Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?

  • 25 Replies
  • 3250 Views
Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« on: July 20, 2010, 11:07:43 AM »
Ok, So all of you 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.  
« Last Edit: July 20, 2010, 11:15:32 AM by jimftr »

Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2010, 11:23:27 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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

spanner34.5

  • 4639
  • feck arse drink
Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2010, 11:34:04 AM »
Ok, So all of you believe the earth is flat
It should be...........Ok. So or, Ok, so

My I.Q. is 85. Or was it 58?

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2010, 12:09:17 PM »
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.  

Fix'd
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2010, 04:55:32 PM »
Moved to Q&A.
"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 Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2010, 05:51:09 PM »
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.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2010, 05:57:45 PM »
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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2010, 06:03:27 PM »
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.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2010, 06:08:51 PM »
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.
It's easy. Follow the meridians. If you're moving along on a meridian headed toward the North Pole then you're going North. The only direction you can go at the South Pole is north. If you're moving along on a parallel headed with the North Pole to your right, you're headed west. If you're on the Equator headed either direction though, stop before you fall off the edge. We'd miss you.

I really shouldn't have to explain someone else's map, but Wilmore fails to document his model and its theory. I'd suggest pulling it from the FAQ are both stupid (at least stupider than most) and unsupported.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #9 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.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2010, 07:12:10 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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2010, 07:19:22 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.

Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2010, 07:21:32 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.
You might want to read the FAQ before posting again. We're talking about Wilmore's stupid model.

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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #13 on: July 22, 2010, 04:07:27 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.


(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.


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



Not true, see above.


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.
"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

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #14 on: July 22, 2010, 04:29:47 AM »
Basically FEers either believe there is no edge andthe earth is infinite, or there is an edge but you can't get to it, either because of a belief in the limits of Victorian polar exploration, or because cyber penguins will kill you.

They have no proof one way or the other.

/thrad

Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #15 on: July 22, 2010, 12:45:22 PM »
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.


(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.


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



Not true, see above.


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.

Your model, and indeed FET in general, fails miserably.

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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #16 on: July 22, 2010, 03:42:31 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.


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.


No it doesn't. As I have been at pains to point out in the past, the apparent movements of the Sun are not its actual movements. These remain unknown.


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.
"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

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #17 on: July 22, 2010, 03:48:03 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.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #18 on: July 22, 2010, 03:55:16 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.
"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

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #19 on: July 22, 2010, 04:03:31 PM »
ClockTower was asking about the FAQ. Try not to confuse the two.

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.

Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #20 on: July 22, 2010, 04:06:36 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.

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

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 180o at 12.00 Zulu. You have to face the dismal failure of this model.
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.


No it doesn't. As I have been at pains to point out in the past, the apparent movements of the Sun are not its actual movements. These remain unknown.
[/quote]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.
Quote

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.
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. Yet somehow no one ever has. We're left with the unanswered question still: why we can't find what's beyond the edges of the map of your model? With all your guesses and speculation, this model remain a dismal failure.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #21 on: July 22, 2010, 04:28:09 PM »
ClockTower was asking about the FAQ. Try not to confuse the two.


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


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.


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


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


The drawing may have an edge, but that does not imply that the Earth does. Given I have been clear in the past that what lies beyond the known Earth is unknown, it would be ridiculous to add any further detail. Incidentally, this post implicitly concedes that the FAQ says no such thing.


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


First of all, I have never said there isn't an edge, simply that what lies beyond the known Earth is unknown. As for examples of me being clear about that, here is a post which you yourself quoted:


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?


It is somewhat ironic that your question was related to dishonesty.


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


As I said above (both in this post and the one quoted), I do not conclude that there is no edge, precisely because that would be entirely speculative.



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 180o at 12.00 Zulu. You have to face the dismal failure of this model.


Do you actually understand what I am saying? These images are based on RET; they are simple azimuthal projections which represent the distribution of light on Earth. I use them as an illustration of concept. I agree that the mechanism for such distribution is very poorly explained in this model at the moment, but you appear to be disagreeing with the distribution of light as depicted in 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.


A fair criticism, and one I have acknowledged above. However, this in no way justifies your dishonest misrepresentation of the 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.


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 test my model, which I submit would be difficult to do without a great deal of prior thought.
"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: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #22 on: July 22, 2010, 04:47:47 PM »
ClockTower was asking about the FAQ. Try not to confuse the two.


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


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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #23 on: July 22, 2010, 04:59:48 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.
That's just wrong. Your map of your model shows the distance between certain Alaskan Islands to be be great and the path requiring a 360o turn (by reckoning) One need only fly along the Aleutian archipelago to demonstrate or falsify your model. Since that surely been done many times, we know that your map, and probably your model, is wrong.

Speaking of speculation, please tell us how you first drew this map. How did you determine that the Atlantic Ocean was at the center of the known world and not the Pacific, Arctic, or Indian Oceans?

So we agree that the Wilmore-supported model has serious problems: How the Sun illuminates the Earth cannot be explained or predicted by it. How the areas beyond the map can't be reached is unexplained and has serious flaws. There is way to know the size of the Earth. There is no way to know the actual location of the Sun.

Quite simply, this is one the worst models of FET, and all are dismal.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #24 on: July 22, 2010, 05:08:17 PM »
You could always just ask me. It doesn't require any telepathy, just memory (though this too was apparently beyond ClockTower).

I could but I have the distinct suspicion that you're making your "theory" up on the spot.

Adding it to the FAQ would put it on a level with James' and John's and Tom's and Levee's..

This would mean newcomers like ClockTower would actually know what it is they're supposed to be tackling.

Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« Reply #25 on: July 24, 2010, 04:15:37 AM »
Note Australia in the bottom-right and Hawaii in the top-left...

Actual straight-line path...

This map is hilarious.