Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry

  • 322 Replies
  • 23808 Views
*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #120 on: September 14, 2022, 09:02:54 AM »
You're able to see a faint shape off in the distance.

Not the sailboat in front, the tiny dot to the right of it.

 This isn't difficult to understand. You're making mental blocks against it.

What do we observe, A or B:


*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2789
  • God winds the universe
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #121 on: September 15, 2022, 01:04:36 AM »
You're able to see a faint shape off in the distance.

Not the sailboat in front, the tiny dot to the right of it.

 This isn't difficult to understand. You're making mental blocks against it.

What do we observe, A or B:



Lemme put it this way.

We observe neither A or B, because the sun is about half the size of A. But A is somewhat accurate. We can say that we observe A.

So does the tiny boat off in the distance. In fact, he might see the other sailboat downwind of him, but the sun will appear to be the opposite direction of that sailboat, ahead of him further still, where he too sees a sailboat ahead of him. And that third sailboat sees the sun ahead of him but seemingly pretty close. And so on.

A plane flies high above them. The sun seems close enough to reach, but still slightly in the distance, as it sets into the clouds nearby. At no point, is there a sense that pilot can fly so that the sun is bigger or smaller, or that its arc looks different.

Time zones change, bur around the time of sunset, nowhere except maybe the poles is at all different.

They all swear that the sun is near them. But it's not. It not near anyone. It never at any point gets closer or further away. This isn't "proof" that the sun is actually huge and incredibly distant. It is "probable cause" that the sun is being projected through our own perceptions, and we really have no idea where the hell it is.

I've been to lowlands, highlands, in planes and helicopters.  I've been to four continents and 2/3 of the US. I have a pretty firm idea about how real perspective works. You don't, apparently.



Aside from the cabin window and the clouds, this is identical to the sort of thing you would see at ground level. And here, as with any view from the beach, the horizon is flat as a board. It's only when NASA or a photographer with an axe to grind takes a shot that we get curvature.



View from a beach.



View from Antarctica.



Sunset from Africa.



Sunset in China

In all cases the afterglow is what you'd expect. We don't have some strange shots where the sun much higher or lower.

« Last Edit: September 15, 2022, 01:41:18 AM by bulmabriefs144 »

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #122 on: September 15, 2022, 01:18:23 AM »
They both swear that the sun is near them. But it's not. It not near anyone. It never at any point gets closer or further away. This isn't "proof" that the sun is actually huge and incredibly distant. It is "probable cause" that the sun is being projected through our own perceptions, and we really have no idea where the hell it is.

How have we navigated for centuries without having any idea where the sun is?

Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #123 on: September 15, 2022, 01:39:02 AM »
Maybe bulmaB can draw us a sectional to explain this?

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2789
  • God winds the universe
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #124 on: September 15, 2022, 01:49:16 AM »
They both swear that the sun is near them. But it's not. It not near anyone. It never at any point gets closer or further away. This isn't "proof" that the sun is actually huge and incredibly distant. It is "probable cause" that the sun is being projected through our own perceptions, and we really have no idea where the hell it is.

How have we navigated for centuries without having any idea where the sun is?

Simple. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. We cannot "pass" the sun, it has relative perspective with regard to us, so if we head towards it, we know we are heading in the right direction.

A landmark that you can pass is not a good landmark. But if you navigate due east in the morning, and head back when it's time to head home (dusk), you will not be lost unless your ship gets blown way off course. You know at the very least, which way is east and which is west.

A nonfixed landmark is in fact very useful. Because you can't pass the sun, you never have to worry about being turned around, like you would if you were following a terrestrial landmark.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2022, 01:53:16 AM by bulmabriefs144 »

Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #125 on: September 15, 2022, 03:04:49 AM »


Simple. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.


Again.  For the sun to rise in the east in South American and Indonesia, the sun would have to travel near parallel to the US west coast.

 


Quote
We cannot "pass" the sun, it has relative perspective with regard to us, so if we head towards it, we know we are heading in the right direction.

Except if you head east during a sunrise.  For example. 

Quote
A landmark that you can pass is not a good landmark. But if you navigate due east in the morning, and head back when it's time to head home (dusk), you will not be lost unless your ship gets blown way off course. You know at the very least, which way is east and which is west.

Meaningless on a flat earth

You travel west from the US west coast to get to China.  The course is more or less perpendicular to the US west coast.




You cannot get to China traveling close and parallel to the US west coast to get to China..



At sea, because of the earths curvature, you loose sight of landmarks fairly early. 

Name one navy that has a tactical advantage because it treats the earth as flat?

Anyway

Quote
7 Ways Flat Earth Conspiracy Will Make You Look Silly


https://newcreeations.org/flat-earth-theory/amp/

It wasnít until clock-making technology increased enough in roughly the 1700ís that celestial navigation fully matured.

The British were the first to master shipboard clock technology. It gave them a significant advantage in both war and trade, and therefore contributed to the rapid growth of their empire. Iíve been to the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, London, and have seen some of these early shipboard clocks first hand.

The only way the math required for accurate celestial navigation positions works out the way we calculate it is because the earth is spherical. If the earth was flat like some believe, celestial navigation would be based on plane trigonometry instead of spherical trigonometry. And if that were the case, I would be explaining to you that the earth must be flat. But itís not. Itís a sphere.

Math does not lie.

Therefore, the fact that the spherical trigonometry based math required for celestial navigation produces accurate determinations of oneís position on the earth is definitive proof that the earth is spherical.

Celestial navigation truly makes proponents of the flat earth model look silly.




Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #126 on: September 15, 2022, 03:08:28 AM »
[quote rauthor=bulmabriefs144 link=topic=90730.msg2369007#msg2369007 date=1663229076]

They all swear that the sun is near them.
[/quote]

Quote one navigation course / guide that claims the sun is near. 

Flat earth claims the sun is impossibly near. 
« Last Edit: September 15, 2022, 03:43:45 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

JackBlack

  • 22466
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #127 on: September 15, 2022, 03:11:16 AM »
They all swear that the sun is near them. But it's not. It not near anyone.
No, they don't think that, at least not everyone.
Plenty of people recognise that without a reference sun close by they can touch to compare to, they can't really tell how far away the object is.
The best they get is that the sun must be very far away because it doesn't change size.

It never at any point gets closer or further away. This isn't "proof" that the sun is actually huge and incredibly distant.
While it isn't proof, it is certainly extremely strong evidence for it, enough to convince any sane, rational person, of that fact.
This is especially true given there isn't a viable alternative.

If you want to try claiming it isn't showing the sun is really far away, then you need to provide a viable alternative.
You are yet to do so.

And don't bother trying to claim you have. I have shown that what you have provided can't work and you have refused to address the issues with it.

I have a pretty firm idea about how real perspective works.
Yet you continually spout pure garbage about it.
Are you sure you aren't just confusing the effects of curvature with the effects of perspective?

Perspective cannot make an object above the horizon appear to sink to be partially obscured by the horizon.

horizon is flat as a board
Just like you would expect for a RE, and completely unlike what you would expect for a FE, where for a FE you wouldn't expect a horizon at all.

In all cases the afterglow is what you'd expect.
Just what you would expect for a RE. Especially with the light shining upwards, as if it is coming from below the horizon, again, just like you would expect for a RE, and not what you would expect for a FE.

A landmark that you can pass is not a good landmark.
A landmark that you can see in the distance and navigate towards and eventually reach is a very good landmark.
It makes it quite easy to reach it.
A landmark that remains in place, such that as you move around relative to it it appears in different locations is a very good landmark, as it means you can determine your position along as restricted to a line based upon the direction to that landmark.
With multiple such landmarks you can often determine your position to a point or a small area.
Alternatively, you can use its apparent size to judge the distance.

Conversely, with a "landmark" which magically moves around with you so it is not better than a glorified compass, which only works if you know the time, is almost entirely useless.
Likewise, a "landmark" that moves around throughout the course of a day isn't that useful either.

But if you navigate due east in the morning, and head back when it's time to head home (dusk), you will not be lost unless your ship gets blown way off course.
But it isn't due east and due west.
If you follow the direction of the sun at sunset, then wait there for most of the day, and then follow the direction of the sun at sunset, normally you will not end up back where you started.
It is only on the equinox that the sun rises due east and sets due west.
During the northern summer the sun rises north of east and sets north of west. This means after a day you end up north of your position.
During the southern summer the sun rises south of east and sets south of west. This means after a day you end up south of your position.
And that is only if you maintain that direction.

Compare this to a landmark at your village, where you can see it and navigate towards it. That way you will always know your way home.

You know at the very least, which way is east and which is west.
You know even less, the general direction of east and west, but not exactly, and only if you know if it is sunrise or sunset, and only during that time of the day as as it moves away from that time of day the direction can become less accurate as it goes north or south.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #128 on: September 15, 2022, 03:13:36 AM »
They both swear that the sun is near them. But it's not. It not near anyone. It never at any point gets closer or further away. This isn't "proof" that the sun is actually huge and incredibly distant. It is "probable cause" that the sun is being projected through our own perceptions, and we really have no idea where the hell it is.

How have we navigated for centuries without having any idea where the sun is?

Simple. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

Finally, you nailed it. The sun sets and the sun rises. It does not go around like a halo in the sky. It rises up from the horizon and sets below the horizon.

And nothing like flying above the sun in just a little Cessna...


*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2789
  • God winds the universe
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #129 on: September 18, 2022, 12:31:33 AM »


Simple. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.


Again.  For the sun to rise in the east in South American and Indonesia, the sun would have to travel near parallel to the US west coast.

 


For the last time, that is not west. Ask any flat Earther which way south is, they will tell you that it is whichever way points to the south pole. So on that overhead circular map, all ways that point south translate neatly to a conventional side map.

East and west are towards and against that yellow arrow.

If you are pointing to the arrow, then yes, that is correct.

Quote
You travel west from the US west coast to get to China.  The course is more or less perpendicular to the US west coast.

Actually, when I went to China we went from Virginia to San Francisco (stop) to Alaska to Russia to China. This make NO sense for the sideways map, but PERFECT sense for the overhead map.



So it was too much too hope for that you might be pointing to the arrow. Sorry guy, west is following the sun. You go around the ocean. Those curved lines are not decoration. They accurately translate into lines of latitude.



See these latitude lines? Flip that map upward and trace you finger along an overhead map. You can even tell this is the case, as the side map shows Alaska almost touching Russia.

If you don't understand overhead maps, you literally think there is endless miles of ocean from Alaska to Russia, and are in for a rude awakening if you sail between the two.

:facepalm:

C'mon figure it out, ppl! This is precisely why I say that I understand more about round Earth than you know about flat Earth. Because I do! You literally pointed away from two countries that are almost touching because you don't get which way is south and which way is west.

You have a link to 7 ways flat Earth conspiracy will make you look silly, but you already proved you're alot more silly than I am. Enjoy crashing a ship into Russia!
« Last Edit: September 18, 2022, 12:55:50 AM by bulmabriefs144 »

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #130 on: September 18, 2022, 02:03:59 AM »
Ask any flat Earther which way south is, they will tell you that it is whichever way points to the south pole.

Where's the South Pole on your FE map?

Actually, when I went to China we went from Virginia to San Francisco (stop) to Alaska to Russia to China. This make NO sense for the sideways map, but PERFECT sense for the overhead map.



Works just fine on a globe...


*

JackBlack

  • 22466
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #131 on: September 18, 2022, 02:34:37 AM »
For the last time, that is not west. Ask any flat Earther which way south is, they will tell you that it is whichever way points to the south pole.
That makes no sense at all.
You don't have a south pole. You have a ring.

As for that arrow, it is pointing west.
Yes, in your fantasy if you follow it for long enough in that direction it ends up getting closer and closer to due south, but it is still pointing west.

The problem I think they are trying to raise is what happens on the equinox. We see the sun rise roughly due east and set roughly due west.
But with the ridiculous FE model, it should appear to go around in a circle above you.


Actually, when I went to China we went from Virginia to San Francisco (stop) to Alaska to Russia to China. This make NO sense for the sideways map, but PERFECT sense for the overhead map.
It also makes perfect sense for the globe.
What also makes perfect sense for the globes are flights further south, where they depart and head partly south and arrive from partly south. But that makes no sense for your NP centred map.

C'mon figure it out, ppl! This is precisely why I say that I understand more about round Earth than you know about flat Earth.
Because you can dishonestly misrepresent things to try and deflect from massive issues which show the FE to be pure garbage?

If you truly know more about the RE, it means you are lying in almost every post you make.
It means you know the RE model accurately describes reality, while the FE model does not.

Or it means you know nothing at all about any FE model.

Now how about you stop with the deflection and try addressing the massive flaws in your model?
Why does the sun appear to set? Why does it appear in a particular direction, rather than where it is?
Why doesn't it appear to shrink?
And if you want to keep to your projector dome BS, then why can we see it when it is above a point further away than the horizon?

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2789
  • God winds the universe
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #132 on: September 18, 2022, 05:27:06 AM »
Dude bro, get some decent education.

For the last time, that is not west. Ask any flat Earther which way south is, they will tell you that it is whichever way points to the south pole.
That makes no sense at all.
You don't have a south pole. You have a ring.

You head west get to the South Pole?
What  about what I said earlier doesn't make sense? You see, ideas that have logic on their side eventually bear out in the real world. Ideas that are based on wrong ideas will cause you to bump into literal land from basic sailing. I'm pretty sure even a novice sailor like me could manage to hit Russia from Alaska.


As for that arrow, it is pointing west.
Yes, in your fantasy if you follow it for long enough in that direction it ends up getting closer and closer to due south, but it is still pointing west.

No geniuses, heading west on any map naps you go west. A flat Earth map is simply an overhead map with a the South Pole a bit extended. If you don't understand overhead maps, you've already lost this discussion, since both round Earthers and flat Earthers use this.

The problem I think they are trying to raise is what happens on the equinox. We see the sun rise roughly due east and set roughly due west.
But with the ridiculous FE model, it should appear to go around in a circle above you.


Actually, when I went to China we went from Virginia to San Francisco (stop) to Alaska to Russia to China. This make NO sense for the sideways map, but PERFECT sense for the overhead map.
It also makes perfect sense for the globe.
What also makes perfect sense for the globes are flights further south, where they depart and head partly south and arrive from partly south. But that makes no sense for your NP centred map.

Hey, news flash. Most things that make sense for a globe make sense for a flat Earth. If you understand overhead maps. The only thing that does not is trying to sail through Antarctica to get to New Zealand. Which you wouldn't do!

C'mon figure it out, ppl! This is precisely why I say that I understand more about round Earth than you know about flat Earth.
Because you can dishonestly misrepresent things to try and deflect from massive issues which show the FE to be pure garbage?

You can say pure garbage all you want, but most of the appealing parts (like going around the world are also part of (a properly understood) flat Earth. Nonsensical things like people hanging upside-down are the only things not. Which would be true if you have global physics of an object narrowing below its center.

If you truly know more about the RE, it means you are lying in almost every post you make.
It means you know the RE model accurately describes reality, while the FE model does not.

Or it means you know nothing at all about any FE model.

Actually either you are lying to me, or you understand nothing about either theory.

Now how about you stop with the deflection and try addressing the massive flaws in your model?
Why does the sun appear to set? Why does it appear in a particular direction, rather than where it is?
Why doesn't it appear to shrink?
And if you want to keep to your projector dome BS, then why can we see it when it is above a point further away than the horizon?

I've answered these questions. You deflected, and now defend an idea that explains west as sourh because at least it isn't flat Earth.

Quote
Works just fine on a globe...


Data's own model earlier involves never hitting China. You guys accuse me of lying, but you can clearly see this model doesn't work according to how the arrow points.



Remember, he said west goes that way.

Now will any of you have intellectual honesty and admit this model is wrong?

South always points away from the North Pole.



South of San Francisco? South Pole. South of Chile? South Pole? South of Israel? South Pole. South of Australia? South Pole.

You can clearly see this on both overhead and side maps. Stop doubling down, and admit you made a mistake!
« Last Edit: September 18, 2022, 05:40:43 AM by bulmabriefs144 »

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #133 on: September 18, 2022, 07:21:40 AM »
Dude bro, get some decent education.

For the last time, that is not west. Ask any flat Earther which way south is, they will tell you that it is whichever way points to the south pole.
That makes no sense at all.
You don't have a south pole. You have a ring.

You head west get to the South Pole?
What  about what I said earlier doesn't make sense? You see, ideas that have logic on their side eventually bear out in the real world. Ideas that are based on wrong ideas will cause you to bump into literal land from basic sailing. I'm pretty sure even a novice sailor like me could manage to hit Russia from Alaska.


As for that arrow, it is pointing west.
Yes, in your fantasy if you follow it for long enough in that direction it ends up getting closer and closer to due south, but it is still pointing west.

No geniuses, heading west on any map naps you go west. A flat Earth map is simply an overhead map with a the South Pole a bit extended. If you don't understand overhead maps, you've already lost this discussion, since both round Earthers and flat Earthers use this.

The problem I think they are trying to raise is what happens on the equinox. We see the sun rise roughly due east and set roughly due west.
But with the ridiculous FE model, it should appear to go around in a circle above you.


Actually, when I went to China we went from Virginia to San Francisco (stop) to Alaska to Russia to China. This make NO sense for the sideways map, but PERFECT sense for the overhead map.
It also makes perfect sense for the globe.
What also makes perfect sense for the globes are flights further south, where they depart and head partly south and arrive from partly south. But that makes no sense for your NP centred map.

Hey, news flash. Most things that make sense for a globe make sense for a flat Earth. If you understand overhead maps. The only thing that does not is trying to sail through Antarctica to get to New Zealand. Which you wouldn't do!

C'mon figure it out, ppl! This is precisely why I say that I understand more about round Earth than you know about flat Earth.
Because you can dishonestly misrepresent things to try and deflect from massive issues which show the FE to be pure garbage?

You can say pure garbage all you want, but most of the appealing parts (like going around the world are also part of (a properly understood) flat Earth. Nonsensical things like people hanging upside-down are the only things not. Which would be true if you have global physics of an object narrowing below its center.

If you truly know more about the RE, it means you are lying in almost every post you make.
It means you know the RE model accurately describes reality, while the FE model does not.

Or it means you know nothing at all about any FE model.

Actually either you are lying to me, or you understand nothing about either theory.

Now how about you stop with the deflection and try addressing the massive flaws in your model?
Why does the sun appear to set? Why does it appear in a particular direction, rather than where it is?
Why doesn't it appear to shrink?
And if you want to keep to your projector dome BS, then why can we see it when it is above a point further away than the horizon?

I've answered these questions. You deflected, and now defend an idea that explains west as sourh because at least it isn't flat Earth.

Quote
Works just fine on a globe...


Data's own model earlier involves never hitting China. You guys accuse me of lying, but you can clearly see this model doesn't work according to how the arrow points.



Remember, he said west goes that way.

Now will any of you have intellectual honesty and admit this model is wrong?

South always points away from the North Pole.



South of San Francisco? South Pole. South of Chile? South Pole? South of Israel? South Pole. South of Australia? South Pole.

You can clearly see this on both overhead and side maps. Stop doubling down, and admit you made a mistake!
I really wish you would learn to properly quote things. 
Why would people be hanging upside down?
What mistake?
Wtf do YOU mean by overhead map?  NP centered?  Why are you calling it the overhead map?
Do you seriously think there is a down to the universe and we are just on a disc in this universe that has a downwards force?  Where does this force come from?  Why doesn't the disc fall?  Magic, God, unicorn facts?  FE makes zero logical sense.  So we laugh at the shear stupidity.  Please continue  to spout lies and illogical claims,  it's funny and the naive ones listening have a better chance of rejecting the ideas of raving idiots.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #134 on: September 18, 2022, 09:14:58 AM »
South of San Francisco? South Pole. South of Chile? South Pole? South of Israel? South Pole. South of Australia? South Pole.

So where is the South Pole on your FE map? Everywhere that isn't North?



I can't quite see how that would even remotely rub up against reality.

Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #135 on: September 18, 2022, 11:39:40 AM »

You can clearly see this on both overhead and side maps. Stop doubling down, and admit you made a mistake!


That the flat earth map is useless in the sense of actual navigation when not used in the proper context of the map projection?

Quote

A direct test of the flat earth model: flight times
More data supporting a spherical earth


https://creation.com/a-direct-test-of-the-flat-earth-model-flight-times




*

JackBlack

  • 22466
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #136 on: September 18, 2022, 02:48:12 PM »
Dude bro, get some decent education.
How about you follow your own advice, and stop spouting such nonsense?

You head west get to the South Pole?
What  about what I said earlier doesn't make sense?
What I already posted, which you quoted, and then proceeded to ignore.
YOU DO NOT HAVE A SOUTH POLE IN YOUR FANTASY.
In your fantasy you have a north pole at the centre of your fantasy Earth.
South is then around the rim. There is no south pole.

And in your fantasy, everywhere is pointing to the southern rim, because it is a ring that surround everyone.
So that idea of south makes no sense as it makes it entirely useless.
A more rational definition (still based upon your fantasy) would be south is opposite the direction to the north pole.
And guess what? That means that arrow isn't pointing south, at least not initially.

No geniuses, heading west on any map naps you go west.
If you continue to adjust your course such that instead of following that arrow you will adjust your course to head west, then you will go west.
If instead you start heading west and follow that in a straight line (so you do not turn), then on your FE you eventually end up going roughly south. But the initial direction was still west.

Actually, when I went to China we went from Virginia to San Francisco (stop) to Alaska to Russia to China. This make NO sense for the sideways map
So great job refuting a FE where the land masses are laid out as per the Mercator projection.
Just what do you think you are achieving by doing this?

A round Earth is not a flat Earth with the continents laid out in the Mercator projection.
The commonly used FE map is an azimuthal equidistant projection of the globe.

If you want to try suggesting it doesn't make sense for a globe, then use a globe, not a Mercator projection.

Hey, news flash. Most things that make sense for a globe make sense for a flat Earth.
Pure BS. A small subset of things that make sense for a globe make sense for a FE.
In terms of flights, that would be most flights in the northern hemisphere.

The only thing that does not is trying to sail through Antarctica to get to New Zealand. Which you wouldn't do!
Nor would you for a globe.
But good job ignoring the example I provided.

Nonsensical things like people hanging upside-down are the only things not. Which would be true if you have global physics of an object narrowing below its center.
And this is a great example of what I mean. You are spouting pure garbage about the RE model.
Either you don't understand it, or you are intentionally trying to misrepresent it.

People are not hanging upside down.
They are standing on the round Earth.
You not understanding how down works is your problem.

I've answered these questions. You deflected, and now defend an idea that explains west as sourh because at least it isn't flat Earth.
No, you didn't. You fled from them, because you couldn't justify your delusional nonsense at all.

If you had actually addressed these massive issues for your fantasy it would be trivial for you to address them again.
But instead you just use the common FE dishonest tactic of outright lying by claiming to have addressed them before to avoid having to ever address them.


So again:
Why does the sun appear to set? Why does it appear in a particular direction, rather than where it is?
Why doesn't it appear to shrink?
And if you want to keep to your projector dome BS, then why can we see it when it is above a point further away than the horizon?

Data's own model earlier involves never hitting China.
You mean their claims regarding a FE.

South of San Francisco? South Pole. South of Chile? South Pole? South of Israel? South Pole. South of Australia? South Pole.
And you know what that means?
As the south pole is a point, you need to have a single point south of all these locations, which doesn't work in your fantasy, but does for a globe.

If you had a basic education, you would understand that.

Either there is a southern point, refuting the NP centred FE model, or you need a ring without a south pole.

Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #137 on: September 18, 2022, 02:56:56 PM »
I wish to ask bulmabriefs144 a question if I may.  What is the actual distance in miles or kilometers that the sun is away from the observer that it appears to set?

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2789
  • God winds the universe
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #138 on: September 19, 2022, 05:22:58 AM »
Dude bro, get some decent education.

For the last time, that is not west. Ask any flat Earther which way south is, they will tell you that it is whichever way points to the south pole.
That makes no sense at all.
You don't have a south pole. You have a ring.

You head west get to the South Pole?
What  about what I said earlier doesn't make sense? You see, ideas that have logic on their side eventually bear out in the real world. Ideas that are based on wrong ideas will cause you to bump into literal land from basic sailing. I'm pretty sure even a novice sailor like me could manage to hit Russia from Alaska.


As for that arrow, it is pointing west.
Yes, in your fantasy if you follow it for long enough in that direction it ends up getting closer and closer to due south, but it is still pointing west.

No geniuses, heading west on any map naps you go west. A flat Earth map is simply an overhead map with a the South Pole a bit extended. If you don't understand overhead maps, you've already lost this discussion, since both round Earthers and flat Earthers use this.

The problem I think they are trying to raise is what happens on the equinox. We see the sun rise roughly due east and set roughly due west.
But with the ridiculous FE model, it should appear to go around in a circle above you.


Actually, when I went to China we went from Virginia to San Francisco (stop) to Alaska to Russia to China. This make NO sense for the sideways map, but PERFECT sense for the overhead map.
It also makes perfect sense for the globe.
What also makes perfect sense for the globes are flights further south, where they depart and head partly south and arrive from partly south. But that makes no sense for your NP centred map.

Hey, news flash. Most things that make sense for a globe make sense for a flat Earth. If you understand overhead maps. The only thing that does not is trying to sail through Antarctica to get to New Zealand. Which you wouldn't do!

C'mon figure it out, ppl! This is precisely why I say that I understand more about round Earth than you know about flat Earth.
Because you can dishonestly misrepresent things to try and deflect from massive issues which show the FE to be pure garbage?

You can say pure garbage all you want, but most of the appealing parts (like going around the world are also part of (a properly understood) flat Earth. Nonsensical things like people hanging upside-down are the only things not. Which would be true if you have global physics of an object narrowing below its center.

If you truly know more about the RE, it means you are lying in almost every post you make.
It means you know the RE model accurately describes reality, while the FE model does not.

Or it means you know nothing at all about any FE model.

Actually either you are lying to me, or you understand nothing about either theory.

Now how about you stop with the deflection and try addressing the massive flaws in your model?
Why does the sun appear to set? Why does it appear in a particular direction, rather than where it is?
Why doesn't it appear to shrink?
And if you want to keep to your projector dome BS, then why can we see it when it is above a point further away than the horizon?

I've answered these questions. You deflected, and now defend an idea that explains west as sourh because at least it isn't flat Earth.

Quote
Works just fine on a globe...


Data's own model earlier involves never hitting China. You guys accuse me of lying, but you can clearly see this model doesn't work according to how the arrow points.



Remember, he said west goes that way.

Now will any of you have intellectual honesty and admit this model is wrong?

South always points away from the North Pole.



South of San Francisco? South Pole. South of Chile? South Pole? South of Israel? South Pole. South of Australia? South Pole.

You can clearly see this on both overhead and side maps. Stop doubling down, and admit you made a mistake!
I really wish you would learn to properly quote things. 
Why would people be hanging upside down?
What mistake?
Wtf do YOU mean by overhead map?  NP centered?  Why are you calling it the overhead map?
Do you seriously think there is a down to the universe and we are just on a disc in this universe that has a downwards force?  Where does this force come from?  Why doesn't the disc fall?  Magic, God, unicorn facts?  FE makes zero logical sense.  So we laugh at the shear stupidity.  Please continue  to spout lies and illogical claims,  it's funny and the naive ones listening have a better chance of rejecting the ideas of raving idiots.

Basic geometry. Grab some Lego blocks of different length.

Okay . are gaps to show what's going on.  The numbers are each block set as laid.

.....1112222.....
....333444455...
...6666777788..
....999999999...
.....0000111.....

Voila, a rough globe wiith Lego blocks. 3 to 5 and 9 extend to the same width but a different height. Unlike a flat Earth model, where  they can maybe simply expend to a wider physical space, they cannot occupy the same space.

So it must be stacked to go narrow wide narrow.  With expanding rings, it is an option to still be flat, but not here.

So either "gravity" (basically magic, for all the logical gaps it is used to excuse) causes Southern Hemisphere people to hang like bats, or they are at all times imitating Stallone in Cliffhanger.



Sure, if you wanna admit that vampires run things in South America and Africa, that's fine.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2022, 05:45:36 AM by bulmabriefs144 »

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2789
  • God winds the universe
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #139 on: September 19, 2022, 05:39:45 AM »
Dude bro, get some decent education.
How about you follow your own advice, and stop spouting such nonsense?

...

And you know what that means?
As the south pole is a point, you need to have a single point south of all these locations, which doesn't work in your fantasy, but does for a globe.

If you had a basic education, you would understand that.

Either there is a southern point, refuting the NP centred FE model, or you need a ring without a south pole.

Actually, this works for any map.





Point all the way south for me, from France, US, China, Africa. You will necessarily have to draw a line towards the South Pole (or at least towards Antarctica/Arctic Sea). It will be in different places, but yes.

If you had gotten an education, you'd understand how this works out. The latitude lines that appear straight across when looking from the side, turn into curves when you tilt a globe upwards. 



Latitude is either a series of curved lines that expand outward as concentric circles (flat) or they narrow again after the equator (round).
Longitude is either a straight line from North Pole to South Pole (flat) or it is also a curved line that eventually cycles back to the North Pole (round).

A flat Earth map is almost identical (aside from all continents getting shoved on the map instead of just northern hemisphere) to what you'd get simply by tilting a globe upwards. These lines of latitude are curved!



That you have failed to understand even something as simple as this means you have been indoctrinated not educated. Educated people are able to use their education in any manner they choose, while indoctrinated people cannot think outside what they have been taught (even to defend the logic of it), and certainly can't question what they've been taught.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2022, 05:56:04 AM by bulmabriefs144 »

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #140 on: September 19, 2022, 05:45:01 AM »
Dude bro, get some decent education.

For the last time, that is not west. Ask any flat Earther which way south is, they will tell you that it is whichever way points to the south pole.
That makes no sense at all.
You don't have a south pole. You have a ring.

You head west get to the South Pole?
What  about what I said earlier doesn't make sense? You see, ideas that have logic on their side eventually bear out in the real world. Ideas that are based on wrong ideas will cause you to bump into literal land from basic sailing. I'm pretty sure even a novice sailor like me could manage to hit Russia from Alaska.


As for that arrow, it is pointing west.
Yes, in your fantasy if you follow it for long enough in that direction it ends up getting closer and closer to due south, but it is still pointing west.

No geniuses, heading west on any map naps you go west. A flat Earth map is simply an overhead map with a the South Pole a bit extended. If you don't understand overhead maps, you've already lost this discussion, since both round Earthers and flat Earthers use this.

The problem I think they are trying to raise is what happens on the equinox. We see the sun rise roughly due east and set roughly due west.
But with the ridiculous FE model, it should appear to go around in a circle above you.


Actually, when I went to China we went from Virginia to San Francisco (stop) to Alaska to Russia to China. This make NO sense for the sideways map, but PERFECT sense for the overhead map.
It also makes perfect sense for the globe.
What also makes perfect sense for the globes are flights further south, where they depart and head partly south and arrive from partly south. But that makes no sense for your NP centred map.

Hey, news flash. Most things that make sense for a globe make sense for a flat Earth. If you understand overhead maps. The only thing that does not is trying to sail through Antarctica to get to New Zealand. Which you wouldn't do!

C'mon figure it out, ppl! This is precisely why I say that I understand more about round Earth than you know about flat Earth.
Because you can dishonestly misrepresent things to try and deflect from massive issues which show the FE to be pure garbage?

You can say pure garbage all you want, but most of the appealing parts (like going around the world are also part of (a properly understood) flat Earth. Nonsensical things like people hanging upside-down are the only things not. Which would be true if you have global physics of an object narrowing below its center.

If you truly know more about the RE, it means you are lying in almost every post you make.
It means you know the RE model accurately describes reality, while the FE model does not.

Or it means you know nothing at all about any FE model.

Actually either you are lying to me, or you understand nothing about either theory.

Now how about you stop with the deflection and try addressing the massive flaws in your model?
Why does the sun appear to set? Why does it appear in a particular direction, rather than where it is?
Why doesn't it appear to shrink?
And if you want to keep to your projector dome BS, then why can we see it when it is above a point further away than the horizon?

I've answered these questions. You deflected, and now defend an idea that explains west as sourh because at least it isn't flat Earth.

Quote
Works just fine on a globe...


Data's own model earlier involves never hitting China. You guys accuse me of lying, but you can clearly see this model doesn't work according to how the arrow points.



Remember, he said west goes that way.

Now will any of you have intellectual honesty and admit this model is wrong?

South always points away from the North Pole.



South of San Francisco? South Pole. South of Chile? South Pole? South of Israel? South Pole. South of Australia? South Pole.

You can clearly see this on both overhead and side maps. Stop doubling down, and admit you made a mistake!
I really wish you would learn to properly quote things. 
Why would people be hanging upside down?
What mistake?
Wtf do YOU mean by overhead map?  NP centered?  Why are you calling it the overhead map?
Do you seriously think there is a down to the universe and we are just on a disc in this universe that has a downwards force?  Where does this force come from?  Why doesn't the disc fall?  Magic, God, unicorn facts?  FE makes zero logical sense.  So we laugh at the shear stupidity.  Please continue  to spout lies and illogical claims,  it's funny and the naive ones listening have a better chance of rejecting the ideas of raving idiots.

Basic geometry. Grab some Lego blocks of different length.

Okay . are gaps to show what's going on.  The numbers are each block set as laid.

.....1112222.....
....333444455...
...66667777888.
....999999999...
.....0000111.....

Voila, a rough globe wiith Lego blocks. 3 to 5 and 9 extend to the same width but a different height. Unlike a flat Earth model, where  they can maybe simply expend to a wider physical space, they cannot occupy the same space.

So it must be stacked to go narrow wide narrow.  With expanding rings, it is an option to still be flat, but not here.

So either "gravity" (basically magic, for all the logical gaps it is used to excuse) causes Southern Hemisphere people to hang like bats, or they are at all times imitating Stallone in Cliffhanger.



Sure, if you wanna admit that vampires run things in South America and Africa, that's fine.
Please actually answer the questions.  You aren't very smart, I get that, you need to resort to stupid memes and dodge.  But still, try to focus for 5 seconds and answer the question about why they would be hanging like bats.  Do you seriously believe in a universal down, if so what makes that down, what makes things fall that direction. 
Because if so, now for all your blustering about gravity being magic, you need to explain what pulls things "below" the Earth "downwards".  Please describe this magical force pulling things below the Earth away from the Earth.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2022, 05:50:14 AM by Mikey T. »

Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #141 on: September 19, 2022, 06:16:35 AM »
He mistve missed the part where literal 'Down' is towards the center, and not 'south'.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #142 on: September 19, 2022, 09:16:24 AM »


Which way is:

- Due South from San Francisco?
- Due South from Shanghai?

Additionally, Air New Zealand connects Auckland and New York for the first time ever
(CNN) ó After 16 hours in the sky, Air New Zealand's first ever direct flight to New York City arrived at JFK airport on September 17.
The flight, NZ2, was first announced back in March and has been a major cornerstone of the airline's post-pandemic rebound. Its companion flight, NZ1, flies the opposite route from JFK to Auckland in about 17.5 hours.




Matches Globe Earth exactly:



Wrong Route:

« Last Edit: September 19, 2022, 10:39:00 AM by Stash »

Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #143 on: September 19, 2022, 01:54:53 PM »

That you have failed to understand even something as simple as

That the north star is used to guide people north.  Or that west or east is perpendicular to the way to the North Star.

A “googled” flight path for LAX to Hong Kong.



The flight path looks strange because it’s a 3D arc flight path projected onto 2D.

But looking “right” while on the flight path.  Or turning right will bring the North Star at night into view.  Literally a turn right will take you in the direction of the North Pole if a line of longitude is followed north. 



The flight path will keep a westward setting sun in view roughly in front of the cockpit.  Is more or less perpendicular to the lines of longitude.

The video below explains the flat earth map is a “stolen” globe projection. 



Now..  Look below. The lines of longitude become useless on a flat earth map.  The projection of a globe used out of context.

The North Star becomes unless as a reference point.


Note.  Added : In the context the north star as a guide fits spherical earth in the relative direction of north, fails in the flat earth delusion to what is observed in reality.

 If you travel beyond Hong Kong “west” on the flat earth map which would literally be a straight line, you travel south to Indonesia?  Traveling west from LAX and over and past Hong Kong will have you cross the equator on the flat earth map?  Really?  And the “West flight” path from LAX becomes perpendicular how the sun goes east to west across Russia?  Turning right before reaching Hong Kong takes you across Russia, not north.  The North Star is almost behind you on your westward flight path from LAX that should keep you perpendicular to the north path to the North Star.



Flight path to Hawaiian, then other westward destinations.  Again, looks strange because of 3D arc flight paths projected in 2D.  But the right relative position to the North Star is maintained. 




Flight path for flat earth map…



From LAX, Hong Kong is a hard “right turn” from Hawaii?  And using the North Star as a reference is useless.

On 2D maps projected from the globe, the publishers are honest about the different errors introduced trying to place a 3D globe on a flat map.

Flat Earther’s ignore, or lie about how their stolen map projection is useless for navigation when used out of context. 
« Last Edit: September 19, 2022, 03:34:25 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

JackBlack

  • 22466
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #144 on: September 19, 2022, 02:03:46 PM »
Voila, a rough globe wiith Lego blocks. 3 to 5 and 9 extend to the same width but a different height. Unlike a flat Earth model, where  they can maybe simply expend to a wider physical space, they cannot occupy the same space.

So it must be stacked to go narrow wide narrow.  With expanding rings, it is an option to still be flat, but not here.
And what is observed in reality?
That as you move away from the equator, the distance required to change your longitude by a fixed amount reduces. And that is going both north and south.
This results in a pole, both north and south.

This shows Earth is round, not flat.

So either "gravity" (basically magic, for all the logical gaps it is used to excuse) causes Southern Hemisphere people to hang like bats, or they are at all times imitating Stallone in Cliffhanger.
You sure do love spouting the same ignorant BS all over the place as if it hasn't already been exposed as BS.
With a globe, down is towards the centre.
There is no magical universal down.

Dude bro, get some decent education.
How about you follow your own advice, and stop spouting such nonsense?

...

And you know what that means?
As the south pole is a point, you need to have a single point south of all these locations, which doesn't work in your fantasy, but does for a globe.

If you had a basic education, you would understand that.

Either there is a southern point, refuting the NP centred FE model, or you need a ring without a south pole.
Actually, this works for any map.
..
If you had gotten an education, you'd understand how this works out.
Again, if you had actually gotten an education, you would understand and stop spouting such ignorant garbage.


There is a fundamental distinction between accepting these maps as projections of a globe and claiming them as FE maps.

Accepting them as projections of a globe means there will be distortions.
For example, the NP centred azimuthal equidistant projection of the globe will cause the east-west distance to be stretched out (relative to north-south distances) as you move away from the north pole.
This reaches its extreme at the south pole where a single point is stretched into a ring.

But if these were taken as a map of a flat Earth, there are no distortions, as you are mapping from a flat surface to a flat surface.
This means the ring is actually a ring, that there is distance to be travelled if you want to move around it.

So for a RE, there is a point, the south pole, which is stretched out to a ring due to the projection.
For a FE, there is no southern most point, instead it is a southern ring, not a south pole.

So the RE has a south pole.
The FE you present cannot.

That you have failed to understand even something as simple as this means you have been indoctrinated not educated. Educated people are able to use their education in any manner they choose, while indoctrinated people cannot think outside what they have been taught (even to defend the logic of it), and certainly can't question what they've been taught.
You sure do love projecting don't you?

I understand quite well. Yet here you are spouting pure garbage which is trivial to refute just to pretend the globe is just as broken as your fantasy.
All while fleeing from the actual topic of the thread, the complete inability for the FE to explain the observed position of the sun.

If you were actually educated, rather than brainwashed (or just an extremely dishonest troll) you would understand the difference between a globe and a projection of it.
You would understand the difference between these being projections of a globe and a FE map.
You would understand that for a globe you would understand that you need to account for the distortions introduced by the projection.

And most importantly, you would either address the issues that have been raised, or you would admit the FE model can't.
Why does the sun appear to set? Why does it appear in a particular direction, rather than where it is?
Why doesn't it appear to shrink?
And if you want to keep to your projector dome BS, then why can we see it when it is above a point further away than the horizon?
« Last Edit: September 19, 2022, 02:05:20 PM by JackBlack »

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2789
  • God winds the universe
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #145 on: September 19, 2022, 06:48:39 PM »
You can't even understand directions right.


That you have failed to understand even something as simple as

That the north star is used to guide people north.  Or that west or east is perpendicular to the way to the North Star.


Again, you don't understand directions right. The reason the North Star is a reliable landmark is because always points north (except from the southern hemisphere, where you kinda sorta can't see it.
https://symbolsage.com/the-north-star-meaning-symbolism/
Quote
The North Star always points to the north, just like a landmark or sky marker that helps in determining direction. When facing the North Star, the east would be on your right, the west on your left, and the south at your back.
It's not north perpendicular to your relationship to whatever. It's north. You can readily use it to travel north whenever you are lost at night (assuming you can identify it, which alot of modern people cannot) and are north of the equator. You drew a bunch of picti

So let's us show you what is going on.

So I have marked the equator on this map in red. I have marked yellow for north, green for west. I have marked in grey the rough estimate of where you actually pointed, SSW almost to New Zealand. My guess is that if you were in the navy (I forget which person claimed that), you weren't in charge of navigation. Pretty quickly, they would switch you over to cooking, or working the periscopes or something.



Note that on this map, Alaska and Russia are close, and will curve towards each other whether the Earth is round or flat. You go around the world from Alaska and you hit Russia. You go west from California and you hit China. Everyone who got through school should know this.



America, Africa, and Asia will all hit the North Pole. From any overhead map, whether flat or a globe (unless you don't understand what you are talking about) all of these points move toward the top, which is center in an overhead map.

The yellow lines do exactly as they should. Likewise south is away from the center. The grey line also behaves as it should. In both maps, you are near New Zealand, while never even touching Russia. This is consistent with not having an idea which way west is. Now, real west should not cross lines of latitude. Is this true of both maps? Well map #1 has green between 45 and 30 degrees for Cali to China. Map #2 likewise tries to stay between the lines. Ditto for Russia and Alaska.

Meanwhile, you've ignored lines of latitude to say "west" is whatever the hell you think it is. Good luck with that!



In a trip from California to China, you never at any point change latitude. Your map has you suddenly adjusting northwest after heading southwest because you don't understand basic directions.


« Last Edit: September 19, 2022, 06:57:02 PM by bulmabriefs144 »

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #146 on: September 19, 2022, 08:52:58 PM »
So are you going to just dodge my question, yet again?
Seems like you don't want to answer.  I wonder why that is.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #147 on: September 19, 2022, 08:54:23 PM »
In a trip from California to China, you never at any point change latitude. Your map has you suddenly adjusting northwest after heading southwest because you don't understand basic directions.

I think we should trust the pilots and international ATC before we trust you. Clearly here you can see this flight following a great circle and changing latitudes from LAX to Shanghai:



And here you can see the flights actual radar pings for tracking. Notice latitudes in the 30's as well as the 60's.

You are wildly not in the the realm of reality.


*

JackBlack

  • 22466
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #148 on: September 20, 2022, 01:37:18 AM »
And yet again you refuse to address the topic which so easily demonstrates massive problems for the FE. Why?

Why does the sun appear to set? Why does it appear in a particular direction, rather than where it is?
Why doesn't it appear to shrink?
And if you want to keep to your projector dome BS, then why can we see it when it is above a point further away than the horizon?


You can't even understand directions right.
You can't even understand basic geometry, so it isn't surprising you fail at grasping directions as well.


The reason the North Star is a reliable landmark is because always points north (except from the southern hemisphere, where you kinda sorta can't see it.
The star doesn't point north. It is quite close to the north celestial pole, which makes it quite useful at finding the direction to north.
And the fact you can't see it from the southern hemisphere is a massive problem for the FE.

It's not north perpendicular to your relationship to whatever.
You sure love your strawmen. They were saying East and West are perpendicular to north.
Ultimately it is all defined relative to Earth's axis of rotation, following the right hand rule.

So I have marked the equator on this map in red. I have marked yellow for north, green for west.
And you failed.
After being so desperate to emphasise that the lines are curved, you then proceed to entirely ignore it.
On that particular projection north is only straight up at the equator and 0 degrees east.
For everywhere else north of the equator, north actually points slightly inwards as well.
For locations south of the equator, north points outwards slightly.

I have marked in grey the rough estimate of where you actually pointed
You mean you have yet again failed to understand how projections work, and how a straight line on one projection will not necessarily be a straight line on another projection.
Even after emphasising it for the east-west lines so much.

Here is a better example:

The yellow lines show the direction of North at the lowest point on the line.

The grey line follow the arrow provided before.

From any overhead map, whether flat or a globe (unless you don't understand what you are talking about)
Technically no.
It relies upon what FE fantasy you use.
Not every FEer accepts the NP centred fantasy. Some have a south pole centred fantasy.
For them, they have the north as a massive ring, and have no north pole.

all of these points move toward the top, which is center in an overhead map.
Do you mean a NP centred azimuthal equidistant projection map?
That is no more an overhead map than the Mercator projection.

This is consistent with not having an idea which way west is. Now, real west should not cross lines of latitude.
No, this is still you failing to grasp incredibly simple concepts.
You start going west, and then continue straight. In your fantasy this means you will start heading further and further south as you progress, without turning.

Likewise, you failed to comprehend the direction shown in another image was the direction from continental USA to Hawaii, and then from Hawaii to China.

Your green line doesn't go near Hawaii, so how does the plane stop there?
Does it just teleport?

In a trip from California to China, you never at any point change latitude.
Pure BS.
Regardless of if you wanted to cling to your fantasy or accept reality, you certainly will be changing latitude.

Why would pilots fly in a long circle rather than a more direct route?

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry
« Reply #149 on: September 20, 2022, 02:32:40 AM »
It appears that Bumble is one of those Pac-Man Teleporting FEr's.