The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers

But I'm not taking a globe. I'm taking the Earth. I also don't believe that the Earth is round. I'm not sure where you got all that from, but your bottom seems to be a plausible source.

Also, your explanation works perfectly valid under RET, but is highly contradictory to the principles of FET. Assuming the Earth's rotundity in an attempt to determine its shape is a fallacy.

I'm not sure where you got all that from, but your bottom seems to be a plausible source.

Argumentum ad posterium is a logical fallacy, Pizza.

Argumentum ad posterium is a logical fallacy, Pizza.

Haha. This is the first post in this thread that actually has any value. I bow to you, sir.
However, that would be argumentum ad posteriora, if anything. Posterior doesn't really mean "buttocks" in Latin, contrary to common belief.

But I'm not taking a globe. I'm taking the Earth. I also don't believe that the Earth is round. I'm not sure where you got all that from, but your bottom seems to be a plausible source.

Also, your explanation works perfectly valid under RET, but is highly contradictory to the principles of FET. Assuming the Earth's rotundity in an attempt to determine its shape is a fallacy.

Round Earth map: distortions from projection
Flat Earth map: no distortions from projection

Because no 2D map has been created (or it seems will ever be created) that preserves both distance and area, the only logical conclusion is that the Earth is round.

Lol, I love it that the "highly contradictory principle" to FET is that the Earth is flat.

While you may think its possible to have a flat Earth that isn't flat, I can assure it doesn't make a lot of sense. Try again and I'll give you some more constructive criticism.

Round Earth map: distortions from projection
Flat Earth map: no distortions from projection

Incorrect.
An incorrect premise leads you to an incorrect conclusion.

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 20, 2011, 02:28:18 PM

Round Earth map: distortions from projection
Flat Earth map: no distortions from projection

Incorrect.
An incorrect premise leads you to an incorrect conclusion.

Once again, absolutely no evidence or reasoning to back up your claim.

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 20, 2011, 02:28:18 PM

Round Earth map: distortions from projection
Flat Earth map: no distortions from projection

Incorrect.
An incorrect premise leads you to an incorrect conclusion.

You just don't get it.

According to you, Earth is flat.  Flat = two-dimensional.  Two-dimensional means a plane, like a sheet of paper.  Maps are written on a sheet of paper.  Paper = Earth = 2-D = the same = no distortion!!!  How hard is this to understand?

I've explained this countless times by now.

I've explained this countless times by now.

An incorrect premise leads you to an incorrect conclusion.

An incorrect premise leads you to an incorrect conclusion.

I appreciate your attempt, but you forgot to substantiate your claim.
You could learn a lot from The Knowledge. He's significantly more successful at being humorous.

God, this is retarded!!!  I'm simply at a point where I just don't believe they think the earth is flat.  Not only am I not convinced that the world is flat, I'm actually convinced they're not being serious!  I just think the scientific debate is mentally stimulating. 

RE'ers, You're not gonna convince them of anything.  In their world, flat means round.  That's basically all they've proven.  That's the only explanation they've proven to me.  They distorted the flat version of a round earth map so that it's a circle, and they justify it with something called Flat Earth Math, which... explains a circle as having the exact same geometry as a sphere.  It's an illusion.  There is no "flat earth math" except in their minds, because apparently "flat" means "round."  It's the same.  The way they explain "flat earth math," they're explaining the behavior of a round earth.

It's like saying, "Dogs are snakes... if you use Snake-Dog grammar where, you switch the definitions of the word 'dog' and 'snake.'"

Observe ad hominem please. It's not the objective to insult each other.

I suggest you dispense your massive incompetence somewhere else; you're waisting everyone's time here.

For example.

God, this is retarded!!!  I'm simply at a point where I just don't believe they think the earth is flat.  Not only am I not convinced that the world is flat, I'm actually convinced they're not being serious!  I just think the scientific debate is mentally stimulating. 

RE'ers, You're not gonna convince them of anything.  In their world, flat means round.  That's basically all they've proven.  That's the only explanation they've proven to me.  They distorted the flat version of a round earth map so that it's a circle, and they justify it with something called Flat Earth Math, which... explains a circle as having the exact same geometry as a sphere.  It's an illusion.  There is no "flat earth math" except in their minds, because apparently "flat" means "round."  It's the same.  The way they explain "flat earth math," they're explaining the behavior of a round earth.

It's like saying, "Dogs are snakes... if you use Snake-Dog grammar where, you switch the definitions of the word 'dog' and 'snake.'"

Yes, well done for realising it. Not a single person here thinks the earth is flat. Most of us long term RE'ers are not here to convince them, because we know they don't really believe it. The art is to paint them into a corner where FE cannot provide a solution to an observation. This has been done many times. You can spot an RE "win" when the FE'ers refuse to answer the questions or engage with the arguments. Examples of this:
Inertial Navigation Systems can detect the curved path that FE'ers claim is needed to go due east-west, proving it doesn't happen. FE response - no statement on whether INS can or cannot do this, as to confirm it disproves the curved path theory and to deny it leaves them without an explanation of why INS works at all.
The sun is observed to travel a full 360 degrees round the horizon in Antarctica in the summer. FE explanation - none (the sky mirror was suggested but would not replicate this effect so can be ignored).
Disproof of bendy light - in order to work, bendy light had to distort the position of a celestial object proportionally to its altitude above the horizon. It has been observed that this does not happen. FE response - blank denial that anyone ever mentioned this disproof, crazy!

You can also count a RE win when the FE'ers resort to defences like:
Claiming the scientific data you are citing is falsified or does not exist
Blaming it on the conspiracy
Citing an unknown law of physics with undefined parameters (e.g. John Davis's magic aether theory, which explains everything but you're not allowed to know how)
Denying that forum posts have happened

Disproof of bendy light - in order to work, bendy light had to distort the position of a celestial object proportionally to its altitude above the horizon. It has been observed that this does not happen. FE response - blank denial that anyone ever mentioned this disproof, crazy!

Oh, no, most of us agree that it's been mentioned. In fact, it's mentioned on a weekly basis, at the very least. It's just that the disproof has never been performed, and the RE'ers refuse to show it (I wonder why).

You should put it in the FAQ, then.

Quote from: The Knowledge on November 21, 2011, 04:45:06 AM

Disproof of bendy light - in order to work, bendy light had to distort the position of a celestial object proportionally to its altitude above the horizon. It has been observed that this does not happen. FE response - blank denial that anyone ever mentioned this disproof, crazy!

Oh, no, most of us agree that it's been mentioned. In fact, it's mentioned on a weekly basis, at the very least. It's just that the disproof has never been performed, and the RE'ers refuse to show it (I wonder why).

Lies. The disproof has been performed many thousands of times by both amateur and professional telescope users, who are able to point a telescope to the correct star simply by dialling in the coordinates for declination and right ascension, something which could not be done if the angular distance between stars was variable.
I suppose you're going to say that there's no evidence that telescope users do this, or that the telescope points to a different star and the astronomers don't realise. After all, I can't think of any other possible defence you could use.

I'd like to take a flat earther on a plane trip.  Let's lift off from a Toronto airport and fly east without making any adjustments.  You will eventually come back to Toronto and not hit this 150 foot wall of ice.  I bet nobody in Antarctica is an FE'er.  You guys also use a lot of history to back up your arguments.  As we all know, history is factual but it must be recorded properly.  Neither FE'ers or RE'ers are allowed to use history when arguing because Fe'ers have changed stuff for their benefit.  Columbus subduing his entire crew because they believed the Earth was round?  I'd love to see one guy go up against the crews of three ships.

Quote from: KristaGurl on November 20, 2011, 07:37:33 PM

God, this is retarded!!!  I'm simply at a point where I just don't believe they think the earth is flat. ...

Yes, well done for realising it. Not a single person here thinks the earth is flat...

I agree, if you define "here" by "in Flat Earth Debate". (If you want to see what a debate with real FEers would look like, have a look to the "Believers" forum. Scary.)

I think most people here - FEers and longtime REers alike - consider it as kind of a game. One should not forget that the dice are loaded in favour of RET - to vary a Colbert quote, reality has a strong RE bias. It's like a sword combat where one side has wooden swords. Within the game, I am used to treat FEers like stubborn and narrow-minded children, but I actually have a great respect for some (supposed) pseudo-FEers who have skill to defend an actually undefendable position. For example Pizza who has raised confusion tactics to an art form and whose "RE metrics on FE geometry" approach has even some sort of internal consistency. (This is an outside-the-game remark, inside the game I never said that !!!)

The disproof has been performed many thousands of times by both amateur and professional telescope users, who are able to point a telescope to the correct star simply by dialling in the coordinates for declination and right ascension, something which could not be done if the angular distance between stars was variable.

The angular distance between stars is not variable, at least locally.

Quote from: The Knowledge on November 21, 2011, 06:06:02 AM

The disproof has been performed many thousands of times by both amateur and professional telescope users, who are able to point a telescope to the correct star simply by dialling in the coordinates for declination and right ascension, something which could not be done if the angular distance between stars was variable.

The angular distance between stars is not variable, at least locally.

Correct. Bendy light predicts that it would be. Therefore bendy light cannot be correct.

Bendy light predicts that it would be.

Not at all.

Quote from: The Knowledge on November 21, 2011, 01:51:43 PM

Bendy light predicts that it would be.

Not at all.

Gonna back that up with a nice explanation? I bet not.

The whole way bendy light works is by adjusting the apparent position of an object by an amount proportional to that object's height above the horizon. Light coming vertically down shows a true position, light coming almost horizontally is the most curved, light somewhere in between is curved by a lesser amount. Do you dispute that? Go read the step by step explanation.
If that is indeed the case, then the angular distance between stars would vary. Parsec sets it out so clearly that you have no excuse not to understand the argument, so if you have issue with it then please explain WHY bendy light would not cause this effect.

The same explanation as image:



As you see, α < β. Of course, an image is not a proof - but as long as FEers don't agree a formula for bendy light, you'll have to content with an image.

Note that the same effet holds with the vertical angular diameter of any celestial body. When a celestial body descends visually to the horizon, its vertical angular diameter would decrease. As can be shown easily, its horizontal angular diameter would increase. In consequence, a round (discoid or spheroid) celestial body would visually deform to an ellipse.

Note that the same effet holds with the vertical angular diameter of any celestial body. When a celestial body descends visually to the horizon, its vertical angular diameter would decrease. As can be shown easily, its horizontal angular diameter would increase. In consequence, a round (discoid or spheroid) celestial body would visually deform to an ellipse.

Not quite correct - the horizontal diameter would remain the same.

I suggest you dispense your massive incompetence somewhere else; you're waisting everyone's time here.

At least he isn't elbowing it.

Quote from: Zogg on November 21, 2011, 03:02:18 PM

... As can be shown easily, its horizontal angular diameter would increase. ...

Not quite correct - the horizontal diameter would remain the same.

Actually, we were both wrong - it seems the horizontal angle would decrease as well. In consequence, the object would visually shrink in both width and height.



Not sure whether this would hold in any cases, I need to think some more about it...

Quote from: The Knowledge on November 21, 2011, 04:25:06 PM

Quote from: Zogg on November 21, 2011, 03:02:18 PM

... As can be shown easily, its horizontal angular diameter would increase. ...

Not quite correct - the horizontal diameter would remain the same.

Actually, we were both wrong - it seems the horizontal angle would decrease as well. In consequence, the object would visually shrink in both width and height.



Not sure whether this would hold in any cases, I need to think some more about it...

I'm not sure I follow the diagram there, and in any case since bendy light only has a bendy component along one axis, the appearance of horizontal widths would remain the same as for normal light. The bending is supposed to be proportional to height above horizon and irrespective of azimuth. You are also applying an additional perspective effect in your diagrams and have observers at two different points, which clouds the issue and includes an assumption that the stars are on some sort of flat plane.

Gonna back that up with a nice explanation? I bet not.

How am I supposed to explain that the RE'ers version of EAT is not EAT?
Like I've said many times before, and as I've explained with many anecdotes of varying rationality, RE'ers making up FET and FE'ers making up RET proves nothing about either model.

The same explanation as image:



As you see, α < β. Of course, an image is not a proof - but as long as FEers don't agree a formula for bendy light, you'll have to content with an image.

Thank you for a mature approach. I admit that I misunderstood your claim about EAT. However, I think I'm still missing something. As far as my understanding goes, the very same would happen on RE:


This is a direct consequence of the concept known as parallax, which is used in RET to determine the distance of stars from the Earth.

Quote from: The Knowledge on November 21, 2011, 02:37:11 PM

Gonna back that up with a nice explanation? I bet not.

How am I supposed to explain that the RE'ers version of EAT is not EAT?
Like I've said many times before, and as I've explained with many anecdotes of varying rationality, RE'ers making up FET and FE'ers making up RET proves nothing about either model.

What's this about different versions of "EAT"? (Please just call it bendy light, then the noobs can follow it). The whole purpose of bendy light is to give FE'ers a theory to explain why the sun, moon and stars appear to sink down over the horizon. In order to do this, any model of bendy light HAS to introduce a curvature to the light beam, which is greater the closer to horizontal the beam becomes. Unless your model of bendy light does this, it doesn't describe why objects sink over the horizon. So if the FE'er version of bendy light doesn't do this, then it doesn't explain sunsets.
It's like having different theories of magnetism - one theory might say the magnet attracts metal to it, another mught say the metal is pushed towards it by some other force. These theories cannot both be correct, however they can both describe the same phenomenon. Bendy light, if you are to claim it exists, requires light to bend, and by an amount proportional to the angle of the beam. The mechanism of bending doesn't matter.
I note you have presented no data, evidence or observations that dispute the disproof of bendy light.

Quote from: The Knowledge on November 21, 2011, 04:45:06 AM

Disproof of bendy light - in order to work, bendy light had to distort the position of a celestial object proportionally to its altitude above the horizon. It has been observed that this does not happen. FE response - blank denial that anyone ever mentioned this disproof, crazy!

Oh, no, most of us agree that it's been mentioned. In fact, it's mentioned on a weekly basis, at the very least. It's just that the disproof has never been performed, and the RE'ers refuse to show it (I wonder why).

"I wonder why ba babbada babbada!!! I'm so smart!!!"  It might have something to do with how the benefit doesn't outweight the consequence.  Like, maybe the time it takes to explain it isn't worth NOT convincing the 5 people who believe in a flat earth.