The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers

  • 580 Replies
  • 64166 Views
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #360 on: November 22, 2011, 11:09:11 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.
Maybe they're using bendy telescopes :P
...does anyone find it funny that the Flat Earth model is actually round?

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #361 on: November 22, 2011, 11:14:39 AM »
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.

See? Flat Earth Math.  Flat Earth Geometry, Flat Earth EAT.  If you substitute enough REAL logic with alternate logic, you can justify ANYTHING.
...does anyone find it funny that the Flat Earth model is actually round?

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #362 on: November 22, 2011, 11:30:18 AM »
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.

Yeah, but in your round earth diagram, you have 2 people looking at the same point.  In the flat earth diagram, you have people looking in different directions and seing the same thing.  I mean, if we both look in different directions,  won't we see different shit?

Look, I used Mickey Earth EAT and Mickey Earth Geometry to show this same phenomenon on a Mickey Earth!  Prove it's not right!  I read a 150 year old book written by a con artist which proves it!


...by the way, the whole backbone of the FE Movement is Sam Row-your-boat-entham's theory about perspective of sight.  Isn't all that dependent on light NOT being "bendy?"

I mean, look.  A flat earth mixed with flat earth math IS a round earth!!!  It's an illusion!!!
« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 11:39:41 AM by KristaGurl »
...does anyone find it funny that the Flat Earth model is actually round?

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12253
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #363 on: November 22, 2011, 07:10:52 PM »
It might have something to do with how the benefit doesn't outweight the consequence.
Oh, yes, I'm certain that's it.

Like, maybe the time it takes to explain it isn't worth NOT convincing the 5 people who believe in a flat earth.
Ah, yes, this is perfectly consistent with the fact that you're trying to convince people on this website about stuff.

Yeah, but in your round earth diagram, you have 2 people looking at the same point.  In the flat earth diagram, you have people looking in different directions and seing the same thing.  I mean, if we both look in different directions,  won't we see different shit?
Sorry, what? You're not even remotely close to right about either of the diagrams. In the RET diagram, you have two people looking at two points and seeing different things. In the FET diagram, you have two people looking at the very same two points and seeing different things. How you managed to get this wrong is somewhat beyond me.


...by the way, the whole backbone of the FE Movement is Sam Row-your-boat-entham's theory about perspective of sight.
Incorrect.


Cute diagram. Yes, this is what EAT is about. Congratulations.

What's this about different versions of "EAT"?
There are no different version of EAT. There's EAT and RE'ers intentionally misinterpreted and misrepresented EAT.

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.
Incorrect.

So if the FE'er version of bendy light doesn't do this, then it doesn't explain sunsets.
Indeed, seeing how EAT doesn't even attempt to explain sunsets - sunsets are explained by elementary perspective. I'm sure you've heard enough about this from Tom Bishop.

I note you have presented no data, evidence or observations that dispute the disproof of bendy light.
Mostly because there's no disproof to date. As I've pointed out with my little diagram, Zogg's disproof of EAT is invalid, since we'd observe the same results on both FET+EAT and RET.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41648
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #364 on: November 22, 2011, 07:27:31 PM »
What's this about different versions of "EAT"?
There are no different version of EAT. There's EAT and RE'ers intentionally misinterpreted and misrepresented EAT.
Would that be similar to the way that FE'ers intentionally misinterpret and misrepresent RET?
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

  • 12253
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #365 on: November 22, 2011, 07:32:03 PM »
Would that be similar to the way that FE'ers intentionally misinterpret and misrepresent RET?
Indeed.
As you've made it clear that you haven't read this thread (or even the most recent posts) before you've posted, here's a highlight for you:

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.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41648
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #366 on: November 22, 2011, 07:35:06 PM »
Would that be similar to the way that FE'ers intentionally misinterpret and misrepresent RET?
Indeed.
As you've made it clear that you haven't read this thread (or even the most recent posts) before you've posted, here's a highlight for you:

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.

I just like to hear (see) FE'ers admit that they deliberately misrepresent RET.
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

  • 12253
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #367 on: November 22, 2011, 07:40:35 PM »
I just like to hear (see) FE'ers admit that they deliberately misrepresent RET.
I personally try not to misrepresent it most of the time. When I do, it's usually as a form of mockery (and 3 out of 4 times the joke doesn't come across as a joke, unfortunately). For example, if someone asks me to explain FET without <essential FET principle goes here>, I ask them to explain RET without gravitation (which I believe to be very much essential for RET). Any other misrepresentations of mine are unintentional and should be corrected, preferably in a respectful manner.

On the other hand, there are many FE'ers and "FE'ers" who, in my opinion, misrepresent RET intentionally. Pretty much the same goes for RE'ers and FET - many are genuinely confused (It's difficult not to be!), but many are just taking the piss (see also: KristaGurl and "her" Mickey Mouse ranting. Say, isn't that breaking the troublemaking rule?)
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #368 on: November 23, 2011, 09:36:34 AM »
I just like to hear (see) FE'ers admit that they deliberately misrepresent RET.
I personally try not to misrepresent it most of the time. When I do, it's usually as a form of mockery (and 3 out of 4 times the joke doesn't come across as a joke, unfortunately). For example, if someone asks me to explain FET without <essential FET principle goes here>, I ask them to explain RET without gravitation (which I believe to be very much essential for RET). Any other misrepresentations of mine are unintentional and should be corrected, preferably in a respectful manner.

On the other hand, there are many FE'ers and "FE'ers" who, in my opinion, misrepresent RET intentionally. Pretty much the same goes for RE'ers and FET - many are genuinely confused (It's difficult not to be!), but many are just taking the piss (see also: KristaGurl and "her" Mickey Mouse ranting. Say, isn't that breaking the troublemaking rule?)

But, the Mickey Mouse analogy is simply that... an analogy.  I'm not misrepresenting FET by comparing its idiocy to a concept that is obviously not true.  I mean, the world is obviously round.  Some say it's flat.  They back up that claim by changing math and inserting unproven variables like bendy light and sky gears.  My Mickey Earth Theory (MET) is an attempt to show that you can alter and nit-pick what science you choose to follow to back ANY conclusion.  So like, "bendy light" for instance... it's been disproven.  Now, you can say "it's a misconception" or "it's a part of a conspiracy," but you can't prove any of that.  You can say "the stars rotate because of sky gears," but you can't prove that.  You can say "we see a horizon because of bendy light," but you can't prove that.  When you tell us that there is no gravity, and that the earth is moving upwards due to some unknown, unproven, unseen "universal accelerator," but don't have the evidence to back it up, it sounds more like an excuse you use to believe whatever you want.  Quite frankly, that's fine with me.  I can't change how you interpret the shape of the Earth any more than I can change the devotion the North Korean people have for Kim Jung Il, so I'm not loosing any sleep over it.  I just find the scientific debate interesting.  I feel pretty comfortable in my position... where, I'm a part of a majority of scientists who follow simple mathematics to prove the exact thing that I believe, as opposed to being a part of the fringe group with no proof.
...does anyone find it funny that the Flat Earth model is actually round?

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #369 on: November 23, 2011, 10:02:56 AM »
Oh, yes, I'm certain that's it.
So, you DO agree or DON'T agree?  Cause like... astronomers' field of study is the universe, which involves a lot of understanding and scientific discovery.  They probably don't have time to convince a fringe group of people of shit that is obvious to the rest of us.  So, "conspiracy" vs. "they just don't have the time to convince people of obvious stuff..."  I'm going with the second one. 

And yes, here I am.  I'm not convincing you of anything, and I know that.  I just think it's a rather mentally stimulating way to waste half the day.  I'm not in a world where there's a serious threat that anyone who actually matters is gonna be convinced the world is flat.  Flat Earthers aren't trying to raise my taxes, so I could care less.  But, the Junior Varisity back-yard astronomers who believe in RET and use this debate as a hobby are actually doing a pretty good job of shooting down the top minds in FET.  Perhaps the real scientists are off doing more important things because we're doing just fine by ourselves.  ...or, it's a conspiracy.

Yeah, but in your round earth diagram, you have 2 people looking at the same point.  In the flat earth diagram, you have people looking in different directions and seing the same thing.  I mean, if we both look in different directions,  won't we see different shit?
Sorry, what? You're not even remotely close to right about either of the diagrams. In the RET diagram, you have two people looking at two points and seeing different things. In the FET diagram, you have two people looking at the very same two points and seeing different things. How you managed to get this wrong is somewhat beyond me.
Then, I'm retarded.  In the RET diagram, I see 2 people looking at 1 point in the sky.  2 straight lines converging on ONE point.  In the FET diagram, I see one person looking almost straight ahead, and one person looking almost stright up, but SOMEHOW seeing the same thing.  The MET (Mickey Earth Theory) diagram makes as much sense.  And, I will continue to use Mickey Earth Theory to prove that something made up can be presented so that it makes sense to those who choose not to question it.

...by the way, the whole backbone of the FE Movement is Sam Row-your-boat-entham's theory about perspective of sight.
Incorrect.
Far be it for me to lump you in with other FE'ers, but...

Q: "Why do you believe the Earth is flat?"

A:  It looks that way up close. In our local reference frame, it appears to take a flat shape, ignoring obvious hills and valleys. In addition, Samuel Rowbotham et al. performed a variety of experiments over a period of several years that show it must be flat. They are all explained in his book, which is linked at the top of this article.

...With the exception of "et al," it sounds like Row-your-boat-entham is the Karl Marx of the FE Movement, and his journal of flawed, failed, disproven experiments and debunked conclusions are the manifesto.


Cute diagram. Yes, this is what EAT is about. Congratulations.
Do you get the irony I'm trying to display here, though?  Between line of sight and the world, one of them is curved and one of them is straight.  We can PROVE that line of sight is straight and we can PROVE the earth is curved.  Yet, you believe that line of sight is curved and the earth is straight.  Why?  Can you prove it?  "Bendy light."  Yeah, okay, can you prove it?
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 10:10:32 AM by KristaGurl »
...does anyone find it funny that the Flat Earth model is actually round?

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12253
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #370 on: November 23, 2011, 12:16:59 PM »
...With the exception of "et al," it sounds like Row-your-boat-entham is the Karl Marx of the FE Movement, and his journal of flawed, failed, disproven experiments and debunked conclusions are the manifesto.
Welcome to FES. Stay awhile and lurk. The FAQ has been waiting for an update for something like two years, because no one in charge cares enough to do something about it.
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 merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #371 on: November 23, 2011, 12:50:01 PM »
Did she seriously just compare the FAQ to the Communist Manifesto? That's seriously insulting to Marxism.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #372 on: November 23, 2011, 02:29:29 PM »
...With the exception of "et al," it sounds like Row-your-boat-entham is the Karl Marx of the FE Movement, and his journal of flawed, failed, disproven experiments and debunked conclusions are the manifesto.
Welcome to FES. Stay awhile and lurk. The FAQ has been waiting for an update for something like two years, because no one in charge cares enough to do something about it. nobody has found any theories that make sense to put in it.

FixEd

Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Zogg

  • 128
  • Secret NASA space picture photoshopper
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #373 on: November 23, 2011, 11:34:21 PM »
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.

You are absolutely right - but the parallax effect is very, very small, as according to RET, the stars are lightyears away. In consequence, at a given moment, the same star is seen  from everywhere on earth in the same direction, plus or minus 0.00000002°. That means, two stars have always the same angular distance, up to a tiny variation.


The perceived difference in the star's position come from the different orientations of the observers, not from different positions.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 11:37:01 PM by Zogg »

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12253
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #374 on: November 23, 2011, 11:38:47 PM »
Oh, yeah, the claim that stars are very small and very close to us is just another portion of FAQ lunacy.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #375 on: November 28, 2011, 10:43:46 AM »
We should name FAQ FWA: Frequently Wrong Answers.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #376 on: November 28, 2011, 08:39:30 PM »
Y'know, I know you guys do not have such a great FAQ, but here's a crazy idea:  make a new FAQ.

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #377 on: November 29, 2011, 01:43:13 PM »
And a new wiki. And a book.

Funny it's taking so long.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #378 on: November 29, 2011, 01:51:32 PM »
And a new wiki. And a book.

Funny it's taking so long.

We have a new wiki. Daniel's incompetence has caused it to be down. With any luck, it'll be back up soon.

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #379 on: November 29, 2011, 03:15:44 PM »
The wiki is working.

Look for instance at this long and argumented demonstration:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Undersea_Cables
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #380 on: November 29, 2011, 03:19:56 PM »
The wiki is working.

Look for instance at this long and argumented demonstration:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Undersea_Cables

Oh. I wasn't informed. I'll have to get to work.

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #381 on: November 29, 2011, 03:25:58 PM »
The problem is that most of your FE'ers fellows are very lazy.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41648
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #382 on: November 29, 2011, 03:53:17 PM »
The wiki is working.

Look for instance at this long and argumented demonstration:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Undersea_Cables

Oh. I wasn't informed. I'll have to get to work.

Look closer at the URL.  That's a copy of the wiki on the .net site, not the "official" wiki on this site.
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.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #383 on: November 29, 2011, 04:44:46 PM »
The wiki is working.

Look for instance at this long and argumented demonstration:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Undersea_Cables

Oh. I wasn't informed. I'll have to get to work.

Look closer at the URL.  That's a copy of the wiki on the .net site, not the "official" wiki on this site.

Yeah, but I thought that it was still down, too. So long as all of the data carries over when we make the change, there's no reason not to work on it.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12253
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #384 on: November 29, 2011, 09:47:15 PM »
Look closer at the URL.  That's a copy of the wiki on the .net site, not the "official" wiki on this site.
Considering the fact that the "Wiki" link on the main page of TFES links to the .net Wiki, I'd venture to say it's pretty official.

Also, I was not aware it's up either. Lol, communication. Time to write an update on the FEW fora.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #385 on: December 01, 2011, 10:03:41 AM »
Both the FAQ and the wiki need a FE map (not the fake ones that you provide us).
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #386 on: December 02, 2011, 02:56:28 AM »
By the way, if Earth was created as a disc, why has it got to be flat and perfectly round?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #387 on: December 02, 2011, 08:21:22 AM »
It's not likely to be perfectly round any more than it is perfectly flat.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #388 on: December 02, 2011, 08:28:27 AM »
According to your maps, the Earth is flat (a variation of +/- 8 or 10 km over a diameter of + 12,000 km, less than 0,1%) and perfectly round (lest we get a more detailed map).
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #389 on: December 02, 2011, 08:33:04 AM »
It's simply a representation of the known world. I wouldn't be so bold to claim anything about that which has not been explored. Traditionally, the world has always been depicted as a disc or, alternatively, with four corners.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."