Debate on Antarctic - centred map.

  • 68 Replies
  • 9901 Views
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Debate on Antarctic - centred map.
« Reply #60 on: May 15, 2010, 01:22:56 PM »
As I have said on several occasions, the Sun does not appear to zoom around the sky in my model.

Except when it has to get from the western edge back to the eastern edge.


As I have also said on a number of occasions, the movement of the Sun in the images which have been used to show the displacement of light in that model is not how I believe the Sun moves. Those images attempt to replicate the movement of the Sun in RET.
"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

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Debate on Antarctic - centred map.
« Reply #61 on: May 15, 2010, 01:25:49 PM »
They should also be analysed for flaws, in the case of your model there is a flaw in that the Sun cannot move at a constant speed over it.


As I have said on several occasions, the Sun does not appear to zoom around the sky in my model. Please stop trying to assert that I think otherwise, because it is a blatent and dishonest misrepresentation of the model and my position.


I genuinely want to know how the Sun manages to get from the West side of America to the East side of Asia while moving at the same speed it does when it's travelling in a westerly direction. Really, I want to know this. I'm not trying to trick you, I want to understand how your model works. I can't debate properly against a model I don't understand, can I?
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Debate on Antarctic - centred map.
« Reply #62 on: May 15, 2010, 01:30:24 PM »
They should also be analysed for flaws, in the case of your model there is a flaw in that the Sun cannot move at a constant speed over it.


As I have said on several occasions, the Sun does not appear to zoom around the sky in my model. Please stop trying to assert that I think otherwise, because it is a blatent and dishonest misrepresentation of the model and my position.


I genuinely want to know how the Sun manages to get from the West side of America to the East side of Asia while moving at the same speed it does when it's travelling in a westerly direction. Really, I want to know this. I'm not trying to trick you, I want to understand how your model works. I can't debate properly against a model I don't understand, can I?


First of all, the Sun appears to move constantly due to the bending of light, but it's actual movements are unknown. Where it "gets" to is irrelevant; all that matters is where it appears to be, and that is determined entirely by the course of light.
"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

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Debate on Antarctic - centred map.
« Reply #63 on: May 15, 2010, 01:36:36 PM »
They should also be analysed for flaws, in the case of your model there is a flaw in that the Sun cannot move at a constant speed over it.


As I have said on several occasions, the Sun does not appear to zoom around the sky in my model. Please stop trying to assert that I think otherwise, because it is a blatent and dishonest misrepresentation of the model and my position.


I genuinely want to know how the Sun manages to get from the West side of America to the East side of Asia while moving at the same speed it does when it's travelling in a westerly direction. Really, I want to know this. I'm not trying to trick you, I want to understand how your model works. I can't debate properly against a model I don't understand, can I?


First of all, the Sun appears to move constantly due to the bending of light, but it's actual movements are unknown. Where it "gets" to is irrelevant; all that matters is where it appears to be, and that is determined entirely by the course of light.

You'll need to describe this bending of light in at least a basic form in order to back up this explanation. If, as you say, we cannot really know where the sun is, then you cannot ever know it's not where it appears to be. Given that every other object whose position can be determined IS where it appears to be (or pretty close) you'll need to explain why the sun, moon and stars are exceptions.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Debate on Antarctic - centred map.
« Reply #64 on: May 15, 2010, 01:47:29 PM »
You'll need to describe this bending of light in at least a basic form in order to back up this explanation.


Indeed, I do not assert that the model is complete or even close to a state of completion (or even testability). That is a flaw in the model which I will without hesitation acknowledge.


If, as you say, we cannot really know where the sun is, then you cannot ever know it's not where it appears to be.


Given the regularity of apparent movement we observe, there must be regular and predictable effect at work. By collating the observed effects, we can ascertain the nature of that effect, and then accordingly discover the actual location of the celestial bodies.


Given that every other object whose position can be determined IS where it appears to be (or pretty close) you'll need to explain why the sun, moon and stars are exceptions.


I don't consider them to be exceptions. In my view, their apparent positions are just that: apparent rather than actual positions which are governed by the same light-bending effect.
"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: Debate on Antarctic - centred map.
« Reply #65 on: May 15, 2010, 02:04:12 PM »
Why do you believe in a model that you cannot describe, and may not even be testable?

And you said:

Quote
Given the regularity of apparent movement we observe, there must be regular and predictable effect at work. By collating the observed effects, we can ascertain the nature of that effect, and then accordingly discover the actual location of the celestial bodies.

You said 'must', but neglected to include the possibility that the earth is round. You presented a false... non-dilemma. Our model describes the motion of the sun just fine, and relies only on principles which are well mathematically described, and perfectly testable.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Debate on Antarctic - centred map.
« Reply #66 on: May 15, 2010, 02:40:40 PM »
Given that every other object whose position can be determined IS where it appears to be

Does this mean that when I look into a mirror, I am actually on the other side of it?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Debate on Antarctic - centred map.
« Reply #67 on: May 15, 2010, 03:34:08 PM »
Given that every other object whose position can be determined IS where it appears to be

Does this mean that when I look into a mirror, I am actually on the other side of it?

Have you ever bothered to go and check?
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Debate on Antarctic - centred map.
« Reply #68 on: May 15, 2010, 03:47:05 PM »
Given that every other object whose position can be determined IS where it appears to be

Does this mean that when I look into a mirror, I am actually on the other side of it?

Yes. You are unable to prove otherwise.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.