WIN!!!! £1,000,000!! Dino Neil's Flat Earth Challenge!

Roll up, roll up! I am prepared to offer £1,000,000 in UK sterling to anyone who can fulfil this challenge.
It's quite simple. You must do the following:
Provide an explanation for a flat earth scenario (which may be in the form of text, or text and diagrams) of how the stars, as seen from the surface of the earth, appear to rotate around two celestial poles, centred above the north and south poles respectively. Your explanation must include:
1. Explanation for why the angular distance between stars does not change throughout the night or from differing locations except when very close to the horizon.
2. An explanation of stellar parallax at differing times of year must be included.
3. Any law of physics which is not commonly accepted by the scientific community may be employed only on condition that it is accompanied by a method of an experiment which will enable differentiation between said phenomenon and commonly accepted laws of physics. Such phenomena include (but are not limited to) aether, denpressure, bendy light, atmoplanic lensing etc. Accounts of historical experiments where the results remain in dispute (such as the Bedford Level Experiment) are inadmissible. The method of the experiment must be such that it is falsifiable, i.e. a positive result will support the phenomenon while a negative one will disprove it. The method of the experiment must be such that it is practicable to implement. The method of the experiment must be such that it does not require the shape of the earth to be one of the required factors in its outcome (i.e. it must not rely on other assumptions outside commonly accepted physics or geography).

The validity of the answer will be judged by Dinosaur Neil, who guarantees to pay the stated prize if the challenge is successfully met. In the event of DN being unsure if a challenge meets the criteria, Heiwa will act as an impartial arbitrator. The judge's decision is final.

I formally request that this be moved to complete nonsense. I am extremely skeptical that Dinosaur Neil even has £1,000, let alone £1,000,000. That far exceeds his weekly allowance.

I formally request that this be moved to complete nonsense. I am extremely skeptical that Dinosaur Neil even has £1,000, let alone £1,000,000. That far exceeds his weekly allowance.

In that case, Heiwa's thread should be moved to CN also.

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 02, 2015, 05:49:52 PM

I formally request that this be moved to complete nonsense. I am extremely skeptical that Dinosaur Neil even has £1,000, let alone £1,000,000. That far exceeds his weekly allowance.

In that case, Heiwa's thread should be moved to CN also.

You'll hear no arguments from me.

Roll up, roll up! I am prepared to offer £1,000,000 in UK sterling to anyone who can fulfil this challenge.
It's quite simple. You must do the following:
Provide an explanation (which may be in the form of text, or text and diagrams) of how the stars, as seen from the surface of the earth, appear to rotate around two celestial poles, centred above the north and south poles respectively. Your explanation must include:
1. Explanation for why the angular distance between stars does not change throughout the night or from differing locations except when very close to the horizon.
2. An explanation of stellar parallax at differing times of year must be included.
3. Any law of physics which is not commonly accepted by the scientific community may be employed only on condition that it is accompanied by a method of an experiment which will enable differentiation between said phenomenon and commonly accepted laws of physics. Such phenomena include (but are not limited to) aether, denpressure, bendy light, atmoplanic lensing etc. Accounts of historical experiments where the results remain in dispute (such as the Bedford Level Experiment) are inadmissible. The method of the experiment must be such that it is falsifiable, i.e. a positive result will support the phenomenon while a negative one will disprove it. The method of the experiment must be such that it is practicable to implement. The method of the experiment must be such that it does not require the shape of the earth to be one of the required factors in its outcome (i.e. it must not rely on other assumptions outside commonly accepted physics or geography).

The validity of the answer will be judged by Dinosaur Neil, who guarantees to pay the stated prize if the challenge is successfully met. In the event of DN being unsure if a challenge meets the criteria, Heiwa will act as an impartial arbitrator. The judge's decision is final.

I eagerly await the flat Earth response, as this is something I have asked as well and have never gotten an answer to. It pretty much deems FE physically impossible.

I formally request that this be moved to complete nonsense. I am extremely skeptical that Dinosaur Neil even has £1,000, let alone £1,000,000.

Why don't you have a crack at the challenge and find out?

I've asked this a few times as well and had no response worth speaking of. One jackass recently demanded that I show the proof that it was impossible to have circumpolar stars in both the North and South on a flat Earth. That's the nuttiness you are dealing with.

I formally request that this be moved to complete nonsense. I am extremely skeptical that Dinosaur Neil even has £1,000, let alone £1,000,000. That far exceeds his weekly allowance.

You're just annoyed at yourself for not noticing that until just now, when I edited it, the challenge didn't specify a flat earth. You could have described standard RET and won the cash. Bad luck

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 02, 2015, 05:49:52 PM

I formally request that this be moved to complete nonsense. I am extremely skeptical that Dinosaur Neil even has £1,000, let alone £1,000,000. That far exceeds his weekly allowance.

You're just annoyed at yourself for not noticing that until just now, when I edited it, the challenge didn't specify a flat earth. You could have described standard RET and won the cash. Bad luck

I had no intention of participating in this childish experiment to being with.

Can you even prove that you have the money that you claim to have? If not, this is fraudulent and a lawsuit could follow suit if you're not careful. Lol, guess who I sound like.

please give the two locations that the stars revolve around, and evidence they do so under round earth theory. i am not saying this is impossible, but you need to define the challenge well. i suspect you're talking about the poles, in which case there is a simple answer, but please be clear.

"Provide an explanation for a flat earth scenario (which may be in the form of text, or text and diagrams) of how the stars, as seen from the surface of the earth, appear to rotate around two celestial poles, centred above the north and south poles respectively"
why do you go from this to a request for detailed proof and evidence of the mechanism? your assertion is that it is impossible to do so, so providing a model where it is possible should be all that's required. i can provide observational evidence of the aether, based on the need for an explanation for several occurrences in flat earth theory, which is what science is based on, but it sounds like you will reject that on principle.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 03, 2015, 10:26:07 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 02, 2015, 05:49:52 PM

I formally request that this be moved to complete nonsense. I am extremely skeptical that Dinosaur Neil even has £1,000, let alone £1,000,000. That far exceeds his weekly allowance.

You're just annoyed at yourself for not noticing that until just now, when I edited it, the challenge didn't specify a flat earth. You could have described standard RET and won the cash. Bad luck

I had no intention of participating in this childish experiment to being with.

Can you even prove that you have the money that you claim to have? If not, this is fraudulent and a lawsuit could follow suit if you're not careful. Lol, guess who I sound like.

Try to answer the question and find out!

please give the two locations that the stars revolve around, and evidence they do so under round earth theory. i am not saying this is impossible, but you need to define the challenge well. i suspect you're talking about the poles, in which case there is a simple answer, but please be clear.

"Provide an explanation for a flat earth scenario (which may be in the form of text, or text and diagrams) of how the stars, as seen from the surface of the earth, appear to rotate around two celestial poles, centred above the north and south poles respectively"
why do you go from this to a request for detailed proof and evidence of the mechanism? your assertion is that it is impossible to do so, so providing a model where it is possible should be all that's required. i can provide observational evidence of the aether, based on the need for an explanation for several occurrences in flat earth theory, which is what science is based on, but it sounds like you will reject that on principle.

Can you try answering the question?

Can you even prove that you have the money that you claim to have? If not, this is fraudulent and a lawsuit could follow suit if you're not careful. Lol, guess who I sound like.

I dunno, Heifer?

Prove you have the money, then I will consider answering the question.

please give the two locations that the stars revolve around, and evidence they do so under round earth theory. i am not saying this is impossible, but you need to define the challenge well. i suspect you're talking about the poles, in which case there is a simple answer, but please be clear.

"Provide an explanation for a flat earth scenario (which may be in the form of text, or text and diagrams) of how the stars, as seen from the surface of the earth, appear to rotate around two celestial poles, centred above the north and south poles respectively"

There, I enlarged it for you from your own post. The North Pole. The South Pole. Those are the two locations. Since the majority of FE'ers claim there is no discrete south pole, I will accept the place where the south polar bases are located as the agreed location.

why do you go from this to a request for detailed proof and evidence of the mechanism? your assertion is that it is impossible to do so, so providing a model where it is possible should be all that's required. i can provide observational evidence of the aether, based on the need for an explanation for several occurrences in flat earth theory, which is what science is based on, but it sounds like you will reject that on principle.

I make no assertion. I say let truth stand forth, bring it to me and whomsoever can do so shall be believed. Furthermore, I do not request proof of the mechanism. I request that any explanation which utilises a mechanism that falls outside conventional physics be supported by a description of a method of proving it, not results of having done so.
If you can provide such a description for a falsifiable test of the existence of aether, then you will have no problem. And if aether exists, then such a test must be possible. However, such idiotic pronouncements as "aether must exist because otherwise the moon would crash onto the earth" is NOT evidence of aether, much as you like to claim it is.

Prove you have the money, then I will consider answering the question.

You can't answer the question, but if you prefer, I'll drop the prize fund value to £100 just for you.
Now put your mouth where the money is. 

the aether accelerates the world upwards. it parts around the world, and meets above, and as it joins, it becomes a whirlpool. at the center, it is thicker, and so slower: it will be faster the further out you are, explaining speed.

i even have a diagram for how the stars rotate.



if you contract the wall to a point, you can see that the star paths are functionally identical. this is what you asked for.

there is no test of aether (in general. i have personal theories, but they are not relevant) that can be done from earth. this is entirely reasonable: the whirlpool of relevant is not on or near earth. if we could go up that high, it would be obvious, however.
a fact which would falsify this is a star that is able to go against the flow.
if the earth is flat, then something must be accelerating the world upwards. that should be all the evidence you need for something. aether is what we call it.

the aether accelerates the world upwards. it parts around the world, and meets above, and as it joins, it becomes a whirlpool. at the center, it is thicker, and so slower: it will be faster the further out you are, explaining speed.

i even have a diagram for how the stars rotate.



if you contract the wall to a point, you can see that the star paths are functionally identical. this is what you asked for. FAIL. Saying it would be the same if it was a different shape is meaningless and does not explain anything.

there is no test of aether (in general. i have personal theories, but they are not relevant) that can be done from earth. this is entirely reasonable: the whirlpool of relevant is not on or near earth. if we could go up that high, it would be obvious, however. FAIL. The criteria require that any non-standard phenomena be able to be supported by experiment.
a fact which would falsify this is a star that is able to go against the flow. FAIL. This is not experimental methodology.
if the earth is flat, then something must be accelerating the world upwards. that should be all the evidence you need for something. aether is what we call it. FAIL: circular reasoning dependent on earth shape.

Total score: 2/10
You do not appear to have even bothered to read the parameters of the challenge, let alone made any effort to fulfil them.

Aether is just as valid as the force known as gravity. It's basically an unverified assumption that arose because of observable evidence. RE'ers could not explain why the planet became round, so they invented gravity to solve this problem. Meanwhile, there is no evidence of gravity or dark matter (which is pretty much the backbone of your cosmos model). Then you wonder why we don't trust modern science... 

Aether is just as valid as the force known as gravity. It's basically an unverified assumption that arose because of observable evidence. RE'ers could not explain why the planet became round, so they invented gravity to solve this problem. Meanwhile, there is no evidence of gravity or dark matter (which is pretty much the backbone of your cosmos model). Then you wonder why we don't trust modern science... 

Who is this 'we'?

Aether is just as valid as the force known as gravity. It's basically an unverified assumption that arose because of observable evidence. RE'ers could not explain why the planet became round, so they invented gravity to solve this problem. Meanwhile, there is no evidence of gravity or dark matter (which is pretty much the backbone of your cosmos model). Then you wonder why we don't trust modern science... 

The Cavendish Experiment is evidence of gravity and is accepted by FE'ers.
Any person who is reasonably careful can conduct an experiment to test gravity. There is no observational evidence for aether which is not dependent on other disputed facts.
Now, are you going to contribute or are you just going to continue to whine about how aether is real yet can't be detected?
And as for dark matter - there is observational evidence to suggest its existence, but unlike you and aether, even dark matter's most ardent fans won't try and claim it's proven. The observational evidence for it depends on our theory of gravity being correct (which as I just said, is easily tested) and our observations of emission spectra also being correct (again, a thoroughly tested phenomenon.) Unlike aether, dark matter's foundations are solid. The only alternative theories to dark matter rely on variable gravity, for which there is no independent evidence that we can find. However, science is striving to test it.

"FAIL. Saying it would be the same if it was a different shape is meaningless and does not explain anything."
i provided a diagram. did you miss that? if you can't tell me why that diagram is wrong, you're the one at fault here. you're the one saying it can't be done. if you can't even defend that, i think i win.

"FAIL. The criteria require that any non-standard phenomena be able to be supported by experiment."
Just because you can't do the experiment doesn't mean it can't be supported.

"FAIL: circular reasoning dependent on earth shape."
you're saying this is impossible under flat earth theory. i've shown it isn't. try logic, this thread only works if we assume a flat earth. if you want to assume every round earth fantasy is accurate, why speculate as to how a flat earth would work?

intellectual dishonesty and plain dishonesty. everyone can see you're lying.

"FAIL. Saying it would be the same if it was a different shape is meaningless and does not explain anything."
i provided a diagram. did you miss that? if you can't tell me why that diagram is wrong, you're the one at fault here. you're the one saying it can't be done. if you can't even defend that, i think i win.

"FAIL. The criteria require that any non-standard phenomena be able to be supported by experiment."
Just because you can't do the experiment doesn't mean it can't be supported.

"FAIL: circular reasoning dependent on earth shape."
you're saying this is impossible under flat earth theory. i've shown it isn't. try logic, this thread only works if we assume a flat earth. if you want to assume every round earth fantasy is accurate, why speculate as to how a flat earth would work?

intellectual dishonesty and plain dishonesty. everyone can see you're lying.

Yes, of course, I'm lying -  and I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you, meddling pink brain man! Of course my criteria didn't ask for an experimental method, of course they didn't say not to use circular reasoning, and of course they said that providing a diagram with no adequate explanation accompanying it would win the challenge right away.

I can tell you why the diagram is wrong. It's because it's just a diagram of a flat earth and a round earth with some text saying "if the flat earth wall was a point and not a wall, it would be the same."
But the flat earth wall is not a point in FET, is it?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 03, 2015, 01:27:45 PM

"FAIL. Saying it would be the same if it was a different shape is meaningless and does not explain anything."
i provided a diagram. did you miss that? if you can't tell me why that diagram is wrong, you're the one at fault here. you're the one saying it can't be done. if you can't even defend that, i think i win.

"FAIL. The criteria require that any non-standard phenomena be able to be supported by experiment."
Just because you can't do the experiment doesn't mean it can't be supported.

"FAIL: circular reasoning dependent on earth shape."
you're saying this is impossible under flat earth theory. i've shown it isn't. try logic, this thread only works if we assume a flat earth. if you want to assume every round earth fantasy is accurate, why speculate as to how a flat earth would work?

intellectual dishonesty and plain dishonesty. everyone can see you're lying.

Yes, of course, I'm lying -  and I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you, meddling pink brain man! Of course my criteria didn't ask for an experimental method, of course they didn't say not to use circular reasoning, and of course they said that providing a diagram with no adequate explanation accompanying it would win the challenge right away.

I can tell you why the diagram is wrong. It's because it's just a diagram of a flat earth and a round earth with some text saying "if the flat earth wall was a point and not a wall, it would be the same."
But the flat earth wall is not a point in FET, is it?

you can't be this stupid. the explanation was the diagram, that's what diagrams are. you can see the star paths on a round earth, and on a flat earth, and if you model the ice wall as a point you get the round earth patterns, from the flat earth starting point.
deliberately ignoring the evidence provided only makes you look stupid. let's see if i can break this down for you.

the picture on the right is the flat earth, and each green line is a simple star path. the red is the equator.
the picture on the left is the round earth. when the ice wall is modeled as a point, you end up with a round earth, and look at that, the exact same star patterns.

it's simple. pay up or shut up. this argument is just embarrassing for you right now.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 03, 2015, 01:48:04 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 03, 2015, 01:27:45 PM

"FAIL. Saying it would be the same if it was a different shape is meaningless and does not explain anything."
i provided a diagram. did you miss that? if you can't tell me why that diagram is wrong, you're the one at fault here. you're the one saying it can't be done. if you can't even defend that, i think i win.

"FAIL. The criteria require that any non-standard phenomena be able to be supported by experiment."
Just because you can't do the experiment doesn't mean it can't be supported.

"FAIL: circular reasoning dependent on earth shape."
you're saying this is impossible under flat earth theory. i've shown it isn't. try logic, this thread only works if we assume a flat earth. if you want to assume every round earth fantasy is accurate, why speculate as to how a flat earth would work?

intellectual dishonesty and plain dishonesty. everyone can see you're lying.

Yes, of course, I'm lying -  and I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you, meddling pink brain man! Of course my criteria didn't ask for an experimental method, of course they didn't say not to use circular reasoning, and of course they said that providing a diagram with no adequate explanation accompanying it would win the challenge right away.

I can tell you why the diagram is wrong. It's because it's just a diagram of a flat earth and a round earth with some text saying "if the flat earth wall was a point and not a wall, it would be the same."
But the flat earth wall is not a point in FET, is it?

you can't be this stupid. the explanation was the diagram, that's what diagrams are. you can see the star paths on a round earth, and on a flat earth, and if you model the ice wall as a point you get the round earth patterns, from the flat earth starting point.
deliberately ignoring the evidence provided only makes you look stupid. let's see if i can break this down for you.

the picture on the right is the flat earth, and each green line is a simple star path. the red is the equator.
the picture on the left is the round earth. when the ice wall is modeled as a point, you end up with a round earth, and look at that, the exact same star patterns.

it's simple. pay up or shut up. this argument is just embarrassing for you right now.

It's not embarrassing for me. Not at all.
Tell me, pinhead - IS the ice wall a point? In reality? Or are you trying to prove the pyramids of Egypt are actually cylindrical, because if you were to round off the corners and widen the top, they would be cylinders?

if you model the ice wall as a point you get the round earth patterns, from the flat earth starting point.

Tell us HOW.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 03, 2015, 01:56:41 PM

if you model the ice wall as a point you get the round earth patterns, from the flat earth starting point.

Tell us HOW.

It hardly matters - he also forgot to include an explanation of stellar parallax which is a requirement.

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 03, 2015, 12:59:47 PM

Aether is just as valid as the force known as gravity. It's basically an unverified assumption that arose because of observable evidence. RE'ers could not explain why the planet became round, so they invented gravity to solve this problem. Meanwhile, there is no evidence of gravity or dark matter (which is pretty much the backbone of your cosmos model). Then you wonder why we don't trust modern science... 

The Cavendish Experiment is evidence of gravity and is accepted by FE'ers.
Any person who is reasonably careful can conduct an experiment to test gravity. There is no observational evidence for aether which is not dependent on other disputed facts.
Now, are you going to contribute or are you just going to continue to whine about how aether is real yet can't be detected?
And as for dark matter - there is observational evidence to suggest its existence, but unlike you and aether, even dark matter's most ardent fans won't try and claim it's proven. The observational evidence for it depends on our theory of gravity being correct (which as I just said, is easily tested) and our observations of emission spectra also being correct (again, a thoroughly tested phenomenon.) Unlike aether, dark matter's foundations are solid. The only alternative theories to dark matter rely on variable gravity, for which there is no independent evidence that we can find. However, science is striving to test it.

Do you really want to get into a debate about evidence for dark matter?

Because you will lose. There is none. I've had this debate several times and that is always the inevitable conclusion, most RE'ers will also agree that there is no definitive evidence for dark matter. It is an assumption based on flaws in modern astrophysics. It's used to patch up holes in the theory.

The fact that something had to be made up for your model to work is very telling. If that's not evidence that modern astrophysics could be completely incorrect, then I don't know what is.

Aether is just as valid as the force known as gravity. It's basically an unverified assumption that arose because of observable evidence. RE'ers could not explain why the planet became round, so they invented gravity to solve this problem. Meanwhile, there is no evidence of gravity or dark matter (which is pretty much the backbone of your cosmos model). Then you wonder why we don't trust modern science... 

gravitational lensing and gravitational redshift.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 03, 2015, 01:56:41 PM

if you model the ice wall as a point you get the round earth patterns, from the flat earth starting point.

Tell us HOW.

LOOK AT THE FUCKING DIAGRAM AND READ EVERYTHING I'VE WRITTEN YOU ILLITERATE FUCKING MORON