Would any members of FES be interested discussing flat earth/FES on discord?

Hello,
Would any members of flat earth society be interested in joining a discord server and discussing flat earth/flat earth society?
I am on several different discord servers involved with flat earth (but I am not a flat earther myself), one in particular will do various events, debates, etc.  Mostly its youtube (Witsit being among the more well known names) flat earthers involved but seeing as how you guys seem to have your own corner of the FE community I thought I might reach out and see if anyone was interested in joining a discord discussion.   Note that the server is led by flat earthers and it is moderated.


If anyone is interested, you can reach out to me, or here is a direct link to the server: https://discord.gg/SdmNEhsD
Shane St Pierre is one of the lead mods,  he is usually around.   You can also DM me, I am not a mod, but I can find someone that can answer any questions you might have.
EDIT: my nickname on discord is Extremesis

I'm on that channel.  Your name is familiar.  *nevermind, it's Cosmology Tartaria.  Shane is the owner there.  There are some thick ones there.  FTFE vs the server (or just witsit sometimes) is usually fun.

I would be into discussing more here.

I would be into discussing more here.

More here, as in the FES forums?    I was just asking if anyone from the FES society would like to join a discord server for a discussion.  I would prefer a moderator or 'senior member' at least, as someone more representative of FES, rather than just any random member, but it does not really matter.

To start, it would just be a 1 time event, for 1-2 hour discussion on flat earth.  Perhaps to look into the differences and similarities between the 'youtube' flat earthers and the FES, among other possible topics.
It might evolve to be a regular or at least semi regular discussion, I will leave that possibility open to the parties involved.

Tell them that I don't want a chatroom debate. I want them to go to wiki.tfes.org and conduct opposition research on their specific subject of interest and provide an equal or greater amount of evidence showing that the points in the articles are false. There are plenty of platforms they can publish on.

When the RE here are presented with those articles we mainly just see some kind of argument about why they don't have to address it.

Here is one: Astronomy is a pseudoescience - https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience

When this was posted the arguments revolved around reasons why the points in the article don't need to be addressed, rather than actually addressing them.

Here is another one: Three Body Problem - https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Rather than finding reasons why you don't have to argue about it, how about hitting the books and creating a compelling argument with numerous references like the above article showing that it actually does work without cheats.

This can't be directly debated by RE on the fly in an impromptu chatroom debate. You will lose. In order to debate that you will need to actually need to take the time to perform research to support your position. So go and do that.

Tell them that I don't want a chatroom debate. I want them to to to wiki.tfes.org and conduct opposition research on their specific subject of interest and provide an equal or greater amount of evidence showing that the points in the articles are false. There are plenty of platforms they can publish on.

When the RE here are presented with those articles we mainly just see some kind of argument about why they don't have to address it.

Here is one: Astronomy is a pseudoescience - https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience

When this was posted the arguments revolved around reasons why the points in the article don't need to be addressed, rather than actually addressing them.

Here is another one: Three Body Problem - https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Rather than finding reasons why you don't have to argue about it, how about hitting the books and creating a compelling argument with numerous references like the above article showing that it actually does work without cheats.

This can't be directly debated by RE on the fly in an impromptu chatroom debate. You will lose. In order to debate that you will need to actually need to take the time to perform research to support your position. So go and do that.

No, we have addressed it, only for you to try and twist things, or just flee and bring it up all over again.
All while linking to a site full of lies, with you unable to present anything new or even present a coherent argument here.
If you aren't willing to put in any effort, and instead just want to link to the same refuted BS again and again, why should we bother putting in any effort to refute it?

You did not provide any kind of argument addressing the content when the astronomy pseudoscience link was brought up.

The link was posted in November and you spent pages arguing why you didn't need to address it:

Considering the past times you have linked to that crappy site, I see no reason to waste any effort even looking at the link.

Yet here you are, refusing to debate and instead just making bold claims and linking to a useless site know to blatantly lie and misrepresent the claims of scientists.
This is a blatant lose for you.

Like I said, if you aren't willing to put in any effort, why should I?

You literally admitted that you weren't going to put any effort into it because I didn't make effort and just linked a page.

Well, I did make effort. I wrote it. But even if I didn't write that one, it is also irrelevant as to how much effort your opponent made. You need to actually address the arguments presented to you instead of arguing about why you don't need to argue.

And here you are in this thread again arguing that you don't need to address the content or put in effort:

If you aren't willing to put in any effort, and instead just want to link to the same refuted BS again and again, why should we bother putting in any effort to refute it?

Yes, in a legitimate debate you do need to address the content, not just claim that something is refuted without actually showing that it has been. Arguing reasons for why you do not need to argue is a bad practice, and you need to do a lot better than that.

The OP should go back to his chatroom and tell his friends that they need to put in significant effort into countering these pages, publish their work somewhere, and avoid giving poor ad hominems.

That should keep you busy for a while. You might find that being thorough on a single subject is better than a chatroom debate on a mess of topics.

You did not provide any kind of argument addressing the content when the astronomy pseudoscience link was brought up.

The link was posted in November and you spent pages arguing why you didn't need to address it:

What thread are you referring to?

You did not provide any kind of argument addressing the content when the astronomy pseudoscience link was brought up.

You mean the time you brought it up in a thread, where it had nothing to do with the subject, and then fled.
Why should I waste my time on that when you aren't even willing to support your garbage?
I didn't spend time arguing about it, because you fled.

That is another common tactic of yours.
Come into a thread, mid discussion, spam your link, then flee because you can't defend your nonsense.

I also didn't say I had refuted it. Instead I said we had.

But how about this previous time you brought it up:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83875.0
You bring it up, only to flee and try and change subjects, to try and go back to it and so on.

Well, I did make effort.

No, you didn't.
You posted a link, a link that you had already provided, and then fled.

it is also irrelevant as to how much effort your opponent made.

Actually, it is quite relavent.
If you wish to assert that astronomy is pseudoscience, the burden is on you to demonstrate it is.
You can't just assert it is, provide a link, and pretend to be done.
All that requires me to do is say your claim is unfounded, and move on.

Until you actually present an argument, and by that I mean actually present one, not just link like to a collection of garbage, all I need to do is say you have not supported your claim.

Otherwise, we can end this now with me providing links to plenty of things which show Earth is round and that astronomy is science.

The OP should go back to his chatroom and tell his friends that they need to put in significant effort into countering these pages, publish their work somewhere, and avoid giving poor ad hominems.

Why?
Considering there is already plenty of things which show you are wrong which you just ignore or dismiss as fake, why should they bother putting in the effort?

That should keep you busy for a while.

And that really is the point isn't it?
To try and spout so much BS that your opponents wont have time to refute it all.

Here is a link to wikipedia:
https://www.wikipedia.org/
It has countless articles which demonstrate that Earth is round, spinning and orbiting the sun. Go refute it all.

Here are a list of physics journals:
https://www.iitrpr.ac.in/library/SubjectsPlus/subjects/guide.php?subject=PJ
They have countless articles discuss how we know Earth is round, etc. Go refute them all.

Quote from: faded mike on January 26, 2023, 12:56:16 PM

I would be into discussing more here.

More here, as in the FES forums?    I was just asking if anyone from the FES society would like to join a discord server for a discussion.  I would prefer a moderator or 'senior member' at least, as someone more representative of FES, rather than just any random member, but it does not really matter.

Do I get to be represented as a Flat earth Believer?
Oooh choose me please.

Why should I waste my time

I didn't spend time arguing about it, because

burden is on you

All that requires me to do is say your claim is unfounded

 all I need to do

why should they bother putting in the effort

Here is a link to wikipedia:
https://www.wikipedia.org/

You may think that you have a legitimate argument in your head, but this is not any kind of debate. Observers to a debate expect you to read the arguments and provide a direct rebuttal to the points made.

Your "debate" takes the form of excuses for why you don't want to debate, which means that you ultimately fail in your argument.

The OP should do the opposite of this, and strive to attempt a legitimate debate of the points.

You may think that you have a legitimate argument in your head, but this is not any kind of debate.

That's right. It isn't a debate.
A debate would require to actually put in the effort and provide arguments.
Making a bold claim, and just providing a link is not a debate.

Just like I said on the other thread.

If you want to play that way, as I said before, Earth is round, rotating on its axis and orbiting the sun.
All you need for this is to read everything found here:
https://www.wikipedia.org/
https://www.iitrpr.ac.in/library/SubjectsPlus/subjects/guide.php?subject=PJ

So if you want to claim it isn't round, or rotating or orbiting the sun, go refute all that.

Alternatively, if you want to have a debate, try actually presenting arguments, rather than just claims and links.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 27, 2023, 01:44:18 PM

Why should I waste my time

I didn't spend time arguing about it, because

burden is on you

All that requires me to do is say your claim is unfounded

 all I need to do

why should they bother putting in the effort

Here is a link to wikipedia:
https://www.wikipedia.org/

You may think that you have a legitimate argument in your head, but this is not any kind of debate. Observers to a debate expect you to read the arguments and provide a direct rebuttal to the points made.

Your "debate" takes the form of excuses for why you don't want to debate, which means that you ultimately fail in your argument.

The OP should do the opposite of this, and strive to attempt a legitimate debate of the points.

What is it that you are wanting to debate?

What is it that you are wanting to debate?

I would prefer to see you guys debate the material presented to you rather than making excuses for why you don't need to debate it. Hours were spent collecting and putting together the material, so I kind of expect the same.

However, I don't truly expect anyone to present anything substantial showing that those articles are wrong. I already know that it's not possible, since I did the research with the community to make the articles in the first place. The specific claims about what science says are correct. That is simply what it says. Science is filled with anomaly after anomaly, and illusion after illusion, which shows that RE and Heliocentrism seems to be wrong, but is with some theory really correct. The ancient cosmologies seem to be true, but here is a modern science theory which shows that it might be wrong.

At some point you just have to give it up. If you take all the anomalies and illusions in the Wiki and line them up, the coincidences can't be maintained.

It is for this reason that the TFES Wiki is the modern literary work for Flat Earth Theory, and has superseded Earth Not a Globe as the standard text. The Wiki on this site is an undeveloped earlier version of it. Some kind of Wiki cross-linking or migration arrangement should be made since this site gets more Google traffic now on some terms. There doesn't need to be competition. None of these sites even earn money and withholding information is a waste.

Maybe John Davis and Parsifal just need to apologize and end that conflict.

Quote from: Stash on January 27, 2023, 07:06:54 PM

What is it that you are wanting to debate?

I would prefer to see you guys debate the material presented to you rather than making excuses for why you don't need to debate it. Hours were spent collecting and putting together the material, so I kind of expect the same.

However, I don't truly expect anyone to present anything substantial showing that those articles are wrong. I already know that it's not possible, since I did the research to make the articles in the first place. The specific claims about what science says are correct. Science is filled with anomaly after anomaly, and illusion after illusion, which shows that RE and Heliocentrism seems to be wrong, but is with some theory is really correct. The ancient cosmologies seem to be true, but here is a modern science theory which shows that it might be wrong.

At some point you just have to give it up. If you take all the anomalies and illusions in the Wiki and line them up, the coincidences can't be maintained.

Cool, sounds like since you know no one can refute your wiki a debate of whatever is in it is unnecessary.

It is for this reason that the TFES Wiki is the modern literary work for Flat Earth Theory, and has superseded Earth Not a Globe as the standard text. The Wiki on this site is an undeveloped earlier version of it. Some kind of Wiki cross-linking or migration arrangement should be made since this site gets more Google traffic now. There doesn't need to be competition. None of these sites even earn money and withholding information is a waste.

I don't see anyone else across the web referencing or linking to your wiki, so I would hardly say anyone really pays attention to it. Not to mention, the wider, far more popular FEr's consider TFES a pariah and a joke.

And this all seems like an act of desperation considering barely anyone is active on the TFES site. No one has posted in the Investigations forum in 3 weeks. Same for Community. A handful of posts in Theory in the last month. The only semi-active forum is Philo which has nothing to do with FE and maybe Angry Ranting which you have to be a member to see. The TFES site traffic is near zero. And it's been that way for months.

In other words, no one really gives a shit about TFES or your wiki. The only person who thinks the TFES wiki is the modern literary work for Flat Earth Theory is you.

Maybe John Davis and Parsifal just need to apologize and end that conflict.

Maybe, but I personally don't see any benefit. You have no traffic and your wiki is just a collection of cherry-picked references and quotes. And your moderation is less than welcoming hence probably why you have no new engagements and existing member engagement is in the shitter. I'm not even sure there are any FErs there other than yourself and some mods. At least here, we have an active handful.

I don't see anyone else across the web referencing or linking to your wiki, so I would hardly say anyone really pays attention to it. Not to mention, the wider, far more popular FEr's consider TFES a pariah and a joke.

The Wiki on this site is regularly talked about here. The Wiki on the other site is regularly talked about there. It's also chiefly the same wiki author who put together the content for both sites as well. Hundreds of sites and publications have linked to tfes.org and theflatearthsociety.org instructing readers to see the site content to see what FE is about. You can even find them referenced in books. The wikis are the only modern FE Theory content the two websites have publicly published outside of the John Davis blog. The wikis are the two site's original published literary attraction on FE Theory and FE dynamics and should obviously be developed and combined with an expanded roster of editors.

People like Mark Sargent make podcasts and have interviews with industry professionals, which has its place in FE, but is not a work like the book Earth Not a Globe. The YouTube FE'ers make interesting videos about NASA and such, can't lay claim to a modern literary work on FE Theory. The Wikis are currently the closest thing to a furthering of FE Theory in a written format. Content was generated from debates on this forum, debates the tfes.org forum, from Sandokan's content, and from older posters who no longer post. It's all of our content. Even you contributed to them by engaging in those debates. It is the only existing published FES theory outside of forum content. So the Wikis are our, and the, modern version of Earth Not a Globe as far as can be determined.

At current, this website dominates on Google terms like "flat earth society" and the tfes.org wiki dominates on technical terms like "flat earth sunrise" and "moon tilt illusion" and the such. There is an artificial and social competition between the sites, but there doesn't need to be since it is a fruitless endeavor.

barely anyone is active on the TFES site. No one has posted in the Investigations forum in 3 weeks. Same for Community. A handful of posts in Theory in the last month

This is true. I believe this may be more related to that forum's strict moderation and extensive ban list though. When new people sign up and post they are more likely to be banned than not. Hardly anyone is good enough for us. I prefer strict moderation and only a few quality conversations going on myself and enjoy the slow pace. But this is another disagreement among the communities that will have to be worked out if they are ever to be rejoined.

I would prefer to see you guys debate the material presented to you rather than making excuses for why you don't need to debate it.

I woudl like to see you do the same.
You provided a link, I countered with 2.

You have done nothing to go through Wikipedia and explain why everything on it is wrong.
Collectively years or hundreds of years (added up among all the people who have contributed) have been spent collecting and putting together the material.
Yet you just ignore it entirely, as if you don't have to bother.

If you aren't willing to go through Wikipedia, why should we bother with your crap?

At some point you just have to give it up.

We don't, you do.
If you want to appeal to authority, especially such wilfully misrepresented, then the authorities say Earth is round, and you have lost.
If you want to use links as a debate tactic, then Wikipedia shows you are wrong, and you have lost.

but there doesn't need to be since it is a fruitless endeavor.

Yes, trying to pretend Earth is flat is a fruitless endeavour.

Quote

I don't see anyone else across the web referencing or linking to your wiki, so I would hardly say anyone really pays attention to it. Not to mention, the wider, far more popular FEr's consider TFES a pariah and a joke.

The Wiki on this site is regularly talked about here.

Zero people talk about the wiki here.

The Wiki on the other site is regularly talked about there.

The vast majority of all references to your wiki at TFES is from Pete as he is reprimanding someone for not reading the wiki. That's about it.

It's also chiefly the same wiki author as well. Hundreds of sites and publications have linked to tfes.org and theflatearthsociety.org instructing readers to see the site content to see what FE is about. You can even find them referenced in books.

I see no reference to your wiki anywhere else except for you and Pete. I guess two is better than zero.

The wikis are the only modern FE Theory content the two websites have publicly published outside of the John Davis blog. The wikis are the two site's original published literary attraction on FE Theory and FE dynamics and should obviously be developed and combined with an expanded roster of editors.

"The wikis are the only modern FE Theory content"? Literally delusional and laughable and not factual.

People like Mark Sargent make podcasts and have interviews with industry professionals, which has its place in FE, but is not a work like the book Earth Not a Globe.

He's got a book, almost 300 pages long. ENAG is basically a pamphlet in comparison. Here you go, free to download just like ENAG:

'Flat Earth Clues: End of The World'
by Mark Sargent (Author), Derek Sproule (Illustrator)

The YouTube FE'ers make interesting videos about NASA and such, can't lay claim to a modern literary work on FE Theory. The Wikis are currently the closest thing to a furthering of FE Theory in a written format. Content was generated from debates on this forum, debates the tfes.org forum, from Sandokan's content, and from older posters who no longer post. It's all of our content. Even you contributed to them by engaging in those debates and providing fodder. It is the only existing published FES theory outside of forum content. So the Wikis are our, and the, modern version of Earth Not a Globe as far as can be determined.

There are a gazillion other players in the FE space with tons of written content that has nothing to do with your wiki. I mean just go to Amazon, search books for 'Flat Earth' and there are dozens and dozens of modern, contemporary books promoting FE.

At current, this website dominates on Google terms like "flat earth society" and the tfes.org wiki dominates on technical terms like "flat earth sunrise" and "moon tilt illusion" and the such. There is an artificial and social competition between the sites, but there doesn't need to be since it is a fruitless endeavor.

Yep, and Moon Tilt illusion is surrounded in Google by a plethora of articles and papers that completely debunk your ridiculous refutation of actual science and you know, experimentation, the Zetetic way - All it takes is a simple gif to blow up one of your beloved wiki pages...

He's got a book, almost 300 pages long. ENAG is basically a pamphlet in comparison. Here you go, free to download just like ENAG:

'Flat Earth Clues: End of The World'
by Mark Sargent (Author), Derek Sproule (Illustrator)

None of those books are like Earth Not a Globe. Earth Not a Globe was about the physics of Flat Earth Theory. Mark Sargent doesn't talk about that.

"In this second 'Flat Earth Clues' book, Mark delves deeper into the conspiracy and looks at some of the key players (love 'em or hate 'em) that are involved in and associated with the struggle."

The closest modern thing to something like Earth Not a Globe is the tfes.org wiki. Maybe this site's wiki would come in at second or third place if you over look its serious flaws and glance through the topics it tries to cover and pretend that the articles work and are better edited. There is nothing modern out there that describes Flat Earth Theory in detail.

Sandakan does a good job at researching his Advanced Flat Earth Theory, does discuss physics, and the wiki has pulled information from it like the Aether experiments. That is one of the few other modern physics works on the subject that I have ever seen. I wouldn’t say that the format is currently in article or book format though.

There are a gazillion other players in the FE space with tons of written content that has nothing to do with your wiki. I mean just go to Amazon, search books for 'Flat Earth' and there are dozens and dozens of modern, contemporary books promoting FE.

Yes, as were there were plenty of FE books in the late 1800's. But Rowbotham's work was clearly the main work because it focused on the physics and the model.

Zero people talk about the wiki here.

Sure they do, if only to complain that it's broken and needs better editing. It's supposed to be the place where FE Theory is described in detail, but is presently broken and oudated and almost unreadable. Hundreds of people visit the site to learn about FE Theory and see an unattractive wiki.

This is part of the reason the sites split. Bad maintenance. It should have been handed over to the community to maintain.

Yep, and Moon Tilt illusion is surrounded in Google by a plethora of articles and papers that completely debunk your ridiculous refutation of actual science and you know, experimentation, the Zetetic way - All it takes is a simple gif to blow up one of your beloved wiki pages...

Well no, the wiki specifically addresses that: https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion_Supplement

You should know since we have had this conversation numerous times. The stretching a string between two points does not show that things are pointing at each other.

The actual situation looks like this, from University of Nebraska-Lincoln's Moon Phases and the Horizon Diagram:



The 'experiment' you are describing is the little guy in the image stretching a string across the ecliptic between the Moon and Sun, or holding up a ball and looking at it from the underside against the moon.

The Alan Myers diagram shows that the Moon tilts upwards and does not point at the Sun. You can see the orientations of the Moon around the observer in altitude and azimuth here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion



Again see https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion and https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion_Supplement

I would suggest that you actually address the points rather than pretending that they don't exist.

You should also note that you won't get these kinds of arguments about light physics from Mark Sargent's book. Study of the Earth and its phenomena is what made Earth Not a Globe the standard text on Flat Earth.

Well no, the wiki specifically addresses that.

By entirely misrepresenting the situation and cherry picking what it wants to show.

As has been explained to you before, the Moon tilt illusion is used by dishonest FEers to pretend the lit portion of the moon is not facing the sun so they can pretend the RE is wrong.

A refutation of that BS does not need to prove the moon is pointing towards the sun.
These demonstrations are not proof the moon is pointing towards the sun.
Instead they are a disproof of that FE BS.

But because you can't handle that, you try to shift the burden of proof, by entirely misrepresenting what these refutations are.

You should know since we have had this conversation numerous times.

Yes, you should know.
Yet you keep on bringing up the same dishonest garbage as if it hasn't been called out before.

The Alan Myers diagram shows that the Moon tilts upwards and does not point at the Sun.

No, it doesn't. That is just your dishonestly cherry picked BS.

You literally take an article explaining the moon tilt illusion, and why that "expected" direction is typically wrong, and blatantly lie about it to pretend there is a problem.
Your dishonesty knows no bounds.

Considering you like links, here is one for you:
https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaperOnline.pdf
And here is a quote from the abstract:

The illusion
arises because the observer erroneously expects a light ray between sun and moon
to appear as a line of constant slope according to the positions of the sun and
the moon in the sky. This expectation does not correspond to the reality that
observation by direct vision or a camera is according to perspective projection, for
which the observed slope of a straight line in three-dimensional object space changes
according to the direction of observation.

And that is just another reason why your wiki is absolute garbage, not worth any time looking at, because the vast majority of content there is just dishonest BS, blatantly misrepresenting reality.

I would suggest that you actually address the points rather than pretending that they don't exist.

Follow your own advice.
Actually address the articles that you blatantly lie about, rather than cherry picking a part you can dishonestly use to pretend your BS is justified.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 27, 2023, 09:32:51 AM

Tell them that I don't want a chatroom debate. I want them to to to wiki.tfes.org and conduct opposition research on their specific subject of interest and provide an equal or greater amount of evidence showing that the points in the articles are false. There are plenty of platforms they can publish on.

When the RE here are presented with those articles we mainly just see some kind of argument about why they don't have to address it.

Here is one: Astronomy is a pseudoescience - https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience

When this was posted the arguments revolved around reasons why the points in the article don't need to be addressed, rather than actually addressing them.

Here is another one: Three Body Problem - https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Rather than finding reasons why you don't have to argue about it, how about hitting the books and creating a compelling argument with numerous references like the above article showing that it actually does work without cheats.

This can't be directly debated by RE on the fly in an impromptu chatroom debate. You will lose. In order to debate that you will need to actually need to take the time to perform research to support your position. So go and do that.

No, we have addressed it, only for you to try and twist things, or just flee and bring it up all over again.
All while linking to a site full of lies, with you unable to present anything new or even present a coherent argument here.
If you aren't willing to put in any effort, and instead just want to link to the same refuted BS again and again, why should we bother putting in any effort to refute it?

In other words, you and your five friends came here when there were lots of FE members, and bullied them all into silence.

Why don't you GTFO. Sorry, that's rude. Why don't you GTFO, pretty please. Because of you, I've nor been able to talk to people I wanted to talk to about a subject I liked, and you made this experience toxic for all of us that they feel like they have to leave.

No, I do think it's good to have healthy debate. I just think the others here aren't very good at it, and so why two or three of you are gathered together they get silenced.

I mean look at you. It's explicitly a Flat Earth forum. You're allowed here. Instead you're able to take over because the mods are very soft. What do you care if other ppl want to believe in Flat Earth? Is it ANY business of yours?

That they think that they should flee to another zone means they don't have good arguments against you. This doesn't mean FE is wrong or that there aren't good  arguments for it. It means debate is a skill, and many of the others are awful at it. Or that they get unfairly ganged, and theythink the majority agrees so they stop talking. This is what happens when loud and vocal minority sets agenda. And it is a minority: slime (the only one I actually like), then Stash, Tom Bishop (I think? He's showing some rope curve thing, the point being that he doesn't make an assertive enough position, so I can't tell), JackBlack, DataOverload. And I've forgotten one or two.

(Btw, it looks like that model shows the right side as lower and the left side as higher but the problem is that rather than moving across while filming this shot, by pivoting in place, you are turning the camera in a horizontal arc. In other words, you're rolling the camera by not moving with it. But let's ignore that visual problem and say this proves the sky is domed.
But we never said the sky wasn't domed. You are measuring one thing with this experiment and claiming another. That is, if you prove the sky is domed, but you claim the Earth's round. The Earth being round means the earth (ground) is round too. But this picture shows only domed sky, and that's only because we accept the picture instead of questioning pivot photography)

The point is, if all y'all don't like Flat Earth, why are you pestering those who do, to the point that they want to build a Discord, only that you would follow them there?

Centuries ago, Muslim people entered Persia. What is now called Iran. They had no respect for Zoroastrianism, and in fact Zoroastrianism personified Allah as Ahriman (the Great Deceiver, when Allah admits he is the greatest deveiver), which exposed their cult. They were nonviolent people so rather than fight for their land, they have mostly surrendered it. They fled to India. The Farsi remain a persecuted people as despite Muslims having their own country in Iran, because they moved to India. Now Muslims have Pakistan on both sides, Afghanistan, etc. But it was never about the land. In fact, Muslims tend to ruin land they acquire, as they have never learned to farm except for goat farming. Look at Israel if you want to see what a desert things were under Muslim control. It was about pursuing and killing their enemies. Even when they don't want to fight.
You are doing the same thing in a web forum. Not cool. You don't agree with people? Fine. You don't have to. But it is bad form to try to shut down people who feel differently than you.

I am mostly okay with you debating with me, but that all of you here have managed to silence the other members is not cool.

And for the record, no.

I don't have Discord on my Kindle, and I think this forum should make a stand against the evil that is RE rather than run when people want to pursue and snuff you out.

In other words, you and your five friends came here when there were lots of FE members, and bullied them all into silence.

Why don't you GTFO. Sorry, that's rude. Why don't you GTFO, pretty please. Because of you, I've nor been able to talk to people I wanted to talk to about a subject I liked, and you made this experience toxic for all of us that they feel like they have to leave.

Funny?  You keep posting in the open forums?  You’re not allowed in the safe and protected space of of “Flat Earth Believers”? 

Maybe you need to claim airlines are pushing people out of airplanes or something? 


While posting in the open forums you’re just going to have to deal with demonstrable facts that destroy you delusion.

And for the record, no.

I don't have Discord on my Kindle, and I think this forum should make a stand against the evil that is RE rather than run when people want to pursue and snuff you out.

How is “RE” evil?  How is debating demonstrable facts like the shape of the earth and radio waves are not sound waves “evil”? 

And for the record, no.

I don't have Discord on my Kindle

What do you use to type here?

Quote from: Stash on January 28, 2023, 12:29:50 AM

He's got a book, almost 300 pages long. ENAG is basically a pamphlet in comparison. Here you go, free to download just like ENAG:

'Flat Earth Clues: End of The World'
by Mark Sargent (Author), Derek Sproule (Illustrator)

None of those books are like Earth Not a Globe. Earth Not a Globe was about the physics of Flat Earth Theory. Mark Sargent doesn't talk about that.

"In this second 'Flat Earth Clues' book, Mark delves deeper into the conspiracy and looks at some of the key players (love 'em or hate 'em) that are involved in and associated with the struggle."

The closest modern thing to something like Earth Not a Globe is the tfes.org wiki. Maybe this site's wiki would come in at second or third place if you over look its serious flaws and glance through the topics it tries to cover and pretend that the articles work and are better edited. There is nothing modern out there that describes Flat Earth Theory in detail.

What "physics" in ENAG? I haven't found any.

Like I said, just search Amazon, you'll find a ton of modern flat earth books. Here's a good one:

The Greatest Lie on Earth (Expanded Edition): Proof That Our World Is Not a Moving Globe
by Edward Hendrie  | Sep 2, 2018

Your wiki is authoritative of nothing. The site is dead, basically zero FE traffic.

Sandakan does a good job at researching his Advanced Flat Earth Theory, does discuss physics, and the wiki has pulled information from it like the Aether experiments. That is one of the few other modern physics works on the subject that I have ever seen. I wouldn’t say that the format is currently in article or book format though.

So does Globebusters on Youtube. Tons of "physics", even talk of aether, etc.

No one bothers with Sandy's stuff. It's just too dense with odd things like his bizarre biochemistry and the bible was written in the 1800's weirdness.

There are a gazillion other players in the FE space with tons of written content that has nothing to do with your wiki. I mean just go to Amazon, search books for 'Flat Earth' and there are dozens and dozens of modern, contemporary books promoting FE.

Yes, as were there were plenty of FE books in the late 1800's. But Rowbotham's work was clearly the main work because it focused on the physics and the model.

Quote from: Stash on January 28, 2023, 12:29:50 AM

Zero people talk about the wiki here.

Sure they do, if only to complain that it's broken and needs better editing. It's supposed to be the place where FE Theory is described in detail, but is presently broken and oudated and almost unreadable. Hundreds of people visit the site to learn about FE Theory and see an unattractive wiki.

This is part of the reason the sites split. Bad maintenance. It should have been handed over to the community to maintain.

No one has even mentioned the wiki here, whether it's good or bad even, for as long as I remember. And no one references your wiki either. You're somehow deluded into thinking what you write in your wiki is important and sacrosanct when in actuality, no one cares.

What community? You mean the three FEr's you have who barely post?

Quote

Yep, and Moon Tilt illusion is surrounded in Google by a plethora of articles and papers that completely debunk your ridiculous refutation of actual science and you know, experimentation, the Zetetic way - All it takes is a simple gif to blow up one of your beloved wiki pages...

Well no, the wiki specifically addresses that: https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion_Supplement

You should know since we have had this conversation numerous times. The stretching a string between two points does not show that things are pointing at each other.

The actual situation looks like this, from University of Nebraska-Lincoln's Moon Phases and the Horizon Diagram:

More cherry picking with no context. If you actually looked at the U of N cosmology simulations catalogue, you would see that it's chock full of how the globe earth interacts with the universe. Of course, you omit all that.

The Alan Myers diagram shows that the Moon tilts upwards and does not point at the Sun. You can see the orientations of the Moon around the observer in altitude and azimuth here:

Again, yet another example of utter cherry-picking and completely out of context. You don't even include in your wiki Myer's explanation of figure 3, you just post the image with a bit of made up text. Here's what Myer's says about figure 3:

Figure 3 is a 2D representation of the 3D position of the sun relative to the moon. As the moon-sun azimuth difference increases beyond 90◦ from right to left at constant altitude, the sun moves behind the observer, causing the projected slope of the moon-sun vector to move in a CW direction. Facing the elevated moon and with the setting sun directly behind him, the observer would expect the light to illuminate the moon from below. The actual illumination is directly from above.

More from Myers from your source:

The cause of the moon tilt illusion is simply that the observer is not taking into account the rules of perspective that dictate that the observed slope of the light ray will change when he turns his head to observe the moon and sun. This perceptual disconnect occurs because the observer cannot see the light ray itself, but only its starting position at the sun and the angle at which it strikes the moon. Without any other visual cues to provide more information, he is perceptually unable to envision how the slope of a visible line overhead changes with viewing angle due to perspective projection.

Now why is none of that in your wiki? A classic example of your cherry-picking. And this is why no one cares about your wiki, because it disingenuously represents other people's work and research that in it's entirety, refutes everything you try and make of it. Your wiki is a deceptive, unreliable narration.

In other words, you and your five friends came here when there were lots of FE members, and bullied them all into silence.

No one was bullied into silence.
They have had their delusional BS refuted again and again.

If they can't handle being shown to be wrong in a debate, that is on them.
Explaining why they are wrong is not bullying.

Because of you, I've nor been able to talk to people I wanted to talk to about a subject I liked, and you made this experience toxic for all of us that they feel like they have to leave.

Stop blaming us for your mistakes.
If you stopped asserting such nonsense, and repeating the same nonsense again and again, it would have been a much better experience for you.
You, and people like you are the ones making it toxic.

A healthy debate would mean you stay on topic, and actually respond to what your opponents say, rather than entirely ignore their response, jumping topic, only to then jump back and bring up the same refuted BS again later.

So if you want to have a healthy debate, try actually having one.
Pick a topic, stick to it, and deal with the refutation of your claims, actually respond to what your opponents say.

I mean look at you. It's explicitly a Flat Earth forum.

It is not just a forum for FEers, it is a forum to discuss FE.

That they think that they should flee to another zone means they don't have good arguments against you.

And that really is their issue.
They do not have any rational arguments to defend their position, because their position is based upon blind faith and/or paranoia, typically combined with wilful rejection of reality.
But plenty of REers are like that as well, and I explain why their claims are wrong as well.

If the FEers beliefs were actually based upon rational thought and evidence, they would have much stronger arguments.
They wouldn't need to repeatedly lie about the RE to pretend there is a problem.
They wouldn't need to dismiss all the evidence that shows they are wrong.
They wouldn't need to repeatedly jump topics.

(Btw, it looks like that model shows the right side as lower and the left side as higher but the problem is that rather than moving across while filming this shot, by pivoting in place, you are turning the camera in a horizontal arc. In other words, you're rolling the camera by not moving with it. But let's ignore that visual problem and say this proves the sky is domed.

No, it doesn't prove the sky is domed.
What that demonstrates is how your vision works based upon angles, and why the moon tilt illusion occurs.
The point is that the moon is pointing towards the sun, but the angle in which you look at it makes it appear that it isn't.

And most importantly, this is used as a refutation of the claims of FEers (and the like) who wish to claim the moon tilt illusion means the moon isn't facing the sun.

The Earth being round means the earth (ground) is round too. But this picture shows only domed sky

Again, it doesn't show a domed sky.
It is showing the view for a particular observer, not the entire Earth. Over that distance the curvature is negligible, so there is no need to show it there.

The point is, if all y'all don't like Flat Earth, why are you pestering those who do

Because all it takes for BS to triumph is for intelligent people to say nothing.
Look at you, falsely claiming NASA is a fraud and saying they shouldn't get any funding, while ignoring all the benefits modern society enjoys because of NASA.
And the same paranoid, delusional mindset wanting to deny climate change, which will have very significant consequences for everyone.

The point is, even if you don't recognise it, the mindset you are promoting is harmful to society and ever member of society.

You are doing the same thing in a web forum. Not cool. You don't agree with people? Fine. You don't have to. But it is bad form to try to shut down people who feel differently than you.

I'm not shutting them down.
I am exposing their lies and their nonsense.
That is quite different to killing people if they don't join a cult.

Why should I not be allowed to express my views about their claims?

If you don't like reality, that's your problem.
I shouldn't need to remain silent and not object to your BS just because it would upset you.
If you don't like people challenging your beliefs, keep your beliefs to yourself.

Your wiki is authoritative of nothing. The site is dead, basically zero FE traffic.

You are mistaking a forum where a high percentage of people get banned with the traffic of a site. You can easily see that you are incorrect with a traffic analyzer. Tfes gets about 4.2k monthly hits. Theflatearthsociety.org gets about 6.4k monthly hits. This site is presently getting about 2k more organic hits per month than tfes, mainly based on this site ranking higher on the term "flat earth society", which is a more popular term than terms which the tfes wiki gets traffic on that are more specific like "flat earth sunrise"

https://ahrefs.com/traffic-checker

Like I said, just search Amazon, you'll find a ton of modern flat earth books. Here's a good one:

The Greatest Lie on Earth (Expanded Edition): Proof That Our World Is Not a Moving Globe
by Edward Hendrie  | Sep 2, 2018

That one isn't about the Flat Earth model and its dynamics either. It's about various proofs of flatness like expert testimony. Only the ENAG and a few sources like the Wiki and Sandokan's theory attempts to actually explain the particulars of a Flat Earth Theory.

So does Globebusters on Youtube. Tons of "physics", even talk of aether, etc.

You are referring to podcasts and internet videos. None of that is a major literary work on the subject.  None of that is a standard reference for FE Theory. Only Earth Not a Globe and a few other works like that fit the bill.

More from Myers from your source:

The cause of the moon tilt illusion is simply that the observer is not taking into account the rules of perspective that dictate that the observed slope of the light ray will change when he turns his head to observe the moon and sun. This perceptual disconnect occurs because the observer cannot see the light ray itself, but only its starting position at the sun and the angle at which it strikes the moon. Without any other visual cues to provide more information, he is perceptually unable to envision how the slope of a visible line overhead changes with viewing angle due to perspective projection.

Now why is none of that in your wiki? A classic example of your cherry-picking. And this is why no one cares about your wiki, because it disingenuously represents other people's work and research that in it's entirety, refutes everything you try and make of it. Your wiki is a deceptive, unreliable narration.

This is not a matter of cherry picking. This is a matter of your poor reading comprehension, or deliberate tactic of deception. The Wiki actually does address the Myers paper and cites the perspective arguments. Here it takes the perspective hallway diagram that illustrates the perspective argument in the Myers' "Moon Tilt Illusion" paper and addresses it:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion

Perspective Explanation

An explanation of the Moon Tilt Illusion for the Round Earth Theory is given in the form of a perspective effect. It is possible to arrange yourself under an object so that it points upwards above your head. It is claimed that this is occurring with the Moon.

This is often demonstrated with a hallway. When standing in the middle of a hallway it is possible to see the edges of the ceiling angled in different directions by looking from the left to the right. From The Moon Tilt Illusion (Archive) we see:



Using an example with a Green Cone (Moon) connected to a Sun on a straight line over a semi-transparent Earth, it is possible that the apparent direction of Green Cone is angled upwards when looking away from the Sun, and can apparently point in a straight line to a Sun below the horizon.



Scene zoomed out:



Two Object Problem

One issue with this explanation of 'perspective' is that if the observer is ever in a position to see both the Moon and Sun simultaneously, the illuminated portion of the Moon should point at the Sun. When moving the camera around the above scene, whenever the green cone and yellow ball are in the same field, the cone will always point at the ball along that straight line.



However, in contrast to this experimental determination of perspective, we find that with the Moon Tilt Illusion it is possible for an observer to see both the Moon and Sun simultaneously, misaligned to each other.

At https://www.astropix.com/html/observing/moonill.html (Archive) professional astrophotographer Jerry Lodriguss (bio) reports:



From the author:

  “ Now, I have always under the impression that if you took the Moon's phase illumination angle it would draw a line straight back to the sun. But this sure wasn't what I thought I saw this day.

Obviously, it's an illusion that has something to do with a three-dimensional space being projected onto a two-dimensional plane in my eyeballs. Some people have tried to explain it as involving great circles, just as airplanes fly great circle routes to places on the opposite side of the globe. However they only do this because they can't fly a straight line through the Earth.

What I can't seem to get past is that the Sun and the Moon were in the same field together and I could view them both at the same time and that the light from the Sun is going in a straight line from the Sun to the Moon. It is not following a great circle. ”

In contradiction to this observation, it is seen that when the Moon and Sun are in the same field together and can be seen simultaneously the illuminated portion of the Moon should point at the Sun along a straight line.

So, the wiki does address the perspective argument. You are clearly incorrect.


It is also apparent that you could go out and test this yourself. Knowing that humans have a wide range of vision and can see up to 190 degrees at one time, it should be possible to see both the Moon and Sun in the same field at the same time.

This is not a matter of cherry picking. This is a matter of your poor reading comprehension, or deliberate tactic of deception.

No, it most certainly is your deception.

If the wiki actually addressed it, it would accept that the moon tilt illusion is an illusion, and not actually a problem for the RE. But the authors don't care about representing things honestly, because the authors don't care about reality. Instead, the authors want to pretend Earth is flat, and they are happy to use whatever dishonest tactics they can to pretend their fantasy is true.

One issue with this explanation of 'perspective' is that if the observer is ever in a position to see both the Moon and Sun simultaneously, the illuminated portion of the Moon should point at the Sun.

See, this is not an honest portrayal.
An honest portrayal would note that while the effect is most significant when you cannot see them at the same time, the effect doesn't just magically stop when you can see them both at once.
Instead it varies in magnitude.

An honest portrayal would include a discussion on things like barrel distortion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_distortion
Where a straight line appears to curve.

An honest portrayal would have looked at figure 10, and recognised that even with a small angle separating them, the illusion can still occur.

An honest portrayal would not have stated this outright lie:

The Alan Myers diagram shows that the Moon tilts upwards and does not point at the Sun.

Baselessly asserting that it should magically be a straight line in that case, without a sound justification is not addressing it.

So no, the wiki doesn't actually address the perspective argument.
It cherry picks, and dishonestly portrays it to pretend that there is a problem.

Can you find an example where the sun and moon are both visible, with the sun and moon both quite close to the centre of the FOV vertically?

Tell them that I don't want a chatroom debate. I want them to go to wiki.tfes.org and conduct opposition research on their specific subject of interest and provide an equal or greater amount of evidence showing that the points in the articles are false. There are plenty of platforms they can publish on.

This is not meant to be a formal debate.   Just an informal discussion.   Youtube/internet flat earthers, RE, and FES would be present.  The server is (mostly) a flat earth server, so I will say that the bias is for a flat earth/your position.   As stated, this just a suggestion for 'something different'.   Its not necessarily meant to debate flat earth per se, but more to just share the different viewpoints and discuss the viewpoints in a reasonable manner.   Things can get heated sometimes, but the mods do a pretty good job of maintaining order.   
Anyway, it was just a suggestion for a random different event, and a an alternative arena to voice FES viewpoints.