[Ghost of V]

Or, if you're instead taking the decision that the measurements are wrong, how? Many maps etc predate, for example, space travel, and distances are repeatedly verified by literally anyone who has any travelling to do.

I've traveled by boat, car, plane, etc. I don't measure the distances every time I travel. Actually, I don't think most people do.

All you can really do is measure from point a to point b and the like (how much time, how many miles, etc does it take to get from California to Brazil?). That's not going to tell you the shape of the Earth no matter how hard you want it to.


I'm not going to continue responding if you're not going to add anything further. I don't want this to devolve into a Jane loop. You know our stance. Pretending that we'll accept shoddy measurements from third party sources isn't helping your point. I think I've made my stance on this particular argument clear, and I don't think anything further needs to be addressed. Good day.

[Jane]

All you can really do is measure from point a to point b and the like (how much time, how many miles, etc does it take to get from California to Brazil?). That's not going to tell you the shape of the Earth no matter how hard you want it to.

If you don't accept proven maths, that says it all. How do you think said distances were found? Most people might not measure distances, but you'd tell if, for example, the northern hemisphere was half the size you see. If you know something's speed, and how long it takes to get somewhere (eg: with planes) you can tell the distance.

I'm not going to continue responding if you're not going to add anything further.

Oh, that's rich.

I don't want this to devolve into a Vauxhall loop. You know our stance. Pretending that we'll accept shoddy measurements from third parties isn't helping your point. I think I've made my stance on this particular argument clear, and I don't think anything further needs to be addressed. Good day.

If your stance is to reject all maps, all data taken from sources completely unrelated to space agencies, and make every cartographer a liar, your stance is clear. That doesn't mean this question is not relevant as, by the wiki, that is far from a widely-held belief even among FEers.

[Thork]

Or, if you're instead taking the decision that the measurements are wrong, how? Many maps etc predate, for example, space travel, and distances are repeatedly verified by literally anyone who has any travelling to do.

Nice videos for you.

[Ghost of V]

If your stance is to reject all maps, all data taken from sources completely unrelated to space agencies, and make every cartographer a liar, your stance is clear. That doesn't mean this question is not relevant as, by the wiki, that is far from a widely-held belief even among FEers.

This is the Flat Earth Society. We deny the shape of the Earth. Denying cartography, naturally, comes with that. I'm actually shocked that you're surprised about this.

[Jane]

If your stance is to reject all maps, all data taken from sources completely unrelated to space agencies, and make every cartographer a liar, your stance is clear. That doesn't mean this question is not relevant as, by the wiki, that is far from a widely-held belief even among FEers.

This is the Flat Earth Society. We deny the shape of the Earth. Denying cartography, naturally, comes with that. I'm actually shocked that you're surprised about this.

It's distances more than just cartography: distances are verifiable. That's the issue. That has always been the issue. Go ahead denying them, but you aren't answering the how or the why.

Thork, I don't have the time to go through almost half an hour of videos. Skimming them, they don't seem to be of relevance to the matter of distance, and the plane flights have been answered multiple times from what I've seen (desirability, wind currents etc) and they were focused on the wrong hemisphere for the argument I'm making.
There are multiple groups who have calculated the length of the equator: if these groups are dishonest, surely it would make more sense for them to give a measurement for the equator which was vaguely accurate, instead of over 35% out? The key to any lie should be to make it believable. Error bars quite that big are not believable.
Unless the length of the equator is accurate, in which case the subsequent, best possible case for area makes an even more damning case.

[Tom Bishop]

If "distances are verifiable," please tell us how ships and airplanes measure distance. If you are the captain of a vessel, sailing on an endless ocean, what is the tool your ship would use analogous to an odometer? Is there some kind of device that goes into the water and spins with the current as the ship sails forward?

No, there is no such device. A ship gets its position by figuring out his longitude and latitude in some way and looking at a map which shows the coordinates of the destination location. If his Latitude is 71 and he needs to be at 72.5, he keeps sailing until he gets there. In the past the latitude and longitude could be figured out by looking at the stars. Modernly, it is gathered by looking at GPS coordinates (which is still just based on the star position-based latitude/longitude of old). The captain is merely looking at his coordinates and pointing his ship on a path to get to the coordinates he needs to be at. There is no direct measurement of the earth whatsoever.

[Jane]

There is no direct measurement of the earth whatsoever.

I refer you to the fairly well-known equation of speed equals distance over time. The time is known, speed can be calculated from the capabilities of the ship and from reference to any stationary observer (such as another ship, or land, etc). If the distance calculated from a RE model doesn't even come close to that (as would be required) you can bet it would stick out.

[Tom Bishop]

There are only a few different types of boat speedometers.  One has a little prop which spins in the water flow and electronics convert spin speed to boat speed. Another type uses doppler echo into the water and computes boat speed from result. But they are all pretty inaccurate. Speed through the water is meaningless due to slip, set, and drift.

There is currently no reliable method of gauging one's speed at sea or in the air.

[Ghost of V]

Jane, I think you'd get better results if you did the measurements yourself instead of relying on faulty round Earth data. You probably won't be happy with the results though.

[Jane]

There are only a few different types of boat speedometers.  One has a little prop which spins in the water flow and electronics convert spin speed to boat speed. Another type uses doppler echo into the water and computes boat speed from result. But they are all pretty inaccurate. Speed through the water is meaningless due to slip, set, and drift.

here is currently no reliable method of gauging one's speed at sea or in the air.

speed can be calculated from the capabilities of the ship and from reference to any stationary observer (such as another ship, or land, etc).

[Jane]

Jane, I think you'd get better results if you did the measurements yourself instead of relying on faulty round Earth data. You probably won't be happy with the results though.

Sure thing, just give me a reason to distrust the multitude of cartographers and pilots and boat crews and surveyors etc who routinely rely on the fact there is very little discrepancy between these numbers and reality, and give me a reason to think that if the conspiracy's that large I won't be shot in the head the instant I start.

[Ghost of V]

Jane, I think you'd get better results if you did the measurements yourself instead of relying on faulty round Earth data. You probably won't be happy with the results though.

Sure thing, just give me a reason to distrust the multitude of cartographers and pilots and boat crews and surveyors etc who routinely rely on the fact there is very little discrepancy between these numbers and reality, and give me a reason to think that if the conspiracy's that large I won't be shot in the head the instant I start.

Are you refusing to do the measurements?

[Jane]

Jane, I think you'd get better results if you did the measurements yourself instead of relying on faulty round Earth data. You probably won't be happy with the results though.

Sure thing, just give me a reason to distrust the multitude of cartographers and pilots and boat crews and surveyors etc who routinely rely on the fact there is very little discrepancy between these numbers and reality, and give me a reason to think that if the conspiracy's that large I won't be shot in the head the instant I start.

Are you refusing to do the measurements?

Please read the post. I'm waiting for two pieces of reasoning from you.
At the very least you have to give me a reason why taking detailed measurements, rather than making deductions based on observation, is necessary. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to be assured of my own safety as well.

Are you refusing to supply the reasons?

[Ghost of V]

You're the one making the claims here. It's up to you to verify these claims by doing the measurements yourself and proving that the numbers you are using are correct. If you can't do that... then I'm not sure how we're going to progress.

[Tom Bishop]

There are only a few different types of boat speedometers.  One has a little prop which spins in the water flow and electronics convert spin speed to boat speed. Another type uses doppler echo into the water and computes boat speed from result. But they are all pretty inaccurate. Speed through the water is meaningless due to slip, set, and drift.

here is currently no reliable method of gauging one's speed at sea or in the air.

speed can be calculated from the capabilities of the ship and from reference to any stationary observer (such as another ship, or land, etc).

"Capabilities of the ship"? What does that mean? What makes you think that a ship would be running at the max all the way across an ocean? That's a good way to blow out your engine and get stranded. If there were no speed limits, would you drive your car at its max speed at all times?

Secondly, there is no one making observational measurements in comparison to stationary bodies for a ship that goes across an ocean.

[Jane]

You're the one making the claims here. It's up to you to verify these claims by doing the measurements yourself and proving that the numbers you are using are correct. If you can't do that... then I'm not sure how we're going to progress.

I've provided evidence in the form of corroboration, and how departures from those numbers would be noticed on the scale to which you require. This is yet another time you have made me repeat myself.
If you're not going to respond to a word I say, I'm not sure how we're going to progress.

[Jane]

"Capabilities of the ship"? What does that mean? What makes you think that a ship would be running at the max all the way across an ocean? That's a good way to blow out your engine and get stranded. If there were no speed limits, would you drive your car at its max speed at all times?

Approximation. It's probably the most basic mathematical principle for any real world modelling. Or can we add ship designers to the ever-expanding list of people who spent years to become utterly incompetent, or who are lying with every breath?

Secondly, there is no one making observational measurements in comparison to stationary bodies for a ship that goes across an ocean.

All the time, no. I'm not saying it happens all the time.

[Ghost of V]

You're the one making the claims here. It's up to you to verify these claims by doing the measurements yourself and proving that the numbers you are using are correct. If you can't do that... then I'm not sure how we're going to progress.

I've provided evidence in the form of corroboration, and how departures from those numbers would be noticed on the scale to which you require. This is yet another time you have made me repeat myself.
If you're not going to respond to a word I say, I'm not sure how we're going to progress.

As Tom clearly pointed out, you can't even describe accurately how these "corroborated" measurements were taken. You've demonstrated that you do not know how these measurements were taken and are basing their accuracy on blind faith alone. That is unscientific. If you cannot explain how the measurements were taken, how can we trust you to know that they are accurate? I would like for you to take the measurements yourself and describe the methods you used to get these measurements. If you cannot do that I'm not sure how we are going to progress. The burden of proof is on you.

[Jane]

As Tom clearly pointed out, you can't even describe accurately how these "corroborated" measurements were taken. You've demonstrated that you do not know how these measurements were taken and are basing their accuracy on blind faith alone. That is unscientific. If you cannot explain how the measurements were taken, how can we trust you to know that they are accurate? I would like for you to take the measurements yourself and describe the methods you used to get these measurements. If you cannot do that I'm not sure how we are going to progress. The burden of proof lies on you, since you're the one making the claims.

Flight times. Travel times. Land travel times do the job just fine for most of it. Assuming that hundreds if not thousands of people are either lying, or utterly incompetent despite years of training, is the claim you're making. You have the burden of proof for that, do you have any non-circular means of justifying it?

I've asked for two things before I take the measurements. Can I expect you to get back to me any time soon on that?

[Ghost of V]

Assuming that hundreds if not thousands of people are either lying, or utterly incompetent despite years of training, is the claim you're making. You have the burden of proof for that, do you have any non-circular means of justifying it?

I never made that claim. I don't think anyone in this thread has made that claim.

Why are you refusing to do the measurements? You don't think there's a conspiracy so your "concerns" about the measurements are just a sly jab at us. Why do you expect me to respond to passive aggressive behavior?