Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?

Ok, So all you morons believe the earth is flat, right so please tell me where on the world map i will fall off.  But you can't prove it and will probably say "look at the faq" as your response because you know i am right. 

Ok, So all of you believe the earth is flat

Ok, So all of you probably only Wilmore and Davis believe the earth is flat, right so please tell me where on the world map i will fall off.  But you can't prove it and will probably say "look at the faq" as your response because you know i am right.  

Quote from: jimftr on July 20, 2010, 11:07:43 AM

Ok, So all you morons believe the earth is flat, right so please tell me where on the world map i will fall off.  But you can't prove it and will probably say "look at the faq" as your response because you know i am right. 

Actually, they can't even give you a single answer to that question. The FAQ, based on space dedicated, favors a world with the NP at the center and Antarctica wrapping all the way around it. Some, like Tom Bishop, claim the Earth is an infinite plane. Others claim an ice wall prevents getting to the edge. Another world view, held by Wilmore, has edges that you can readily reach (and a magical hopping Sun) with no explanation about what prevents him from providing evidence of this edge. Indeed you should be able to see this edge from such visited places as the Aleutian Islands.

So, alas, there's not much to debate about falling off, as they can't even agree on the shape, arrangement, or even the size of the Earth.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 20, 2010, 11:23:27 AM

Quote from: jimftr on July 20, 2010, 11:07:43 AM

Ok, So all you morons believe the earth is flat, right so please tell me where on the world map i will fall off.  But you can't prove it and will probably say "look at the faq" as your response because you know i am right. 

Actually, they can't even give you a single answer to that question. The FAQ, based on space dedicated, favors a world with the NP at the center and Antarctica wrapping all the way around it. Some, like Tom Bishop, claim the Earth is an infinite plane. Others claim an ice wall prevents getting to the edge. Another world view, held by Wilmore, has edges that you can readily reach (and a magical hopping Sun) with no explanation about what prevents him from providing evidence of this edge. Indeed you should be able to see this edge from such visited places as the Aleutian Islands.

So, alas, there's not much to debate about falling off, as they can't even agree on the shape, arrangement, or even the size of the Earth.

The last two are the same as the first, even by your own false explanation.

Basically, south.

This map http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/1zyzfxf.png is advocated by those who consider Antarctica as a distinct continent.

I don't even know how to work out the compass points at all on that map, how the hell do you know? It still looks south though, in my opinion.

Clearly Antarctica doesn't contain the South Pole on Wilmores model, and your assumption that you can only go north from the South Pole is based on RE, it's entirely possible to go east and west in any FE theory. That said, I'm not overly familiar with his model (as you can tell) and don't support it. I think I remember seeing that map before and spending some time trying to get my head round it, but failing.

Quote from: General Douchebag on July 20, 2010, 07:01:51 PM

Clearly Antarctica doesn't contain the South Pole on Wilmores model, and your assumption that you can only go north from the South Pole is based on RE, it's entirely possible to go east and west in any FE theory. That said, I'm not overly familiar with his model (as you can tell) and don't support it. I think I remember seeing that map before and spending some time trying to get my head round it, but failing.

Sorry, but no. The meridians clearly converge at the South Pole in Antarctic. So I'm quite right about the going north assumption.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 20, 2010, 07:12:10 PM

Quote from: General Douchebag on July 20, 2010, 07:01:51 PM

Clearly Antarctica doesn't contain the South Pole on Wilmores model, and your assumption that you can only go north from the South Pole is based on RE, it's entirely possible to go east and west in any FE theory. That said, I'm not overly familiar with his model (as you can tell) and don't support it. I think I remember seeing that map before and spending some time trying to get my head round it, but failing.

Sorry, but no. The meridians clearly converge at the South Pole in Antarctic. So I'm quite right about the going north assumption.

They only converge in Antartica on a RE map. On a FE map where Antarctica is the edges, the meridians spread outward.
Also, you could follow the equator on FE and not fall off, the equator goes around in a circle on flat earth. Its following the meridians that would make you fall off.

Quote from: General Douchebag on July 20, 2010, 05:51:09 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 20, 2010, 11:23:27 AM

Quote from: jimftr on July 20, 2010, 11:07:43 AM

Ok, So all you morons believe the earth is flat, right so please tell me where on the world map i will fall off.  But you can't prove it and will probably say "look at the faq" as your response because you know i am right. 

Actually, they can't even give you a single answer to that question. The FAQ, based on space dedicated, favors a world with the NP at the center and Antarctica wrapping all the way around it. Some, like Tom Bishop, claim the Earth is an infinite plane. Others claim an ice wall prevents getting to the edge. Another world view, held by Wilmore, has edges that you can readily reach (and a magical hopping Sun) with no explanation about what prevents him from providing evidence of this edge. Indeed you should be able to see this edge from such visited places as the Aleutian Islands.

So, alas, there's not much to debate about falling off, as they can't even agree on the shape, arrangement, or even the size of the Earth.

The last two are the same as the first, even by your own false explanation.

Basically, south.

Wrong. You need to read the FAQ. In particular its link to the really stupid model that Wilmore supports:

Quote

This map http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/1zyzfxf.png is advocated by those who consider Antarctica as a distinct continent.

In deed to get to the nearest edge from Antarctica, one would first travel north.

Another world view, held by Wilmore, has edges that you can readily reach

(and a magical hopping Sun)

with no explanation about what prevents him from providing evidence of this edge.

Indeed you should be able to see this edge from such visited places as the Aleutian Islands.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 20, 2010, 11:23:27 AM

Another world view, held by Wilmore, has edges that you can readily reach

Not true. The extent of the Earth is unknown in this model.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 20, 2010, 11:23:27 AM

(and a magical hopping Sun)

Not true. The diagram you refer to was presented with special emphasis on ignoring the Sun's movements as depicted; only the distribution of light was relevant. This was made very clear, and it is wrong of you to once again refer to it when I have made this point to you on at least two occasions.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 20, 2010, 11:23:27 AM

with no explanation about what prevents him from providing evidence of this edge.

Not true, see above.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 20, 2010, 11:23:27 AM

Indeed you should be able to see this edge from such visited places as the Aleutian Islands.

Not true, see above.


Several of your 'errors' strike me as entirely deliberate attempts to misrepresent the model I support, and quite frankly make your intellectual honesty highly questionable.

Please point out where in the FAQ we were to read that the model showing an edge actually had no edge. If anyone's intellectual honesty should be questioned, I'd say it should be the person 'changing' his story to answer a valid criticism.

Again, whether you're prepared to face it or not, the model fails miserably in explaining how the Sun illuminates the Earth. Your model fails miserably to account for established facts about the Earth. The distribution in the second diagram does not match reality. For example, the eastern and western sides of the Pacific Ocean are never illuminated at the same time in the diagram even though is reality they both are illuminated at the same time every day at 12.00 Zulu.

Your model requires the Sun to travel 'above' and 'below' the North and South Poles, but yet illuminate the opposite side at the same time while not illuminating the area in between. That is quite a feat even for 'bendy' light.

Again, you model fails to explain why we can't find what's beyond the edges of the map of your model. It's such a failure.

Please show me in the FAQ where it says this model does have an edge.

Q: "What would happen if you jump off the disc's edge?"

A: You would become directly affected by UA as the Earth is, creating the illusion that you are standing next to it.


Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"

A: There is a vast "ice wall" that keeps the water where it is. This explains why you can find a vast plane of ice as you travel southward. The wall is roughly 150ft high. In the McIntyre model, however, the height of the wall increases further as one moves toward the edge of the world.


Q: "If you go directly south won't you eventually fall off the edge of the Earth?"

A: Yes, you will. In order to use this fact as proof you need to record a video of someone flying directly south around the world without falling off the edge. Furthermore you need to prove that your navigational equipment allows you to travel directly south without deviating.


Q: "Why has no one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"

A: Only those connected to the Conspiracy have access to heights from which the shape of the Earth can be discerned.  Also, nobody has been to the edge of the Earth and lived; conditions on the Ice Wall get increasingly treacherous the further you get out, and navigation methods become unreliable that far south.  It is also possible that the Conspiracy is guarding the edge to prevent people from getting too close to the truth.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 22, 2010, 03:42:31 PM

Please show me in the FAQ where it says this model does have an edge.

Quote

Q: "What would happen if you jump off the disc's edge?"

A: You would become directly affected by UA as the Earth is, creating the illusion that you are standing next to it.


Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"

A: There is a vast "ice wall" that keeps the water where it is. This explains why you can find a vast plane of ice as you travel southward. The wall is roughly 150ft high. In the McIntyre model, however, the height of the wall increases further as one moves toward the edge of the world.


Q: "If you go directly south won't you eventually fall off the edge of the Earth?"

A: Yes, you will. In order to use this fact as proof you need to record a video of someone flying directly south around the world without falling off the edge. Furthermore you need to prove that your navigational equipment allows you to travel directly south without deviating.


Q: "Why has no one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"

A: Only those connected to the Conspiracy have access to heights from which the shape of the Earth can be discerned.  Also, nobody has been to the edge of the Earth and lived; conditions on the Ice Wall get increasingly treacherous the further you get out, and navigation methods become unreliable that far south.  It is also possible that the Conspiracy is guarding the edge to prevent people from getting too close to the truth.

It shocks me to learn that you have never studied the FAQ in detail Wilmore.

Please show me in the FAQ where it says this model does have an edge.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 22, 2010, 12:45:22 PM

Please point out where in the FAQ we were to read that the model showing an edge actually had no edge. If anyone's intellectual honesty should be questioned, I'd say it should be the person 'changing' his story to answer a valid criticism.

Please show me in the FAQ where it says this model does have an edge. It is not my job to anticipate your baseless assumptions. Furthermore, I have been more than clear about this in discussions with you and others, so no change of story is occuring.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 22, 2010, 12:45:22 PM

Again, whether you're prepared to face it or not, the model fails miserably in explaining how the Sun illuminates the Earth. Your model fails miserably to account for established facts about the Earth. The distribution in the second diagram does not match reality. For example, the eastern and western sides of the Pacific Ocean are never illuminated at the same time in the diagram even though is reality they both are illuminated at the same time every day at 12.00 Zulu.

Well, the diagram you saw is actually based on observed phenomona in RET, and indeed was not produced with relation to FET. You're welcome to contradict it if you like, but I'm not sure what model you'll be supporting then.

Your model requires the Sun to travel 'above' and 'below' the North and South Poles, but yet illuminate the opposite side at the same time while not illuminating the area in between. That is quite a feat even for 'bendy' light.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 22, 2010, 12:45:22 PM

Again, you model fails to explain why we can't find what's beyond the edges of the map of your model. It's such a failure.

No it doesn't. Simply put, navigation assuming a round Earth would never take you beyond the known Earth.

ClockTower was asking about the FAQ. Try not to confuse the two.

Another world view, held by Wilmore, has edges that you can readily reach (and a magical hopping Sun) with no explanation about what prevents him from providing evidence of this edge.

And I suggest you get your own model inserted into the FAQ. Then we can know what it is, rather than using our telepathy, which hurts the frontal labia so.

The drawing shows an edge, as I've already told you.

Tell me where you told me, as you claim here, that you were more than clear about the lack of an edge.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 09, 2010, 08:01:36 AM

Yes, which is why I have often stated that what lies beyond the known Earth is simply unknown. Speculation is not a dark art; there is nothing inherently wrong with it as long as it recognised for what it is.

Then why isn't the ice wall described as speculative in the FAQ? I assume that it's not intentionally dishonest, right?

Furthermore, tell us the reason that you conclude, rather than just speculate, that there is no edge.

Note that I've already presented clear problems with the illumination diagram, including the failure to provide the simultaneous illumination of the Earth near longitude 180^o at 12.00 Zulu. You have to face the dismal failure of this model.

Again, your theory fails to explain the basics. If your model can't explain the Sun's actual movements, then it's really a poor model.

That's a non sequitur. Explorers need not make that assumption and even if they do they can use the diagram linked from FAQ to find proof of your model.

Quote from: Crustinator on July 22, 2010, 04:03:31 PM

ClockTower was asking about the FAQ. Try not to confuse the two.

Actually, ClockTower was referring quite specifically to 'my' model. Observe:

Quote from: ClockTower on July 20, 2010, 11:23:27 AM

Another world view, held by Wilmore, has edges that you can readily reach (and a magical hopping Sun) with no explanation about what prevents him from providing evidence of this edge.

That's dishonest, as usual.

Quote

Please point out where in the FAQ we were to read that the model showing an edge actually had no edge. If anyone's intellectual honesty should be questioned, I'd say it should be the person 'changing' his story to answer a valid criticism.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 22, 2010, 04:06:36 PM

That's a non sequitur. Explorers need not make that assumption and even if they do they can use the diagram linked from FAQ to find proof of your model.

That they need not make the assumption does not change the fact that current navigation methods would keep them within the known Earth, unless perhaps they were to actively try and[sic] test my model, which I submit would be difficult to do without a great deal of prior thought.

You could always just ask me. It doesn't require any telepathy, just memory (though this too was apparently beyond ClockTower).