I've been considering being a flat earther but I have some questions

Why is it that the sun circles the earth we can see the sun set and rise, but if the earth was flat, wouldn't we always be able to see the sun?

EDIT: also why is it that Australia is super stretched in the flat earth map, wouldn't sydney look stretched? Also how can you make one of those "seeing new york city from england" type pictures, i want to make one of those myself to see if flat earth is real. if someone can give me good answers, then i'll be a flat earther

Also why is the arctic specifically at the center and not the edge?

Also why is the arctic specifically at the center and not the edge?

Obversations and measurements have proved that the arctic stay in the center. Most of the shortest paths in the world between different countries mostly indirects near arctic. This proves its being center.

Why is it that the sun circles the earth we can see the sun set and rise, but if the earth was flat, wouldn't we always be able to see the sun?

EDIT: also why is it that Australia is super stretched in the flat earth map, wouldn't sydney look stretched? Also how can you make one of those "seeing new york city from england" type pictures, i want to make one of those myself to see if flat earth is real. if someone can give me good answers, then i'll be a flat earther

The sun is beyond a layer, possible water. There is a refractivity of sunlight. Although it stays on the top, we see it as sunseting.

Because of same reason, you can't see London from New York. But you can get the radio broadcast from Turkey which activated in NY. In a round model, a broadcast can reach atmost about 100kms. But only a flat model allows thousands of kilometred broadcasts.

English is not my main language so my answers may be seems weak but ideas are fair enough. I hope.

Why is australia stretched? and how does the sunset on flat earth work? i need a visual as i learn better from visuals

Why is australia stretched? and how does the sunset on flat earth work? i need a visual as i learn better from visuals

Why do you say its 'stretched'? I would say in the 'globe' model, Australia is squished

what I mean is that australia looks like it's stretched, images like this map from 1801 suggets that the flat earth map needs to be updated: http://6fdlq5h.devhub.com/img/upload/old-1801-map-of-australia-french_.jpg

^The shape of that map is distorted



Here is the real shape



You will even find it on the UN logo

Where is your proof that is the real shape of australia though? I feel the world map should look like this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Flat_Earth.png

This version is not distorted and shows the real shapes of the continents on the flat earth

Where is your proof that is the real shape of australia though? I feel the world map should look like this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Flat_Earth.png

This version is not distorted and shows the real shapes of the continents on the flat earth

We have thought you as want to take answers. We gave it to you. Now you want the proofs. These are different things. This situation requires questioning the sincerity of your first message.

Quote from: sumowrestler182 on April 23, 2018, 01:48:16 PM

Why is australia stretched? and how does the sunset on flat earth work? i need a visual as i learn better from visuals

Why do you say its 'stretched'? I would say in the 'globe' model, Australia is squished

Has anyone thought to check what Australians make of the flat earth map?

If someone drives say from Perth to Sydney, then up to Cairns, it should be fairly easy to tell.

@unconvinced Exactly, I still confused how an 1801 map of Australia is distorted, when the method of creating said map was sailing around Australia and drawing it's coastlines, also @shifter When your answers are fishy and make no since and are in severely broken english it's hard to trust what you say is true.

@unconvinced Exactly, I still confused how an 1801 map of Australia is distorted, when the method of creating said map was sailing around Australia and drawing it's coastlines, also @shifter When your answers are fishy and make no since and are in severely broken english it's hard to trust what you say is true.

I don't have an 1801 map of  Australia, but I have an 1855 one made whaen distances were measured with rods and chains and angles with theodolites (and they still are).
Here is that map and a current map used for planning routes on a Garmin navigator and Australia as on the "Gleason's 1892" map:Dimensions scaled off the 1855 map are very close to the current dimensions from Google Earth, etc.

I live in Australia and I know which is NOT anywhere near the correct shape!

What is the point of a Q&A section if every time I seem to answer in the spirit of the rules, it gets moved to debate/general (is there really any difference between those 2?)

Sailing around a continent as large as Australia to map its coast line is a pretty crappy method though. Much better to launch a satellite

I’m sorry I was just browsing the forum and forgot which section I was in.

But you’re right, what is the point of a Q&A section, where follow up questions are not allowed if the answer seems lacking?

Wait... a satellite?

Shifter forgot that the maps in question were made in the 1800s using the methods available at the time because satellites and digital photography weren't invented yet.

@Shifter If that were the case then explain why every pre-satellite map of Australia is the same general shape? If you were correct, then the maps of Australia would be very inconsistent, but they are mostly the same shape.

What is the point of a Q&A section if every time I seem to answer in the spirit of the rules, it gets moved to debate/general (is there really any difference between those 2?)

The Q&A section is supposedly for answers from "flat earth theory", but so often there is simply no response from flat-earthers.
As a result non-flat earthers try to give answers "answers in the spirit of " FE theory. Sometimes SCG disagrees and whammy.
Or BotD weighs in with his weird ideas, which are nothing like "conventional FE theory" ( whatever that might be ).
I guess some "knowledgeable flat-earthers" are needed, but all moderators etc are just volunteers and not obliged to go into detailed answers.

Sailing around a continent as large as Australia to map its coast line is a pretty crappy method though. Much better to launch a satellite.

Sure, but satellites are all fake to flat-earthers so that might convince the already convinced, like you and I not not flat-earthers.
And there are already numerous satellites taking photos of almost full hemispheres, including this one:

Russian satellite's 121-megapixel image of Earth is most detailed yet

Pictures from the Elektro-L No.1 Russian weather satellite of Earth are the highest-detail images yet, and come in at 121 megapixels. The color scheme comes from the image capture method, which combines data from three visible and one infrared wavelengths of light when it takes full-sized images of Earth every 30 minutes.

From: Russian satellite's 121-megapixel image of Earth is most detailed yet.

Take a look at Russia Elektro-L No.1 Earth image

BTW is this video accurate or...

BTW is this video accurate or...

CoolHardLogic’s series are very good easy to follow explanations of the problems with FE models (such as they are).

However he is, let’s just say-not very polite about it.

So it’s unlikely many FEers will get very far.

Ive started watching the Testing Geocentricism series.  That’s more in depth with quite a bit of maths, but it’s also a very good explanation of all the individual pieces of evidence for heliocentricism and a bit of history of astronomy.

BTW is this video accurate or... << I'll omit the video >>

I think that the material is generally correct, but Cool Hard Logic could it put a lot more "diplomatically".
Presented the way he does, no flat earther would bother with it. So it's only value, in my opinion, is a source material.
And all of CHL's are presented in much the same way so lose their effectiveness.

Here is another video about that same map.
This one is from an ex-flat earther TigerDan925 and the material in this video is how he convinced himself of the fallacy of three flat earth.That video is the first of ten, with the next being Flat Earth Deception Part 2. Exposing Myself & others, TigerDan925.
And TigerDan925 really got attacked as a traitor by the rest of the "YouTube flat earth community" for his "desertion".
You haven't seen hate,  till you see what that "YouTube flat earth community" can dish out. This place is a little quiet haven by comparison.

I see Unconvinced got in first, with the same thought about CHL.

Isn’t that just YouTube hate in general?

I don’t think any video is safe from trolls and mentalists.

^The shape of that map is distorted

Here is the real shape:

You will even find it on the UN logo:

The real shape of what? Certainly not the earth!

We have thought you as want to take answers. We gave it to you. Now you want the proofs. These are different things.

But answers and proof go hand in hand. Or at least they should, if you want people to believe your answers.

@rvlvr You said exactly what I said but better! *claps*

Did not mean to step on any toes, man! Just wrote that straight after reading brotherhood's post.

My reply wasn't sarcastic though.

Did not take it as such. Just apologized for not reading all the posts in this thread. I usually try to, just so that there would not be a lot of the same things said.

'Tis a tough sport, this Internetz!

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on April 24, 2018, 02:44:54 AM

We have thought you as want to take answers. We gave it to you. Now you want the proofs. These are different things.

But answers and proof go hand in hand. Or at least they should, if you want people to believe your answers.

No. They don't go hand to hand mostly. You asked my name and I answered, so where is proof? You asked the cost of anything and seller has said it, where is proof? it depends on the person to whom the question is given and whether or not to believe it. the simplest answer can be believable, or a most complex one may be questionable. here is the sincerity. it has now been passed on to the "proof" stage at the beginning of the "answers to questions". Take care, not the evidence, without pass the evidence stage, he wants direct proof! I think this is a lack of sincerity. Someone who has lost his sincere in my mind, whether he believes it or not, I don't care it anymore.

there is already enough unnecessary people asking unnecessary questions.

there is already enough unnecessary people asking unnecessary questions.

But you can't consider asking for proof to be an unnecessary question when discussing something which requires proof to be taken seriously?

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on April 25, 2018, 06:36:07 AM

there is already enough unnecessary people asking unnecessary questions.

But you can't consider asking for proof to be an unnecessary question when discussing something which requires proof to be taken seriously?

Taken seriously requires asking seriously.