One vs one debate

  • 63 Replies
  • 18699 Views
One vs one debate
« on: November 01, 2013, 08:45:48 AM »
Ok, I want to discuss the FET one on one. Who of the FE people dares to take the stage?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28513
Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2013, 09:01:33 AM »
It depends which flat earth theory you are looking at.

Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2013, 09:03:02 AM »
It depends which flat earth theory you are looking at.

Anything.

*

Junker

  • 3877
Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2013, 09:10:24 AM »
It depends which flat earth theory you are looking at.

Anything.

You are the one who posed a debate.  Please suggest a topic, otherwise this thread will have to be moved.

Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2013, 09:25:51 AM »
It depends which flat earth theory you are looking at.

Anything.

You are the one who posed a debate.  Please suggest a topic, otherwise this thread will have to be moved.

First I need to find a contestant. Someone who has a lot of knowledge about FET to discuss it thoroughly. But let me start the debate and introduce my point of view.

The Earth's shape is something no one has to lie about. There are no benefits to propagate a certain shape. Therefore the whole conspiracy idea about lying governments and the vast mayority of persons who are into this conspiracy makes no sense at all. But all of that aside for now.

The FET also does not correspond with real world observations, to name one. Flights for example. On the FE map distances between Australia and South Africa would take them across China, India and the Middle east, because that is the shortest distance. In real life however these flights fly close to the Southpole. Furthermore, the distance between Australia and South Africa would take much longer than a flight from London to Honolulu on a flat earth, while in real life these flights take about the same time.

Furthermore there are a whole lot of other issues with the FET which contradict observations. This while the RET has no contradiction at all.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28513
Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2013, 09:31:41 AM »
It depends which flat earth theory you are looking at.

Anything.

You are the one who posed a debate.  Please suggest a topic, otherwise this thread will have to be moved.

First I need to find a contestant. Someone who has a lot of knowledge about FET to discuss it thoroughly. But let me start the debate and introduce my point of view.

The Earth's shape is something no one has to lie about. There are no benefits to propagate a certain shape. Therefore the whole conspiracy idea about lying governments and the vast mayority of persons who are into this conspiracy makes no sense at all. But all of that aside for now.

The FET also does not correspond with real world observations, to name one. Flights for example. On the FE map distances between Australia and South Africa would take them across China, India and the Middle east, because that is the shortest distance. In real life however these flights fly close to the Southpole. Furthermore, the distance between Australia and South Africa would take much longer than a flight from London to Honolulu on a flat earth, while in real life these flights take about the same time.

Furthermore there are a whole lot of other issues with the FET which contradict observations. This while the RET has no contradiction at all.
That is a bold statement considering your globe has been Tailor made to match observations. It's crammed to death with shoehorned garbage.

Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2013, 09:51:16 AM »
I'm not a pilot so I do not know exactly why they fly certain routes but it may not be about the shortest route.  It may have more to do with speed/time/air resistance...fuel useage.  That might explain the reason for flying near the South Pole from Australia to South Africa.  And the length of time from London to Honolulu is about the same as Australia to South Africa because the distances are about the same.  The thing with flight times though is, it's all relative to speed and air resistance...you don't know these things unless you are flying the plane.

*

Junker

  • 3877
Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2013, 10:00:07 AM »
The Earth's shape is something no one has to lie about. There are no benefits to propagate a certain shape. Therefore the whole conspiracy idea about lying governments and the vast mayority of persons who are into this conspiracy makes no sense at all. But all of that aside for now.
A lot of FErs are divided on certain topics.  Some believe in a conspiracy, others don't.  Those that do recognize there is a benefit for the few at the top who are funneling money to line their own pockets, while proclaiming to be doing space exploration.


The FET also does not correspond with real world observations, to name one. Flights for example. On the FE map distances between Australia and South Africa would take them across China, India and the Middle east, because that is the shortest distance. In real life however these flights fly close to the Southpole. Furthermore, the distance between Australia and South Africa would take much longer than a flight from London to Honolulu on a flat earth, while in real life these flights take about the same time.
There is no FE map.  The one you see here is a polar projection map used for reference.  Conclusions based on that map will be inaccurate.

Furthermore there are a whole lot of other issues with the FET which contradict observations. This while the RET has no contradiction at all.
You will have to be more specific. 

Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2013, 10:33:19 AM »
I'm not a pilot so I do not know exactly why they fly certain routes but it may not be about the shortest route.  It may have more to do with speed/time/air resistance...fuel useage.  That might explain the reason for flying near the South Pole from Australia to South Africa.  And the length of time from London to Honolulu is about the same as Australia to South Africa because the distances are about the same.  The thing with flight times though is, it's all relative to speed and air resistance...you don't know these things unless you are flying the plane.

It is the shortest route, and it is known as the great circle. The direct route, on a flat map is known as the rumb line.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2013, 10:38:04 AM »

The FET also does not correspond with real world observations, to name one. Flights for example. On the FE map distances between Australia and South Africa would take them across China, India and the Middle east, because that is the shortest distance. In real life however these flights fly close to the Southpole.

Quote
There are too many variables. Performance is effected by fuel loads, ambient temperatures and pressures, engine models, the list goes on. Depending on what is happening with other traffic you might be in a hold, or routed out of your way to avoid other traffic or storms. The pilots do not fly direct to their destination either. Depending on the wind they might take off in the opposite direction to the intended route. They then fly SIDS (Standard Instrument Departures) onto a route, follow some beacons, get onto an Oceanic Highway on the way their, follow a STAR (STandard ARrival) on approach, and again go right round the back of an airport to land in the right direction. When pilots are following routes like the typical ones below, how can anyone make a simple straight line DST comparison to ascertain shape? Only the aircraft's Flight Management System really knows how far that trip is. The pilot just uses the data it provides. However FMS source code is closely guarded.

Below is a SID example. Note how the pilots fly curves and loops. They do not go direct.


Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2013, 10:47:00 AM »
The Earth's shape is something no one has to lie about. There are no benefits to propagate a certain shape. Therefore the whole conspiracy idea about lying governments and the vast mayority of persons who are into this conspiracy makes no sense at all. But all of that aside for now.
A lot of FErs are divided on certain topics.  Some believe in a conspiracy, others don't.  Those that do recognize there is a benefit for the few at the top who are funneling money to line their own pockets, while proclaiming to be doing space exploration.


The FET also does not correspond with real world observations, to name one. Flights for example. On the FE map distances between Australia and South Africa would take them across China, India and the Middle east, because that is the shortest distance. In real life however these flights fly close to the Southpole. Furthermore, the distance between Australia and South Africa would take much longer than a flight from London to Honolulu on a flat earth, while in real life these flights take about the same time.
There is no FE map.  The one you see here is a polar projection map used for reference.  Conclusions based on that map will be inaccurate.

Furthermore there are a whole lot of other issues with the FET which contradict observations. This while the RET has no contradiction at all.
You will have to be more specific.

And what is your point of view on the conspiracies Junker? Also to anyone who believes there is a conspiracy, why lying about the shape in order to lie, if they could lie anyway no matter what the shape. Does not make sense.

There is no FE map, but the world uses maps which are based on the earth being a sphere, I just named the airplane example already. Any arguements for that?

Let's not focus to much on all the contradictions on the FET for now, which I think we'll have plenty of time to discuss later. Why don't you focus on some of the contradictions you have found in the RET. It is a debate after all.

Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2013, 11:02:52 AM »



EnglshGentleman. Your post shows clearly your ignorance. You have absolutely not the slightest idea about air navigation. Let me explain that to you. What you are seeing is a SID. Standard Instrument Departure. It is used around airports to organise the airflow. SIDs and STARs are only the very end or the very beginning of an air route.  They are used to get to the nearest waypoint from the airport or to get from the last waypoint to the airport.

It does NOT show that pilots fly in loops and all directions when flying to their destination. I show you what an air route looks like from Johannesburg to Sydney. Here you go http://postimg.org/image/s16sf2hnl/

You can ask me pretty much any route and I'll show you the route and I can even provide you with all the SIDs and STARS, but what you're trying to demonstrate while showing a SID makes absolutely no sense at all.

« Last Edit: November 01, 2013, 11:23:57 AM by Don Quichotte »

Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2013, 11:21:19 AM »
Ever since the Copernican theory was accepted, that is how the leaders of the world have depicted the Earth, as a sphere.  I seriously doubt satellites and mankind have been far enough away from the Earth to see it's entire shape.  Therefore, by them saying "the Earth IS a sphere" without actually KNOWING it is, is deceitful.  It's quite possible NO ONE will ever see the Earth from afar, until we pass on....like in 2001 A Space Odyssey.  So in a way, this debate is worthless.

Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2013, 11:37:16 AM »
Ever since the Copernican theory was accepted, that is how the leaders of the world have depicted the Earth, as a sphere.  I seriously doubt satellites and mankind have been far enough away from the Earth to see it's entire shape.  Therefore, by them saying "the Earth IS a sphere" without actually KNOWING it is, is deceitful.  It's quite possible NO ONE will ever see the Earth from afar, until we pass on....like in 2001 A Space Odyssey.  So in a way, this debate is worthless.

There are the moon landings, but ofcourse you regard them as fake. There are also satellites which photograph the entire earth, but I guess you regard them as fake as well. But there is a very simple way for you to verify there are satellites and even the ISS. Go out on a clear night sky and watch the sky. Also, if you would use an ISS tracker. Here is one http://www.isstracker.com/
You can check for yourself. If that tracker says you should be able to see it, just look up and watch it pass by.

I saw the ISS pass by three times the same night. I saw a bright light pass by through the bright night sky and thought...that must be the ISS. I checked the ISS tracker and yup, it had just passed by for me to see. I waited about 90 minutes for the ISS the circle the earth and saw it on the tracker fly over South America. I watched it go over spain and I just a few minutes later I could see the ISS pass by again by looking overhead. At the same time watching that tracker and boy what a coincidence that they correspond with what I am seeing. 90 minutes later same thing. Watched it as it orbitted Earth and waited for it to circle the earth again so I could see it again in real life and...guess what. When the ISS tracker showed the ISS pass by overhead, I could see it pass by overhead in real life too.

Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2013, 11:44:40 AM »
Seeing a light fly over at a scheduled time does not prove it is what they say it is.  I have yet to see positive proof of it.

Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2013, 11:57:37 AM »
Seeing a light fly over at a scheduled time does not prove it is what they say it is.  I have yet to see positive proof of it.

Agreed. When you feel your heartbeat, this is not necessarily proof that you have this organ within you. Positive proof is needed. In fact, according to this train of thought, you have no positive proof that you were born (doctor conspiracy), or that your parents are really your parents.

So many things are suspect......why bother caring about the shape of the Earth? You do not even have positive proof of more important aspects of your life.

You see, with this ideology, you have created your interpretation of this world to boil down to one of two things. Either:

A) everyone else on this planet is crazy

or

B) you are.

And that's quite a pickle.

Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2013, 11:59:32 AM »
Seeing a light fly over at a scheduled time does not prove it is what they say it is.  I have yet to see positive proof of it.

Who is they?

Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2013, 12:24:48 PM »
Seeing a light fly over at a scheduled time does not prove it is what they say it is.  I have yet to see positive proof of it.

Agreed. When you feel your heartbeat, this is not necessarily proof that you have this organ within you. Positive proof is needed. In fact, according to this train of thought, you have no positive proof that you were born (doctor conspiracy), or that your parents are really your parents.

So many things are suspect......why bother caring about the shape of the Earth? You do not even have positive proof of more important aspects of your life.

You see, with this ideology, you have created your interpretation of this world to boil down to one of two things. Either:

A) everyone else on this planet is crazy

or

B) you are.

And that's quite a pickle.
I don't need your sarcasm.  Your comments don't even make sense.  Of course my fricken heart is with me if I FEEL it.  You're acting like an idiot.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2013, 12:34:37 PM »
It does NOT show that pilots fly in loops and all directions when flying to their destination. I show you what an air route looks like from Johannesburg to Sydney. Here you go http://postimg.org/image/s16sf2hnl/

Your post demonstrates EXACTLY what I was talking about. On RE planes don't take the shortest path to their destinations. There are many other factors that weigh in. So your assertion:

Quote
On the FE map distances between Australia and South Africa would take them across China, India and the Middle east, because that is the shortest distance.

doesn't make sense because planes intentionally don't take direct routes.

Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #19 on: November 01, 2013, 12:45:31 PM »
It does NOT show that pilots fly in loops and all directions when flying to their destination. I show you what an air route looks like from Johannesburg to Sydney. Here you go http://postimg.org/image/s16sf2hnl/

Your post demonstrates EXACTLY what I was talking about. On RE planes don't take the shortest path to their destinations. There are many other factors that weigh in. So your assertion:

Quote
On the FE map distances between Australia and South Africa would take them across China, India and the Middle east, because that is the shortest distance.

doesn't make sense because planes intentionally don't take direct routes.

On a spherical earth that route is the shortest route, although it may seem like it isn't on a flat map. To show you the difference. Here is a route that takes a more let's say 'direct' route on a flat map. Note the difference is about 2000 nm. That is almost 4000 km. Here is the image of that route.
http://postimg.org/image/5biq6eb3h/

Or have a look at Heathrow to JFK. http://postimg.org/image/k00ikeqkn/
The shortest route looks like the longest route on a flat map, but on a sphere (which the earth is) it is in fact the shortest. Rumb line and great circle...learn the difference.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2013, 12:58:28 PM »
The two routes look pretty much the same to me. You are just zoomed in on the "short" route so that the curve in it is more exaggerated. In the other one you can see half the US, so of course it looks more like a line. That first image is also completely ridiculous. Your evidence for a "direct" route is ANYTHING but that.

Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #21 on: November 01, 2013, 01:29:43 PM »
Seeing a light fly over at a scheduled time does not prove it is what they say it is.  I have yet to see positive proof of it.

Agreed. When you feel your heartbeat, this is not necessarily proof that you have this organ within you. Positive proof is needed. In fact, according to this train of thought, you have no positive proof that you were born (doctor conspiracy), or that your parents are really your parents.

So many things are suspect......why bother caring about the shape of the Earth? You do not even have positive proof of more important aspects of your life.

You see, with this ideology, you have created your interpretation of this world to boil down to one of two things. Either:

A) everyone else on this planet is crazy

or

B) you are.

And that's quite a pickle.
I don't need your sarcasm.  Your comments don't even make sense.  Of course my fricken heart is with me if I FEEL it.  You're acting like an idiot.

Feeling it does not equate to existence. Feeling is just one of the senses. Just when you see the ISS this does not mean it exists: your senses could be deceiving you. Same thing with the Earth looking flat. Senses, apparently, cannot be trusted, so we need something more compelling.

Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #22 on: November 01, 2013, 02:24:44 PM »
Feeling it does not equate to existence. Feeling is just one of the senses. Just when you see the ISS this does not mean it exists: your senses could be deceiving you. Same thing with the Earth looking flat. Senses, apparently, cannot be trusted, so we need something more compelling.

Ok, then everything must be thrown out!  Every experiment, every test, E V E R Y    T H I N G.  We can't trust our eyesight so we can't say anything we've seen in a lab can be true.  But ohhhhhh, the videos and pictures from space ARE true.   ::)  As a human, your 5 senses determine your reality.  Just because there are illusions and your senses can be tricked doesn't mean that nothing we experience is real.  You've got to be good at deciphering the difference.  Obviously some of us are better at it than most.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2013, 02:32:21 PM by EarthIsASpaceship »

Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #23 on: November 01, 2013, 02:57:19 PM »
Feeling it does not equate to existence. Feeling is just one of the senses. Just when you see the ISS this does not mean it exists: your senses could be deceiving you. Same thing with the Earth looking flat. Senses, apparently, cannot be trusted, so we need something more compelling.

Ok, then everything must be thrown out!  Every experiment, every test, E V E R Y    T H I N G.  We can't trust our eyesight so we can't say anything we've seen in a lab can be true.  But ohhhhhh, the videos and pictures from space ARE true.   ::)  As a human, your 5 senses determine your reality.  Just because there are illusions and your senses can be tricked doesn't mean that nothing we experience is real.  You've got to be good at deciphering the difference.  Obviously some of us are better at it than most.

Yes, you must be VERY good. When this stance is adopted, any and all evidence for either FE or RE can be argued against by simply saying that you are decieving yourself. It is effectively impossible to differentiate the truth, becuase no matter what you say, I can just say you are fooled. In the end: with this approach, you are stuck.

Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #24 on: November 01, 2013, 04:03:49 PM »
The two routes look pretty much the same to me. You are just zoomed in on the "short" route so that the curve in it is more exaggerated. In the other one you can see half the US, so of course it looks more like a line. That first image is also completely ridiculous. Your evidence for a "direct" route is ANYTHING but that.

Of course you're going to find something in order to not believe it. If you pay close attention, you can see that one route passes over Newfoundland and the other keeps flying over the atlantic. You can see the distance for each route, along with each waypoint.
The one NOT flying over Newfoundland is the longer route and is the more direct route on a flat map.

You will see that all planes will follow the great circle as close as they can, but their routes may deviate slightly to have benefits from winds for example.
This flight is a live flight, you can follow as it goes. The flight is currently 1 hour underway from JFK to Frankfurt and will land in 5 hours. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DLH401

Here is another one, from SFO to Japan. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL853
It too is following the great circle. 

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28513
Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2013, 04:29:49 PM »
Wouldn't going over a curve as in your globe be the same as going around a circle as in flat earth.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2013, 05:00:09 PM »
No.  Take a length of string, a globe and a map and you can figure out the difference.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28513
Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2013, 05:05:25 PM »
No.  Take a length of string, a globe and a map and you can figure out the difference.
Assuming the flat map of the globe is a correct depiction, right?

If that's the case and you run the string over a set point to a set point, then do the same by using the same curve of the string from a set point to a set point on the flat map...what difference would there be? Have you tried this?

Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #28 on: November 01, 2013, 05:10:32 PM »
No.  Take a length of string, a globe and a map and you can figure out the difference.
Assuming the flat map of the globe is a correct depiction, right?

If that's the case and you run the string over a set point to a set point, then do the same by using the same curve of the string from a set point to a set point on the flat map...what difference would there be? Have you tried this?

I just did this. Used a 1 foot string. I will post my measured difference after you do.

Re: One vs one debate
« Reply #29 on: November 01, 2013, 05:33:17 PM »
Wouldn't going over a curve as in your globe be the same as going around a circle as in flat earth.

 Yes you can turn around in circles on a flat earth as well, but these planes fly what is known as the great circle. Airlines fly the most economical route possible.  Anywhere around the globe. The maps of a flat earth cannot account for the plane flight plaths we observe. Saying..."we don't know what the flat eart looks like" is quite problematic for all those who navigate the globe. They all use maps which are accurate and all of these maps are based on the earth being a sphere. They also fly across places you wouldn't expect them to fly if you would use any of the FE map. The earth can only be a sphere. Which still holds up to all observations.

I also have yet to hear any contradiction for the RET. I was hoping in this debate I wouldn't be the only one talking here and showing what is wrong with the other theory.