Tom Bishop thinks "the RE should try to figure out the nonsense in their model".

So I trust it is pretty safe to assume such an FE map or such maps do not exist. And if this can be considered a fact, doesn't that throw any spanners in the FE works? Defending and/or promoting a completely different model which has no (safe) real world use is a noble endeavour?

Ok. How would you map the world?

But each map (some prefer to say "continental layout") has it own set of issues.

I know.

And I have rarely heard FE put their money where their mouth is. Jeranism did, and what he found was interesting, and then there is the gyroscope (although it can be, of course, affected by "heaven energies").

I think at least back in the day people did finance science and expeditions, sent others to far away lands and to learn new things. Such a sad thing not many FE'ers appear to be able to finance tests and experiments.

Quote from: rvlvr on May 31, 2019, 12:46:41 AM

So I trust it is pretty safe to assume such an FE map or such maps do not exist. And if this can be considered a fact, doesn't that throw any spanners in the FE works? Defending and/or promoting a completely different model which has no (safe) real world use is a noble endeavour?

Ok. How would you map the world?

I do not know. But then again I am not saying what we have is wrong. The proof of burden is not on me.

Quote from: Jane on May 31, 2019, 03:08:29 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on May 31, 2019, 12:46:41 AM

So I trust it is pretty safe to assume such an FE map or such maps do not exist. And if this can be considered a fact, doesn't that throw any spanners in the FE works? Defending and/or promoting a completely different model which has no (safe) real world use is a noble endeavour?

Ok. How would you map the world?

I do not know. But then again I am not saying what we have is wrong. The proof of burden is not on me.

I'm not saying it is, just pointing out that if you ask a question and expect it to be meaningful, you should at least be able to give the means by which people could answer.

To my knowledge mapping the world typically took decades if not centuries to get right, with vast fleets of ships and such. Without any of those to offer the question is moot.

Quote from: rvlvr on May 31, 2019, 03:09:58 AM

Quote from: Jane on May 31, 2019, 03:08:29 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on May 31, 2019, 12:46:41 AM

So I trust it is pretty safe to assume such an FE map or such maps do not exist. And if this can be considered a fact, doesn't that throw any spanners in the FE works? Defending and/or promoting a completely different model which has no (safe) real world use is a noble endeavour?

Ok. How would you map the world?

I do not know. But then again I am not saying what we have is wrong. The proof of burden is not on me.

I'm not saying it is, just pointing out that if you ask a question and expect it to be meaningful, you should at least be able to give the means by which people could answer.

To my knowledge mapping the world typically took decades if not centuries to get right, with vast fleets of ships and such. Without any of those to offer the question is moot.

I think it is far from moot.

I want to sail somewhere, and choose, well, the charts based on the cartography done in the past. FE tells me those maps are wrong. I would like to know more, and especially why they think that is.

If FE does not try to provide maps which would prove the ones in use wrong, I do think it is within my rights to ask them to create one. Does not matter much if I know how to make one. Just Dunning-Kruger in effect in the case of FE. I know I do not know how to create one. Not sure they think the same way.

Sordid affair to claim something without anything to back it up.

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/opinions-matter

Related:
"Case in point: anti-vaxxers. These well-intentioned parents believe that they know more about human health and social well-being than a wide variety of scientific areas. Decades upon decades of research has been devoted to vaccination safety and efficacy. Millions of dollars have been spent worldwide to evaluate the safety of vaccinations. But, anti-vaxxers hold the belief that their opinion matters more than scientific fact."

EDIT: "Defending and/or promoting a completely different model which has no (safe) real world use is a noble endeavour?"

You think that is a good thing? It's a better world if more people do that? And if not, why did you ask me if I know how to make a map?

You think that is a good thing? It's a better world if more people do that? And if not, why did you ask me if I know how to make a map?

No, it's not, because vaccines work and you can point to example after example of why vaccines work without giving the impression you're being defensive. Meanwhile if you expect someone to do something you admit there is no way for them to actually do irrespective of what is true, do you think you give them the idea that you're arguing for something correct or incorrect?
The Earth is round. That's precisely why you don't need to make pointless arguments.

If you want to argue existing maps are accurate, go right ahead. Can you not see the difference between giving some measurable, testable example of that and "Go map the whole damn planet?" What you're doing is the equivalent of a FEer asking you to build a space-capable rocket in your back garden. Sure, it'd be great evidence, but that doesn't make it feasible or anything other than a silly thing to ask for. It's less 'not having anything to back it up,' more 'having things to back it up that aren't one specific, narrow, sufficient but not necessary thing that got insisted on for no good reason.'

The question is moot because it says nothing about the conclusion. If the world is round, they won't be able to make a workable flat map. If the world is flat, they won't have the basic capability and resources to make any kind of map on a worldwide scale. What is it you actually learn from that?

Quote from: rvlvr on May 31, 2019, 03:20:09 AM

You think that is a good thing? It's a better world if more people do that? And if not, why did you ask me if I know how to make a map?

No, it's not, because vaccines work and you can point to example after example of why vaccines work without giving the impression you're being defensive. Meanwhile if you expect someone to do something you admit there is no way for them to actually do irrespective of what is true, do you think you give them the idea that you're arguing for something correct or incorrect?
The Earth is round. That's precisely why you don't need to make pointless arguments.

If you want to argue existing maps are accurate, go right ahead. Can you not see the difference between giving some measurable, testable example of that and "Go map the whole damn planet?" What you're doing is the equivalent of a FEer asking you to build a space-capable rocket in your back garden. Sure, it'd be great evidence, but that doesn't make it feasible or anything other than a silly thing to ask for. It's less 'not having anything to back it up,' more 'having things to back it up that aren't one specific, narrow, sufficient but not necessary thing that got insisted on for no good reason.'

The question is moot because it says nothing about the conclusion. If the world is round, they won't be able to make a workable flat map. If the world is flat, they won't have the basic capability and resources to make any kind of map on a worldwide scale. What is it you actually learn from that?

FE does not seem to be able to accomplish much. True, mapping the world is well beyond them, but as they seem to posit the current map is false, it'd be, you know, fair they'd have something to back that up.

But in your opinion, as they are unable to come up with such a concrete showing of what they claim is true, I am not allowed to ask for it? Fair enough. Pigeons and chess.

FE does not seem to be able to accomplish much. True, mapping the world is well beyond them, but as they seem to posit the current map is false, it'd be, you know, fair they'd have something to back that up.

But in your opinion, as they are unable to come up with such a concrete showing of what they claim is true, I am not allowed to ask for it? Fair enough. Pigeons and chess.

It doesn't matter what you'd like to be the case if you can't even say how it would be possible to do it. This seriously shouldn't need explaining. If the only argument you have against FET is the ridiculous "Map out the whole planet!" then that says way more about you than FEers.
Maybe you should try the radical step of using the search function, looking up the arguments FEers do make against RET, rather than deciding you will only accept one possible thing.

You don't ask for things that no one is going to be able to provide. Meanwhile deciding 'arguments to 'back up' FET' and 'a map of the whole world' are synonyms is just silly. Take a step back and think about how you would react to a FEer making arguments of the same calibre as the ones you're offering, and then ask yourself why FEers don't trust RE arguments.

Quote from: rvlvr on May 31, 2019, 12:46:41 AM

So I trust it is pretty safe to assume such an FE map or such maps do not exist. And if this can be considered a fact, doesn't that throw any spanners in the FE works? Defending and/or promoting a completely different model which has no (safe) real world use is a noble endeavour?

Ok. How would you map the world?

Why try?

A Flat Earth has a property that a spherical earth does not - it has edges or at least limits that cannot be crossed but a spherical earth has no edges that cannot be crossed.

So I would claim that the Globe has been circumnavigated along so many paths that I would challenge any Flat Earther to suggest a layout that permits all these paths without crossing an edge.

In particular the numerous polar-circumnavigations makes the usual "Ice-Wall Map" quite impossible as in:

How does this flight fit into the Infinite Plane hypothesis? Just curious.

Polar circumnavigation of the globe: mini-documentary (1971) by Rory

Maybe someone should have told Elgen Long that you can't fly across Antarctica from Punta Arenas via the South Pole to McMurdo Base.

And:
This summarises some of the trans-polar circumnavigations:

Transpolar Circumnavigations from: FlatEarth.ws, Debunking Flat Earth Misconceptions.

And any circumnavigation crossing longitude 180°E/180°W rules out the usual Bipolar Map.
Examples of routes that cross that boundary are:

• Mike Horn's solo and human-powered ‘Horizontal’ crossing of the globe closely followed the Equator:
  Quote from: Mike Horn

  “When I left, I thought I knew enough to go round the world this way. Now that I am back, I know that I don’t know enough to start again.”
  
  
  Read the rest, with the hair raising photos in: Mike Horn for his solo and human-powered ‘Horizontal’ crossing of the globe following the Equator at Latitude zero.

  And
  
• Charles Kingsford's trans-Pacific flight where he crossed longitude 180°E/180°W just before landing in Fiji.
  There's more in: Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunlight on a flat Earth map « Message by rabinoz on May 21, 2019, 07:43:37 AM »

Even those two types of circumnavigation rule out almost any reasonable Flat Earth layout I could think of but there are numerous other circumnavigations and ordinary air routes that criss-cross the earth making the edge required on any flat earth map virtually impossible.

Of course, convinced Flat Earthers will simply claim that any offending circumnavigations and air routes are fake and ignore them as they try to do with all "southern air routes".

A Flat Earth has a property that a spherical earth does not - it has edges or at least limits that cannot be crossed but a spherical earth has no edges that cannot be crossed.

So I would claim that the Globe has been circumnavigated along so many paths that I would challenge any Flat Earther to suggest a layout that permits all these paths without crossing an edge.

How have you been here this long and you barely even give lip service to the answer given in the damn FAQ?
They claim the paths are instead great circles around the north pole, at least in the unipolar models. That is, the routes you describe are not accurate representations of the paths actually taken, the flights aren't 'fake' but your descriptions are not accurate. Demonstrating the veracity of your information is kinda a crucial part of making literally any argument.

How do you demonstrate they took the paths they claimed rather than simply assumed that must be the way they went because they believed in RET?

When your opponent needs to try to deflect and change the topic you have won the argument.

How do you demonstrate they took the paths they claimed rather than simply assumed that must be the way they went because they believed in RET?

Indeed, how has FET proven they took a great circle route?

When your opponent needs to try to deflect and change the topic you have won the argument.

I wouldn’t say John Davis lost by bringing up the Monterey Bay Experiment and his Non-Euclidean model, although I did suggest getting back on topic.

But thanks for the input anyway.

No, it's not, because vaccines work and you can point to example after example of why vaccines work without giving the impression you're being defensive.

Maps based on projections of the globe work too, and we can point to example after example.  We can also point to example after example of things on the commonly shown flat earth “maps” that do not seem to work.

I agree it’s a bit ridiculous to expect flat earthers to go out and re-map the world.

It’s not ridiculous however to ask them to find inconsistencies in globe maps and propose a rough flat earth map that would explain such inconsistencies better.

For example, the regular polar azimuthal flat earth map shows Australia as a completely different shape compared to globe projections.  A driving holiday across Australia to check the distances with a car’s odometer is not that big a deal for those genuinely seeking “the truth”. 

It’s actually quite fun too.  I’ve done a fair bit myself without even having a lofty goal, like overturning hundreds of years of science.

Quote from: Jane on May 31, 2019, 06:34:39 AM

How do you demonstrate they took the paths they claimed rather than simply assumed that must be the way they went because they believed in RET?

Indeed, how has FET proven they took a great circle route?

It hasn't, so far as I've seen, that's a conclusion FEers draw because they concluded the Earth is flat by other means.

It’s not ridiculous however to ask them to find inconsistencies in globe maps and propose a rough flat earth map that would explain such inconsistencies better.

Which you can get easily, especially with those that don't accept a southern pole, you can find a lot written on flights over it supposedly not adding up, as well as long distance flights with stop-offs being argued to prove a disc-Earth in some cases. It's just rarely as simple as you propose. Take your driving holiday; what you'd require there would be an FEer to a) live on or have the time/money to access a landmass of significant size like Australia, b) be able to drive without massive amounts of error seeping in from non-straight roads and driving, c) the error to actually be over land rather than sea.

Think about what would be required to test what you're asking for irrespective of what's true. It's just easier for everyone.

Quote from: turtles on May 31, 2019, 09:19:15 AM

Quote from: Jane on May 31, 2019, 06:34:39 AM

How do you demonstrate they took the paths they claimed rather than simply assumed that must be the way they went because they believed in RET?

Indeed, how has FET proven they took a great circle route?

It hasn't, so far as I've seen, that's a conclusion FEers draw because they concluded the Earth is flat by other means.

Ah, well that's that part of the FAQ junked then. Can it be removed?

Quote from: Jane on May 31, 2019, 10:44:07 AM

Quote from: turtles on May 31, 2019, 09:19:15 AM

Quote from: Jane on May 31, 2019, 06:34:39 AM

How do you demonstrate they took the paths they claimed rather than simply assumed that must be the way they went because they believed in RET?

Indeed, how has FET proven they took a great circle route?

It hasn't, so far as I've seen, that's a conclusion FEers draw because they concluded the Earth is flat by other means.

Ah, well that's that part of the FAQ junked then. Can it be removed?

You might find it easier if you read what I actually said.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 31, 2019, 09:54:22 AM

It’s not ridiculous however to ask them to find inconsistencies in globe maps and propose a rough flat earth map that would explain such inconsistencies better.

Which you can get easily, especially with those that don't accept a southern pole, you can find a lot written on flights over it supposedly not adding up, as well as long distance flights with stop-offs being argued to prove a disc-Earth in some cases.

Sure, I’ve read a load of nonsense claims that Southern Hemisphere flights don’t exist, despite the fact that thousands of people take such flights daily.

What am I supposed to make of that, exactly?

It's just rarely as simple as you propose. Take your driving holiday; what you'd require there would be an FEer to a) live on or have the time/money to access a landmass of significant size like Australia, b) be able to drive without massive amounts of error seeping in from non-straight roads and driving, c) the error to actually be over land rather than sea.

Think about what would be required to test what you're asking for irrespective of what's true. It's just easier for everyone.

Nah, it is really pretty simple really.  Australia was just an obvious example.  Anywhere would do.

But in that example, we’re talking about about 4000 km on the globe earth vs well over 10000km on the flat earth map.  That’s the kind of difference you can’t put down to error, even if completely hammered and weaving all over the road the whole way (don’t drink and drive, kids).

It’s a fundamental part of scientific experimentation to assess and account for the level of error.  Surely you are aware of this?

And frankly, Yes!  I do expect flat earthers who peddle their accusations on YouTube that scientists are frauds and teachers are indoctrinating children to put some effort into justifying their claims.

Some of them have made whole careers out of slandering real scientists.

I find your seemingly infinite capacity to defend that these people to never have to actually explain anything, and trying to make “round earthers” appear unreasonable bizarre to be honest.

Sure, I’ve read a load of nonsense claims that Southern Hemisphere flights don’t exist, despite the fact that thousands of people take such flights daily.

What am I supposed to make of that, exactly?

Respond to their actual arguments rather than denying their existence would be a great start.

But in that example, we’re talking about about 4000 km on the globe earth vs well over 10000km on the flat earth map.  That’s the kind of difference you can’t put down to error, even if completely hammered and weaving all over the road the whole way (don’t drink and drive, kids).

It’s a fundamental part of scientific experimentation to assess and account for the level of error.  Surely you are aware of this?

Aside from insisting that the distances on a map even the FAQ acknowledges to be a non-definitive placeholder should somehow be accurate, assessing and accounting for the amount of error is the whole problem. That was why I mentioned error. You are never going to get the precise value you want whenever you measure any huge distance. Sure, it's probably not going to double, but it is still going to be wrong.

I find your seemingly infinite capacity to defend that these people to never have to actually explain anything, and trying to make “round earthers” appear unreasonable bizarre to be honest.

The problem is that I don't have to try. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm pointing out what is blindingly obvious, especially to anyone that doesn't already believe RET and happens to read your posts. You need to accept that the strength of your conclusion has no bearing on the strength of your arguments. Everything I'm saying is what a FEer is going to notice immediately, what do you think is achieved by denying that?
I'm not defending anyone, I'm pointing out what is reasonably possible. Whether or like or dislike it it really doesn't matter. The fact you take even the slightest criticism of a rushed argument, not RET mind you but one single solitary argument for it of all the multitudes out there, as some kind of grand defense of FET or accusation aimed at REers is precisely the problem. You are acting like RET is as weak as FEers think it is. If you don't think that, stop acting like it. You aren't going to convince anyone of anything except for the idea that REers need to rely on dishonesty. I don't think that's true, do you?

Unfortunately ill have to side with jane on her standpoint.
Her basis is that your challenge back is as she said equivalent to "build your own rocket and photo the earth".
You two are argueing two differeent things.
The challenge should be:
If a fe rejects maps, then provide reason for reject (not provide map).

Oh good grief, Jane.

This is where you’re “oh so reasonable” act falls apart:

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 31, 2019, 12:36:49 PM

Sure, I’ve read a load of nonsense claims that Southern Hemisphere flights don’t exist, despite the fact that thousands of people take such flights daily.

What am I supposed to make of that, exactly?

Respond to their actual arguments rather than denying their existence would be a great start.

Respond to who’s argument? Respond to what argument?

You suggested a vague second hand claim that some people say some stuff about Southern Hemisphere flights.

I said the only such arguments I’ve seen claim these flights don’t exist.  Or “denying their existence”, if you like.

My response to those arguments is “well obviously nonsense”, because, yeah, that hardly needs explaining.

If you’ve seen better arguments, then bloody well tell what they are.  THEN I can respond to them.

But NOOOO, you expect me to respond to arguments I haven’t even seen.

How unreasonable of me!

You suggested a vague second hand claim that some people say some stuff about Southern Hemisphere flights.

I said the only such arguments I’ve seen claim these flights don’t exist.  Or “denying their existence”, if you like.

Well you still had to be prompted to acknowledge that. So yeah, I stand by what I said. You evidently knew FEers made those arguments given you have a response, but you still started off by claiming they don't insist on any inconsistencies.

But NOOOO, you expect me to respond to arguments I haven’t even seen.

No, I don't. I expect you to, if you are going to make a claim about FET, respond to actual FEer statements rather than needing to be prompted to even acknowledge their existence. If you want to be convincing there's a search function, take your time. You're the one that's chosen to make claims about what FEers say, don't throw a tantrum when you're called out for taking the laziest possible route.

The challenge should be:
If a fe rejects maps, then provide reason for reject (not provide map).

Typically that has nothing to do with maps and more to do with separate arguments for the Earth being flat. There's a whole host of knock-on effects.
That's kinda the problem with this whole kind of "Provide this kind of proof and only this kind of proof!" direction. It's not necessarily going to be remotely accurate, just ends up being a transparent cheap trick. At the end of the day you just end up right back at the "Well why do you think the Earth is flat?" question which everyone's tired of answering.

Quote from: turtles on May 31, 2019, 11:35:31 AM

Quote from: Jane on May 31, 2019, 10:44:07 AM

Quote from: turtles on May 31, 2019, 09:19:15 AM

Quote from: Jane on May 31, 2019, 06:34:39 AM

How do you demonstrate they took the paths they claimed rather than simply assumed that must be the way they went because they believed in RET?

Indeed, how has FET proven they took a great circle route?

It hasn't, so far as I've seen, that's a conclusion FEers draw because they concluded the Earth is flat by other means.

Ah, well that's that part of the FAQ junked then. Can it be removed?

You might find it easier if you read what I actually said.

Yes, it's an assumption based on other stuff for which they also don't have evidence.

Quote from: rabinoz on May 31, 2019, 05:49:51 AM

A Flat Earth has a property that a spherical earth does not - it has edges or at least limits that cannot be crossed but a spherical earth has no edges that cannot be crossed.

So I would claim that the Globe has been circumnavigated along so many paths that I would challenge any Flat Earther to suggest a layout that permits all these paths without crossing an edge.

How have you been here this long and you barely even give lip service to the answer given in the damn FAQ?
They claim the paths are instead great circles around the north pole, at least in the unipolar models. That is, the routes you describe are not accurate representations of the paths actually taken, the flights aren't 'fake' but your descriptions are not accurate.

Next time read all that I wrote and not just the little bit that YOU think demonstrates my ignorance!
I said that the trans-polar circumnavigations destroy the Ice-Wall map and the equatorial circumnavigations destroy the usual Bi-Polar map.

Here are most of the commercial air routes:


Would you care to suggest where the edges of any Flat Earth layout might be to intersect none of those?
It is easy to see why the Ice-Wall map was suggested by Rowbothan because back in the late 1800s there was little known of that region though Antarctica had been circumnavigated.
And even now there are now commercial flight that cross the South Pole or even Antarctica but a number cross of fly near the North Pole.

Since any Flat Earth layout must have edges there seems little more chance of "getting away" with the "Ice-Wall" map than any other.
But unless you claim that thousands are lying there have been numerous trans-Antarctic expeditions. You might look at, List of Antarctic expeditions, thoght that lists all expeditions not just trans-Antarctic ones.

Demonstrating the veracity of your information is kinda a crucial part of making literally any argument.

That works both ways. Where have the Flat Earthers ever presents anything "Demonstrating the veracity" of any of there claims?

How do you demonstrate they took the paths they claimed rather than simply assumed that must be the way they went because they believed in RET?

How do you demonstrate they did not take the paths they claimed because those paths are quite consistent with the numerous other similar expeditions crossing Antarctica and flights covering the rest of the world?
And why do you and your flat earth compatriots assume that all the world except for you and your flat earth compatriots are deliberate liars?

Flat Earthers are the "new kids on the block" so it's up to them to "prove their case" and they have not done that.

Quote

How have you been here this long and you barely even give lip service to the answer given in the damn FAQ?
They claim the paths are instead great circles around the north pole, at least in the unipolar models. That is, the routes you describe are not accurate representations of the paths actually taken, the flights aren't 'fake' but your descriptions are not accurate.

Next time read all that I wrote and not just the little bit that YOU think demonstrates my ignorance!
I said that the trans-polar circumnavigations destroy the Ice-Wall map and the equatorial circumnavigations destroy the usual Bi-Polar map.

Yes, and that was exactly what I was responding to. How about you pay attention for once? You made that claim, the evidence you gave does not give any reason to believe it over the FAQ's answer, hence why I said that.

Since any Flat Earth layout must have edges there seems little more chance of "getting away" with the "Ice-Wall" map than any other.
But unless you claim that thousands are lying there have been numerous trans-Antarctic expeditions. You might look at, List of Antarctic expeditions, thoght that lists all expeditions not just trans-Antarctic ones.

Do you really need to be told the whole "Just because they crossed a hunk of ice does not make it the South pole," line of arguments? Throw in a whole host of near-the-ice-wall weirdness, have a ball, not even mentioning bipolar maps (non-Euclidean, DET and conventional). You should already know this Rab.

Quote from: Jane

Demonstrating the veracity of your information is kinda a crucial part of making literally any argument.

That works both ways. Where have the Flat Earthers ever presents anything "Demonstrating the veracity" of any of there claims?

They haven't, at least not to my satisfaction. Like you say it goes both ways, if an FEer was making a claim without evidence and no one else had gotten to it yet I'd be saying the exact same thing. Don't go off the deep end when you're held to the same standards. If you were just rejecting FET because they lack evidence we wouldn't be having this conversation, you're going an unnecessary step further, it's your decision, commit to it or stop rather than this blatant and downright embarrassing evasion.

You don't need to disprove FET to reject it, that's not how science works, there are an infinite number of things that haven't been disproven that you still disbelieve. You're choosing to do so, you need to back it up with more than insistence. Or you could just shut up if you're 20K posts in and you still can't grasp that all you're doing is encouraging FEers to think RET is that easy to defeat.
You have twenty thousand posts, that's more than some people who've been here years longer than you, and you apparently still have the memory of a goldfish when it comes to the answers FEers have given you. You know the responses to everything you ask, or at least you bloody should by now, what is it you think you are achieving by lying? No one expects you to believe FET just because they can manage one or two rounds in one or two debates, you don't need to pretend the responses don't exist, the Earth won't end just because you do.
Stop, take a breath, get over yourself, and start taking on board the myriad discussions you've been part of rather than wasting everybody's time.

Typically that has nothing to do with maps and more to do with separate arguments for the Earth being flat. There's a whole host of knock-on effects.
That's kinda the problem with this whole kind of "Provide this kind of proof and only this kind of proof!" direction. It's not necessarily going to be remotely accurate, just ends up being a transparent cheap trick. At the end of the day you just end up right back at the "Well why do you think the Earth is flat?" question which everyone's tired of answering.

next time take the nod and leave it...

Mag and FE still require a basis for their claims.
At the end of the day (other than the recent Mag discussions) the discussion leads to "conspiracy" but all still require validation.
So why don't maps work?
Why doesn't GPS work?
Are FE tired of providing non-answers?
Possibly Tom Bishop shouldn't say stupid things like "the RE should try to figure out the nonsense in their model".
dodge-dodge swish-swish.
Hemispheres have different star paterns and rotations = "celestial gears".
No map = "conspiracy".
Moon eclipse = "moon shrimp".
Flights = "you're all just turning ever so slight inwards (north) that you don't notice".

let me know when do things start turning crazy on the FE front.

next time take the nod and leave it...

You asked a question. I answered.
Sure, FEers need to be able to address counter-arguments when directly posed, but beyond that there are a myriad of fronts they might provide evidence on and limiting that doesn't make sense.

Quote from: rabinoz on May 31, 2019, 03:20:55 PM

Quote

How have you been here this long and you barely even give lip service to the answer given in the damn FAQ?
They claim the paths are instead great circles around the north pole, at least in the unipolar models. That is, the routes you describe are not accurate representations of the paths actually taken, the flights aren't 'fake' but your descriptions are not accurate.

Next time read all that I wrote and not just the little bit that YOU think demonstrates my ignorance!
I said that the trans-polar circumnavigations destroy the Ice-Wall map and the equatorial circumnavigations destroy the usual Bi-Polar map.

Yes, and that was exactly what I was responding to. How about you pay attention for once? You made that claim, the evidence you gave does not give any reason to believe it over the FAQ's answer, hence why I said that.

So you say, but why should anyone take any notice of your empty claims anyway?

Quote

Since any Flat Earth layout must have edges there seems little more chance of "getting away" with the "Ice-Wall" map than any other.
But unless you claim that thousands are lying there have been numerous trans-Antarctic expeditions. You might look at, List of Antarctic expeditions, though that lists all expeditions not just trans-Antarctic ones.

Do you really need to be told the whole "Just because they crossed a hunk of ice does not make it the South pole," line of arguments?
know this Rab[/i].

Nobody claims that "Just because they crossed a hunk of ice" makes "it the South pole".
Roald Amundsen and Robert Scott, for example, located the South Pole by sun angle measurements and, wonder of wonders, they found exactly the same spot - funny that!
And there is no location on the "Ice-Wall" map that satisfies that.
A very late addition that might be of interest:

Reddit.com: How did explorers during the race to the North/South pole actually know they reached the respective pole? Did they just wait until the compass spun around and around, or was there some other way?[/color]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Amundsen, upon reaching what he believed to be the South pole, spent 3 days taking sextant readings at points near the presumed pole. He sent his men out 20 kilometers around the pole's presumed location to take additional readings; when he was satisfied with what the sextant readings were telling him, he pitched a tent at his best guess for where the geographic south pole was. Amundsen reached the pole in mid to late December, when the Sun was the furthest south, and very nearly at constant latitude, making the Sun's altitude nearly constant over the course of the day (since they were at the pole).

Scott, upon reaching the pole more than a month after Amundsen, took theodolite readings. I think the theodolite is functionally the same as a sextant, though it adds the ability to read horizontal as well as vertical angles.

So essentially, Amundsen and Scott reached the south pole to within the accuracy of their sextant readings; they may not have set foot on the exact point that defines 90° South. Apparently, Amundsen's measurements showed he was at 89° 56' South at the first point when he thought he was at the pole; it was then that he sent out his men to take additional readings to ensure they got as close as possible to the pole. I don't know if anyone knows exactly how far South Amundsen and Scott really reached (i.e., did they stop a few meters north of the pole because of instrument limitations?), but within any reasonable definition, they both reached the pole.

Quote from: Harnessed Devilry Astrophysics of Radio and Terahertz Instruments

This is exactly right, I believe. It's also interesting to note that at the true pole, the sun simply goes around and around, barely going up or down (completing one day, sunrise-sunset-sunrise takes a year). So you could probably tell you're at the pole simply by measuring the height of sun above the horizon in different directions at different times- if there's only the yearly change and no day-to-day oscillation, you're there!

On a related note, I'm at the south pole right now. If anyone can come up with an easy way for me to make a gyrocompass, I'll do your test.

Do you know nothing of "celestial" navigation? Though in this case just the sun.

Throw in a whole host of near-the-ice-wall weirdness, have a ball, not even mentioning bipolar maps (non-Euclidean, DET and conventional). You should already know this Rab.

I did mention bipolar maps and there are no "non-Euclidean" maps and DET was an invention with no merit but whatever do you mean by "conventional"?

And some of the most sceptical Flat Earthers here, including Tom Bishop, sandokhan and JRowe (whoever he really was), seem quite prepared to accept that Antarctica is really an island continent.

So, what about you posting something useful for a change?

Quote from: turtles on May 31, 2019, 09:19:15 AM

Quote from: Jane on May 31, 2019, 06:34:39 AM

How do you demonstrate they took the paths they claimed rather than simply assumed that must be the way they went because they believed in RET?

Indeed, how has FET proven they took a great circle route?

It hasn't, so far as I've seen, that's a conclusion FEers draw because they concluded the Earth is flat by other means.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 31, 2019, 09:54:22 AM

It’s not ridiculous however to ask them to find inconsistencies in globe maps and propose a rough flat earth map that would explain such inconsistencies better.

Which you can get easily, especially with those that don't accept a southern pole, you can find a lot written on flights over it supposedly not adding up, as well as long distance flights with stop-offs being argued to prove a disc-Earth in some cases. It's just rarely as simple as you propose. Take your driving holiday; what you'd require there would be an FEer to a) live on or have the time/money to access a landmass of significant size like Australia, b) be able to drive without massive amounts of error seeping in from non-straight roads and driving, c) the error to actually be over land rather than sea.

Think about what would be required to test what you're asking for irrespective of what's true. It's just easier for everyone.

Why is this necessary when cartographers do exactly this and we have the WGS-84 model?

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 31, 2019, 02:13:09 PM

You suggested a vague second hand claim that some people say some stuff about Southern Hemisphere flights.

I said the only such arguments I’ve seen claim these flights don’t exist.  Or “denying their existence”, if you like.

Well you still had to be prompted to acknowledge that. So yeah, I stand by what I said. You evidently knew FEers made those arguments given you have a response, but you still started off by claiming they don't insist on any inconsistencies.

I’m sorry, what am I doing wrong now?

I needed prompting to acknowledge a particularly bad flat earth claim that is easily demonstrably false?

Well, I wouldn’t normally throw in such a claim to dispute unprompted, because then I’d be committing a straw man fallacy.  Which I have absolutely no doubt you would pick up on, since accusing “round earthers” of making bad arguments is totally your thing.

For the record, I suggested flat earthers should FIND inconsistencies (ideally be able to demonstrate them so that others can confirm).  I didn’t say they don’t insist on them.

Quote

But NOOOO, you expect me to respond to arguments I haven’t even seen.

No, I don't. I expect you to, if you are going to make a claim about FET, respond to actual FEer statements rather than needing to be prompted to even acknowledge their existence. If you want to be convincing there's a search function, take your time. You're the one that's chosen to make claims about what FEers say, don't throw a tantrum when you're called out for taking the laziest possible route.

Yeah, yeah.  The usual stuff.

But, wait!  Let’s check the topic of this conversation, shall we?

It’s about apparent inconsistencies in cosmology.  Specifically an SA article, presented (some might say misrepresented) by Jeranism about observations in the distant universe compared to the predictions of GR and quantum field theory.

Do you have any problem with Tom and John essentially saying “scientists can’t explain everything, so nothing can be trusted”?  I don’t see you admonishing them for not properly addressing the article in question, telling them they need to thoroughly research cosmology, or calling them lazy.  Obvious bias is obvious.

The map thing was only brought up I believe to illustrate that flat earthers like Jeran making a big deal out of the fact that cosmologists haven’t solved everything seems a tad hypocritical.  As usual, a potentially interesting topic is derailed.

Come to think of it, do you have anything to say about the actual  topic?  Did you watch the video or read the article?

THIS topic doesn’t require any prior knowledge of flat earth arguments at all.  It might require flat earthers to know a bit about regular science though.  Even if they didn’t, I guarantee any genuine flat earther questions on it would be met with actual explanations and links instead of accusations of laziness.