How do FE'ers "know" (within a mile) the distance the sun is from the earth...

Yet they can't get the distance between two major southern hemisphere cities?

Particularly Auckland, New Zealand and Buenos Aires, Argentina.  This flight only takes 12 hours, which according to ALL flat earth maps is impossible.

By the way - this flight time makes perfect sense on a globe - curious.

Eratosphenes (and not all even hold to that).
I don't know why you're bringing city measurements into this. I don't think anyone in any model has measured the distance between cities the same way they measure the distance to the Sun.

Also, side note, not impossible at all under DE maps, non-Euclidean maps...

Eratosphenes (and not all even hold to that).
I don't know why you're bringing city measurements into this. I don't think anyone in any model has measured the distance between cities the same way they measure the distance to the Sun.

Also, side note, not impossible at all under DE maps, non-Euclidean maps...

uummm... Yes, it is impossible under ANY model that is not a globe.  Please, show me what your version of a non-Euclidean map looks like.

Also, side note, not impossible at all under DE maps, non-Euclidean maps...

To clarify: not impossible under maps which violate the laws of thermodynamics, make gravity act in two ways simultaneously and allow faster than light travel, and maps which don't explain anything because we are within the geometry.

uummm... Yes, it is impossible under ANY model that is not a globe.  Please, show me what your version of a non-Euclidean map looks like.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921457#msg1921457
Check the links, DET and non-Euclidean. Why are you asking for maps? They're not needed to define a basic model that makes the southern hemisphere function better.

Quote from: Jane on July 31, 2017, 11:32:14 AM

Also, side note, not impossible at all under DE maps, non-Euclidean maps...

To clarify: not impossible under maps which violate the laws of thermodynamics, make gravity act in two ways simultaneously and allow faster than light travel, and maps which don't explain anything because we are within the geometry.

I'm not sure whether you understand DET, and the last point is pretty silly.

I'm not sure whether you understand DET,

Who does anyway?

Quote from: Jane on July 31, 2017, 01:07:56 PM

I'm not sure whether you understand DET,

Who does anyway?

*waves*
Most of it's not really that complicated.

Quote from: pesadilla143 on July 31, 2017, 12:15:47 PM

uummm... Yes, it is impossible under ANY model that is not a globe.  Please, show me what your version of a non-Euclidean map looks like.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921457#msg1921457
Check the links, DET and non-Euclidean. Why are you asking for maps? They're not needed to define a basic model that makes the southern hemisphere function better.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on July 31, 2017, 01:03:36 PM

Quote from: Jane on July 31, 2017, 11:32:14 AM

Also, side note, not impossible at all under DE maps, non-Euclidean maps...

To clarify: not impossible under maps which violate the laws of thermodynamics, make gravity act in two ways simultaneously and allow faster than light travel, and maps which don't explain anything because we are within the geometry.

I'm not sure whether you understand DET, and the last point is pretty silly.

I understand DET well enough to know that it doesn't just violate the laws of physics as we know them, it rapes them to death. Regardless of what properties it gives its version of Magic Aether, it relies on matter being instantaneously transported from one point in space to another with no time interval and no expenditure of energy.

The last point is not silly at all, in fact a good real world example is gravitational lensing, the inverse of what Davis advocates, where a straight line through spacetime appears curved to an exterior observer. However, to an observer within that region of spacetime, the path would appear straight. Davis suggests that we are within a spatial geometry where the surface is actually flat but appears curved. However, because we are within it, we would not perceive it as curved - it would only appear so to an observer outside that region of spatial geometry.
And besides, his whole argument is royally screwed by experiments with neutrinos passing through the earth, which only works in his model if the neutrinos follow a curved path relative to any fixed coordinates. Which they can't do.

I understand DET well enough to know that it doesn't just violate the laws of physics as we know them, it rapes them to death. Regardless of what properties it gives its version of Magic Aether, it relies on matter being instantaneously transported from one point in space to another with no time interval and no expenditure of energy.

Nope.

The last point is not silly at all, in fact a good real world example is gravitational lensing, the inverse of what Davis advocates, where a straight line through spacetime appears curved to an exterior observer. However, to an observer within that region of spacetime, the path would appear straight. Davis suggests that we are within a spatial geometry where the surface is actually flat but appears curved. However, because we are within it, we would not perceive it as curved - it would only appear so to an observer outside that region of spatial geometry.
And besides, his whole argument is royally screwed by experiments with neutrinos passing through the earth, which only works in his model if the neutrinos follow a curved path relative to any fixed coordinates. Which they can't do.

There's no reason you can't create a straight path down through the Earth, to another point on the Earth's surface, in the non-Euclidean model.
But, yes, it is still a silly objection to raise. How does the map 'not explain anything' by describing the geography of the world? Seems to pretty much be the purpose of a map.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on July 31, 2017, 02:32:26 PM

I understand DET well enough to know that it doesn't just violate the laws of physics as we know them, it rapes them to death. Regardless of what properties it gives its version of Magic Aether, it relies on matter being instantaneously transported from one point in space to another with no time interval and no expenditure of energy.

Nope.

OK, well if I'm incorrect, please explain it to me, because that was the impression I got from reading the summary in your section explaining the models.

Quote from: Jane on July 31, 2017, 02:45:22 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on July 31, 2017, 02:32:26 PM

I understand DET well enough to know that it doesn't just violate the laws of physics as we know them, it rapes them to death. Regardless of what properties it gives its version of Magic Aether, it relies on matter being instantaneously transported from one point in space to another with no time interval and no expenditure of energy.

Nope.

OK, well if I'm incorrect, please explain it to me, because that was the impression I got from reading the summary in your section explaining the models.

How on earth did you get transportation from one point in space to another from the summary? The whole basic point of the definition is that never happens.

Eratosphenes (and not all even hold to that).

Eratosthenes neither measured the distance to the sun nor proved the earth a globe as many claim.
He knew the earth was a globe and made an approximate measurement of its circumference.

If one assumes the earth is flat and chooses one point under the sun and the other 45° the sun's height comes out at 5000 km.
But, use any other spacing and you get vastly different, and sometimes ridiculous sun heights.
So let's use the same locations as Eratosthenes did, Syene (Aswan) and Alexandria.
Rounding the figures a little (as Eratosthenes did anyway.
the distance from Syene to Alexandria is 500 miles and the angle difference is 7.2° - it all seems a bit neat, but let's carry on.

It is easy to show (it's in "the Wiki" anyway) that sun height =  distance/tan(angle) = 3,958 miles or 6370 km.
But I thought that the sun's height was 3,000 miles. (If Volivagot the size of the (flat) earth right it would be 3100 miles or 5000 km!

So what about checking out another spot,  say a latitude spacing of 67.5°, an easy 3/4 distance to north pole or 4,669 miles from the equator?
A bit of similar working using  sun height = distance/tan(angle) leads to a sun height of 1,934 miles or 3112 km.
And if you dare try a latitude spacing of 90° (equator and North Pole) the sun's height comes out at 0 miles.

These posts go into (too much) more detal:
          So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high? « on: August 24, 2016, 02:22:33 PM »
          Re: Does ANYONE have ANY evidence that we live on a spinning ball? « Reply #47 on: August 26, 2016, 11:24:04 PM »

I don't know why you're bringing city measurements into this. I don't think anyone in any model has measured the distance between cities the same way they measure the distance to the Sun.

Also, side note, not impossible at all under DE maps,

Sure DE "maps", except JRowe won't show one accurate DE map.
Well, he and the other FEers might not know these things, but the world at large does.

DET replies on:

• Totally unproven magical aether with totally unproven properties.
• Magical aetheric transportation of even light between northern and southern hemiplanes, relying on some mechanism with no theoretical or experimental basis
• Rock and metal stars operating at a temperature far above the boiling point of rock and metal and power by "friction", with source of energy!
• Even so the dimensions do not match reality.
  Real earth: Poles to equator = 10,000 km and equator circumference = 40,000 km.
  DET earth: Poles to equator = 10,000 km and equator circumference = 2 x π x 10000 = 62,832 km.
       JRowe just shrugs and claims "Who knows?" Well, we do KNOW!

That'll do for now, I'll leave his sun and moon and their magical reflections for later!

non-Euclidean maps...

Please show me one "non-Euclidean map" that can be used to determine the directions and distances that we see in real life.

This magical non-Euclidean earth is nothing more than a thought experiment and a mathematical exercise.
As with DET there is not the slightest bit of theoretical or experimental basis of this apparent "curling up" of a plane into a sphere.

So, please Jane, stick to something like reality.

Sure, I know you like playing with your pet toy of mathematics,
Me, I prefer the simple explanations - the earth is a rotating globe!

Eratosthenes neither measured the distance to the sun nor proved the earth a globe as many claim.

Never said any of that. Sure, there are issues with the measurement, but the OP asked where that FEer figure came from.

So, please Jane, stick to something like reality.

I am; bad arguments are bad arguments no matter what's true, and FE answers are FE answers, that doesn't mean they have to be real.
And speaking of bad arguments, leave the map silliness behind, stop all that stupidity about DET, and stick to actual arguments like the Eratosphenes case.

Please show me one "non-Euclidean map" that can be used to determine the directions and distances that we see in real life.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67893.msg1817112#msg1817112

How on earth did you get transportation from one point in space to another from the summary? The whole basic point of the definition is that never happens.

How on earth do you get an aircraft flying 10 km above the earth from the
southern hemiplane to the northern hemiplane without "magical transportation from one point in space to another".

In my book, that plane has to be transported at least 20 km and turned through 180° in zero time.

That is possible only to a mathematician in an ivory tower, not in the real world where normal people live.

A bit of faerie dust might help!

Quote from: Jane on July 31, 2017, 02:53:02 PM

How on earth did you get transportation from one point in space to another from the summary? The whole basic point of the definition is that never happens.

How on earth do you get an aircraft flying 10 km above the earth from the
southern hemiplane to the northern hemiplane without "magical transportation from one point in space to another".

In my book, that plane has to be transported at least 20 km and turned through 180° in zero time.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921466#msg1921466
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921471#msg1921471

Quote from: rabinoz on July 31, 2017, 03:56:40 PM

Quote from: Jane on July 31, 2017, 02:53:02 PM

How on earth did you get transportation from one point in space to another from the summary? The whole basic point of the definition is that never happens.

How on earth do you get an aircraft flying 10 km above the earth from the
southern hemiplane to the northern hemiplane without "magical transportation from one point in space to another".

In my book, that plane has to be transported at least 20 km and turned through 180° in zero time.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921466#msg1921466
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921471#msg1921471

So, where is the magic mechanism of this transportation explained and given an experimental of theoretical justification?

It is all no more and no less than conjecture with not the slightest physical basis.

Quote from: Jane on July 31, 2017, 03:59:52 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 31, 2017, 03:56:40 PM

Quote from: Jane on July 31, 2017, 02:53:02 PM

How on earth did you get transportation from one point in space to another from the summary? The whole basic point of the definition is that never happens.

How on earth do you get an aircraft flying 10 km above the earth from the
southern hemiplane to the northern hemiplane without "magical transportation from one point in space to another".

In my book, that plane has to be transported at least 20 km and turned through 180° in zero time.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921466#msg1921466
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921471#msg1921471

So, where is the magic mechanism of this transportation explained and given an experimental of theoretical justification?

It is all no more and no less than conjecture with not the slightest physical basis.

I really don't care, but don't move the goalposts from "How does it work?" to "Provide a solid experimental basis." It's explained there, take it or leave it, but stop acting as though it's just some undefined magic. You should not need to resort to bad arguments, it's FET.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 31, 2017, 04:20:18 PM

So, where is the magic mechanism of this transportation explained and given an experimental of theoretical justification?

It is all no more and no less than conjecture with not the slightest physical basis.

I really don't care, but don't move the goalposts from "How does it work?" to "Provide a solid experimental basis." It's explained there, take it or leave it, but stop acting as though it's just some undefined magic. You should not need to resort to bad arguments, it's FET.

Here is what I see.  Every time something on the flat earth model is proven to be impossible - they change their "facts".  Flat earth believers can't even agree on a map to use.  It is actually quite comical.

Everything on the round earth model has been proven over and over and over.

Do you REALLY want to go down this rabbit hole with me?

Here is what I see.  Every time something on the flat earth model is proven to be impossible - they change their "facts".  Flat earth believers can't even agree on a map to use.  It is actually quite comical.

Everything on the round earth model has been proven over and over and over.

Do you REALLY want to go down this rabbit hole with me?

There's no rabbit hole, you're just making things up now. FEers don't change their facts, there are multiple FEers each with different models that usualy don't particularly change. They don't agree on a map to use because no one cares about doing everything that's required to develop/confirm a map because it's a stupidly over the top thing to demand and really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. I'd much rather hear how they explain gravity, the coriolis effect, tides, the moon, planets, retrograde motion... then have another idiot repeat this nonsensical map argument all over again.
There is no map. That doesn't prove anything beyond "They do not have the capability to map out the entire world." Get over it.

Quote from: pesadilla143 on July 31, 2017, 05:42:32 PM

Here is what I see.  Every time something on the flat earth model is proven to be impossible - they change their "facts".  Flat earth believers can't even agree on a map to use.  It is actually quite comical.

Everything on the round earth model has been proven over and over and over.

Do you REALLY want to go down this rabbit hole with me?

There's no rabbit hole, you're just making things up now. FEers don't change their facts, there are multiple FEers each with different models that usualy don't particularly change. They don't agree on a map to use because no one cares about doing everything that's required to develop/confirm a map because it's a stupidly over the top thing to demand and really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. I'd much rather hear how they explain gravity, the coriolis effect, tides, the moon, planets, retrograde motion... then have another idiot repeat this nonsensical map argument all over again.
There is no map. That doesn't prove anything beyond "They do not have the capability to map out the entire world." Get over it.

A working map is the backbone of the flat earth belief.  If there was only one thing FE'ers need to agree upon - it is a working map.  I find it hard to believe that their is not one flat earth believer who finds cartography interesting.  Mapping out the earth is quite an undertaking, but a necessary undertaking.

You see, round earth believers do have a map - it is called a GLOBE!  And it works.  Do you know why it works?  Because the earth is a ball.  You see, we have collectively mapped out the entire earth.  Not the work of one person - but the collective work of the human race.  A piece of work that has been verified over and over.

If you don't believe the earth is a globe, show me a working map and prove it.

You seem to be basing all your beliefs on a bunch of "ifs", "maybes", and "possiblies"... ... ... ... very interesting.

I based all of my calculations on this map.  A map with a nice scale and everything.  A map that FE'ers agreed upon.  The moment something became impossible - the "we don't need no stinking map" became the trite of the day.

There is no map. That doesn't prove anything beyond "They do not have the capability to map out the entire world." Get over it.

Rubbish! They cannot make even a rough continental layout because that is not possible.

And, we do have maps that give accurate distances now.

The plain simple fact of the matter is that if the projections of the Globe are all locally correct, then the earth is not flat.

And there is the very simple case that I try to point out so many times.
In the following, I am rounding the Globe dimensions to those of a sphere of 40,000 km circumference, which is very close.

• The pole to equator distance is 10,000 km.
• The equatorial circumference is 40,000 km.

Hence any flat earth "continental layout" centred on either or both poles

Then the distance from the North Pole to the South Pole down any line of latitude is always 20,000 km.

Flat Earthers always bleat out at this point that "We don't know that those distances are correct!"
Of course, we know that these distances are at least very close!
They are verified all the time by aircraft routes that agree in length with those predicted for the Globe
and by ships sailing on intercontinental routes, including cruise ships circumnavigating Antarctica.

No-one pretends that these aircraft flights and shipping routes measure these distances accurately,
We even get yacht races around Antarctica, such as

THE GREATEST RACETRACK on THE PLANETThe Antarctica Cup Ocean Race and the Antarctica Cup Racetrack. A non-stop race of around 14,000 nautical miles – circumnavigating Antarctica passing the three most notorious capes on the planet CAPE LEEUWIN, CAPE HORN, CAPE AGULHUSS. As the boats race above and below the Antarctic Convergence (Polar Front) An ocean race open to existing circumnavigation fleets. The only inter-ocean yacht race based in the Southern Hemisphere, in Australia, Western Australia (Albany) and the only annual inter ocean yacht race in the world. The first ocean race to traverse the Southern Ocean between Cape Horn and Cape Agulhus below 40 degrees south. The first ocean race specifically designed to circumnavigate the only continent on the planet owned by the world – Antarctica. Introducing electronic ‘Lanes’ and ‘Gates’ to keep the racing fleet clear of dense iceberg territory.] Three (3) ‘Lanes’, eighteen (18) ‘Gates’ of the course creating 18 ‘Sectors’ for which there will be individual prizes – creating 18 ‘races- within-a-race’. Introducing a unique ‘Skins’ prize format. An extreme sports multi-media spectacular as data is beamed from the racing fleet 24 x 7. Individual boat sponsorship is welcomed. From: ANTARCTIC CUP YACHT RACE[/size]

The Antacrtica Cup racetrack

As far as I am concerned this either kills dead any thought of the the "Ice Wall" models

And yes, a lot of flat earthers do claim that the organisers of these Antarctic circumnavigation yacht races are lying to us about the real route of the race.

And yet you try to justify this rubbish or claim it as a fun academic exercise - go and look at the YouTube Flat earth channels and see how much fun there it is.

There is a real openly expressed hatred expressed there for NASA, all space agencies and anyone daring to argue against their Precious Flat Earth!

Quote from: pesadilla143 on July 31, 2017, 05:42:32 PM

Here is what I see.  Every time something on the flat earth model is proven to be impossible - they change their "facts".  Flat earth believers can't even agree on a map to use.  It is actually quite comical.

Everything on the round earth model has been proven over and over and over.

Do you REALLY want to go down this rabbit hole with me?

There's no rabbit hole, you're just making things up now. FEers don't change their facts, there are multiple FEers each with different models that usualy don't particularly change. They don't agree on a map to use because no one cares about doing everything that's required to develop/confirm a map because it's a stupidly over the top thing to demand and really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. I'd much rather hear how they explain gravity, the coriolis effect, tides, the moon, planets, retrograde motion... then have another idiot repeat this nonsensical map argument all over again.
There is no map. That doesn't prove anything beyond "They do not have the capability to map out the entire world." Get over it.

When it comes to facts, FE belief and in particular the notion that is DET is devoid of any facts.
Reproduce one statement from DET regarding its nature and composition for example that contains a single fact, bearing in mind what a fact actually is.

There's no rabbit hole, you're just making things up now. FEers don't change their facts, there are multiple FEers each with different models that usualy don't particularly change. They don't agree on a map to use because no one cares about doing everything that's required to develop/confirm a map because it's a stupidly over the top thing to demand and really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. I'd much rather hear how they explain gravity, the coriolis effect, tides, the moon, planets, retrograde motion... then have another idiot repeat this nonsensical map argument all over again.
There is no map. That doesn't prove anything beyond "They do not have the capability to map out the entire world." Get over it.

I sail, and some of my friends at the yacht club are proper blue ocean sailors. For them, an accurate map isn't a "stupidly over the top thing to demand"; it's a tool which turns an extremely dangerous activity into a challenging but enjoyable sport. They could not do what they do without accurate charts. So the absence of a working flat earth map isn't some unimportant side alley of flat earth theory that the theorists haven't got around to looking into: it is a glaring example of the inability of flat earth theory to explain the world around us. To put it simply, humans undertake activities every day that would not be possible if the Earth had not been accurately mapped.

You've said above that you dislike bad arguments. Not drawing attention to the absence of a working flat earth map is a bad argument. It encourages people who believe in a flat earth to continue to do so, by ignoring one of the basic flaws with their belief.

A working map is the backbone of the flat earth belief.  If there was only one thing FE'ers need to agree upon - it is a working map. 

Uh, no, it's that the Earth is flat. This whole map debacle is just silly, I'd struggle to map out just my county and you want a handful to map out the whole world, including much less accessible areas? Yeah, that's a stupid argument. It doesn't matter what you want them to have, all that matters is what's feasible. Mapping out the world is not feasible without a tremendous amount of resources, the end, stop wasting everybody's time and try discussing an interesting topic.

Rubbish! They cannot make even a rough continental layout because that is not possible.

Great, and if you can prove that you have an actual argument that you don't need to derail into this 'map out the whole world in your spare time,' nonsense.

And there is the very simple case that I try to point out so many times.
In the following, I am rounding the Globe dimensions to those of a sphere of 40,000 km circumference, which is very close.

• The pole to equator distance is 10,000 km.
• The equatorial circumference is 40,000 km.

Hence any flat earth "continental layout" centred on either or both poles

cannot be correct because they demand an equatorial circumference of 62,800 km. Bingo goes "Ice Wall" and DET.

Ignoring non-Euclidean for a moment, no FEer thinks those figures are free from error, and honestly I doubt any serious REer would claim they're perfectly accurate either. The only disagreement is on how much error there is.
I've made that precise argument before (albeit phrased a bit more mathematically) and the response is simple: prove it. maps can be locally correct with, say, a 20km difference depending on the area's size. Fifty locally correct maps (which really isn't all that many on this scale) can give you 1000km more to play with. Square it for just the first step of getting an area, that's a pretty big difference.

They are verified all the time by aircraft routes that agree in length with those predicted for the Globe
and by ships sailing on intercontinental routes, including cruise ships circumnavigating Antarctica.

Usually flights are more concerned with time than distance. Error in predicting speed, particularly with the fact those measurements aren't taken to prove the globe but with an assumption of it, and there you go. Not everything is a test of RET.

And yet you try to justify this rubbish or claim it as a fun academic exercise - go and look at the YouTube Flat earth channels and see how much fun there it is.

There is a real openly expressed hatred expressed there for NASA, all space agencies and anyone daring to argue against their Precious Flat Earth!

I'm not interested in youtube. There seems to be a real and openly expressed hatred for actually making good and informed arguments here though.
Every argument needs refinement. Once it's involved in a debate you hear responses, and even if they're not good ones you ought to at least adjust the argument a little to account for them. Or, better yet, move on to a vaguely interesting argument that becomes more than just a battle of wills.

You've said above that you dislike bad arguments. Not drawing attention to the absence of a working flat earth map is a bad argument. It encourages people who believe in a flat earth to continue to do so, by ignoring one of the basic flaws with their belief.

No, it's a bad argument. Insisting FEers map out the whole world doesn't expose a 'basic flaw in their belief,' it exposes you as someone who's rather make ridiculous demands than make a logical case against FET. You should not need to resort to something this stupid.
If you can actually, reliably prove that the distances your friends sail are verifiable and could not exist on a flat surface, well done, you have an actual argument! Make it, don't rely on this nonsense.

Quote from: pesadilla143 on July 31, 2017, 05:42:32 PM

Here is what I see.  Every time something on the flat earth model is proven to be impossible - they change their "facts".  Flat earth believers can't even agree on a map to use.  It is actually quite comical.

Everything on the round earth model has been proven over and over and over.

Do you REALLY want to go down this rabbit hole with me?

There's no rabbit hole, you're just making things up now. FEers don't change their facts, there are multiple FEers each with different models that usualy don't particularly change. They don't agree on a map to use because no one cares about doing everything that's required to develop/confirm a map because it's a stupidly over the top thing to demand and really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. I'd much rather hear how they explain gravity, the coriolis effect, tides, the moon, planets, retrograde motion... then have another idiot repeat this nonsensical map argument all over again.
There is no map. That doesn't prove anything beyond "They do not have the capability to map out the entire world." Get over it.

You now make it appear as if every FE-er chooses or develops one model and sticks to it.
The opposite is true...Most, if not all of them hop from one FE-model to the other...just how it suits them....because none of those models is an overall answer to all problems.
so, yes they basically change their facts by hopping from one model to the other.

About the map issue...every FE-er cares about an accurate FE-map which can explain everything....but this is physically not possible...so, you pretend like you do not care if there is no map...so "really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things"-my ass
you can fool no one with that.

You now make it appear as if every FE-er chooses or develops one model and sticks to it.
The opposite is true...Most, if not all of them hop from one FE-model to the other...just how it suits them....because none of those models is an overall answer to all problems.
so, yes they basically change their facts by hopping from one model to the other.

I've seen a little variation when they first join and try to find the best model (from their perspective), but JRowe, Sceptimatic, Sandokhan, Davis... All the ones that regularly give their model seem to stay fixed. And then jroa's stuck firmly with UA, etc. Never seen any hopping between models as you describe.

About the map issue...every FE-er cares about an accurate FE-map which can explain everything....but this is physically not possible...so, you pretend like you do not care if there is no map...so "really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things"-my ass
you can fool no one with that.

Um, a map can't explain everything. It barely explains anything to be honest beyond the question of 'how do continents relate to each other?' which is a pretty tiny question compared to gravity, stars, Sun, moon, Coriolis, tides...
And what's physically not possible is expecting a random few people to be able to map out the entire world. Again. It does not matter how important you think this topic is when it is a ludicrous thing to ask for.

Um, a map can't explain everything. It barely explains anything to be honest beyond the question of 'how do continents relate to each other?' which is a pretty tiny question compared to gravity, stars, Sun, moon, Coriolis, tides...
And what's physically not possible is expecting a random few people to be able to map out the entire world. Again. It does not matter how important you think this topic is when it is a ludicrous thing to ask for.

You do not have to map out the entire world...that already has been done in great detail...I bet every FE-er uses some sort of maps to navigate through unfamiliar area. some use Google maps, some have navigation systems...others use paper maps to find their location...so in detail...you do not need to map the world out...
the only task is here to map out how different countries or continents relate to each other...
by doing this, you can immediately answer questions like how sunrises and sunsets work in this model...how the night sky changes looks like from certain locations...how the sun and moon travel around earth, coriolis effect...how tides work...etc.
but it all starts with a good FE-map.

Quote from: napoleon on August 01, 2017, 04:29:38 AM

You now make it appear as if every FE-er chooses or develops one model and sticks to it.
The opposite is true...Most, if not all of them hop from one FE-model to the other...just how it suits them....because none of those models is an overall answer to all problems.
so, yes they basically change their facts by hopping from one model to the other.

I've seen a little variation when they first join and try to find the best model (from their perspective), but JRowe, Sceptimatic, Sandokhan, Davis... All the ones that regularly give their model seem to stay fixed. And then jroa's stuck firmly with UA, etc. Never seen any hopping between models as you describe.

Quote

About the map issue...every FE-er cares about an accurate FE-map which can explain everything....but this is physically not possible...so, you pretend like you do not care if there is no map...so "really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things"-my ass
you can fool no one with that.

Um, a map can't explain everything. It barely explains anything to be honest beyond the question of 'how do continents relate to each other?' which is a pretty tiny question compared to gravity, stars, Sun, moon, Coriolis, tides...
And what's physically not possible is expecting a random few people to be able to map out the entire world. Again. It does not matter how important you think this topic is when it is a ludicrous thing to ask for.

Can't you just face the simple fact that there is a real "map" that does show the correct "continental layouts" and the correct distances between them!

And this map is of vital importance in real life, where aircraft, ships and even those on private yachts need to know the correct distances and directions.

The "map" that we have does show all that with well-proven accuracy.
The "map" is, of course, the Globe, but being a shere is impractical to carry around so flat approximations in the form of suitable "projections" are used.

You can pretend to be an ignorant Flat Earther if you wish and claim "I know nuttin'".
But the plain simple fact is that all these distances and directions are known.

So stop trying to flog the poor dead horse by pretending that the flat earth has a trace of evidence.

Just do the decent thing and let it die in peace.

Quote from: Goldie on August 01, 2017, 04:07:21 AM

You've said above that you dislike bad arguments. Not drawing attention to the absence of a working flat earth map is a bad argument. It encourages people who believe in a flat earth to continue to do so, by ignoring one of the basic flaws with their belief.

No, it's a bad argument. Insisting FEers map out the whole world doesn't expose a 'basic flaw in their belief,' it exposes you as someone who's rather make ridiculous demands than make a logical case against FET. You should not need to resort to something this stupid.
If you can actually, reliably prove that the distances your friends sail are verifiable and could not exist on a flat surface, well done, you have an actual argument! Make it, don't rely on this nonsense.

The absence of a working map is a logical case against FET all by itself (although you're correct to suggest that there are plenty of others as well). How flat earthers respond to that is up to them. But if the response is to say that an accurate map isn't that important, or that current charts are not that accurate, then from a sailor's perspective, FET is worse than useless: it would actually be dangerous if you went to sea believing in it.

It isn't good enough to say that cross ocean distances can't be measured accurately, either: any decent skipper can place himself and his ship on a chart. Each time he uses a chart to cross an ocean, he checks and verifies the information it contains.

You've asked (sort of) whether distances sailed are verifiable, and they are. Most skippers are cautious by nature, particularly if they intend to put themselves and their crew in the middle of an ocean. Almost all of the blue ocean sailors at my club still log distances sailed, courses and positions in the old fashioned way, and most use GPS too.

the only task is here to map out how different countries or continents relate to each other...
by doing this, you can immediately answer questions like how sunrises and sunsets work in this model...how the night sky changes looks like from certain locations...how the sun and moon travel around earth, coriolis effect...how tides work...etc.
but it all starts with a good FE-map.

...just what. How on the rhombicuboctahedrol Earth do you get from the layout of the continents to sunrises and sunsets?

You can pretend to be an ignorant Flat Earther if you wish and claim "I know nuttin'".
But the plain simple fact is that all these distances and directions are known.

I'm not a FEer, I'm not pretending to be one, I'm just pointing out an awful argument when I see it. You can completely ignore every word I say if you want, just try to make decent arguments in future.

The absence of a working map is a logical case against FET all by itself

No. Once again, it is a logical case against a group's ability to map out the entire world. Stop acting like that's just some small little thing we can expect any group to have done. When you can prove that FEers even have the capability to map out the entire world, given the timespan and resources and cost that it took for REers to do the same, then you have an argument. Until then, this is stupid.

It isn't good enough to say that cross ocean distances can't be measured accurately, either: any decent skipper can place himself and his ship on a chart. Each time he uses a chart to cross an ocean, he checks and verifies the information it contains.

Pretty sure any sailor would admit that they need to do more than pick a direction and wait, they need to constantly be aware of the currents and winds, use landmarks like stars or, more recently, GPS to keep track of their location... A map that's off by a few km really isn't going to have a huge impact on top of everything else (plus good old fashioned human error when it comes to, say, angles) because there is no way, even with a perfect map, that they could keep perfectly to a preplanned route. They've always got to adjust and react. An imperfect map isn't going to particularly bother a sailor because it's just one of a whole host of tools.