You need to do some reading, then. I did not say they were correct, but that they have figured it out to their own satisfaction and in detail. Any argument you can propose, has already been thought about and worked out in a flat Earth model.
It's like you signing up for a philosophy class at university and trying to come up with bold new arguments that your professor has never heard before. Not likely to happen.
I don't mean any disrespect, but the debate is old and well worn. Just about anything you can come up with has been already been thought of and explained in a flat earth model. You may be able to argue that validity of that model, but you'll have a hard time finding a novel argument. I know. BT-DT Quite fascinating, actually,
I have seen too much that simply relies on literal biblical interpretation. Do you have a link to any arguments that work all the way back through re-explaining first principles with no faith or conspiracy based stuff at all?
Cross purpose. For almost every globular argument, there is a well thought out planist response. Whether or not they are correct is less interesting (IMO) than the hard work and often the math that goes into the flat earth model.
Yes, we have some similar subjects here on diyAudio, and they often seem to involve digital audio, or the properties of wires. Most people simply repeat what they've read or been told, but some go to a lot of trouble to explain why what they believe is true.
Scott. Look up Zetetic Astronomy. I have the book, and it's now online for all to read. it's the most important text in the Flat Earth belief.
I'm more intrigued by the why of course, as many have implied. I surmised at the start that the friend was merely being passive aggressive and I find myself coming back to that conclusion time and time again. The whole stance of being anti-everything can become obsessive and that is what has obviously happened if mockingbird is to be believed. In order to be a true flatist it seems almost imperative to disregard all reason and argument, classic passive aggressive behaviour.
There is a big difference between well thought out and wasting a lot of time making things up.
EDIT - Yes Pano I have started to read about Zetetic Astronomy last week, on some philosophical levels it is weak. If they deny repeatability of experiments then there is not much to say i.e. concentrating the moon's radiation reduced the temperature of an object by 8 degrees. The book is full of nonsense like this. Why not ask one of them to repeat this experiment in front of witnesses?
Last edited:
I recall seeing a website some time ago (~2000?) that had detailed, well-formed (and very tight) arguments for a flat earth. I looked for it at one point a few years ago but was unable to find it.
Last edited:
Old Parallax was certainly full of it. But he did not shy away from challenges. His explanations might be taken somewhat in light of his time, somewhat in light of his mania.
He did, however, have an answer for just about everything. I give him credit for that. And he did do experiments, he didn't just talk about his claims. I repeated what I could of his experiments to try to verify his results. Not easy to do.
There where interesting photographic experiments carried out in 1910 by Lady Blount. The photographs seem to no longer exist.
Nah I ain't scared. I say plenty of dumb stuff on here. If I thought the earth was flat I would say so.
Scott brought up the cooling light from the moon. I find this stuff literally insane but intriguing. I got to vet my hands on a temp gun. There must be a lot of variables so I wouldn't know where to start for a good experiment except to just measure say a patch of grass, one on direct moonlight and the other in the shade. Then do the same with a boulder, then a car, then a roof etc...
Do you guys really want me to get my buddy in here so you can ask him questions directly? He always gives answers but he does say what Pano says in that any question you have has been answered already by the flat earth model and to do some research. I just like listening to him explain because I like giving him a hard time lol.
Do you guys really want me to get my buddy in here so you can ask him questions directly? He always gives answers but he does say what Pano says in that any question you have has been answered already by the flat earth model and to do some research. I just like listening to him explain because I like giving him a hard time lol.
If the Earth is flat, how can there be Alien underground bases in Antarctica ?.....
Dan.
Dan.
Last edited:
There are so many books about supernatural, usually being advertised on TV after midnight. There can be 500 pages of plausible reasoning about ancient egyptian civilization all based on the first page's assumption; "As everyone knows, the pyramids could not have been built by humans!" These are clearly refered to people who do not understand what does scientific documentation means.
They can probably explain this by invoking variable speed of light, or simply having a lower value for it. You have to remember that they know just enough physics to confuse themselves, and some of that is their own private version of physics.Tubelab_com said:
How do they avoid finding that concentrating the radiation from the sky at night (assuming no clouds, so they can see the moon) will cool things even more than the moon does?scott wurcer said:
This is one of those times when you have to extremely careful that the experiment you are doing is the one you think you are doing. Objects in direct moonlight are likely to be cooler than objects in the shade. This is not because the moonlight has cooled them; it is because the sky around the moon is much colder than whatever is shading the objects in the shade. So 'in moonlight' is a reasonable proxy for 'can see the black cold sky'. It is not that the sky cools them, but that it fails to warm them very much so they cool themselves by radiating heat but receiving little back.famousmockingbird said:
You would have to explain to him the forum prohibition on discussing religion. He would just have to take comfort from the fact that some of us share some of his theology, but not his 'science'.
A number of people have asked questions and been given the standard reply, (or no reply at all) if he (who is a believer) is not prepared to answer questions directly I see very little point.
I haven't got anything re my question as to why map projections exist and cause problems when a flat earth would not require any projection at all and would be accurate in every aspect (shape, area, distances, angles etc).
Most of the modern flat earth maps look a lot like the UN map. Older ones varied, usually because each person proposing them had different ideas and calculations of the distances.
Often this estimates where based on travel times, where no direct measurement was available.
Just south of me was a community that believed we lived on the inside of a hollow sphere, with the sun at the center. Their projection was fairly standard, just concave. I took some photos of their lovely model work. It spins!
Often this estimates where based on travel times, where no direct measurement was available.
Just south of me was a community that believed we lived on the inside of a hollow sphere, with the sun at the center. Their projection was fairly standard, just concave. I took some photos of their lovely model work. It spins!
Attachments
That neatly explains why longer distance flights tend to be higher. Not quite so good at explaining why we see a horizon which gets further away the higher we go.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.