The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers

  • 580 Replies
  • 102387 Views
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #210 on: November 15, 2011, 02:04:55 PM »
This is your argument but only conformed to my own standing, ''there is not evidence for a round earth, you are taking something that was thought to have been discovered long ago and trying to say its real, even though theres no proof or evidence''.  But there is right?  There is evidence for a round earth right?  Just as there is evidence of a flat earth, you are just jumping to invalid conclusions instead of actually locating all of the information which many people from various times ranging from ancient to contemporary have brought forth.  Why not attempt to debunk that instead of just posting seemingly authoritative statemeants about an alleged lack of experimentation.  Its making you seem quite unskilled my dear, we both know thats not true.

No, there's not.  As far as proof goes, this is more like what I see:
...does anyone find it funny that the Flat Earth model is actually round?

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #211 on: November 15, 2011, 02:18:11 PM »
You are saying that the Earth is flat? Why, my friend, have you ever seen a mountain or a valley?
[...]
Even the flattest book has some surface structure, at least at microscopic level, and isn't 100% flat. However, it's
[...]
I show you a Riemann manifold in reality when you show me a plane in reality.
Ah, so you've entered the good old realm of semantics trolling. Sadly, since this forum is quite old, the understanding of "flat" here has been explained quite a few times.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #212 on: November 15, 2011, 03:06:18 PM »
Let it be known from hence forth that Pizza Planet endorses the idea that the world has curvature and is therefore round.

... Or something like that, since his arguments for the world being flat are basically 'I can ignore mathematics and change the meaning of the world round to flat and flat to round.' After that display of FE'ness, I can only assume that a victory dance of some sort is done either physically or mentally. 
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #213 on: November 15, 2011, 03:37:53 PM »
Let it be known from hence forth that Pizza Planet endorses the idea that the world has curvature and is therefore round.
Please don't put words in my mouth. You make both of us look silly.

... Or something like that, since his arguments for the world being flat are basically 'I can ignore mathematics and change the meaning of the world round to flat and flat to round.'
Not at all.

I can only assume that a victory dance of some sort is done either physically or mentally. 
I actually do that more often than I should, and that's in my own opinion. I think you can now imagine just how incredibly often that happens.
I have no regrets.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #214 on: November 15, 2011, 08:30:21 PM »
Let it be known from hence forth that Pizza Planet endorses the idea that the world has curvature and is therefore round.

... Or something like that, since his arguments for the world being flat are basically 'I can ignore mathematics and change the meaning of the world round to flat and flat to round.' After that display of FE'ness, I can only assume that a victory dance of some sort is done either physically or mentally.

THANK YOU!!!  You can't prove that 2+2=6 by changing the meaning of the number 2 to a quantity of 3.
...does anyone find it funny that the Flat Earth model is actually round?

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #215 on: November 16, 2011, 12:19:33 AM »
You can't prove that 2+2=6 by changing the meaning of the number 2 to a quantity of 3.
Well, then it's a good thing that no one here does that.

You can, however, prove that luminiferous aether doesn't exist by performing an experiment whose result gives two possible outcomes, and just dismissing one.
Science is a truly curious thing.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #216 on: November 16, 2011, 06:37:25 AM »
Well, then it's a good thing that no one here does that.

You can, however, prove that luminiferous aether doesn't exist by performing an experiment whose result gives two possible outcomes, and just dismissing one.
Science is a truly curious thing.

Good thing aether was disproven before the 1900's.

And.... what experiment?  And what does it have to do with changing the laws of scale to force a flat earth map to make sense?
...does anyone find it funny that the Flat Earth model is actually round?

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #217 on: November 16, 2011, 07:18:01 AM »
And.... what experiment?
The Michelson–Morley experiment, of course. How did you manage to reference it in your post without knowing what it is?
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #218 on: November 16, 2011, 07:45:26 AM »
And.... what experiment?
The Michelson–Morley experiment, of course. How did you manage to reference it in your post without knowing what it is?

I didn't reference it, you did.  I just asked what you were talking about.

And, it seems to me that there wasn't really much ambiguity at all.  Remember, this is a website.  If you throw out an argument, all I have to do is open a new tab to fact-check you.  And... I will.  So for instance, when Tom Bishop tries to imply that Stephen Hawking is a religious person, debunking that claim is a fairly simple task.

Either way, the validity of MMX has absolutely zero bearing on the subject at hand.  Let's not get off-subject.  You're right, science is a curious thing.  But, not in this case.  The world is round.  It was proven as such centuries ago, and is one of the simplest truths in the history of man.  The only thing curious about it is the fact that in the 21st century, there are those who doubt it.

You bringing up MMX in order to prove the validity of doubt in RE Theory is like saying, "you can't prove that 2+2=4 because a FEW people believe that a subatomic particle experiment in Switzerland MAY have disproven Einstein's theory of Relativity."
...does anyone find it funny that the Flat Earth model is actually round?

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #219 on: November 16, 2011, 07:53:11 AM »
PP is very at patronizing, but not very good at explaining FET.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #220 on: November 16, 2011, 08:27:17 AM »
And.... what experiment?
The Michelson–Morley experiment, of course. How did you manage to reference it in your post without knowing what it is?
Which observed result of Michelson–Morley supports the existence of aether?  ???
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.

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #221 on: November 16, 2011, 08:38:19 AM »
And.... what experiment?
The Michelson–Morley experiment, of course. How did you manage to reference it in your post without knowing what it is?
Which observed result of Michelson–Morley supports the existence of aether?  ???

I think in some of the earlier experiments there was a margin of error that some believed proved the existence of ether.  I'm not an expert on ether because... well, it doesn't exist.  Funny that I've found myself an amateur expert on Flat Earth Theory even though that doesn't exist either...
...does anyone find it funny that the Flat Earth model is actually round?

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #222 on: November 16, 2011, 09:35:48 AM »
Which observed result of Michelson–Morley supports the existence of aether?  ???
The Michelson-Morley experiment allows two possible conclusions. One of them is that luminiferous aether doesn't exist. In an attempt to encourage people to read about the experiment, I won't post the other possibility here, but I'll PM it to you. I would appreciate it if you kept it to yourself.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #223 on: November 16, 2011, 09:43:45 AM »
Which observed result of Michelson–Morley supports the existence of aether?  ???
The Michelson-Morley experiment allows two possible conclusions. One of them is that luminiferous aether doesn't exist. In an attempt to encourage people to read about the experiment, I won't post the other possibility here, but I'll PM it to you. I would appreciate it if you kept it to yourself.

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!! 

Original question:  "Can I see a map?"
Response: Michelson-Morley... and Ether... and global warming... and... um... stuff!!!
...does anyone find it funny that the Flat Earth model is actually round?

*

Zogg

  • 128
  • Secret NASA space picture photoshopper
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #224 on: November 16, 2011, 11:08:32 AM »
Which observed result of Michelson–Morley supports the existence of aether?  ???
The Michelson-Morley experiment allows two possible conclusions. One of them is that luminiferous aether doesn't exist. In an attempt to encourage people to read about the experiment, I won't post the other possibility here, but I'll PM it to you. I would appreciate it if you kept it to yourself.

No need to play the mysterious patronizing supermind: Those who know the Michelson-Morley experiment are aware that it's based on the assumption that the earth rotates - an assumption that is accepted as fact by REers but doubted by FEers. So, for a FEer, this experiment neither proves nor disproves ether.

(On a side-note, I always find it strange when FEers argue in terms of Relativity Theory, for exemple by explaining that the earth accelerates but never reaches light speed, despite the fact that on a non-rotating earth, Michelson-Morley would not lead to the questions that eventually led to the Relativity Theory.)

If I ever start pretending to be FEer, just for fun, I will possibly build my argumentation around the lines of "Flat Earth is more plausible than Relativity, thus Ockham's Razor favours FET, bla bla bla...". Which would be complete nonsense, of course.

Back to topic: Can we see a map ?
« Last Edit: November 16, 2011, 11:10:03 AM by Zogg »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #225 on: November 16, 2011, 11:11:21 AM »
Which observed result of Michelson–Morley supports the existence of aether?  ???
The Michelson-Morley experiment allows two possible conclusions. One of them is that luminiferous aether doesn't exist. In an attempt to encourage people to read about the experiment, I won't post the other possibility here, but I'll PM it to you. I would appreciate it if you kept it to yourself.
I didn't ask about the possible conclusions.  I asked about the observed results of the experiment.  Well designed experiments always allow for multiple conclusions, however those results of the experiment don't.  BTW, as I recall, Michelson-Morley originally assumed that aether does exist.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2011, 11:13:24 AM by markjo »
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.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #226 on: November 16, 2011, 12:04:24 PM »
I didn't ask about the possible conclusions.  I asked about the observed results of the experiment.
The results allowed for two conclusions. That's what I originally meant to say.

BTW, as I recall, Michelson-Morley originally assumed that aether does exist.
That is correct.

No need to play the mysterious patronizing supermind: Those who know the Michelson-Morley experiment are aware that it's based on the assumption that the earth rotates - an assumption that is accepted as fact by REers but doubted by FEers. So, for a FEer, this experiment neither proves nor disproves ether.
Congratulations - you have entirely missed the point!
First things first, I am approaching these results from the mainstream science point of view (that includes RET).
Feel free to come back once you actually read about the experiment, rather than "quote" what "those who know the MM experiment" know.

Original question:  "Can I see a map?"
Back to topic: Can we see a map ?
And now for another enthralling episode of "PizzaPlanet says it again!":
I've already shown you a few maps, and so did the others. You may dislike the maps (in which case please click the link in my signature), but that doesn't make them any less seen by you.
To answer your question very shortly: Yes, you can see a map, assuming your eyes are fine.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2011, 12:11:33 PM by PizzaPlanet »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #227 on: November 16, 2011, 12:20:39 PM »
And now for another enthralling episode of "PizzaPlanet says it again!":
I've already shown you a few maps, and so did the others. You may dislike the maps (in which case please click the link in my signature), but that doesn't make them any less seen by you.
To answer your question very shortly: Yes, you can see a map, assuming your eyes are fine.

I think what he (and all of us) would like is a map with political boundaries drawn, that demonstrates the distances between cities as given by real surveyors who follow Earthling science.

I really don't think you can use a scientific experiment that relies on RE Theory to prove FE Theory... especially when you're willing to drop the laws of scale just to make the science fit your theories.

But, I would like everyone to just drop the whole MMX thing.  PP is doing something they call in psychology called "fact-stacking."  He knows his argument (in this case, FE Theory) is flimsy and doesn't hold weight, so he has an arsenal of distractions to take your mind off the difficult questions when they come up. PP is using MMX as a smoke-screen to show off how smart he supposedly is hoping that we'll loose sight of the original argument.  Okay, let's just assume PP is right about MMX.  Who cares?  Let him think he's right.  It does nothing to prove FE Theory, and it does nothing to disprove RE Theory.  We're here to talk about the shape of the Earth, not ether or light or 130-year-old experiments.

Now... can we PLEASE see a map!!?!??!?!?!
...does anyone find it funny that the Flat Earth model is actually round?

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #228 on: November 16, 2011, 12:26:24 PM »
I think what he (and all of us) would like is a map with political boundaries drawn
Why do political boundaries matter?

that demonstrates the distances between cities as given by real surveyors who follow Earthling science.
This has been explained over and over in this thread as long as the main distance consistency thread on the fora.

I really don't think you can use a scientific experiment that relies on RE Theory to prove FE Theory...
Of course. As I said many times, any proof of the Earth's shape that initially assumes its rotundity is not proof. Thank you for agreeing.

But, I would like everyone to just drop the whole MMX thing.
Yes, running away from an argument you don't have an answer to is an excellent strategy.

Now... can we PLEASE see a map!!?!??!?!?!
But of course. You can see it by going to the first page of this debate and viewing the third post in this thread.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #229 on: November 16, 2011, 01:37:25 PM »
This thread has no reason to be more than 3 posts long. I'll say it again: it's only wrong because you make assumptions which are not true. The distances in FET are different from the ones in RET.

*

Zogg

  • 128
  • Secret NASA space picture photoshopper
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #230 on: November 16, 2011, 01:40:30 PM »
I've already shown you a few maps...

I am of course speaking of a length-preserving map, as asked for in the opening post. If the Gauss Curvature of earth is zero, such a map should exist, but FEers have so far failed to provide it. (If it's not zero, the earth is not flat.)

This thread has no reason to be more than 3 posts long. I'll say it again: it's only wrong because you make assumptions which are not true. The distances in FET are different from the ones in RET.

If this thread is so long, it's because FEers still haven't posted said map. Instead, they are making excuses after excuses why such a map doesn't exist in FE geometry, but without ever establishing this geometry (They can't even determine it's curvature).
« Last Edit: November 16, 2011, 01:46:40 PM by Zogg »

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #231 on: November 16, 2011, 01:42:38 PM »
I am of course speaking of a length-preserving map, as I said about 371624 times. If the Gauss Curvature of earth is zero, such a map should exist, but FEers have so far failed to provide it. (If it's not zero, the earth is not flat.)
Well, yes, the fact that you refuse to accept certain facts and cling to your religion of mathematics does make it quite tedious. But hey, I can say it for the n+1st time. Your RET assumptions do not apply outside of RET.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #232 on: November 16, 2011, 01:46:04 PM »
I think what he (and all of us) would like is a map with political boundaries drawn
Why do political boundaries matter?

that demonstrates the distances between cities as given by real surveyors who follow Earthling science.
This has been explained over and over in this thread as long as the main distance consistency thread on the fora.

Of course. As I said many times, any proof of the Earth's shape that initially assumes its rotundity is not proof. Thank you for agreeing.
So... any proof that the Earth is round is not real proof?  Isn't that a little dismissive?

Yes, running away from an argument you don't have an answer to is an excellent strategy.
You're not baiting me into that.  Anyways, that seems to be exactly how you got us all arguing about MMX and not FE Theory.  Couldn't handle the question, so you changed the subject.  Look at the monkey!  Look at the silly monkey!

But of course. You can see it by going to the first page of this debate and viewing the third post in this thread.

I think what he (and all of us) would like is a map with political boundaries drawn
...does anyone find it funny that the Flat Earth model is actually round?

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #233 on: November 16, 2011, 01:48:07 PM »
Let's put this thing to bed once and for all.

We're asking for a political map that explains the geographically scaled earth as we know it on a flat map.

He says he can't do it because in a flat world, the laws of scale somehow changes.

Doesn't make any sense, and I don't buy it, but that's his explanation.

All the rest is just arguing in circles.
...does anyone find it funny that the Flat Earth model is actually round?

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #234 on: November 16, 2011, 01:49:29 PM »
I've already shown you a few maps...

I am of course speaking of a length-preserving map, as asked for in the opening post. If the Gauss Curvature of earth is zero, such a map should exist, but FEers have so far failed to provide it. (If it's not zero, the earth is not flat.)

This thread has no reason to be more than 3 posts long. I'll say it again: it's only wrong because you make assumptions which are not true. The distances in FET are different from the ones in RET.

If this thread is so long, it's because FEers still haven't posted said map. Instead, they are making excuses after excuses why such a map doesn't exist in FE geometry, but without ever establishing this geometry (They can't even determine it's curvature).



Happy?

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #235 on: November 16, 2011, 01:50:50 PM »
Doesn't make any sense, and I don't buy it, but that's his explanation.
Thank you. Someone finally understands.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

Zogg

  • 128
  • Secret NASA space picture photoshopper
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #236 on: November 16, 2011, 01:52:09 PM »
Well, yes, the fact that you refuse to accept certain facts and cling to your religion of mathematics does make it quite tedious. But hey, I can say it for the n+1st time. Your RET assumptions do not apply outside of RET.

Saying nonsense n+1 times doesn't make it less nonsense. "Flat -> Gauss curvature zero -> euclidean -> flat map" holds for any surface and doesn't use any RE assumptions. 

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #237 on: November 16, 2011, 01:53:01 PM »
I've already shown you a few maps...

I am of course speaking of a length-preserving map, as asked for in the opening post. If the Gauss Curvature of earth is zero, such a map should exist, but FEers have so far failed to provide it. (If it's not zero, the earth is not flat.)

This thread has no reason to be more than 3 posts long. I'll say it again: it's only wrong because you make assumptions which are not true. The distances in FET are different from the ones in RET.

If this thread is so long, it's because FEers still haven't posted said map. Instead, they are making excuses after excuses why such a map doesn't exist in FE geometry, but without ever establishing this geometry (They can't even determine it's curvature).



Happy?

NO!!!  We want a map that includes political boundaries!!!  A map with borders and countries and cities and states and all that goodness.  Not a sillhouette, not a satellite image... we want a MAP with names and coordinates!  Like, something that came from someone who knows what they're talking about!
...does anyone find it funny that the Flat Earth model is actually round?

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #238 on: November 16, 2011, 02:01:27 PM »
I am of course speaking of a length-preserving map, as I said about 371624 times. If the Gauss Curvature of earth is zero, such a map should exist, but FEers have so far failed to provide it. (If it's not zero, the earth is not flat.)
Well, yes, the fact that you refuse to accept certain facts and cling to your religion of mathematics does make it quite tedious. But hey, I can say it for the n+1st time. Your RET assumptions do not apply outside of RET.

Mathematics are the same no matter if the Earth is a sphere, plane, or hyperbola.

The validity of mathematics is an assumption made by both RET and FET. Live with it.
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #239 on: November 16, 2011, 02:02:19 PM »
This one doesn't have cities, but it's political.