver, you could be accused of illegally carrying a brain inside your skull; you need to study MUCH MORE to even understand what round earth theory is all about.

Maybe you find yourself at a basic calculus level; my studies include nonlinear bifurcations, perturbation theory, chaos and nonlinear dynamical systems, nonlinear ordinary/partial diff. eqs., and much more...as for your geological studies, they obviously include the official propaganda, as you have not been able so far to get past this level, but I am here to help you...

What did you recommend for suggested reading? Are we to understand here, that you actually take this (Giant Planets of Our Solar System: Atmospheres, Composition, and Structure, by Patrick Irwin) to be true? The author is just as ignorant AS YOU ARE, deceiver, he takes for granted all the garbage spewed out by Nasa and the LRS, he does not understand that there was no big bang to start with, not to mention the inexistence of attractive gravity.

Each and every statement made by me in this message (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38712.msg961894#msg961894 ) is very true and very easy to understand, even for a geologist like yourself. I explain very clearly that, since there is no attractive gravity, the heliocentric solar system could not come into being in the first place; the facts concerning the angular momentum of the Sun/Jupiter are taken from the official propaganda, or you seem not to know this much?

Everything I wrote is perfectly true, and very obvious for any real scientist.

My geologist friend, you have no idea what the big bang/string theories are actually about, you must learn the basics here:

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


Geology? Here are the facts of life for you:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35572 (origin of granite)


Here is the Faint Young Sun Paradox which disproves immediately the fairy tale you believe in:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg718434#msg718434


Impossibility of a spherically shaped sun:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=24706#p24706 (read this one especially, deceiver)


Hubble/Tolman mistakes/missing Doppler effect/CMBR-aether:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=31011#p31011


The inexistence of attractive gravity:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541 (step by step demonstration that there is no attractive gravity)

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542 (part II)


The movements/trajectories of the clouds in the sky show us that the Earth is completely stationary:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35521
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143

deceiver, let us say that, at the present time, you know about 5% of what a true scientist should be acquainted with, you have no chance with me on any discussion about geology/astrophysics...

PS Here are some other things you never thought about.

The presence of iron in the shell or the migration of heavy metals from the core to the shell has not been sufficiently explained. For these metals to have left the core, they must have been ejected by explosions, and in order to remain spread through the crust, the explosions must have been followed immediately by cooling.
If, in the beginning, the planet was a hot conglomerate of elements, as the nebular as well as the tidal theories assume, then the iron of the globe should have become oxidized and combined with all available oxygen. But for some unknown reasons this did not happen; thus the presence of oxygen in the terrestrial atmosphere is unexplained.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 04:51:39 AM by levee »

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #84 on: May 07, 2010, 04:59:00 AM »
Here are the videos which prove, once and for all, that you (round earth supporters) have no idea about the world you live in:

The Sun/ISS/Mercury transit videos show clearly the real dimensions of the Sun: not 1.4 million km in diameter (or for that matter, 50 km/32 mi), but just 1000/PHI ~= 618 meters:








The Moon/ISS transits show the same diameter as that of the Sun:




There is no need to debate or argue about the shape of the Moon, it is clearly a flat disk, and furthermore, the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse.

(snip)

Everything I wrote is perfectly true, and very obvious for any real scientist.

(snip)

deceiver, let us say that, at the present time, you know about 5% of what a true scientist should be acquainted with, you have no chance with me on any discussion about geology/astrophysics...

Uhm, how does those youtube videos prove anything? The ISS is closer to earth and the moon is clearly further away.

If it's so god damn obvious for any scientist, then how come the only sources you could pull out of your ass are from this site? Not even the rest of FE'ers agree or believe in you. Also, it's extremely ignorant to claim that you know 20 times as much as Deceiver on his field of science.
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 #85 on: May 07, 2010, 05:02:16 AM »
Actually Levee, those books were compiled by scientists who do similar planetary geology studies that I do. In fact, I have met most of the authors in person, at various symposiums, conferences, or having met them as a visiting lecturer. I have discussed their findings with them to great length.

The Big Bang isn't even mentioned in those texts. And, my math background is very extensive, as planetary geology has similar requirements to anyone studying astrophysics. But, if you want to flout your ignorance to everyone, and spout out nonsense that simply doesn't add up, be my guest. Or you can actually try to refute something, using all the math and geology wisdom that you have supposedly accumulated over the years, versus just saying that "argh! this observation doesn't make any sense to me, but I don't really care to enlighten myself or prove any of it wrong! So I must make up my own conclusions!!!".
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 05:05:16 AM by Deceiver »

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #86 on: May 07, 2010, 05:04:00 AM »
Stop quoting long picture replies!!
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 #87 on: May 07, 2010, 05:11:20 AM »
Stop quoting long picture replies!!

fixed!

As for your comments about metals and the core and such. Please consult any number of Igneous Petrology texts. They explain how molten bodies can fractionate and differentiate quite nicely. Most of these texts even spell out the early evolution of the earths core, mantle, and crust.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42687
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #88 on: May 07, 2010, 06:13:21 AM »
Now, here is the story behind this picture, all F. Bruenjes did is to change the color saturation, he did not change the size/distance of the Black Sun:

Levee, just out of curiosity, is this the same black sun that is visible every month during the daylight hours when the moon is in its 'new' phase?
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.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7249
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #89 on: May 07, 2010, 06:22:26 AM »
The ISS/Mercury videos prove clearly that the official data offerred by Nasa re: sun diameter/earth-sun distance are completely bogus and false.

There are many more videos of those transits out there, I selected just a few so that you will get an idea of what is going on.

catchpa, in case you did not know, the official data for the diameter/distance are as follows: sun diameter 1.4 million km, earth -sun distance ~149 million km

But in these real time videos we can see that the Sun is just behind the ISS, and that the Moon has the same diameter as that of the Sun, not to mention the same size/diameter for Mercury as for the ISS:








The Moon/ISS transits show the same diameter as that of the Sun:




There are no 149 million km between the Sun and the Earth...please wake up...stop complaining about the length of the messages, this is a research level forum...


Now deceiver, you should know that I have debated with world renowned PHDs many times over these past years, and I was able to crush their arguments decisively and completely each and every time. Why? Because there is no such thing as a round earth theory, it is not even a workable hypothesis.

What did you say about igneous petrology? You are joking of course...

The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time.
Fred Hoyle 1982

I told you that you must study some more in order to go beyond what you have so diligently studied in college, for example, about abiotic oil:

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/
http://www.rense.com/general63/staline.htm

Oil is not a product of fossils and prehistoric forests but rather the bio-product of a continuing biochemical reaction below the earth's surface.

Here, for you deceiver, some more facts about abiotic oil:

http://slowsmile.hypocrisy.com/2008/09/07/the-evidence-for-limitless-oil-and-gas/

Radiodating errors:

http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v8i9f.htm
http://www.worldbydesign.org/research/c14dating/datingdinosaurs.html
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html

The textbooks that you mention rest on a series of false assumptions/hypotheses re: the geological history of early earth, please read the Faint Young Sun Paradox and also the Impossibility of the Big Bang theory threads to update your knowledge. Just the Faint Young Sun Paradox destroys immediately the assumptions on which those textbooks quoted by you, are based on (not to mention the impossibility of a heliocentric planetary system).

Let me take to flat earth court re: the trajectories of the clouds.

Read the following links very carefully to discover why the earth is completely stationary, and not moving anywhere.

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35521
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143


Unraveling DNA:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=716#p31274


The trajectory/movement of the entire heliocentric planetary system toward the star Vega is completely incompatible with Kepler's first law.

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://biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/3817/scan0001v.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.

deceiver, take some time off from those useless conferences, and catch up with reality; so far, you have not been able to prove anything re: the round earth theory, on the contrary...