South Polar Base

There is a base at the South Pole. Where is this located on the FE map?

the FAQQERS will tell you Antarctica is a giant ice wall that can not be passed by sea, land OR air, something either about ice wall guards, or temperatures so low no one has ever attempted to cross it.

But a more plausible theory is from Master Lord Willmire, that Antartica is a continent just  like the other six, and that the barrier (really just a metaphor for the end of the "lit" earth ends).

the FAQQERS will tell you Antarctica is a giant ice wall that can not be passed by sea, land OR air, something either about ice wall guards, or temperatures so low no one has ever attempted to cross it.

But a more plausible theory is from Master Lord Willmire, that Antartica is a continent just  like the other six, and that the barrier (really just a metaphor for the end of the "lit" earth ends).

And you are well aware of the difficulty of lighting up that Earth with the sun.

Yes, if you believe the FAQQERS, the sun is a magical "spotlight" but what makes a lot more sense is that it is a sphere of fire, that casts a giant circle of light on the earth. It could easily then illuminate 1/2 of the know world. 
There is no way a flat sun spottlight could do that, and i have never seen a spherical spot light.

Yes, if you believe the FAQQERS, the sun is a magical "spotlight" but what makes a lot more sense is that it is a sphere of fire, that casts a giant circle of light on the earth. It could easily then illuminate 1/2 of the know world. 
There is no way a flat sun spottlight could do that, and i have never seen a spherical spot light.

A circle of light does not light up that map correctly.

A circle of light does not light up that map correctly.

Incorrect.

Quote from: Harutsedo on July 26, 2011, 05:33:08 PM

A circle of light does not light up that map correctly.

Incorrect.

Skeleton has posted animations showing the shape of light necessary to light up that map correctly. It is not circular.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 26, 2011, 06:58:25 PM

Quote from: Harutsedo on July 26, 2011, 05:33:08 PM

A circle of light does not light up that map correctly.

Incorrect.

Skeleton has posted animations showing the shape of light necessary to light up that map correctly. It is not circular.

Those animations depends on the pretense of the earth being a sphere.

Quote from: Harutsedo on July 26, 2011, 08:16:34 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 26, 2011, 06:58:25 PM

Quote from: Harutsedo on July 26, 2011, 05:33:08 PM

A circle of light does not light up that map correctly.

Incorrect.

Skeleton has posted animations showing the shape of light necessary to light up that map correctly. It is not circular.

Those animations depends on the pretense of the earth being a sphere.

No they don't. They look like they are simple plottings of sunrise and sunset times on a graphical representation of a flat earth, using observed data that does not require a "pretense" of shape to exist.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2011, 08:33:01 PM

Quote from: Harutsedo on July 26, 2011, 08:16:34 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 26, 2011, 06:58:25 PM

Quote from: Harutsedo on July 26, 2011, 05:33:08 PM

A circle of light does not light up that map correctly.

Incorrect.

Skeleton has posted animations showing the shape of light necessary to light up that map correctly. It is not circular.

Those animations depends on the pretense of the earth being a sphere.

No they don't. They look like they are simple plottings of sunrise and sunset times on a graphical representation of a flat earth, using observed data that does not require a "pretense" of shape to exist.

It doesn't use observed data.

Quote from: The Knowledge on July 27, 2011, 06:26:11 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2011, 08:33:01 PM

Quote from: Harutsedo on July 26, 2011, 08:16:34 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 26, 2011, 06:58:25 PM

Quote from: Harutsedo on July 26, 2011, 05:33:08 PM

A circle of light does not light up that map correctly.

Incorrect.

Skeleton has posted animations showing the shape of light necessary to light up that map correctly. It is not circular.

Those animations depends on the pretense of the earth being a sphere.

No they don't. They look like they are simple plottings of sunrise and sunset times on a graphical representation of a flat earth, using observed data that does not require a "pretense" of shape to exist.

It doesn't use observed data.

Can you answer the original question without using your stupid map that has all sorts of problems with it? I've been reading your thread about it and the map fails miserably. I may be new here but I am able to read threads and post histories.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2011, 08:51:03 AM

Quote from: The Knowledge on July 27, 2011, 06:26:11 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2011, 08:33:01 PM

Quote from: Harutsedo on July 26, 2011, 08:16:34 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 26, 2011, 06:58:25 PM

Quote from: Harutsedo on July 26, 2011, 05:33:08 PM

A circle of light does not light up that map correctly.

Incorrect.

Skeleton has posted animations showing the shape of light necessary to light up that map correctly. It is not circular.

Those animations depends on the pretense of the earth being a sphere.

No they don't. They look like they are simple plottings of sunrise and sunset times on a graphical representation of a flat earth, using observed data that does not require a "pretense" of shape to exist.

It doesn't use observed data.

Can you answer the original question without using your stupid map that has all sorts of problems with it? I've been reading your thread about it and the map fails miserably. I may be new here but I am able to read threads and post histories.

That's the thing. You need to demonstrate that it fails. You need to show us the recorded daylight observations which contradict it. Posting a daylight map as it would appear on a sphere is not valid evidence. Your evidence needs to compose of observations which were seen in reality, not a hypothetical model which shows how daylight area would appear on a sphere.

Quote from: The Knowledge on July 27, 2011, 09:14:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2011, 08:51:03 AM

Quote from: The Knowledge on July 27, 2011, 06:26:11 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2011, 08:33:01 PM

Quote from: Harutsedo on July 26, 2011, 08:16:34 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 26, 2011, 06:58:25 PM

Quote from: Harutsedo on July 26, 2011, 05:33:08 PM

A circle of light does not light up that map correctly.

Incorrect.

Skeleton has posted animations showing the shape of light necessary to light up that map correctly. It is not circular.

Those animations depends on the pretense of the earth being a sphere.

No they don't. They look like they are simple plottings of sunrise and sunset times on a graphical representation of a flat earth, using observed data that does not require a "pretense" of shape to exist.

It doesn't use observed data.

Can you answer the original question without using your stupid map that has all sorts of problems with it? I've been reading your thread about it and the map fails miserably. I may be new here but I am able to read threads and post histories.

That's the thing. You need to demonstrate that it fails. You need to show us the recorded daylight observations which contradict it. Posting a daylight map as it would appear on a sphere is not valid evidence. Your evidence needs to compose of observations which were seen in reality, not a hypothetical model which shows how daylight area would appear on a sphere.

So are you really suggesting that millions of people are not noticing the sun setting at really odd times all round the world? Including pilots, weather forecasters, and other such people who watch the skies carefully? You want me to go round the world and measure sunrise/sunset times myself or you won't believe it?
This man is a tool. And a blunt one at that.

Well as luck would have it, the prediction website for the UK predicts I should see sunset in 7 minutes from now. Let's see if it's right, shall we?

Update: sunset appeared to be bang on time, give or take a minute or two due to a very low layer of cloud on the horizon that prevented me from seeing the actual touch of disc on horizon.
There's a data point for you Tom, now in the absence of you showing data that disagrees with predicted times, RE has the upper hand.

Well as luck would have it, the prediction website for the UK predicts I should see sunset in 7 minutes from now. Let's see if it's right, shall we?

Update: sunset appeared to be bang on time, give or take a minute or two due to a very low layer of cloud on the horizon that prevented me from seeing the actual touch of disc on horizon.
There's a data point for you Tom, now in the absence of you showing data that disagrees with predicted times, RE has the upper hand.

I shall check the prediction for the southeastern US as well. Which calculator did you use?

It only does uk times, it was National Schools Observatory or something. Won't do the USA I don't think.

Those calculators are not based on past observations, they are based on the pretense of how light would shine on a sphere.

Those calculators are not based on past observations, they are based on the pretense of how light would shine on a sphere.

It doesn't matter as long as they are accurate. Which is what we are testing right now. Do keep up.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2011, 01:41:36 PM

Those calculators are not based on past observations, they are based on the pretense of how light would shine on a sphere.

It doesn't matter as long as they are accurate. Which is what we are testing right now. Do keep up.

Tom, we are demonstrating that real life observations match up with "the pretense" of how light would shine on a sphere. We are doing ACTUAL SCIENCE.

Quote from: Harutsedo on July 27, 2011, 01:42:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2011, 01:41:36 PM

Those calculators are not based on past observations, they are based on the pretense of how light would shine on a sphere.

It doesn't matter as long as they are accurate. Which is what we are testing right now. Do keep up.

Tom, we are demonstrating that real life observations match up with "the pretense" of how light would shine on a sphere. We are doing ACTUAL SCIENCE.

The calculator you mentioned does do world calculations, by the way.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2011, 01:41:36 PM

Those calculators are not based on past observations, they are based on the pretense of how light would shine on a sphere.

It doesn't matter as long as they are accurate. Which is what we are testing right now. Do keep up.

It has not been demonstrated that they are accurate.

Quote from: Harutsedo on July 27, 2011, 01:42:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2011, 01:41:36 PM

Those calculators are not based on past observations, they are based on the pretense of how light would shine on a sphere.

It doesn't matter as long as they are accurate. Which is what we are testing right now. Do keep up.

Tom, we are demonstrating that real life observations match up with "the pretense" of how light would shine on a sphere. We are doing ACTUAL SCIENCE.

Where was it demonstrated?

It has not been demonstrated that they are accurate.

Actually, it has.

Where was it demonstrated?

Right here. 

Well as luck would have it, the prediction website for the UK predicts I should see sunset in 7 minutes from now. Let's see if it's right, shall we?

Update: sunset appeared to be bang on time, give or take a minute or two due to a very low layer of cloud on the horizon that prevented me from seeing the actual touch of disc on horizon.
There's a data point for you Tom, now in the absence of you showing data that disagrees with predicted times, RE has the upper hand.

Please try to keep up, will you Tom?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2011, 03:08:03 PM

It has not been demonstrated that they are accurate.

Actually, it has.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2011, 03:08:03 PM

Where was it demonstrated?

Right here. 

Quote from: The Knowledge on July 27, 2011, 12:48:53 PM

Well as luck would have it, the prediction website for the UK predicts I should see sunset in 7 minutes from now. Let's see if it's right, shall we?

Update: sunset appeared to be bang on time, give or take a minute or two due to a very low layer of cloud on the horizon that prevented me from seeing the actual touch of disc on horizon.
There's a data point for you Tom, now in the absence of you showing data that disagrees with predicted times, RE has the upper hand.

Please try to keep up, will you Tom?

That's only one data point. It does not validate the thousands of other points on earth.

Plus,

Forum noobs are not trustworthy sources.

That's only one data point. It does not validate the thousands of other points on earth.

Then why don't you organize an FES community based experiment to gather data points from various parts of the world?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2011, 05:00:07 PM

Forum noobs are not trustworthy sources.

What makes you an authority on trustworthy sources?

Then why don't you organize an FES community based experiment to gather data points from various parts of the world?

It's not our responsibility to collect your evidence for you.

If you guys are making the claim it's your responsibility to demonstrate it.

"Prove me wrong" is not a valid form of debate.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2011, 04:29:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2011, 05:00:07 PM

Forum noobs are not trustworthy sources.

What makes you an authority on trustworthy sources?

I am not a forum noob, clearly.

Quote

Then why don't you organize an FES community based experiment to gather data points from various parts of the world?

It's not our responsibility to collect your evidence for you.

If you guys are making the claim it's your responsibility to demonstrate it.

"Prove me wrong" is not a valid form of debate.

Are you saying that such data would not be of benefit towards developing a comprehensive FE model?  Or is developing a comprehensive FE model not of any interest to you?

Quote

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2011, 04:29:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2011, 05:00:07 PM

Forum noobs are not trustworthy sources.

What makes you an authority on trustworthy sources?

I am not a forum noob, clearly.

I didn't ask if you were a noob.  I asked what makes you an authority on trustworthy sources.

Are you saying that such data would not be of benefit towards developing a comprehensive FE model?  Or is developing a comprehensive FE model not of any interest to you?

Going into space would also be of benefit towards developing a FE model, but that doesn't mean I'm about to build a space ship.

If you are making a claim you are the one who is going to have to demonstrate it. Asking others to demonstrate it for you is not acceptable. You're the claimant, not I.

I didn't ask if you were a noob.  I asked what makes you an authority on trustworthy sources.

By virtue of my many years of education and research in the Zetetic texts, I am qualified to say what is and is not valid evidence, and what is and is not a trustworthy source.

Someone posting on this forum during the course of debate claiming that they saw something to win that debate is not a valid form of evidence.

On the other hand, an impartial researcher on a third-party website saying that they saw something is a valid form of evidence.

Show us the logs of an impartial researcher and it will be a valid form of evidence.

I can now attest that the calculator was accurate for northern Georgia. I will now go to northern Florida to test it there.

Quote from: markjo on July 27, 2011, 05:22:00 PM

Are you saying that such data would not be of benefit towards developing a comprehensive FE model?  Or is developing a comprehensive FE model not of any interest to you?

Going into space would also be of benefit towards developing a FE model, but that doesn't mean I'm about to build a space ship.

I'm not asking you to build a space ship.  I'm asking if trying to get a bunch of forum members to record sunrise and sunset times is too much effort to dramatically advance FET.  From your attitude, I'd say that the answer is yes.  Prove me wrong.  I dare you.

By virtue of my many years of education and research in the Zetetic texts, I am qualified to say what is and is not valid evidence, and what is and is not a trustworthy source.

What makes you believe that those Zetetic texts are authoritative references for determining the validity of evidence and sources of evidence?  What are your standards for trusted sources?

An impartial researcher on a third-party website saying that they saw something is a valid form of evidence.

Show us the logs of an impartial researcher and it will be a valid form of evidence.

Why should I waste my time and effort when you will claim that any source that that contradicts FET will have some sort of RET or conspiracy bias?  It's not as if it hasn't happened dozens of times before.

I'm not asking you to build a space ship.  I'm asking if trying to get a bunch of forum members to record sunrise and sunset times is too much effort to dramatically advance FET.  From your attitude, I'd say that the answer is yes.  Prove me wrong.  I dare you.

Again with that "Prove me wrong" crap.

It's your claim. It's your burden. Quit trying to twist around responsibility.

What makes you believe that those Zetetic texts are authoritative references for determining the validity of evidence and sources of evidence?

Zeteticism is a form of empiricism where evidence is scrutinized before coming to the table. Zetetics must proceed by inquiry into the credibility of evidence, not assumption.

What are your standards for trusted sources?

My standard is truth.

Why should I waste my time and effort when you will claim that any source that that contradicts FET will have some sort of RET or conspiracy bias?  It's not as if it hasn't happened dozens of times before.

Well, if your evidence comes from NASA or its affiliates then, yes, it will be discounted. Otherwise it's fair game.