Picture from the edge?

Wait a minute, a correction is needed regarding The FES worthiness and purpose description offered by the OP.

Round Earth believers are the fringe movement.  They are usurpers of Earth shape reality. FET has a much longer timeline than RET.  There are claims that "oh, people have known about a round Earth for centuries" but those individuals mentioned were only the beginning of the RE fringe.

The FE society itself is the most important organization on the Disc when it comes to Earth shape reality.  The internet site you are speaking on now is a wing of the society to try reaching the misinformed masses with the truth.

     

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 12:11:07 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on April 27, 2017, 12:05:07 PM

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 11:29:19 AM

But you provided no proof for your claim.

I did not make a claim.  Herewith:

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 08:15:04 AM

1)    If the earth is flat, like a saucer, then it has an end point, an edge.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on April 27, 2017, 09:24:08 AM

1)    If Flat Earth is infinite, there would be no end point or edge.

Notice we each used the same conjunction?

You appear to be projecting rules upon my script
that you are not obligated to follow.

Splitting hairs over semantics doesn't get you off the hook. You inferred the landmass of earth was infinite in order to circumvent the need for an edge.

I'm not playing that game.

If, in fact, the earth is infinite then by all means begin walking in one direction until you reach a point where no one has been then report back.

Absurd. Next.

No, he didn't.
He pointed out that your claim relied upon assumptions that not all FE believers accepts.

You assumed the FE was finite in order to claim there is an edge that should be visible.

This quote is from the forums very own FAQ. But keep moving the goal posts. It seems like that is par for the course here.

"As seen in the diagrams above, the earth is in the form of a disk with the North Pole in the center and Antarctica as a wall around the edge. This is the generally accepted model among members of the society. In this model, circumnavigation is performed by moving in a great circle around the North Pole."

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 03:04:41 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on April 27, 2017, 12:57:31 PM

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 12:29:46 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on April 27, 2017, 12:21:44 PM

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 12:11:07 PM

You inferred the landmass of earth was infinite in order to circumvent the need for an edge.

Absurd. Next.

Inferred? Sure that's what you want to say?

Inferred? Implied? These banal quips about language do you a disservice. Don't try to obfuscate. Provide supporting evidence for your fairy-tale assertion or concede.

I did not make an assertion. You sound frustrated.

If I sound frustrated it's because I don't have much patience for liars.

"My theory is that all FE believers will eventually come to the realization of the infinite earth. "

You made that assertion. This isn't about how I feel at all. It's about your inability to provide proof of your claim. Provide said proof or concede.

Do you mean this quote? . . .

Quote from: justaguy on April 27, 2017, 09:30:10 AM

My theory is that all FE believers will eventually come to the realization of the infinite earth.  In that case, they don't have to provide any evidence.

I await your apology.

And you shall have it. The moment you provide concrete evidence of your claim. The idea that you get to skip this step is a non-starter.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on April 27, 2017, 03:20:34 PM

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 03:04:41 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on April 27, 2017, 12:57:31 PM

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 12:29:46 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on April 27, 2017, 12:21:44 PM

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 12:11:07 PM

You inferred the landmass of earth was infinite in order to circumvent the need for an edge.

Absurd. Next.

Inferred? Sure that's what you want to say?

Inferred? Implied? These banal quips about language do you a disservice. Don't try to obfuscate. Provide supporting evidence for your fairy-tale assertion or concede.

I did not make an assertion. You sound frustrated.

If I sound frustrated it's because I don't have much patience for liars.

"My theory is that all FE believers will eventually come to the realization of the infinite earth. "

You made that assertion. This isn't about how I feel at all. It's about your inability to provide proof of your claim. Provide said proof or concede.

Do you mean this quote? . . .

Quote from: justaguy on April 27, 2017, 09:30:10 AM

My theory is that all FE believers will eventually come to the realization of the infinite earth.  In that case, they don't have to provide any evidence.

I await your apology.

And you shall have it. The moment you provide concrete evidence of your claim. The idea that you get to skip this step is a non-starter.

You attributed a quote to me that I clearly did not make.

You used that quote to call me a liar.


Fix it.

Wait a minute, a correction is needed regarding The FES worthiness and purpose description offered by the OP.

Round Earth believers are the fringe movement.  They are usurpers of Earth shape reality. FET has a much longer timeline than RET.  There are claims that "oh, people have known about a round Earth for centuries" but those individuals mentioned were only the beginning of the RE fringe.

The FE society itself is the most important organization on the Disc when it comes to Earth shape reality.  The internet site you are speaking on now is a wing of the society to try reaching the misinformed masses with the truth.

   

You people are batshit crazy.

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 11:10:23 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on April 27, 2017, 10:52:09 AM

How do you feel about high frequency stock trading?

I feel like it's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

Much like your current tirade?

Pretty good for a Moose! 

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 03:52:26 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on April 27, 2017, 03:20:34 PM

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 03:04:41 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on April 27, 2017, 12:57:31 PM

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 12:29:46 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on April 27, 2017, 12:21:44 PM

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 12:11:07 PM

You inferred the landmass of earth was infinite in order to circumvent the need for an edge.

Absurd. Next.

Inferred? Sure that's what you want to say?

Inferred? Implied? These banal quips about language do you a disservice. Don't try to obfuscate. Provide supporting evidence for your fairy-tale assertion or concede.

I did not make an assertion. You sound frustrated.

If I sound frustrated it's because I don't have much patience for liars.

"My theory is that all FE believers will eventually come to the realization of the infinite earth. "

You made that assertion. This isn't about how I feel at all. It's about your inability to provide proof of your claim. Provide said proof or concede.

Do you mean this quote? . . .

Quote from: justaguy on April 27, 2017, 09:30:10 AM

My theory is that all FE believers will eventually come to the realization of the infinite earth.  In that case, they don't have to provide any evidence.

I await your apology.

And you shall have it. The moment you provide concrete evidence of your claim. The idea that you get to skip this step is a non-starter.

You attributed a quote to me that I clearly did not make.

You used that quote to call me a liar.


Fix it.

Yeah got it. My bad.

Now, do you or do you not believe the landmass of earth is infinite as you "hinted at" previously? And if so, what proof do you have of this?

Yeah got it. My bad.

No harm. 

Now, do you or do you not believe the landmass of earth is infinite as you "hinted at" previously? And if so, what proof do you have of this?

You don't care what I think.
You are just looking for a foothold to help elevate
your own position.

Seriously, you're not the first n00b on the interwebs.


I did not 'hint at' anything.
I used your sentence structure to expose the fault
in your original conjecture.

Apparently you felt slighted by my response.

That has nothing to do with me.

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 04:06:44 PM

Yeah got it. My bad.

No harm. 

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 04:06:44 PM

Now, do you or do you not believe the landmass of earth is infinite as you "hinted at" previously? And if so, what proof do you have of this?

You don't care what I think.
You are just looking for a foothold to help elevate
your own position.

Seriously, you're not the first n00b on the interwebs.


I did not 'hint at' anything.
I used your sentence structure to expose the fault
in your original conjecture.

Apparently you felt slighted by my response.

That has nothing to do with me.

I don't need to "elevate" my position. My position is solid and backed up with centuries of scientific knowledge. So yes, if you wish to challenge that, I'd be VERY interested to hear your response. Something which you continuously fail to do.

Again, it has everything to do with you. Semantics and sentence structure has nothing to do with it. You've had every opportunity to make a case and have failed.

So again, for the hundredth time, do you believe the landmass of Earth is infinite and if so, what proof do you offer?

Now, lets see you duck a straight question again.....

Quote from: Bullwinkle on April 27, 2017, 04:56:17 PM

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 04:06:44 PM

Yeah got it. My bad.

No harm. 

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 04:06:44 PM

Now, do you or do you not believe the landmass of earth is infinite as you "hinted at" previously? And if so, what proof do you have of this?

You don't care what I think.
You are just looking for a foothold to help elevate
your own position.

Seriously, you're not the first n00b on the interwebs.


I did not 'hint at' anything.
I used your sentence structure to expose the fault
in your original conjecture.

Apparently you felt slighted by my response.

That has nothing to do with me.

I don't need to "elevate" my position. My position is solid and backed up with centuries of scientific knowledge. So yes, if you wish to challenge that, I'd be VERY interested to hear your response. Something which you continuously fail to do.

Again, it has everything to do with you. Semantics and sentence structure has nothing to do with it. You've had every opportunity to make a case and have failed.

So again, for the hundredth time, do you believe the landmass of Earth is infinite and if so, what proof do you offer?

Now, lets see you duck a straight question again.....

You have yet to make any statement which can be remotely considered a debate topic.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on April 27, 2017, 09:24:08 AM

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 08:15:04 AM

1)   If the earth is flat, like a saucer, then it has an end point, an edge.
2)   If so then all you have to do is travel to the edge and take a picture or video.
3)   Show that picture or video to the world as proof.

1)    If Flat Earth is infinite, there would be no end point or edge.
2)    (#1)
3)    (#1)

Are you asserting the land mass of planet earth is infinite? What proof have you? Seriously?

Have you seen the edge? If you haven't we could assume there isn't an edge.

Nice work Bullwinkle.

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 09:26:49 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on April 27, 2017, 09:24:08 AM

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 08:15:04 AM

1)   If the earth is flat, like a saucer, then it has an end point, an edge.
2)   If so then all you have to do is travel to the edge and take a picture or video.
3)   Show that picture or video to the world as proof.

1)    If Flat Earth is infinite, there would be no end point or edge.
2)    (#1)
3)    (#1)

Are you asserting the land mass of planet earth is infinite? What proof have you? Seriously?

Have you seen the edge? If you haven't we could assume there isn't an edge.

Nice work Bullwinkle.

Of course there is no edge. It's round. Thanks for proving my original point. Now why does this site exist?

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 05:27:55 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on April 27, 2017, 04:56:17 PM

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 04:06:44 PM

Yeah got it. My bad.

No harm. 

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 04:06:44 PM

Now, do you or do you not believe the landmass of earth is infinite as you "hinted at" previously? And if so, what proof do you have of this?

You don't care what I think.
You are just looking for a foothold to help elevate
your own position.

Seriously, you're not the first n00b on the interwebs.


I did not 'hint at' anything.
I used your sentence structure to expose the fault
in your original conjecture.

Apparently you felt slighted by my response.

That has nothing to do with me.

I don't need to "elevate" my position. My position is solid and backed up with centuries of scientific knowledge. So yes, if you wish to challenge that, I'd be VERY interested to hear your response. Something which you continuously fail to do.

Again, it has everything to do with you. Semantics and sentence structure has nothing to do with it. You've had every opportunity to make a case and have failed.

So again, for the hundredth time, do you believe the landmass of Earth is infinite and if so, what proof do you offer?

Now, lets see you duck a straight question again.....

You have yet to make any statement which can be remotely considered a debate topic.

And yet we've gone on for over two pages. I asserted the earth must be round and provided a method for proving it is flat. Rather than speak to that directly you have chosen a weak position based on the language rather than the actual substance of the post. As such, at every turn you have been soundly defeated. You could rectify this with a coherent arguement for your positon. My guess is that you will not attempt this as even you realize how weak that position is.

Nice work moose.

Of course there is no edge. It's round. Thanks for proving my original point. Now why does this site exist?

That's one interpretation.

We exist because we can, personally this is one of my favourite forums.

I asserted the earth must be round and provided a method for proving it is flat.

You made a half-assed attempt at a straw man argument.

Round Earth believers are the fringe movement.  They are usurpers of Earth shape reality. FET has a much longer timeline than RET.  There are claims that "oh, people have known about a round Earth for centuries" but those individuals mentioned were only the beginning of the RE fringe.

No. There are 2 distinct FE movements. There is the ancient one, which believed Earth was quite small, and the sun circled around Earth, going below it.
Then there is the new one, which has Earth as a disc with the sun being above it all the time.
This new FE BS is the one supported by this forum, not the old one.

The RE is not a fringe, it is the vast majority. It isn't just centuries, it is thousands of years that it has been known that Earth is round.
It usurped the ancient FE idea because it matches reality.
To get the ancient FE idea, take the modern FE idea, remove the small movement of stars due to Earth's orbit and the motion of the stars themselves, and then fix Earth at the centre, have the sun orbit Earth instead of the other way around, ignore the planets, and have everything circle Earth instead of Earth rotate. Then the final piece is to just take a small section of Earth instead of the entire sphere.
Then you have the ancient model.
The modern one is completely different and doesn't resemble reality at all.

The FE society itself is the most important organization on the Disc when it comes to Earth shape reality.

Then why does it blatantly lie about it and claim Earth is flat?

This quote is from the forums very own FAQ. But keep moving the goal posts. It seems like that is par for the course here.

"As seen in the diagrams above, the earth is in the form of a disk with the North Pole in the center and Antarctica as a wall around the edge. This is the generally accepted model among members of the society. In this model, circumnavigation is performed by moving in a great circle around the North Pole."

And not everyone accepts that model.

And yet we've gone on for over two pages. I asserted the earth must be round and provided a method for proving it is flat.

Rather than trying to provide a method to show it can't be flat and can be round.
Your method of proving it is flat is one which only works for one particular model of a flat Earth.

BULL, Winkle. You're like a toddler who keeps saying, "Yes it is!" ..."But it is!"..."But it is!"

Your only answer is that your statement is unprovable, therefore it can't be proven false? That's a crap argument.

"I know something that is impossible to prove. Because it is impossible to prove, it is impossible to disprove. Because it is impossible to disprove, you can't disprove it. Therefore it is true." Seriously?

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 03:50:45 PM

This quote is from the forums very own FAQ. But keep moving the goal posts. It seems like that is par for the course here.

"As seen in the diagrams above, the earth is in the form of a disk with the North Pole in the center and Antarctica as a wall around the edge. This is the generally accepted model among members of the society. In this model, circumnavigation is performed by moving in a great circle around the North Pole."

And not everyone accepts that model.

Quote from: jamesrohr1 on April 27, 2017, 07:10:23 PM

And yet we've gone on for over two pages. I asserted the earth must be round and provided a method for proving it is flat.

Rather than trying to provide a method to show it can't be flat and can be round.
Your method of proving it is flat is one which only works for one particular model of a flat Earth.

Well, to be fair, there is no 'model' to speak of. It's a jumbled ad-hoc trash heap of vague ideas arbitrarily strewn together by different people. Very few so-called 'models' have more than one thing in common. This makes any of them impossible to debunk or refute because you can't debunk something that doesn't actually exist. There is no FE 'model' official or otherwise because we all know why they can never settle on any one model: it's because their bullshit ideas are so easily debunked it's much better to just say, "Well, that wasn't our claim anyway!" and shift the goalposts to something else.

I mean, fuck me, they can't even settle on the height of the sun on any fucking model that I've ever seen! And we all know what happens we the 3000 miles claim is refuted.. ditto.

jamesrohr1, don't be discouraged by this thread. It can be very rough for first-timers on this site as to how things actually work around here. As you've just experienced, you'll find it's almost impossible to distinguish a FE-believer from a troll and that semantics and syntax are the things they love to debate the most. It may not seem like it now, but there is truly a lot of entertainment to be had with these dunderheads and their laughably asinine claims.

My suggestion would be to stick around and have fun with it 

Well, to be fair, there is no 'model' to speak of. It's a jumbled ad-hoc trash heap of vague ideas arbitrarily strewn together by different people. Very few so-called 'models' have more than one thing in common. This makes any of them impossible to debunk or refute because you can't debunk something that doesn't actually exist. There is no FE 'model' official or otherwise because we all know why they can never settle on any one model: it's because their bullshit ideas are so easily debunked it's much better to just say, "Well, that wasn't our claim anyway!" and shift the goalposts to something else.

I mean, fuck me, they can't even settle on the height of the sun on any fucking model that I've ever seen! And we all know what happens we the 3000 miles claim is refuted.. ditto.

jamesrohr1, don't be discouraged by this thread. It can be very rough for first-timers on this site as to how things actually work around here. As you've just experienced, you'll find it's almost impossible to distinguish a FE-believer from a troll and that semantics and syntax are the things they love to debate the most. It may not seem like it now, but there is truly a lot of entertainment to be had with these dunderheads and their laughably asinine claims.

My suggestion would be to stick around and have fun with it 

But you can debunk them.
All FE models have common flaws.
For example, the existence of the north and south celestial poles, always 180 degrees apart, completely contradicts any possible modern FE model.
In order to have both, you need to go back to the ancient ones where Earth is just a small section of what it really is, for example, denying the existence of everything on Earth outside of Belgium, or deny the existence of the celestial poles. Both require denying aspects of reality observed and confirmed by so many people it isn't funny.

Quote from: FETlolcakes on April 28, 2017, 04:51:17 AM

Well, to be fair, there is no 'model' to speak of. It's a jumbled ad-hoc trash heap of vague ideas arbitrarily strewn together by different people. Very few so-called 'models' have more than one thing in common. This makes any of them impossible to debunk or refute because you can't debunk something that doesn't actually exist. There is no FE 'model' official or otherwise because we all know why they can never settle on any one model: it's because their bullshit ideas are so easily debunked it's much better to just say, "Well, that wasn't our claim anyway!" and shift the goalposts to something else.

I mean, fuck me, they can't even settle on the height of the sun on any fucking model that I've ever seen! And we all know what happens we the 3000 miles claim is refuted.. ditto.

jamesrohr1, don't be discouraged by this thread. It can be very rough for first-timers on this site as to how things actually work around here. As you've just experienced, you'll find it's almost impossible to distinguish a FE-believer from a troll and that semantics and syntax are the things they love to debate the most. It may not seem like it now, but there is truly a lot of entertainment to be had with these dunderheads and their laughably asinine claims.

My suggestion would be to stick around and have fun with it 

But you can debunk them.
All FE models have common flaws.
For example, the existence of the north and south celestial poles, always 180 degrees apart, completely contradicts any possible modern FE model.
In order to have both, you need to go back to the ancient ones where Earth is just a small section of what it really is, for example, denying the existence of everything on Earth outside of Belgium, or deny the existence of the celestial poles. Both require denying aspects of reality observed and confirmed by so many people it isn't funny.

Oh yes, I agree with you. However, only their claims can be debunked, there are no models to refute/debunk because none exist. The only one that comes close for me is JD's and that is really nothing more than a glorified, convoluted spherical earth, anyway.

Just out of curiosity, how many different explanations are there for gravity or this forum alone? I've counted 5 at least and all of which were mutually exclusive. So, yea, it's really hard to pin any one FE down on one claim they make, because they all make different claims.

Quote from: gotham on April 27, 2017, 03:37:47 PM

Wait a minute, a correction is needed regarding The FES worthiness and purpose description offered by the OP.

Round Earth believers are the fringe movement.  They are usurpers of Earth shape reality. FET has a much longer timeline than RET.  There are claims that "oh, people have known about a round Earth for centuries" but those individuals mentioned were only the beginning of the RE fringe.

The FE society itself is the most important organization on the Disc when it comes to Earth shape reality.  The internet site you are speaking on now is a wing of the society to try reaching the misinformed masses with the truth.

   

You people are batshit crazy.

Also apparently don't know what "fringe" means either.

Anyone who has been on here for any period of time should have realised that the favoured FE response is to divert from questions and instead attempt to disregard your point using acute and niche language points.

For instance Totallackey accused me of being an alt account and derailed my post purely because when I saw that he was right to an extent in an argument I had no part of I said "I'll give you that" which where I leave means I agree with you on that but not on most other things, yet apparently it meant that I had forgotten that I was logged into the wrong account when arguing with him, of course.

BULL, Winkle. You're like a toddler who keeps saying, "Yes it is!" ..."But it is!"..."But it is!"

Your only answer is that your statement is unprovable, therefore it can't be proven false? That's a crap argument.

"I know something that is impossible to prove. Because it is impossible to prove, it is impossible to disprove. Because it is impossible to disprove, you can't disprove it. Therefore it is true." Seriously?

Please read the thread again and point out where I said the Earth was flat.

Bullwinkle, do you just play devil's advocate a lot and like to piss people off because it seems that way, but if that's true hats off to you because you're good at it

He's just showing Jonny B that his arguments are weak.

It's working.

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on April 28, 2017, 04:35:41 AM

BULL, Winkle. You're like a toddler who keeps saying, "Yes it is!" ..."But it is!"..."But it is!"

Your only answer is that your statement is unprovable, therefore it can't be proven false? That's a crap argument.

"I know something that is impossible to prove. Because it is impossible to prove, it is impossible to disprove. Because it is impossible to disprove, you can't disprove it. Therefore it is true." Seriously?

Please read the thread again and point out where I said the Earth was flat.

Alright, someone else first asserted that, but you came to their defense and said that you support "our society." I assume that you mean "FES," yes?

Just saying, "Yeah, but it COULD be infinite," isn't much better than saying that you could toss a coin three times in row and have them land on edge. Given the massive amount of evidence supporting RE (uncountable terabytes of data), we can set aside the 0.00000000000000000000000000003% chance that it COULD be infinite and get on with a sensible discussion. (Note: It could be that I accidentally typed this message while my phone turned on in my pocket. Who knows?)

He's just showing Jonny B that his arguments are weak.

It's working.

I'm starting to realize the FE wants no part of science. It is just a religion in the sense that:

1) it doesn't have to make sense with science
2) different opinions are equally valid (and more valid than objective evidence)
3) it doesn't demand that it be internally consistent
4) it establishes ground rules to make it immune from being disproven (because anything "could be")
5) the way that FE makes people feel is more important than what's true
6) it provides a sense of community (in group solidarity vs. out group--not true of RE since 99.99% of educated people know the Earth is a sphere and feel no solidarity about it on a daily basis)

I think the earth is most likely a sphere and I hold real science in quite high esteem.

This doesn't change the fact that your arguments in defense of a spherical earth are weak.

Alright, someone else first asserted that, but . . .

But, WHAT ?  Somehow it's my fault you fucked up?

Just saying, "Yeah, but it COULD be infinite," isn't much better than saying that you could toss a coin three times in row and have them land on edge.

I agree. Also, I didn't say that!