The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.

  • 141 Replies
  • 25679 Views
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #30 on: October 12, 2011, 04:40:23 AM »
The Aetheric Wind model explains this phenomena.

Wasn't this the one John Davis was meant to be publishing a book about? Where can we buy this book?

No, it's my own. It postulates that the Earth is propelled by aether
1) Do we all get to make up these hilarious models?
2) How can any of this rubbish possibly be more scientifically accurate than all of the mainstream theories you have discarded due to being "based on conjecture?" Every time you post more nonsense, baby Jesus soils himself in disgust.

flat_earth_really?, I also believe that this is a troll board.  However, you seem to be a little too belligerent with the FErs.  Can we try to make this a gentleman's debate?

Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #31 on: October 12, 2011, 04:46:31 AM »
The Aetheric Wind model explains this phenomena.

Wasn't this the one John Davis was meant to be publishing a book about? Where can we buy this book?

No, it's my own. It postulates that the Earth is propelled by aether
1) Do we all get to make up these hilarious models?
2) How can any of this rubbish possibly be more scientifically accurate than all of the mainstream theories you have discarded due to being "based on conjecture?" Every time you post more nonsense, baby Jesus soils himself in disgust.

1) No
2) Because the Earth has been proven to be flat. Also, good.
1) Well that's not really fair. I was going to put dinosaurs in my model. We could have played Jurassic Park.
2) No it hasn't. If it had, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #32 on: October 12, 2011, 04:48:17 AM »
The Aetheric Wind model explains this phenomena.

Wasn't this the one John Davis was meant to be publishing a book about? Where can we buy this book?

No, it's my own. It postulates that the Earth is propelled by aether
1) Do we all get to make up these hilarious models?
2) How can any of this rubbish possibly be more scientifically accurate than all of the mainstream theories you have discarded due to being "based on conjecture?" Every time you post more nonsense, baby Jesus soils himself in disgust.

flat_earth_really?, I also believe that this is a troll board.  However, you seem to be a little too belligerent with the FErs.  Can we try to make this a gentleman's debate?
How can you possibly have a gentleman's debate with a troll?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #33 on: October 12, 2011, 05:07:53 AM »
How can you possibly have a gentleman's debate with a troll?

I am just saying that you do not need to be rude with your posts.  I have just as much fun here as you do, yet I try not to make it a personal issue with the FErs.  I like the debates, but I do no think we need to use words like FEtards and such.  Just use logic and reasoning.  Their theory just falls apart.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #34 on: October 12, 2011, 05:38:39 AM »
Also, I have not seen any rebuttals about the sunrise and sunset debate.  Can we all now agree that the times are predictable?

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #35 on: October 12, 2011, 07:50:49 AM »
Also, I have not seen any rebuttals about the sunrise and sunset debate.  Can we all now agree that the times are predictable?

All of us except Tom do. He's too bad at trolling to be able to work out what to do with that argument now he's been totally squashed.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #36 on: October 12, 2011, 08:43:07 AM »
I see some brilliant arguments. Two guesses which side of this debate would qualify as brilliant!

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12209
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #37 on: October 12, 2011, 08:50:49 AM »
I never claimed there were webcams pointing to where the Sun rises and sets. I said there are webcams pointing to where the Sun rises or sets.
Ah, yes, another semantics challenge. A challenge that I will accept, nonetheless.
If there's one camera pointing at the Sun rising and one camera pointing at the Sun setting, there are cameras pointing at where the sun rises and sets.
If there are two cameras pointing at either where the Sun rises or where the Sun sets, there are cameras pointing at where the sun rises or sets.
If there existed two cameras pointing at both where the Sun rises and sets, an extra adjective would be necessary to avoid ambiguity with a logically possible situation. For example: There are cameras pointing to both where the Sun rises and sets.
It is very important to understand the difference between the two before trying to be a pedant about it. It also doesn't get you too far in the argument.

Although, I suppose you could try searching for controllable webcams.
Oh, what happened to your recent dedication and devotion to your claim? Not so long ago you were willing to take on the task of substantiating your own claims...
I suppose I can sit down and work out which cameras are pointing in the direction the sun rises or sets at this time of year, if that's that you really want.
...and now I'm supposed to do your job for you? Might that be because you've tried and found out that your claim is entirely baseless? Surely if I did try to search (nb. I'm not going to try to back your claims up for you) and didn't find any cameras, you could just say I didn't look hard enough. An excellent tactic... for an amateur.

tl;dr: Back up your claims or take them back.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 12:05:01 PM by PizzaPlanet »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #38 on: October 12, 2011, 03:38:56 PM »
Ah, yes, another semantics challenge. A challenge that I will accept, nonetheless.
If there's one camera pointing at the Sun rising and one camera pointing at the Sun setting, there are cameras pointing at where the sun rises and sets.
If there are two cameras pointing at either where the Sun rises or where the Sun sets, there are cameras pointing at where the sun rises or sets.
If there existed two cameras pointing at both where the Sun rises and sets, an extra adjective would be necessary to avoid ambiguity with a logically possible situation. For example: There are cameras pointing to both where the Sun rises and sets.
It is very important to understand the difference between the two before trying to be a pedant about it. It also doesn't get you too far in the argument.

I would have thought that from the way I was talking about it it was clear enough that I was talking about individual webcams that point to both the place the Sun rises and the place the Sun sets, rather then webcams pointing to where the Sun rises with separate webcams pointing to where the Sun sets. Apologies if this has caused confusion.


Quote
Oh, what happened to your recent dedication and devotion to your claim? Not so long ago you were willing to take on the task of substantiating your own claims...

I'm only able to do so much with my free time. As I've mentioned before, I think that observing the Sun itself rise and set is excessive.


Quote
...and now I'm supposed to do your job for you? Might that be because you've tried and found out that your claim is entirely baseless? Surely if I did try to search (nb. I'm not going to try to back your claims up for you) and didn't find any cameras, you could just say I didn't look hard enough. An excellent tactic... for an amateur.

Earthcam alone has links to well over a thousand cameras scattered around the world. There's no shortage of webcams, and they aren't hard to find. I didn't think the finding of webcams was an issue.

Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #39 on: October 12, 2011, 03:50:37 PM »
So if I was to sail around the world, I would at some point drop off the planet? Or if I was view the planet earth from outer-space, it would look like a piece of paper?

Fact is, the earth isn't flat. There is significant scientific evidence disproving the phenomenon, and in a literal sense of the term, there are these things called mountains.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #40 on: October 12, 2011, 09:43:16 PM »
So if I was to sail around the world, I would at some point drop off the planet? Or if I was view the planet earth from outer-space, it would look like a piece of paper?

Fact is, the earth isn't flat. There is significant scientific evidence disproving the phenomenon, and in a literal sense of the term, there are these things called mountains.

No, if you sail around the planet, you would be going in a circle.  Besides, even if you traveled in a straight line, the snow ninjas would kill you long before you got to the edge.

You can not go to space.  NASA and their cronies have been lying to you.  And that is ridiculous to say that the Earth would look like a piece of paper.  It is a disk, just like a beach ball, but with out air; the ball has no air, that is, but the Earth does, even though it is not inflated.  This is what causes the illusion that mountains exist.  That and bendy light.

Fact is, you do not have any evidence that proves that the Earth is round.  Don't try to dump any of the scientific crap on us.  We all know that scientists are puppets for NASA.  They are not much better than the low life ninjas who inhabit the outer continent.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 10:05:56 PM by jroa »

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #41 on: October 13, 2011, 09:05:32 AM »
Imagine summer for the southern hemisphere. on a RE it would look like so:



- day/night divide is at an angle of 23.5 degrees.

this holds true for all sunset/sunrise times across the globe. Feel free to search for these times, they WILL fit together.

So, lets translate the above onto a FE map:



wait, what?!?! wheres this light at the far ice wall coming from?! and why is the north pole dark when south america is further away, but still light?

surely it would look more like this on a FE, (assuming a circular spotlight sun, that reaches to 23.5 degrees from the north pole):



wait, thats not even close either, only a quarter of the earth is light...

if someone explains this away ill be impressed.
Those are very bad images. Provide evidence that shadows on a sphere produce a straight-line boundary between light and dark.


*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #43 on: October 13, 2011, 10:33:53 AM »
Look at a sphere

I see no straight-line boundary. The sphere gradually darkens as it gets further away from the light source. Without Geometric Shadow Theory, this argument falls apart.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #44 on: October 13, 2011, 10:37:38 AM »
Xenu proves himself a troll. Errors: too obvious deliberate misunderstanding and "fake innocent" poor example.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #45 on: October 13, 2011, 10:43:31 AM »
Xenu proves himself a troll. Errors: too obvious deliberate misunderstanding and "fake innocent" poor example.
I refuse to pretend that there are angular shadows on a sphere, and I'm the one deliberately misunderstanding?

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #46 on: October 13, 2011, 11:17:58 AM »
Look at a sphere

I see no straight-line boundary. The sphere gradually darkens as it gets further away from the light source. Without Geometric Shadow Theory, this argument falls apart.

You appear to have not considered all possible light directions.

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #47 on: October 13, 2011, 11:19:40 AM »
Look at a sphere

I see no straight-line boundary. The sphere gradually darkens as it gets further away from the light source. Without Geometric Shadow Theory, this argument falls apart.

You appear to have not considered all possible light directions.

You are quite correct that patterns of light on the Earth will look nothing like those depicted. For one thing, the Earth is flat.

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #48 on: October 13, 2011, 11:32:17 AM »
You are quite correct that patterns of light on the Earth will look nothing like those depicted. For one thing, the Earth is flat.
If I said so, then I'd be wrong, which is why I didn't.  I'm not talking about what the patterns on the earth look like, and neither are you in this request:
Quote
Provide evidence that shadows on a sphere produce a straight-line boundary between light and dark.
We're talking about straight line boundaries on spheres. Obvious straw man fallacies such as this one will not improve the validity of your point.  Now answer my question.

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #49 on: October 13, 2011, 11:34:35 AM »
You are quite correct that patterns of light on the Earth will look nothing like those depicted. For one thing, the Earth is flat.
If I said so, then I'd be wrong, which is why I didn't.  I'm not talking about what the patterns on the earth look like, and neither are you in this request:
Quote
Provide evidence that shadows on a sphere produce a straight-line boundary between light and dark.
We're talking about straight line boundaries on spheres. Obvious straw man fallacies such as this one will not improve the validity of your point.  Now answer my question.
Please clarify.

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #50 on: October 13, 2011, 11:38:12 AM »
Have you considered all possible light directions in determining the apparent shape of the light boundary in denying that it could ever appear straight?  I did, I found a sphere and looking from the right direction I see a straight line boundary.  Why couldn't you do this?

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #51 on: October 13, 2011, 11:40:46 AM »
Have you considered all possible light directions in determining the apparent shape of the light boundary in denying that it could ever appear straight?  I did, I found a sphere and looking from the right direction I see a straight line boundary.  Why couldn't you do this?
Pics or it didn't happen.

Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #52 on: October 13, 2011, 11:57:17 AM »
Have you considered all possible light directions in determining the apparent shape of the light boundary in denying that it could ever appear straight?  I did, I found a sphere and looking from the right direction I see a straight line boundary.  Why couldn't you do this?
Pics or it didn't happen.

Ha, that's funny. Any photo posted on this forum that supports a round Earth is instantly considered conspiracy propaganda. Please do not ask for proof you will not accept. It's rude.
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39430
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.

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #54 on: October 13, 2011, 02:01:43 PM »
Have you considered all possible light directions in determining the apparent shape of the light boundary in denying that it could ever appear straight?  I did, I found a sphere and looking from the right direction I see a straight line boundary.  Why couldn't you do this?
Pics or it didn't happen.
Do it yourself.  Find a ball and look at it's boundary edge on.  I did my science, now you do yours.

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #55 on: October 14, 2011, 03:16:33 AM »
Have you considered all possible light directions in determining the apparent shape of the light boundary in denying that it could ever appear straight?  I did, I found a sphere and looking from the right direction I see a straight line boundary.  Why couldn't you do this?
Pics or it didn't happen.
Do it yourself.  Find a ball and look at it's boundary edge on.  I did my science, now you do yours.
I have looked at many spheres. None of them have a straight-line shadow boundary. The Earth is flat.

Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #56 on: October 14, 2011, 04:22:04 PM »
Heres a straight line boundary.


Now, do you any of you FE'thers have a proper map?

One that consistently explains the Points raised by the OP?

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #57 on: October 14, 2011, 07:33:29 PM »
Have you considered all possible light directions in determining the apparent shape of the light boundary in denying that it could ever appear straight?  I did, I found a sphere and looking from the right direction I see a straight line boundary.  Why couldn't you do this?
Pics or it didn't happen.
Do it yourself.  Find a ball and look at it's boundary edge on.  I did my science, now you do yours.
I have looked at many spheres. None of them have a straight-line shadow boundary. The Earth is flat.

I have looked at many buildings.  None of them are more than 600 m tall.  The Burj Dubai therefore doesn't exist.

Just pointing out the logical flaw to your statement.

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #58 on: October 14, 2011, 07:38:00 PM »
Here's a logical proof.  On a sphere light casts a circular illuminated area.  A circle exists on only one plane.  Anything two-dimensional planar object appears straight when viewed precisely from the edge.  Therefore the light cast on a sphere can appear straight.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12209
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.
« Reply #59 on: October 14, 2011, 11:21:02 PM »
Heres a straight line boundary.

This is hardly a straight line.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)