My impossible challenge for FE'ers

Danang,

If you are so sure that the Earth is really flat and so sure that your model (whatever you choose to call it) is the best one out of all the others then please just answer me one thing.  How is it that there are two points in the sky, 180 degrees apart which all the stars appear to rotate around? 

Perfectly logical if you see the Earth as a globe but I cannot see how that can possibly by considering the Earth as flat.

Well, considering all points lying above a flat cartesian plane would appear as if they are rotating in cylinder, I think that blows your statement out of the water.

Quote from: TomThumb on January 23, 2022, 08:30:56 AM

Danang,

If you are so sure that the Earth is really flat and so sure that your model (whatever you choose to call it) is the best one out of all the others then please just answer me one thing.  How is it that there are two points in the sky, 180 degrees apart which all the stars appear to rotate around? 

Perfectly logical if you see the Earth as a globe but I cannot see how that can possibly by considering the Earth as flat.

Well, considering all points lying above a flat cartesian plane would appear as if they are rotating in cylinder, I think that blows your statement out of the water.

What does that even mean - above a flat cartesian plane?  Word salad much?

What does that even mean - above a flat cartesian plane?  Word salad much?

Well, given all cartesian planes are flat (including the earth), I guess I should not have used the adjective.

Regardless, any given points in motion above that surface would appear to be moving in a cylindrical fashion.

Quote from: Calen on February 09, 2022, 05:03:42 AM

What does that even mean - above a flat cartesian plane?  Word salad much?

Well, given all cartesian planes are flat (including the earth), I guess I should not have used the adjective.

Regardless, any given points in motion above that surface would appear to be moving in a cylindrical fashion.

Nope.  Still garbage.

Do you even know what a cartesian plane is?

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on February 09, 2022, 05:11:25 AM

Quote from: Calen on February 09, 2022, 05:03:42 AM

What does that even mean - above a flat cartesian plane?  Word salad much?

Well, given all cartesian planes are flat (including the earth), I guess I should not have used the adjective.

Regardless, any given points in motion above that surface would appear to be moving in a cylindrical fashion.

Nope.  Still garbage.

Do you even know what a cartesian plane is?

Yes.

Now, rather than making blanket declarations here on the board, go back to whatever else brings you joy. Likely not much, I realize, but hey...give it a go.

You clearly don't if you are describing points above a cartesian plane, and the Earth as a cartesian plane.

Reading up on the Cartesian coordinate system might help.  The clue is in coordinate system.

Quote from: Calen on February 09, 2022, 05:14:20 AM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on February 09, 2022, 05:11:25 AM

Quote from: Calen on February 09, 2022, 05:03:42 AM

What does that even mean - above a flat cartesian plane?  Word salad much?

Well, given all cartesian planes are flat (including the earth), I guess I should not have used the adjective.

Regardless, any given points in motion above that surface would appear to be moving in a cylindrical fashion.

Nope.  Still garbage.

Do you even know what a cartesian plane is?

Yes.

Now, rather than making blanket declarations here on the board, go back to whatever else brings you joy. Likely not much, I realize, but hey...give it a go.

Maybe you can draw us a picture of what you mean by anything moving above a plane moves in a cylindrical fashion? How does this explain

If you can't explain something then you don't truly understand it.  Draw us a diagram of what you're trying to explain. 

For starters, what does a cylinder have to do with the sky which is rotating as a sphere?  Care to diagram what you think is going on over your mythical flat earth and explain why the north and south pole stars stay in place and the rest rotate as a sphere?

You clearly don't if you are describing points above a cartesian plane, and the Earth as a cartesian plane.

Reading up on the Cartesian coordinate system might help.  The clue is in coordinate system.

One more time, now that the purposefully obtuse and gaslighting fool is done interrupting.

Points in motion above any flat plane will appear as if they moving in a cylindrical fashion.

That includes points above the flat earth plane (which is, of course delineated into a cartesian plane for purposes of navigation.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on February 09, 2022, 05:32:16 AM

Quote from: Calen on February 09, 2022, 05:14:20 AM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on February 09, 2022, 05:11:25 AM

Quote from: Calen on February 09, 2022, 05:03:42 AM

What does that even mean - above a flat cartesian plane?  Word salad much?

Well, given all cartesian planes are flat (including the earth), I guess I should not have used the adjective.

Regardless, any given points in motion above that surface would appear to be moving in a cylindrical fashion.

Nope.  Still garbage.

Do you even know what a cartesian plane is?

Yes.

Now, rather than making blanket declarations here on the board, go back to whatever else brings you joy. Likely not much, I realize, but hey...give it a go.

Maybe you can draw us a picture of what you mean by anything moving above a plane moves in a cylindrical fashion? How does this explain

If you can't explain something then you don't truly understand it.  Draw us a diagram of what you're trying to explain. 

For starters, what does a cylinder have to do with the sky which is rotating as a sphere?  Care to diagram what you think is going on over your mythical flat earth and explain why the north and south pole stars stay in place and the rest rotate as a sphere?

Maybe you need to go do some studying on transformations, transfigurations, rotations, dilations, and simply look at things as the would appear to you as if you are on a flat surface.

Claiming I do not understand a factual statement when it is written, regardless of the writer, is only the type of gaslighting you are well known for.

Try something different.

Quote from: Calen on February 09, 2022, 05:41:17 AM

You clearly don't if you are describing points above a cartesian plane, and the Earth as a cartesian plane.

Reading up on the Cartesian coordinate system might help.  The clue is in coordinate system.

One more time, now that the purposefully obtuse and gaslighting fool is done interrupting.

Points in motion above any flat plane will appear as if they moving in a cylindrical fashion.

Clouds don't. They appear as if they are moving in a plane.

That includes points above the flat earth plane (which is, of course delineated into a cartesian plane for purposes of navigation.

On a local map maybe, nearly.  Over larger distances a spherical coordinate system is used.

Quote from: JJA on February 09, 2022, 05:48:26 AM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on February 09, 2022, 05:32:16 AM

Quote from: Calen on February 09, 2022, 05:14:20 AM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on February 09, 2022, 05:11:25 AM

Quote from: Calen on February 09, 2022, 05:03:42 AM

What does that even mean - above a flat cartesian plane?  Word salad much?

Well, given all cartesian planes are flat (including the earth), I guess I should not have used the adjective.

Regardless, any given points in motion above that surface would appear to be moving in a cylindrical fashion.

Nope.  Still garbage.

Do you even know what a cartesian plane is?

Yes.

Now, rather than making blanket declarations here on the board, go back to whatever else brings you joy. Likely not much, I realize, but hey...give it a go.

Maybe you can draw us a picture of what you mean by anything moving above a plane moves in a cylindrical fashion? How does this explain

If you can't explain something then you don't truly understand it.  Draw us a diagram of what you're trying to explain. 

For starters, what does a cylinder have to do with the sky which is rotating as a sphere?  Care to diagram what you think is going on over your mythical flat earth and explain why the north and south pole stars stay in place and the rest rotate as a sphere?

Maybe you need to go do some studying on transformations, transfigurations, rotations, dilations, and simply look at things as the would appear to you as if you are on a flat surface.

Claiming I do not understand a factual statement when it is written, regardless of the writer, is only the type of gaslighting you are well known for.

Try something different.

LOL.  You can copy-paste as many words from the dictionary as you want, it doesn't help you.

I'm claiming you don't actually understand the words you are saying because if you did, you could draw a diagram of it. Which you clearly can't.

If you make a claim and can't back it up then yes, you clearly don't actually understand it and are ignorant of how things actually work.

If it's so simple to look at things "as if the world was flat" then you could draw out what is going on.  I could easily show you a diagram of how a round earth rotating with distant stars would cause anyone on the surface to observe two points staying still and the rest rotating around it. How does your model work? Do you even have a model?

Quit deflecting and just draw us this simple explanation you have. If you can't, you clearly are just making it up.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on February 09, 2022, 05:49:04 AM

Quote from: Calen on February 09, 2022, 05:41:17 AM

You clearly don't if you are describing points above a cartesian plane, and the Earth as a cartesian plane.

Reading up on the Cartesian coordinate system might help.  The clue is in coordinate system.

One more time, now that the purposefully obtuse and gaslighting fool is done interrupting.

Points in motion above any flat plane will appear as if they moving in a cylindrical fashion.

Clouds don't. They appear as if they are moving in a plane.

A cloud is seldom appearing as an individual point, is more typically a conglomeration of multiple points, and often appears as a flat reflection of the flat surface below, yes.

More evidence of the flatness of the earth.

Quote

That includes points above the flat earth plane (which is, of course delineated into a cartesian plane for purposes of navigation.

On a local map maybe, nearly.  Over larger distances a spherical coordinate system is used.

No evidence of this other than a statement. Not demonstrable other than any particular claim made.

LOL.  You can copy-paste as many words from the dictionary as you want, it doesn't help you.

I'm claiming you don't actually understand the words you are saying because if you did, you could draw a diagram of it. Which you clearly can't.

If you expect a three dimensional representation of points in motion over a flat plane, you merely need to step outside at night and watch the stars overhead. They look as if they are moving in a cylinder.

If you make a claim and can't back it up then yes, you clearly don't actually understand it and are ignorant of how things actually work.

Except here, you are being an ass of tremendous proportions and proven ignorant.

If it's so simple to look at things "as if the world was flat" then you could draw out what is going on. 

I do not need to draw it out, as it is drawn out above my head daily and nightly.

I could easily show you a diagram of how a round earth rotating with distant stars would cause anyone on the surface to observe two points staying still and the rest rotating around it. How does your model work? Do you even have a model?

Quit deflecting and just draw us this simple explanation you have. If you can't, you clearly are just making it up.

Go fly a kite instead or even a game of tiddlywinks. Both activities are more your speed.

Quote from: JJA on February 09, 2022, 06:02:43 AM

LOL.  You can copy-paste as many words from the dictionary as you want, it doesn't help you.

I'm claiming you don't actually understand the words you are saying because if you did, you could draw a diagram of it. Which you clearly can't.

If you expect a three dimensional representation of points in motion over a flat plane, you merely need to step outside at night and watch the stars overhead. They look as if they are moving in a cylinder.

Again, you need to draw a picture because I have spent quite a bit of time looking at and tracking stars and I can tell you that stars in the sky do not move as if on a cylinder, but a sphere.

You keep claiming this over and over and refusing to give any detail at all other than repeating yourself.  As usual.

Quote from: JJA on February 09, 2022, 06:02:43 AM

If you make a claim and can't back it up then yes, you clearly don't actually understand it and are ignorant of how things actually work.

Except here, you are being an ass of tremendous proportions and proven ignorant.

I'm not the one claiming the sky is a cylinder and refusing to even try to explain it. 

Lets try something simple... how is this cylinder orientated to the flat earth?  Can you explain or draw THAT?  Please, go ahead... do you have ANY idea?  I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't.

Quote from: JJA on February 09, 2022, 06:02:43 AM

If it's so simple to look at things "as if the world was flat" then you could draw out what is going on. 

I do not need to draw it out, as it is drawn out above my head daily and nightly.

See, this is your ignorance speaking, again.  You clearly have no idea what you are looking at, since you can't even give a basic explanation of what you think you are seeing.

Quote from: JJA on February 09, 2022, 06:02:43 AM

I could easily show you a diagram of how a round earth rotating with distant stars would cause anyone on the surface to observe two points staying still and the rest rotating around it. How does your model work? Do you even have a model?

Quit deflecting and just draw us this simple explanation you have. If you can't, you clearly are just making it up.

Go fly a kite instead or even a game of tiddlywinks. Both activities are more your speed.

Yawn.  So you took all this time to once more to deflect and refuse to show, well, any thought at all behind your weird sky-cylinder idea.

Maybe you need to go back to whatever YouTube video or Twitter post you saw this on and copy-paste whatever they say.

It would make you look a LITTLE more intelligent at least.

A normal person with even average intelligence would realize if they can't answer any questions or explain even small details about something, they probably don't understand it.  Your lack of self awareness and introspection is just sad to see you put on constant display.

Quote from: Calen on February 09, 2022, 05:56:21 AM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on February 09, 2022, 05:49:04 AM

Quote from: Calen on February 09, 2022, 05:41:17 AM

You clearly don't if you are describing points above a cartesian plane, and the Earth as a cartesian plane.

Reading up on the Cartesian coordinate system might help.  The clue is in coordinate system.

One more time, now that the purposefully obtuse and gaslighting fool is done interrupting.

Points in motion above any flat plane will appear as if they moving in a cylindrical fashion.

Clouds don't. They appear as if they are moving in a plane.

A cloud is seldom appearing as an individual point, is more typically a conglomeration of multiple points, and often appears as a flat reflection of the flat surface below, yes.

More evidence of the flatness of the earth.

Maybe clouds are different where you are but individual clouds are a regular occurance here.  They move laterally parallel to the surface of the Earth, not in cylindrical rotation.  If anything that would be better evidence for a flat Earth, rather than the claim they would move cylindrically.

Quote from: Calen on February 09, 2022, 05:56:21 AM

Quote

That includes points above the flat earth plane (which is, of course delineated into a cartesian plane for purposes of navigation.

On a local map maybe, nearly.  Over larger distances a spherical coordinate system is used.

No evidence of this other than a statement. Not demonstrable other than any particular claim made.

Demonstrable in the fact that the latitude/longitude coordinate system is used to locate positions on the Earth, which is a spherical coordinate system.

Cartesian coordinates can be used on a small scale map, being appropriately accurate.  On large scales they becomes inaccurate.  This would only occur if the Earth were not a flat plane.  A flat plane of infinite size, or a cylinder, would remain accurate using a cartesian coordinate system at any scale.

If any system where to be used on a flat Earth it would be a polar coordinate system.  It's the most convenient coordinate system for a flat plane with a pole, such as the North Pole.

Again, polar coordinates work on small scale maps, but not larger ones.  This is evidence that the Earth cannot be a flat plane.  If it were, a polar coordinate system would work at any scale of map, and they simply don't.

This is because maps are created on the presumption that Earth is round and everything are in the position of the round Earth model. However, the round Earth model does not really reflect reality, with differences in rural areas and oceans. Therefore, if you assume the round Earth model to be true, you are making a mistake in the first place, so you can’t put things in the right position on a flat map.

This is because maps are created on the presumption that Earth is round and everything are in the position of the round Earth model. However, the round Earth model does not really reflect reality, with differences in rural areas and oceans. Therefore, if you assume the round Earth model to be true, you are making a mistake in the first place, so you can’t put things in the right position on a flat map.

Again, if you claim that the real earth does not match the round map of it, you have to show us where that is.

I know you historically have a problem with providing evidence and sources so I understand this is difficult for you, but please try.

Where do maps of the earth not reflect reality?  You have to be able to point to at least ONE error you personally found that convinced you that the entire world is wrong and you are right.  If you don't have any evidence or examples at all to base your belief on, that's kind of crazy isn't it?

This is because maps are created on the presumption that Earth is round and everything are in the position of the round Earth model. However, the round Earth model does not really reflect reality, with differences in rural areas and oceans. Therefore, if you assume the round Earth model to be true, you are making a mistake in the first place, so you can’t put things in the right position on a flat map.

There are minor differences, yes, that can be attributable to the deviation of the Earth from a perfect sphere, and mapping errors.

The round Earth model matches reality to high degree at all scales.  Flat Earth models only work at small scales, hence the lack of maps of the entire flat Earth that even remotely match measured reality.

Well, considering all points lying above a flat cartesian plane would appear as if they are rotating in cylinder, I think that blows your statement out of the water.

How?
That gives you a single point above you about which the entire sky would appear to rotate.
You don't get the second point due south.

That second point is the problem.
The sky contains 2 celestial poles.
One is located due north, the other is located due south.
And we can circle around them.

That can't work on a FE.

For a FE, the fact that you can circle around them shows they are a finite distance away. This means you need straight lines radiating out from a point, to all intersect after some finite distance. This is impossible for a flat surface.

P.S. a cartesian plane is 2D. You don't have things above it.
Cartesian refers to using x and y coordinates.
But Earth uses latitude and longitude, spherical coordinates.

Quote from: JJA on February 09, 2022, 06:02:43 AM

If it's so simple to look at things "as if the world was flat" then you could draw out what is going on. 

I do not need to draw it out, as it is drawn out above my head daily and nightly.

No, that would be the sky around a RE. Not above a flat Earth.

This is because maps are created on the presumption that Earth is round and everything are in the position of the round Earth model.

You have spouted this garbage before.
What makes you think it would be different now?
Maps are created based upon all the evidence showing Earth is round, with that being the only way to correctly map the world.

If Earth was actually flat, it would be trivial to make a map of Earth on a flat surface, without distortion. But no one has.

However, the round Earth model does not really reflect reality

Stop just repeating the same lie.
Prove it.

This is a bit of circular logic. You are claiming that because the round Earth map cannot be mapped on a plane, Earth must be round. And the round Earth map must be correct because Earth is proven to be round.

This is a bit of circular logic. You are claiming that because the round Earth map cannot be mapped on a plane, Earth must be round. And the round Earth map must be correct because Earth is proven to be round.

Well yes, we have proven the Earth to be round so a round map is correct.  Is this hard to understand?

We know the world is round a hundred different ways, including literally going up in a rocket and taking pictures. 

If it was flat then ALL of those observations would be flawed, and it would be trivial to find those flaws. You can't map a sphere to a plane without distortion.

If the earth was flat then at the very least, you could show us a map.  How can you be so sure it's flat if you have no idea what it looks like or where anything is?

This is a bit of circular logic. You are claiming that because the round Earth map cannot be mapped on a plane, Earth must be round. And the round Earth map must be correct because Earth is proven to be round.

No, I'm claiming the observed measurements only work on a round Earth.
That actual measurements cannot work on a flat Earth.

This is a bit of circular logic. You are claiming that because the round Earth map cannot be mapped on a plane, Earth must be round. And the round Earth map must be correct because Earth is proven to be round.

Earth existed just a smidge before maps, don't you think?

Zero people are claiming that a sphere squashed down onto a table means the earth is a sphere. You really need to up your troll game.

Mapping the Earth is not easy. Think about the size of the Earth. How much manpower would that require? Round earthers have so much resources, they can map the distances between each cities and map it on a round sphere keeping such distance as close to reality as possible. How many flat Earthers are there around the world? If the majority of people are flat earthers, and I ask you to give me a new map of the round Earth, would you be able to do it?

Mapping the Earth is not easy. Think about the size of the Earth. How much manpower would that require? Round earthers have so much resources, they can map the distances between each cities and map it on a round sphere keeping such distance as close to reality as possible.

What do you mean by "keeping such distance as close to reality as possible"? How are you defining "reality"?

How many flat Earthers are there around the world? If the majority of people are flat earthers, and I ask you to give me a new map of the round Earth, would you be able to do it?

Whatever this gobble-d-goop is, well, it makes no sense. Why don't you enroll in some Geodesy courses and see how world is measured. You've heard of Geodesy, right? Become a Surveyor. Then you might understand what you are perpetually misinformed about.

Mapping the Earth is not easy. Think about the size of the Earth. How much manpower would that require? Round earthers have so much resources, they can map the distances between each cities and map it on a round sphere keeping such distance as close to reality as possible. How many flat Earthers are there around the world? If the majority of people are flat earthers, and I ask you to give me a new map of the round Earth, would you be able to do it?

That's the thing, Flat Earthers are not being asked to make another new accurate map.  They are being asked for the first accurate flat Earth map.

New spherical Earth maps are made all the time thanks to advances in satellite and camera technologies - each one being an improvement on previous ones, but also in agreement with them.  Furthermore, they match measurements on the ground.

Flat Earth adherents are utterly unable to do this, citing difficulties in mapping and lack of resources and people to explain this inability.

Mapping the Earth is not easy.

To some extent, that depends on how you are going about mapping it.
But with modern surveying equipment you can map a fairly large area in a fairly short time.

Round earthers have so much resources, they can map the distances between each cities and map it on a round sphere keeping such distance as close to reality as possible. How many flat Earthers are there around the world? If the majority of people are flat earthers, and I ask you to give me a new map of the round Earth, would you be able to do it?

Flat Earthers were around before round Earthers. They couldn't accurately map the world. REers did.

But you don't need to map the entire Earth, just a large enough area to show the alleged distortions of the RE model.

Mapping the Earth is not easy. Think about the size of the Earth. How much manpower would that require? Round earthers have so much resources, they can map the distances between each cities and map it on a round sphere keeping such distance as close to reality as possible. How many flat Earthers are there around the world? If the majority of people are flat earthers, and I ask you to give me a new map of the round Earth, would you be able to do it?

Not sure where it is you live but the UK is covered with 6557 triangulation pillars, between 1936 & 1962, starting at Cold Ashby in Northamptonshire, they were built on as higher place as possible and were visible (conditions permitting) by at least two other trig points, in this manner the whole country was painstakingly remapped using the fixed theodolite points fixed to the top over a 26 year period, so yes it has been done (twice in the UK) on the ground by people and most of those trig points are still there, and as you would expect there are clubs dedicated to visiting every point called trig bagging.
There isn’t a hiker in this country that doesn’t regularly come across them.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on February 09, 2022, 08:11:45 AM

Quote from: JJA on February 09, 2022, 06:02:43 AM

LOL.  You can copy-paste as many words from the dictionary as you want, it doesn't help you.

I'm claiming you don't actually understand the words you are saying because if you did, you could draw a diagram of it. Which you clearly can't.

If you expect a three dimensional representation of points in motion over a flat plane, you merely need to step outside at night and watch the stars overhead. They look as if they are moving in a cylinder.

Again, you need to draw a picture because I have spent quite a bit of time looking at and tracking stars and I can tell you that stars in the sky do not move as if on a cylinder, but a sphere.

If I set points revolving around an x-axis above a flat x-y coordinate plane in a third dimension of z, those revolving points will take the shape of a cylinder. That's a fact, whether you like it or not. It plays out every night above the flat earth plane.

It is your crazy imagination wanting to perceive it as a sphere.

It isn't.