The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers

  • 580 Replies
  • 65920 Views
?

Silverdane

  • 346
  • Deutschland Double Heil!! @_@//
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #540 on: December 30, 2011, 11:39:13 AM »
Every single flat earth map seems to be bent or distorted in a way that you would expect if it was actually a 2d projection of a 3d world. FISHY AINT IT, flat earthers?!?!

Every single RET fanatic seems to be against the idea of digging.

Do you somehow fear digging deep in the Earth, because you think you will fall off the World, through it's bottom side?

I see 99% of RET in this world, I see 0% of RET actually digging .... tunnels vertically in the Earth's Crust, to prove that liniar travel through it, confirms the RET, in any way.

It does not. You RET people don't dig, you just fap your mouths spitting froth everywhere.

If all you billions of RET enthusiasts actually dug a tunnel from America to Europe, perfectly liniar, and beneath the Atlantic, this will prove the surface above that tunnel is curved.

Why don't you go ahead and dig, if you're so eager to prove your fat self.
We shall have a magnificent orgy garden party & you're not invited

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #541 on: December 30, 2011, 11:40:58 AM »
Every single flat earth map seems to be bent or distorted in a way that you would expect if it was actually a 2d projection of a 3d world. FISHY AINT IT, flat earthers?!?!

Is there any particular reason why it shouldn't be so? Actually, how else could it possibly be?

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #542 on: December 30, 2011, 01:13:01 PM »
The projection formulae are based on spherical geometry.

Again, this is your map. It is accurate for paths crossing the center, no matter where it's centered on. The diagram in this link shows a map centered on the equator. The official FE map is centered on the north pole. The one I posted above is centered on eastern USA. They are all the same formula, based on a sphere. They all work. How?
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #543 on: December 30, 2011, 04:30:21 PM »
Every single flat earth map seems to be bent or distorted in a way that you would expect if it was actually a 2d projection of a 3d world. FISHY AINT IT, flat earthers?!?!

Is there any particular reason why it shouldn't be so? Actually, how else could it possibly be?
Great point. Since the earth doesn't accurately project into a 2d map, then the Earth cannot be flat. Thanks!
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Silverdane

  • 346
  • Deutschland Double Heil!! @_@//
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #544 on: December 30, 2011, 04:32:51 PM »
Great point. Since the earth doesn't accurately project into a 2d map, then the Earth cannot be flat. Thanks!

But what if it were flat? What if you're flogging a dead horse?
We shall have a magnificent orgy garden party & you're not invited

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #545 on: December 30, 2011, 04:38:23 PM »
Great point. Since the earth doesn't accurately project into a 2d map, then the Earth cannot be flat. Thanks!

But what if it were flat? What if you're flogging a dead horse?
It can't be based solely on TS's statement and deductive reasoning. Do you need help with the logic? If so, please ask a relevant question.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Silverdane

  • 346
  • Deutschland Double Heil!! @_@//
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #546 on: December 30, 2011, 04:49:03 PM »
It can't be based solely on TS's statement and deductive reasoning. Do you need help with the logic? If so, please ask a relevant question.

Very well. Isn't RET exactly like Pyramidal Earth Theory, or Hollow Earth Theory, or Inner World Theory? You know the one where we actually live on the inside of a hollowed out world?

RET has no discernable, resonable arguments. Neither do any of those wild ridiculous theories, which many people across the flat earth are already taking seriously, despite only evidence for the Flat Earth presenting itself everywhere.

If I tell you most visible forms of geography are actually flat, would you try to contest this as well? Would you try to prove a flat table wasn't flat? Would you try to prove to me a flat lake isn't flat?

Well, would you?
We shall have a magnificent orgy garden party & you're not invited

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #547 on: December 30, 2011, 04:55:59 PM »
It can't be based solely on TS's statement and deductive reasoning. Do you need help with the logic? If so, please ask a relevant question.

Very well. Isn't RET exactly like Pyramidal Earth Theory, or Hollow Earth Theory, or Inner World Theory? You know the one where we actually live on the inside of a hollowed out world?

RET has no discernable, resonable arguments. Neither do any of those wild ridiculous theories, which many people across the flat earth are already taking seriously, despite only evidence for the Flat Earth presenting itself everywhere.

If I tell you most visible forms of geography are actually flat, would you try to contest this as well? Would you try to prove a flat table wasn't flat? Would you try to prove to me a flat lake isn't flat?

Well, would you?
No.
Yes.
False.
False.
Yes.
Yes. Indeed I have successfully. Ask Thork about perfectly flat glass.
Yes.

Saying something is true does not make it true.
Calling something flat does make it flat.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Silverdane

  • 346
  • Deutschland Double Heil!! @_@//
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #548 on: December 30, 2011, 04:58:42 PM »
So ..... what?

Try answering the question individually, I have no patience to see which of your answers matches which of my questions.

I thank you.
We shall have a magnificent orgy garden party & you're not invited

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #549 on: December 30, 2011, 05:03:27 PM »
So ..... what?

Try answering the question individually, I have no patience to see which of your answers matches which of my questions.

I thank you.
Though I can't understand your broken English here, I did answer or respond to each question or comment individually. They are in order by sentence. Matching is very easy.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Silverdane

  • 346
  • Deutschland Double Heil!! @_@//
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #550 on: December 30, 2011, 05:06:44 PM »
So if you lived in a world where Hollow Earth was the Ad Populous argument, would you always immediately accept the most popular of geographic theories?

If the same were true, only for Flat Earth, and everyone believe Flat Earth as they now believe Round Earth, which side would you be on?

If all those NASA pictures and whatever else is there, only supported the Earth's Flatness, what would you do then?

I am most curious, little one.
We shall have a magnificent orgy garden party & you're not invited

?

Silverdane

  • 346
  • Deutschland Double Heil!! @_@//
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #551 on: December 30, 2011, 05:16:44 PM »
No.
Yes.
False.
False.
Yes.
Yes. Indeed I have successfully. Ask Thork about perfectly flat glass.
Yes.

Saying something is true does not make it true.
Calling something flat does make it flat.

I see. You have a phobia of Flatness. Flatophobia.

May I recommend therapy, little one?

The first step is being confronted directly with very large flat areas. Once you have passed the first stage, you will write "The Earth is Flat" on a board enough times.

Then you will ingest medication, that has been first smashed and flattened, to get you up and used with the idea of Flat Things.

Then we'll talk. Because talking to you until then, may be harmful to your ego, which refused to believe flat surfaces actually exist.

Now consider this the first step to your therapy against Flatophobia (Intellectual Exposure):

If enough people walk on a world of any form, for long enough .... would the pressure of their feet actually flatten that World out, since every step they take constantly pushes the world's surface into a flat earth?

Is this actually the best logical, historical and visual argument you have yet to hear for the Flat Earth?

Have you ever seen the two sides of any given flat sword? You realise that sword was flattened out with a flat hammer, to increase it's density, and make both it's sides into the flat looking surfaces you see?

Do you realise those swords are actually .... not spherical at all?

Consider this the second part of your Flatophobia Therapy (Direct Exposure):









Now, would you very kindly say the first word that comes to your mind, as you look upon each of those (flat____) swords?

You're making progress, there !! Watch out, you might just come out of the Round Closet there, little one.
We shall have a magnificent orgy garden party & you're not invited

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #552 on: December 30, 2011, 05:19:23 PM »
If all those NASA pictures and whatever else is there, only supported the Earth's Flatness, what would you do then?

Show me an example of what NASA's pictures would look like in such a scenario, and I will answer this question.

Also stop spamming pictures of swords.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

?

Silverdane

  • 346
  • Deutschland Double Heil!! @_@//
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #553 on: December 30, 2011, 05:25:11 PM »
They would show very large pictures of the world, with very large horizons, and showing a semicircle with a lighter region, lit up by the sun shining towards it, with mostly twilight and darkness in the rest of the Flat Earth.

If NASA really put their minds towards this, they could fool the entire world the Earth is Flat, even if those pictures are just fakes, and not real.

Now imagine what they could do with actual real pictures of the Flat Earth. Yay !!!

Then the real exploration of the Other Worlds can begin. No more running in flat circles over Canada for you NASA losers.

Serious geography would have to change accordingly.

NASA does have the resources to fake a Flat Earth, most definately. Yet it doesn't. Perhaps it's too busy to fake only the Round Earth?

Hmmm, so many questions, and no answers you can provide.
TRAGIC !!
We shall have a magnificent orgy garden party & you're not invited

?

Silverdane

  • 346
  • Deutschland Double Heil!! @_@//
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #554 on: December 30, 2011, 05:28:20 PM »

Show me an example of what NASA's pictures would look like in such a scenario, and I will answer this question.

Also stop spamming pictures of swords.

Something like these, I'm guessing.







We shall have a magnificent orgy garden party & you're not invited

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #555 on: December 30, 2011, 06:59:27 PM »

Show me an example of what NASA's pictures would look like in such a scenario, and I will answer this question.

Also stop spamming pictures of swords.

Something like these, I'm guessing.

<img>


Okay. Then my answer is: I would ask NASA to explain the discrepancies in latitudinal distances.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

?

Silverdane

  • 346
  • Deutschland Double Heil!! @_@//
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #556 on: December 30, 2011, 07:15:09 PM »
Okay. Then my answer is: I would ask NASA to explain the discrepancies in latitudinal distances.

You mean why Africa, Australia or Latin America aren't twelve times bigger in NASA's Earth Theory?

Depends on which maps you're going with.

If my guesstimate is right, the circular latitude of the Flat Earth at 45* in Europe and Canada, should have a diametre of ..... 10.000 km?

Which means in the outer Seas, Australia, Latin America and Africa should belong to a 45* southern latitude with a diametre of ...... 15.000 km?

And Antarctica should have a diametre of 20.000 km, at the Antarctic Circle, at about 90* latitude?

Is this right so far?

You would ask NASA why the Antarctic continents aren't twice the size of the Arctic continents, like Asia, Europe and North America?

Or did I misread the question?
We shall have a magnificent orgy garden party & you're not invited

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #557 on: December 30, 2011, 08:27:45 PM »
Or did I misread the question?

Very probably.

I would want NASA to explain why the distance from a west coast to an east coast is different than what cartographers have been measuring for centuries.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #558 on: December 30, 2011, 09:42:13 PM »
Every single flat earth map seems to be bent or distorted in a way that you would expect if it was actually a 2d projection of a 3d world. FISHY AINT IT, flat earthers?!?!

Is there any particular reason why it shouldn't be so? Actually, how else could it possibly be?
Great point. Since the earth doesn't accurately project into a 2d map, then the Earth cannot be flat. Thanks!

>implying that RET distances are accurate

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #559 on: December 30, 2011, 10:52:48 PM »
Every single flat earth map seems to be bent or distorted in a way that you would expect if it was actually a 2d projection of a 3d world. FISHY AINT IT, flat earthers?!?!

Is there any particular reason why it shouldn't be so? Actually, how else could it possibly be?
Great point. Since the earth doesn't accurately project into a 2d map, then the Earth cannot be flat. Thanks!

>implying that RET distances are accurate
Nope. That implication is not needed to make that point.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #560 on: December 31, 2011, 02:19:45 AM »
implying that RET distances are accurate

You're willing to accept that the distances are accurate for one specific iteration of a RET map: the north polar azimuthal equidistant projection. You haven't explained why this one is correct and none of the others are. You just say GPSes are lying and so forth.

So if the world is full of lying equipment, on what basis do you decide which one is correct?

Please note that an airline pilot will arrive exactly where and when he expects to, whether he is using this map:



or this one:



How do you know it's not the second map that is reality while GPS / INS / whatever lies to make the first one appear valid?

And if either of these do show the true distances of a Flat Earth, how do you explain the fact that the exact shapes can be generated using spherical geometry?

I've been trying to get you to answer these questions for over a week now. Please stop avoiding them.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #561 on: December 31, 2011, 08:11:40 PM »

How do you know it's not the second map that is reality while GPS / INS / whatever lies to make the first one appear valid?

And if either of these do show the true distances of a Flat Earth, how do you explain the fact that the exact shapes can be generated using spherical geometry?

I've been trying to get you to answer these questions for over a week now. Please stop avoiding them.

This topic has been raised before, when the FE'ers dismissed the possibility of a south pole centric map on the basis that "the north centric one is more widely accepted".
Tausami, come here! I need you! I just spotted a logical fallacy for you to quack about!
You're not gonna get a sensible answer from them, Zarg. You've won this round.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #562 on: December 31, 2011, 09:54:05 PM »
I'm here. Sorry I've been so inactive.

Anyway, to Zarg:

1) My answer is the same as it was a week ago. Until an FE'er circumnavigates the disk and determines these things experimentally, there's no way to know for sure.

2 )They can't. A sphere can't have a bottom that is bigger than its top. For that matter, a sphere can't have bottom, but that's irrelevant.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #563 on: December 31, 2011, 11:11:46 PM »
Until an FE'er circumnavigates the disk and determines these things experimentally, there's no way to know for sure.

So you finally admit that you don't know what a real FE map would look like. Why didn't you say so 29 pages ago?


They can't. A sphere can't have a bottom that is bigger than its top.

How many times do I have to explain this? These maps only work for paths through the center. When used as such, both are correct.

It has nothing to do with one side being bigger than the other.

Pick up a globe and try it yourself. Look down from the north pole and align the globe to the same rotation as your map, then trace a straight path outward at the angles shown here:



You will find that your finger reaches the two edges of Australia just as the map predicts. Also, any angle south arrives at Antarctica, which is why it circles the whole map.

Now, do the same thing with the second map.



Again, it works. That is how these maps are used. The math behind them is based on a sphere, which is why our globe test works. You're telling me that the first map is a map of a flat plane, and that the distances are correct for both axes, not just through the center.

You offer me no explanation for why the distortion generated by this sphere-based math happens to be the actual reality of a flat Earth.

You offer no explanation as to why one such map is correct while others of the same projection formula are not.

These maps are experimentally verified every day as they are constantly relied on successfully, and the idea that Earth is a sphere explains everything nicely; while you have nothing but fantasies that you admit have never been experimentally verified.

You have utterly failed the ultimate challenge.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2011, 11:15:06 PM by zarg »
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #564 on: January 01, 2012, 11:13:16 AM »
Until an FE'er circumnavigates the disk and determines these things experimentally, there's no way to know for sure.

So you finally admit that you don't know what a real FE map would look like. Why didn't you say so 29 pages ago?


They can't. A sphere can't have a bottom that is bigger than its top.

How many times do I have to explain this? These maps only work for paths through the center. When used as such, both are correct.

It has nothing to do with one side being bigger than the other.

Pick up a globe and try it yourself. Look down from the north pole and align the globe to the same rotation as your map, then trace a straight path outward at the angles shown here:



You will find that your finger reaches the two edges of Australia just as the map predicts. Also, any angle south arrives at Antarctica, which is why it circles the whole map.

Now, do the same thing with the second map.



Again, it works. That is how these maps are used. The math behind them is based on a sphere, which is why our globe test works. You're telling me that the first map is a map of a flat plane, and that the distances are correct for both axes, not just through the center.

You offer me no explanation for why the distortion generated by this sphere-based math happens to be the actual reality of a flat Earth.

You offer no explanation as to why one such map is correct while others of the same projection formula are not.

These maps are experimentally verified every day as they are constantly relied on successfully, and the idea that Earth is a sphere explains everything nicely; while you have nothing but fantasies that you admit have never been experimentally verified.

You have utterly failed the ultimate challenge.

Thanks for clearing up the issue. For some reason, I was reading your posts over and over again and not comprehending what you were complaining about. Maybe I was just tired. Whatever.

I've been repeating this over and over again throughout the thread. There's no way for me to know whether the distances displayed on the map are accurate until my circumnavigation attempt. However, the distance formula that momentia and I devoloped should be accurate, as it is based on mathematical properties and the assumption that the disk's circumference increases at the same rate throughout itself, which is hard to deny.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #565 on: January 01, 2012, 11:15:11 AM »
Every single flat earth map seems to be bent or distorted in a way that you would expect if it was actually a 2d projection of a 3d world. FISHY AINT IT, flat earthers?!?!

Is there any particular reason why it shouldn't be so? Actually, how else could it possibly be?
Great point. Since the earth doesn't accurately project into a 2d map, then the Earth cannot be flat. Thanks!

>implying that RET distances are accurate
Nope. That implication is not needed to make that point.

Sure it is. If the real distances fit the FET model but not the RET model, then FET myst be right.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #566 on: January 01, 2012, 12:55:42 PM »
I've been repeating this over and over again throughout the thread. There's no way for me to know whether the distances displayed on the map are accurate until my circumnavigation attempt.

No, what you and other FE'ers have been repeating over and over in this thread is your map, and pretending that it's accurate. If you were being honest you would have answered Zhark's challenge with "I don't know" instead of arguing for 29 pages. If you were being honest you would not have declared that the map I posted was inaccurate, because you have no idea. You're backpedaling. You lost.


However, the distance formula that momentia and I devoloped should be accurate, as it is based on mathematical properties and the assumption that the disk's circumference increases at the same rate throughout itself, which is hard to deny.

Of course the math works, because the projection is mathematically generated. You successfully reverse-engineered a RET map. Congratulations. How does this support FET again? Here's some more math for you: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AzimuthalEquidistantProjection.html




Great point. Since the earth doesn't accurately project into a 2d map, then the Earth cannot be flat. Thanks!

>implying that RET distances are accurate
Nope. That implication is not needed to make that point.

Sure it is. If the real distances fit the FET model but not the RET model, then FET myst be right.

Guess what? Logical fallacy. Affirming a disjunct. RET distances being inaccurate would not mean that FET distances aren't also inaccurate.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2012, 01:03:45 PM by zarg »
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #567 on: January 01, 2012, 01:16:01 PM »
I've been repeating this over and over again throughout the thread. There's no way for me to know whether the distances displayed on the map are accurate until my circumnavigation attempt.

No, what you and other FE'ers have been repeating over and over in this thread is your map, and pretending that it's accurate. If you were being honest you would have answered Zhark's challenge with "I don't know" instead of arguing for 29 pages. If you were being honest you would not have declared that the map I posted was inaccurate, because you have no idea. You're backpedaling. You lost.

No. You wanted an FE map, so I provided one. I was the first to admit that I had no way of affirming whether or not it was accurate, and in light of the new evidence you've provided I must say that it probably isn't.

However, the distance formula that momentia and I devoloped should be accurate, as it is based on mathematical properties and the assumption that the disk's circumference increases at the same rate throughout itself, which is hard to deny.

Quote
Of course the math works, because the projection is mathematically generated. You successfully reverse-engineered a RET map. Congratulations. How does this support FET again? Here's some more math for you: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AzimuthalEquidistantProjection.html

It doesn't support FET. It just gives the hard numbers, since they were being asked for. Are you seriously complaining that I respond to requests?


Quote
Great point. Since the earth doesn't accurately project into a 2d map, then the Earth cannot be flat. Thanks!

>implying that RET distances are accurate
Nope. That implication is not needed to make that point.

Sure it is. If the real distances fit the FET model but not the RET model, then FET myst be right.

Guess what? Logical fallacy. Affirming a disjunct. RET distances being inaccurate would not mean that FET distances aren't also inaccurate.

I think you missed that part. If the distances fit my formula and not the accepted distances, then I'm probably right. That's not a logical fallacy, it's deductive reasoning.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #568 on: January 01, 2012, 01:54:47 PM »
No.

Yes:

The second map is not in any way, shape, or form accurate.

That's a pretty bold claim for someone who has no certainty of what is and isn't accurate.

Quit backpedaling.



Quote
Quote
Great point. Since the earth doesn't accurately project into a 2d map, then the Earth cannot be flat. Thanks!

>implying that RET distances are accurate
Nope. That implication is not needed to make that point.

Sure it is. If the real distances fit the FET model but not the RET model, then FET myst be right.

Guess what? Logical fallacy. Affirming a disjunct. RET distances being inaccurate would not mean that FET distances aren't also inaccurate.

I think you missed that part. If the distances fit my formula and not the accepted distances, then I'm probably right. That's not a logical fallacy, it's deductive reasoning.

The highlighted part is the fallacy. Clocktower never said the distances fit FET, he only said that whether they fit RET is irrelevant. You deduced that if the RET distances are wrong, then FET distances would be right. That's not logically valid. They could both be wrong.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #569 on: January 01, 2012, 02:08:25 PM »
No.

Yes:

The second map is not in any way, shape, or form accurate.

That's a pretty bold claim for someone who has no certainty of what is and isn't accurate.

Quit backpedaling.

I have good reason to believe that. Again, it distorts the Atlantic Ocean, and that has too much traffic for the distances to be inaccurate.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Great point. Since the earth doesn't accurately project into a 2d map, then the Earth cannot be flat. Thanks!

>implying that RET distances are accurate
Nope. That implication is not needed to make that point.

Sure it is. If the real distances fit the FET model but not the RET model, then FET myst be right.

Guess what? Logical fallacy. Affirming a disjunct. RET distances being inaccurate would not mean that FET distances aren't also inaccurate.

I think you missed that part. If the distances fit my formula and not the accepted distances, then I'm probably right. That's not a logical fallacy, it's deductive reasoning.

The highlighted part is the fallacy. Clocktower never said the distances fit FET, he only said that whether they fit RET is irrelevant. You deduced that if the RET distances are wrong, then FET distances would be right. That's not logically valid. They could both be wrong.

Fair enough.