The Difficult To Answer Thread

It's time for Tausami and all the others who say "oh, that's been explained already" to put their money where their mouth is.

Quote from: The Knowledge on April 15, 2012, 04:30:11 AM

As I suspected, they're unable to answer this. Add it to the list of things that crush FET straight away, along with rotation of stars round two celestial poles, Romer's measurements of the speed of light, INS, trans-antarctic expeditions and the variability of g.

All of which are either easily explained or non-existent. Nice touch.

In this thread, the Flat Earthers will do the following:
1. Explain rotation of stars round two celestial poles. And I mean explain - shouting "celestial gears" or similar is not an explanation. The explanation should be concise, but must also account for every aspect of the easily observed phenomenon, including non-variability of angular distances between stars. The explanation must also not compromise existing known facts (e.g. things like redrawing the map to put Brazil 30km off the coast of France, that sort of thing). Explanations compromising known facts are an automatic fail. Explanations that don't explain every aspect of the observation are an automatic fail.

2. Explain trans-antarctic expeditions, including why the explorers do not encounter the edge of the earth, and an explanation of the route they follow. Invoking the conspiracy or claiming the expeditions have not happened is an automatic fail. Reality denial is unacceptable.

3. Explain the midnight sun during summer in Antarctica. The explanation should be concise, but must also account for every aspect of the phenomenon. The explanation must also not compromise existing known facts. Mentioning the laughable and already disproved "sky mirror" is an automatic fail.

4. Present a valid refutation of my argument presented in the "INS disproves FE" thread. The refutation should address the argument as laid out in my most recent posts of the thread and explain where the argument is mistaken, and why. It is expected that flat statements of truth or untruth will be backed up with data. Failure to provide adequate referencing for such statements is an automatic fail. Mentioning Schuler tuning is irrelevant.

5. Explain the measurements of Ole Romer regarding the timing of the movements of Io and his subsequent detection of the speed of light. This must be in a flat earth scenario. Levee is requested not to participate. Explanations involving the use of non-standard laws of physics, unknown physical objects  or parameters considered disproved by mainstream science must be backed up with independently verifiable proof. Circular arguments are an automatic fail (e.g. "Chicken aether would cause it, and we know chicken aether exists because we see it causing it" is unacceptable).

6. Explain the variability of g across the earth's surface. And I mean explain - shouting "celestial bodies" or similar is not an explanation. Claims that g does not vary from place to place are expected to be backed up with data proving this is the case. Claims that the data showing variability are false is an automatic fail (unless data demonstrating g to be constant at different locations is provided). Invoking the conspiracy is an automatic fail. Claims involving celestial objects must present numerical data to back them up.


So that's it. A piece of cake, surely. Oh, and other automatic fails include:
(a) Saying that these are explained elsewhere (even if a link is provided) - the explanations must be written out in this thread.
(b) Derailing by counter presenting other phenomena to explain instead.
(c) Using "the Zetetic Method^TM" to deny commonly accepted data.
(d) Other forms of reality denial. The acceptable definition of reality in this thread shall be defined as the view commonly held by the majority of the scientific community today with the exception of a proviso for the possibility of a flat earth and necessary arrangement of the universe to fit observations.
(e) Arguing about the rules laid down in this post.

I'm posting from my phone, so you'll have to wait until I am on a real computer before I make a long post. However, I would like to point out that you've yet to explain why Schuler Tuning is irrelvant.

you've yet to explain why Schuler Tuning is irrelvant.

Lies. You clearly haven't read the INS thread recently. I have shown how INS disproves FE with or without Schuler tuning. Therefore, it's of no relevance. Feel free to post a detailed refutation of my INS argument when you have access to a computer.
You fail with your first post, congratulations.

Using The Knowledge's professional debate technique, I will solve this post with one swift sentence.


You are wrong, lying, and/or trolling.


Well, this thread has been solved. Next.

You are wrong, lying, and/or trolling.

A request for an explanation is wrong and lying?  That doesn't even make sense.

Quote from: Tausami on April 15, 2012, 01:10:32 PM

you've yet to explain why Schuler Tuning is irrelvant.

Lies. You clearly haven't read the INS thread recently. I have shown how INS disproves FE with or without Schuler tuning. Therefore, it's of no relevance. Feel free to post a detailed refutation of my INS argument when you have access to a computer.
You fail with your first post, congratulations.

No, you haven't. You said it a bunch of times. That isn't a disproof.

Start another thread about it if you're so concerned, Tausami.  It'd be nice to see some actual explanations here and not pages of derailing about schuler tuning.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 15, 2012, 02:29:21 PM

You are wrong, lying, and/or trolling.

A request for an explanation is wrong and lying?  That doesn't even make sense.

ITT: Person who believes the earth is "cat shaped" doesn't understand what "and/or" means

>Not surprising

So it was merely irrelevant and you were making low-content posts in the upper fora as usual.  Wonderful.

Start another thread about it if you're so concerned, Tausami.  It'd be nice to see some actual explanations here and not pages of derailing about schuler tuning.

Well, it's the answer to one of his points and according to the laws he, in his infinite wisdom, expects us to abide by it's not permissible as an answer for unknown reasons. I'd consider this on topic.

Also, since trans-antarctic expeditions indeed do not happen, I'm afraid both I and reality are going to have to fail this thread, in FET and RET.

Essentially, TK, you've created a thread in which you demand answers and refuse to accept said answers in the same sentence. As such, I'm afraid I cannot answer the OP while abiding by its rules because its rules directly contradict the challenge. If you allow us to simply give the the explanations for these various phenomenon, on the other hand, we can get somewhere.

Also, since trans-antarctic expeditions indeed do not happen, I'm afraid both I and reality are going to have to fail this thread, in FET and RET.

http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/igy1/318.html

Please do try harder.  There have been flights crossing antarctica.

Quote from: Tausami on April 15, 2012, 02:56:15 PM

Also, since trans-antarctic expeditions indeed do not happen, I'm afraid both I and reality are going to have to fail this thread, in FET and RET.

http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/igy1/318.html

Please do try harder.  There have been flights crossing antarctica.

I'm afraid you may be misunderstanding the article. Consider the following quote:

Your October issue (Polar Record 25 (155) 359) [October 1989] stated that Giles Kershaw and Dick Smith made the first direct flight from Australia to Antarctica in 1988. I realize this is repeated from the "ANARE News" but thought I should correct it. The first flight was made from Melbourne to Byrd Station by a US Hercules aircraft under the command of Rear Admiral James Reedy, USN, on 30 September 1964. The flight departed from Avalon Airfield, near Melbourne, at 1756 hours. James Reedy had been keen to make the last inter-continental flight that remained unaccomplished and had planned and directed it. Captain of the aircraft was CDR Fred S. Gallup, USN, Commander of Operation Deepfreeze Squadron VX6. He had a crew of six. Two Australians had been invited to participate, the journalist David Burke and myself. Some other US servicemen brought the total to 18.

It was actually a trip from Australia to the Antarctic which, while impressive, is not particularly relevant.

Nope, look at the path from Melbourne to Byrd Station.

I can find the old article I quoted for Tom Bishop, also, where a Medevac team went to the South Pole from McMurdo and left heading to South America.

Nope, look at the path from Melbourne to Byrd Station.

I'm not seeing anything special

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on April 15, 2012, 03:13:56 PM

Nope, look at the path from Melbourne to Byrd Station.

I'm not seeing anything special

Let me dig up that article I had for Tom Bishop, then.

Well, I looked at it and was attempting to prove a separate point in the thread.

http://www.southpolestation.com/news/medevac2003/medevac2003.html


Tom Bishop was claiming the South Pole Station can only be reached via the route from McMurdo.  In that article they go from South America.

I'm not sure how you can explain the fact that the South Pole Station can be reached from both South America and Australia merely by going south.

Perth to Buenos Aires

http://www.flightnetwork.com/destinations/Buenos-Aires/Perth_Buenos-Aires.html

It doesn't pass right over the south pole but does go through Antarctica.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that anyone actually takes that route.  Antarctica isn't a good place to be flying over in a commercial flight, but the Sydney to Buenos Aires flight exists and goes right past Antarctica without the increased distances involved in a flat earth.

Quote from: The Knowledge on April 15, 2012, 01:57:50 PM

Quote from: Tausami on April 15, 2012, 01:10:32 PM

you've yet to explain why Schuler Tuning is irrelvant.

Lies. You clearly haven't read the INS thread recently. I have shown how INS disproves FE with or without Schuler tuning. Therefore, it's of no relevance. Feel free to post a detailed refutation of my INS argument when you have access to a computer.
You fail with your first post, congratulations.

No, you haven't. You said it a bunch of times. That isn't a disproof.

Again, lies.
A quote from the Thread You Haven't Read:

Scenario 1 (Schuler tuning exists)
If the earth was flat, the inaccuracy of INS would cause people navigating by it to end up where they did not want to be. Since this does not happen, the conclusion can be drawn that the earth is not flat.

Scenario 2 (Schuler tuning does not exist)
If the earth was flat, the accuracy of INS would cause anyone navigating by it along a "great circle" route to notice that their path was curving to left or right*, when in fact it should be showing a path with no left/right deviation. Since this discrepancy does not occur, the conclusion can be drawn that the earth is not flat.

In summary: If Schuler tuning exists, the earth is not flat. If Schuler tuning does not exist, the earth is not flat.

*unless travelling north/south on the conventional FE map (the "Dumbledore model" I think it's called.)

http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/history/steger.html

On foot, going the long way.

Also, since trans-antarctic expeditions indeed do not happen, I'm afraid both I and reality are going to have to fail this thread, in FET and RET.

Essentially, TK, you've created a thread in which you demand answers and refuse to accept said answers in the same sentence. As such, I'm afraid I cannot answer the OP while abiding by its rules because its rules directly contradict the challenge. If you allow us to simply give the the explanations for these various phenomenon, on the other hand, we can get somewhere.

Well, since saying "it didn't happen" isn't evidence, let alone proof, whereas we have some evidence in the form of accounts, pictures etc, in the balance of things the explanation that it did happen has more to back it up and is thus the preferable theory. Your argument boils down to the FE "it didn't happen" versus the RE "it did happen", and the RE side has more evidence. So logically, we have the stronger argument, all other things being equal, and we win. You lose.
Or do you have some sort of evidence to support your statement?

The reason I eliminate it from the list of credible answers is because you can never provide any sort of evidence to back up that it didn't happen, and therefore it's a worthless viewpoint. If your only explanation is to deny it happens, that's not really an explanation.

And we can explain all these items very easily using the RE model, so if we can do that with a model that you claim is fiction, surely it's even easier with the real model, right? 

Also, since trans-antarctic expeditions indeed do not happen, I'm afraid both I and reality are going to have to fail this thread, in FET and RET.

False. As I posted just this month: http://www.transpolar08.com/.

Reality and RET wins yet again.

It's amazing what a simple Google search can find you.

Please, I would love for some FErs to provide some reasonable explanation for the lack of any ice wall perimeter found literally ever in the history of mankind, despite the numerous expeditions that have taken place around the world, and the airplane and ship deliveries that are happening 24/7 going in scattered directions across the earth. A few sections of Antarctica may have some high ice walls, but not the entire continent.

Even if this ice wall existed, what's stopping us from climbing over it and seeing the edge? How has such a massive part of the FE"T" been eluded for so long? You'd think we would have found something so obvious by now, considering we know where it is and have the means to navigate it. Or is it all part of the conspiracy?

I am moving this to Q&A. Please read the board-specific Rules & Guidelines.

It's amazing what a simple Google search can find you.

Please, I would love for some FErs to provide some reasonable explanation for the lack of any ice wall perimeter found literally ever in the history of mankind, despite the numerous expeditions that have taken place around the world, and the airplane and ship deliveries that are happening 24/7 going in scattered directions across the earth. A few sections of Antarctica may have some high ice walls, but not the entire continent.

Even if this ice wall existed, what's stopping us from climbing over it and seeing the edge? How has such a massive part of the FE"T" been eluded for so long? You'd think we would have found something so obvious by now, considering we know where it is and have the means to navigate it. Or is it all part of the conspiracy?

You're correct. There's been no valid reasons given by FE'ers as to why nobody can travel further than 90 degrees south. Tom Bishop came up with the hilarious "they just stop and turn round because they assume they can't go further", others suggested an ice wall stopping them (which nobody has seen) and others say it's because there's an edge (again, not observed). So we're left with no answer to that one either.

It has also been said that it is too cold to go any farther or that there is no light so you can't see.

It has also been said that it is too cold to go any farther or that there is no light so you can't see.

Which is nonsense, because nobody has ever reported being stopped by the cold suddenly as soon as they pass 90 degrees south, and in the summer (which is the preferred time of year if you're visiting the coldest place on earth) there is 24 hour daylight.

Master Willmore, our VP has already postulated that will soon become the accepted disc earth theory that
Antarctica is a separate continent,  and no, it is not the "ice wall".
Calling Antarctica the ice wall is like calling Florida or Saudia Arabia the "sand wall".

The "wall" is just a metaphor for the area of the disc where the sun never shines, and yes, far beyond Antarctica.

The "wall" is just a metaphor for the area of the disc where the sun never shines, and yes, far beyond Antarctica.

You and I both know that that is not the meaning of the wall.  The word is used to mean a physical barrier that holds in the atmosphere or prevents us from reaching the edge.