Information request

I have just started a debate with John Davis and was doing some background research, and I got  this from an interview he did in 2016 :

I’m just finishing up my book on the flat earth and it should be available by the end of the year. In it rather than attempting to change people’s minds through an account piece by piece of my model, I instead focus more on aspects that will lead one to find their own view of the world.

John mentioned he was finishing a book in 2016. I’ve been looking for a copy of the book with no success. Could someone provide a link so that I could either download or purchase it.

You are joking right?

You are joking right?

Not at all. The quote is from an interview John Davis gave in 2016, in which he clearly states he was finishing a book. As that was four years ago I’m assuming it’s out in the world. I think it would make an interesting read, don’t you?

Quote from: Xphilll on February 29, 2020, 11:32:49 AM

You are joking right?

Not at all. The quote is from an interview John Davis gave in 2016, in which he clearly states he was finishing a book. As that was four years ago I’m assuming it’s out in the world. I think it would make an interesting read, don’t you?

Keep waiting. I can find nothing relevant on any book by John Davis - I guess it's still "coming".

Here you go

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0966445007/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_0966445007


Only 1 copy left in stock. Get in quick!

Here you go
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0966445007/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_0966445007

I take it you missed the "1998" date and that it has nothing to do with Earth allegedly being flat?

Here you go

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0966445007/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_0966445007


Only 1 copy left in stock. Get in quick!

Cool cover art...

Quote from: Shifter on February 29, 2020, 06:26:05 PM

Here you go
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0966445007/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_0966445007

I take it you missed the "1998" date and that it has nothing to do with Earth allegedly being flat?

I did. Thanks.

The “Time Is Up Challenge”, I take it?

I’m afraid it’s going to be fruitless debate, where you spend most of your time disagreeing on what you disagree on.

I don’t think the book has been released, but here’s what I think I understand about it.  John’s “Non Euclidean Flat Earth” idea is pretty unique and quite unlike what just about every other flat earther believes.  The Earth is “flat” in the same way a satellite in a circular or elliptical orbit can be said to be be traveling straight along a geodesic.

It seems to allow John to accept all “round earth” geometry, while still maintaining the earth is really flat.  It’s an interesting idea, and it does at least attempt to reconcile a flat earth belief with all the observations indicating otherwise.  It’s also quite incompatible with everyone else’s flat earth ideas, which is interesting as John will often defend those ideas as well as his own.  It’s a fantastic get out of jail free card though, as John can switch to his Non Euclidean idea whenever debate turns to observations that don’t fit a “standard” flat earth.

There’s an article he wrote here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat

And a thread I started a while back to discuss it, which unfortunately didn’t last very long, here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81718.30

So the topic you’ve picked for the challenge won’t make any sense against John’s Non Euclidean idea, as he can use the normal accepted size and distance to the moon.  Of course he could have just said that in the beginning and suggested you pick something else.

The Earth is “flat” in the same way a satellite in a circular or elliptical orbit can be said to be be traveling straight along a geodesic.

It is more along the lines of just rejecting definitions and claiming Earth is flat, even if it would meet all the normal descriptions of round.
He tries to justify it by appealing to an aspect of Euclidean geometry which does not hold in non-Euclidean geometry to try and take a geodesic in space time and something remaining equidistant to it to to pretend that thing being equidistant to it is also a geodesic/straight.

I also have serious issues with defining a flat surface in non-Euclidean geometry, and I don't mean in the sense of it actually being curved, but the more fundamental issue of potential ambiguity between how to define it. All ways to generate a flat surface in Euclidean geometry, regardless of the dimension are capable of producing the same plane. That isn't the case for non-Euclidean geometry, at least not in general.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 01, 2020, 02:25:21 AM

The Earth is “flat” in the same way a satellite in a circular or elliptical orbit can be said to be be traveling straight along a geodesic.

It is more along the lines of just rejecting definitions and claiming Earth is flat, even if it would meet all the normal descriptions of round.
He tries to justify it by appealing to an aspect of Euclidean geometry which does not hold in non-Euclidean geometry to try and take a geodesic in space time and something remaining equidistant to it to to pretend that thing being equidistant to it is also a geodesic/straight.

I also have serious issues with defining a flat surface in non-Euclidean geometry, and I don't mean in the sense of it actually being curved, but the more fundamental issue of potential ambiguity between how to define it. All ways to generate a flat surface in Euclidean geometry, regardless of the dimension are capable of producing the same plane. That isn't the case for non-Euclidean geometry, at least not in general.

I have issues with it as well, but wasn’t going to go into them here.  That was just a quick description so TIU knows what he’s getting into.

You spoiled the fun.
Timies lost before it even started in both debates.
The premise was rigged.

Here you go

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0966445007/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_0966445007


Only 1 copy left in stock. Get in quick!

Wrong book
Wrong John Davis.

You spoiled the fun.
Timies lost before it even started in both debates.
The premise was rigged.

You think?
Is you’re nose is still out of joint? Sounds like it.
John Davis looks like he doesn’t want to play ball so there is no debate. He like any other flat earth believer are not interested in conduction an honest debate based on evidence.

The book cover is cool. Reminds me of Moorcock’s Elric novels.

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 01, 2020, 04:35:33 AM

You spoiled the fun.
Timies lost before it even started in both debates.
The premise was rigged.

You think?
Is you’re nose is still out of joint? Sounds like it.
John Davis looks like he doesn’t want to play ball so there is no debate. He like any other flat earth believer are not interested in conduction an honest debate based on evidence.

My nose?

Quote from: Timeisup on March 01, 2020, 08:06:02 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 01, 2020, 04:35:33 AM

You spoiled the fun.
Timies lost before it even started in both debates.
The premise was rigged.

You think?
Is you’re nose is still out of joint? Sounds like it.
John Davis looks like he doesn’t want to play ball so there is no debate. He like any other flat earth believer are not interested in conduction an honest debate based on evidence.

My nose?

Your nose!
Over here it’s a well known saying that may not have made the journey over the pond.
To translate into American it’s means you are a bit pissed, which is not the same as being pissed over here. Being pissed over here is when you have had too much to drink. But if could be you are both pissed and have your nose out of joint.
Anyhow I don’t think John Davis, he of the Nazi Penguin debacle could debate himself out of a dripping wet paper bag, with a hole in it. Going by some some of his posts he too may well he pissed.

Yeah, yeah.  Personal snarking aside, do you see why the challenge you’ve agreed to isn’t something you can win?  You seem to have already started with a faulty assumption about your opponent’s argument.

John of course will wait for you to make your case, before properly explaining his own position.

Yeah, yeah.  Personal snarking aside, do you see why the challenge you’ve agreed to isn’t something you can win?  You seem to have already started with a faulty assumption about your opponent’s argument.

John of course will wait for you to make your case, before properly explaining his own position.

I have made no assumption about his argument, does he have one, but if I’m wrong please point out the error of my ways.
You can also explain why it’s un-winnable, though what’s winning got to do with it, you guys appear to be fixated on winning, what really matters is revealing the truth.

I’ve done an exhaustive search with every publisher and outlet and the result is no book by John Davis. My conclusion is, he has either self published it not for general release or he may we’ll be still working on it. Perhaps he could enlighten us if he reads this. I think a number of people would be interested in reading such a book just to  find out what he actually believes in.

I’ve done an exhaustive search with every publisher and outlet and the result is no book by John Davis. My conclusion is, he has either self published it not for general release or he may we’ll be still working on it. Perhaps he could enlighten us if he reads this. I think a number of people would be interested in reading such a book just tori do out what he actually believes in.

He self bammed himself for 2 weeks so you might have to wait a little bit for his response

Quote from: Timeisup on March 02, 2020, 12:03:41 AM

I’ve done an exhaustive search with every publisher and outlet and the result is no book by John Davis. My conclusion is, he has either self published it not for general release or he may we’ll be still working on it. Perhaps he could enlighten us if he reads this. I think a number of people would be interested in reading such a book just tori do out what he actually believes in.

He self bammed himself for 2 weeks so you might have to wait a little bit for his response

The evils of drink!

He self bammed himself for 2 weeks so you might have to wait a little bit for his response

And SCG unbammed him so we'll to have wait and see.
But maybe John Davis needs this "time off" as I gather he has a big work load.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 01, 2020, 12:56:39 PM

Yeah, yeah.  Personal snarking aside, do you see why the challenge you’ve agreed to isn’t something you can win?  You seem to have already started with a faulty assumption about your opponent’s argument.

John of course will wait for you to make your case, before properly explaining his own position.

I have made no assumption about his argument, does he have one, but if I’m wrong please point out the error of my ways.
You can also explain why it’s un-winnable, though what’s winning got to do with it, you guys appear to be fixated on winning, what really matters is revealing the truth.

Did you read my initial post and follow the links?  I am actually trying to help you avoid that challenge being a pointless mess.

From your posts it seems like you are arguing against a regular flat model.  Your assumption is that John disagrees with normal observations and measurements of the moon.  He doesn’t.  At least that’s not a requirement of his model.  You asked for clarification on his position, and that’s what I’ve tried to provide.

It’s un-winnable because you want to pit regular scientific evidence against John’s evidence.  But John won’t contest any of your evidence or present alternatives, that’s not what his model is about.  He just thinks he has another explanation for it.  (He might contest evidence if he’s defending another flat earth model, but probably not with his “Non Euclidean model”).

And what makes you think I’m  fixated on winning anything?  I usually just make a couple of points if I think I have something relevant to say, then duck out.  I rarely get involved with endless back and forth arguments, unless I particularly object to something.  You’re the one who’s signed up to two “challenges”.  That suggests something to be won or lost to me.  Hell, you were even discussing rules and judges in the latest one, like a formal debate.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 29, 2020, 04:00:00 PM

Quote from: Xphilll on February 29, 2020, 11:32:49 AM

You are joking right?

Not at all. The quote is from an interview John Davis gave in 2016, in which he clearly states he was finishing a book. As that was four years ago I’m assuming it’s out in the world. I think it would make an interesting read, don’t you?

Keep waiting. I can find nothing relevant on any book by John Davis - I guess it's still "coming".

I seem to recall John's claims that his book is "coming soon" for about the last 10 years.

Quote from: Timeisup on March 01, 2020, 11:48:41 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 01, 2020, 12:56:39 PM

Yeah, yeah.  Personal snarking aside, do you see why the challenge you’ve agreed to isn’t something you can win?  You seem to have already started with a faulty assumption about your opponent’s argument.

John of course will wait for you to make your case, before properly explaining his own position.

I have made no assumption about his argument, does he have one, but if I’m wrong please point out the error of my ways.
You can also explain why it’s un-winnable, though what’s winning got to do with it, you guys appear to be fixated on winning, what really matters is revealing the truth.

Did you read my initial post and follow the links?  I am actually trying to help you avoid that challenge being a pointless mess.

From your posts it seems like you are arguing against a regular flat model.  Your assumption is that John disagrees with normal observations and measurements of the moon.  He doesn’t.  At least that’s not a requirement of his model.  You asked for clarification on his position, and that’s what I’ve tried to provide.

It’s un-winnable because you want to pit regular scientific evidence against John’s evidence.  But John won’t contest any of your evidence or present alternatives, that’s not what his model is about.  He just thinks he has another explanation for it.  (He might contest evidence if he’s defending another flat earth model, but probably not with his “Non Euclidean model”).

And what makes you think I’m  fixated on winning anything?  I usually just make a couple of points if I think I have something relevant to say, then duck out.  I rarely get involved with endless back and forth arguments, unless I particularly object to something.  You’re the one who’s signed up to two “challenges”.  That suggests something to be won or lost to me.  Hell, you were even discussing rules and judges in the latest one, like a formal debate.

Send timies over to hewias challenge.

Quote from: Timeisup on March 01, 2020, 11:48:41 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 01, 2020, 12:56:39 PM

Yeah, yeah.  Personal snarking aside, do you see why the challenge you’ve agreed to isn’t something you can win?  You seem to have already started with a faulty assumption about your opponent’s argument.

John of course will wait for you to make your case, before properly explaining his own position.

I have made no assumption about his argument, does he have one, but if I’m wrong please point out the error of my ways.
You can also explain why it’s un-winnable, though what’s winning got to do with it, you guys appear to be fixated on winning, what really matters is revealing the truth.

Did you read my initial post and follow the links?  I am actually trying to help you avoid that challenge being a pointless mess.

From your posts it seems like you are arguing against a regular flat model.  Your assumption is that John disagrees with normal observations and measurements of the moon.  He doesn’t.  At least that’s not a requirement of his model.  You asked for clarification on his position, and that’s what I’ve tried to provide.

It’s un-winnable because you want to pit regular scientific evidence against John’s evidence.  But John won’t contest any of your evidence or present alternatives, that’s not what his model is about.  He just thinks he has another explanation for it.  (He might contest evidence if he’s defending another flat earth model, but probably not with his “Non Euclidean model”).

And what makes you think I’m  fixated on winning anything?  I usually just make a couple of points if I think I have something relevant to say, then duck out.  I rarely get involved with endless back and forth arguments, unless I particularly object to something.  You’re the one who’s signed up to two “challenges”.  That suggests something to be won or lost to me.  Hell, you were even discussing rules and judges in the latest one, like a formal debate.

It will be what it will be, or as Eric once said "When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea. Thank you very much."