The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Peter Winfield on February 21, 2021, 10:44:20 AM
-
Round earth theory has a very precise and accurate map of the earth, but there is no equivalent for flat earth theory. In fact there seem to be multiple conflicting versions of the flat earth map.
All this round earth data must be faked from the real (flat earth) data. So there must be a simple way of creating round earth data from flat earth data.
If we can work out how they do this, we can create a very detailed map of the flat earth using their faked data.
So why can't we work out how they do this?
-
Round earth theory has a very precise and accurate map of the earth, but there is no equivalent for flat earth theory. In fact there seem to be multiple conflicting versions of the flat earth map.
All this round earth data must be faked from the real (flat earth) data. So there must be a simple way of creating round earth data from flat earth data.
If we can work out how they do this, we can create a very detailed map of the flat earth using their faked data.
So why can't we work out how they do this?
There are many people who think the earth is flat who believe there is a map. Why there is no standard map is because there there a dozens, if not hundreds, of people each with their own perceptions and beliefs. For example, on the other forums, someone adopted a more biblical flat earth model in which Jerusalem was the center of the universe, and the world.
Another thing is that there are measurements and observations which weaken many of the maps. Because there is no map which is not weakened by measurements and observations the majority of the community has not agreed on a map.
-
So why can't we work out how they do this?
That, of course, is not the issue.
You need to understand that cartography is not for determining the shapes of things. It is for direction and (estimated) duration. That is how they (maps) are built, and why.
There are small amounts of topographical maps of course, but we don't do these for the ocean's surface (only land, sometimes including some of the land beneath the ocean).
Making a map, and determining the shape of something (especially something that you are standing on, and is too large to measure in one go) are fundamentally different challenges.
Inferring the shape of the world because you took trips on or above it, is stupid. To determine the shape of the entire world, it must be rigorously and repeatedly measured (no, just riding on a vehicle to get there and timing it is not adequate).
Maps are a military asset, which is one of the many reasons that the maps in the average citizen's hands are always incorrect, historically. This was a large part of keeping poor european slaves/"commoners" from going to north america during/on from the middle ages.
I know of no one on either side (FE or RE) seriously involved in topographical cartography and I agree that it is an oversight. In any case, it is a large undertaking and there are bigger fish to fry currently (especially for independent researchers).
-
I know of no one on either side (FE or RE) seriously involved in topographical cartography and I agree that it is an oversight. In any case, it is a large undertaking and there are bigger fish to fry currently (especially for independent researchers).
Ok, but have you looked? I know literally hundreds of people who work in a combination of topographic, hydrographic, and geologic mapping. Many of these people are even addressing temporal changes to maps given ongoing continental uplift, water level changes and coastline erosion.
These maps affect multi-billion dollar shipping industry productivity and safety, not to mention provide early warning for at-risk real estate that may be imminently affected by geo hazards such as flooding, landsliding, and bluff erosion.
Take a while to look at the multi-jurisdictional collaboration on research around the great lakes - including the establishment and refinement of a vertical datum.
-
So why can't we work out how they do this?
That, of course, is not the issue.
It is an issue for me. I want to understand why all that highly detailed RE data can't be converted into accurate FE data.
I know of no one on either side (FE or RE) seriously involved in topographical cartography and I agree that it is an oversight.
There are many thousands of people involved in geographic data handling on the RE side, so the fact that there are none on the FE side is more than just an oversight, it is a clear indication that it is not actually possible to create a cartographically accurate map of the FE.
-
Because there is no map which is not weakened by measurements and observations the majority of the community has not agreed on a map.
And yet there are no measurements or observations that ‘weaken’ the RE model. Why might that be?
-
Because there is no map which is not weakened by measurements and observations the majority of the community has not agreed on a map.
And yet there are no measurements or observations that ‘weaken’ the RE model. Why might that be?
There are FE maps which are NOT weakened by measurements and observations but they are not widely accepted in the FE community because:
1. It has a south pole and a north pole. Any person who believes the earth only has one pole would reject this model.
2. It does not have a great circular ice wall. Any person who believes that the earth has a great ice wall rejects this model.
3. It does not have any additional continents. Any person who believes there are continents other than the ones on a standard map rejects this model.
4. It does not have Jerusalem in the center.
5. It is not shaped like a circle.
-
Round earth theory has a very precise and accurate map of the earth
Who developed this map and where can I find it? I'm interested to know what makes a map "round"
-
Because there is no map which is not weakened by measurements and observations the majority of the community has not agreed on a map.
And yet there are no measurements or observations that ‘weaken’ the RE model. Why might that be?
There are FE maps which are NOT weakened by measurements and observations...
Which FE maps are you referring to?
-
Round earth theory has a very precise and accurate map of the earth
Who developed this map and where can I find it? I'm interested to know what makes a map "round"
The data has been collected over hundreds of years. A quick google shows many sites that have geographic data sets, here is one https://globalmaps.github.io/.
I used the term "round" because of the widespread use of FE/RE on this forum to denote the two different understandings of the shape of the Earth. These maps are "round" because they describe every point on the map as a 3D coordinate which are (pretty much) arranged in a sphere. A FE model (if it existed) would show the coordinates as (pretty much) arranged in a plane, with very minimal deviation for heights & depths.
Go to maps.google.com to visually explore a small part of the available map data.
-
There are FE maps which are NOT weakened by measurements and observations but they are not widely accepted in the FE community
We are approaching "No True Scotsman" territory.
-
Which FE maps are you referring to?
https://www.bing.com/maps represents the earth as a FLAT 2d surface with an interactive scale. I've used maps similar to this to navigate many different continents during my travels so I can corroborate, based on my observations, that a model of the earth like this does appear to be correct.
-
https://www.bing.com/maps represents the earth as a FLAT 2d surface with an interactive scale. I've used maps similar to this to navigate many different continents during my travels so I can corroborate, based on my observations, that a model of the earth like this does appear to be correct.
Look at the distance marker at the bottom right. Now scroll up without changing the zoom and notice that the bar gets longer and the distances get smaller even though the zoom is the same.
Now try scrolling left until you reach the edge of the map.
-
Which FE maps are you referring to?
https://www.bing.com/maps represents the earth as a FLAT 2d surface with an interactive scale. I've used maps similar to this to navigate many different continents during my travels so I can corroborate, based on my observations, that a model of the earth like this does appear to be correct.
That's not a FE map. That is a flat map of a round earth. It is a projection, with all the errors one would expect from a projection. As with most attempts to display the earth on a flat piece of paper (or screen), the further away from the equator you get, the more exaggerated distances appear. If you zoom out to show as much of the world as you can, the problem becomes apparent very quickly. Yes, when zoomed in they can show you a scale that will work pretty well, but when you zoom out...not so much. Look at Alaska, for example. Looking North-South, Alaska spans roughly 55N to 70N, a distance of around 900nm. Australia, on the other hand, spans from roughly 10S to 40S. But on Bing, as with many other projections, the two appear to be roughly the same distance.
Likewise, the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line on your Bing map - it's a great circle, which would be curved on that projection.
A flat earth would be a wonderful thing from a cartography point of view - so much simpler. Shortest distances would be straight lines. Headings and distances would be easily measurable at any scale...a complete doddle. Problem is, the world stubbornly refuses to be representable on a flat surface, and there's a good reason for that - it's spherical.
-
You need to understand that cartography is not for determining the shapes of things.
Yes it is. That and placement on the earth as well as the size of continents and islands. That's the very definition of cartography.
It is for direction
Direction from any point on earth to any other point is a byproduct of placement.
and (estimated) duration.
Duration? Duration of what?
That is how they (maps) are built, and why.
There are small amounts of topographical maps of course,
No, maps exist by the millions.
but we don't do these for the ocean's surface (only land, sometimes including some of the land beneath the ocean).
Yes we do. Every airline that flies overseas uses maps to determine distance and direction. (I'm assuming you meant "use" rather than "do").
Making a map, and determining the shape of something (especially something that you are standing on, and is too large to measure in one go) are fundamentally different challenges.
No, making a map IS determining the shape. It's two ways of saying the same thing.
Inferring the shape of the world because you took trips on or above it, is stupid. To determine the shape of the entire world, it must be rigorously and repeatedly measured (no, just riding on a vehicle to get there and timing it is not adequate).
You just described surveying. Untold millions of surveys have been done. Reducing the concept to driving a vehicle around is absurd.
Maps are a military asset, which is one of the many reasons that the maps in the average citizen's hands are always incorrect, historically.
Uh, no. Any time I've used a map it's been accurate.
This was a large part of keeping poor european slaves/"commoners" from going to north america during/on from the middle ages.
The middle ages started in the 5th century. Nobody in Europe knew America even existed.
I know of no one on either side (FE or RE) seriously involved in topographical cartography and I agree that it is an oversight. In any case, it is a large undertaking and there are bigger fish to fry currently (especially for independent researchers).
I worked in the oil industry and it has to know EXACT locations and topography - all the time. They employ surveyors - all the time. They create maps containing location and topographical information - all the time.
-
That's not a FE map. That is a flat map of a round earth. It is a projection
I could easily say that it's not. I could say it's a flat map of a flat earth. The earth is round therefore that is not a flat earth map.
You could show me a globe and I could say that's not a map of the Globe earth. The earth is flat therefore it is not a map of the globe earth. It's a projection of the flat earth put onto a sphere.
Also this is not a reason why the FE community would reject such a map.
with all the errors one would expect from a projection. As with most attempts to display the earth on a flat piece of paper (or screen), the further away from the equator you get, the more exaggerated distances appear. If you zoom out to show as much of the world as you can, the problem becomes apparent very quickly. Yes, when zoomed in they can show you a scale that will work pretty well, but when you zoom out...not so much. Look at Alaska, for example. Looking North-South, Alaska spans roughly 55N to 70N, a distance of around 900nm. Australia, on the other hand, spans from roughly 10S to 40S. But on Bing, as with many other projections, the two appear to be roughly the same distance.
The map I linked solves for those distance discrepancies with an interactive scale. Also this is not a reason why the FE community would reject such a map.
Likewise, the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line on your Bing map - it's a great circle, which would be curved on that projection.
In a large number of the FE models the distance between two points very far away is unknown or the way they are measured are inaccurate so this is not a reason why the FE community would reject such a map.
This discussion is about why the FE community can't agree more unanimously on a map of the earth (regardless of what shape the earth may, or may not be). Not about how the earth is a sphere so all maps of the earth are round earth maps not FE maps.
As stated before the main reasons a majority of the FE community would reject such a map are listed below
1. It has a south pole and a north pole. Any person who believes the earth only has one pole would reject this model.
2. It does not have a great circular ice wall. Any person who believes that the earth has a great ice wall rejects this model.
3. It does not have any additional continents. Any person who believes there are continents other than the ones on a standard map rejects this model.
4. It does not have Jerusalem in the center.
5. It is not shaped like a circle.
-
The map I linked solves for those distance discrepancies with an interactive scale. Also this is not a reason why the FE community would reject such a map.
That is absolutely a reason to reject a map. If the earth is flat, why does a flat map of it need a variable scale? If it's got a variable scale, that means different countries, continents etc have distorted sizes - that's not much of a map, is it? If the earth is flat, it should be possible to create a flat map of it with a single scale, where bearings and distances are perfectly accurate / to scale.
But it can't be done, and there's a good reason for that.
-
That's not a FE map. That is a flat map of a round earth. It is a projection
I could easily say that it's not. I could say it's a flat map of a flat earth. The earth is round therefore that is not a flat earth map.
You could show me a globe and I could say that's not a map of the Globe earth. The earth is flat therefore it is not a map of the globe earth. It's a projection of the flat earth put onto a sphere.
You could say those things. But the problem is that Bing, as an example, uses a globe projection. So Microsoft's starting point is that of a spherical earth. Technically, it is a map of a globe earth. So you would be incorrect to say it isn't. At least from Microsoft's perspective. Now whether that means the earth is a globe or not is a whole other enchilada.
Also this is not a reason why the FE community would reject such a map.
My guess, and I don't know for sure but have read this in many places, is that the Bing map, again, using that as an example, is rejected by the FE community as an FE map because it requires the "Pac Man" model. As in someone traveling off one side of the map would have to be magically transported to enter on the opposing side of the map. Hence the "Pac Man" analogy.
You've expressed before something about an "infinite repeating" model. Which still poses the problem of having kind of a magical multiverse arrangement whereby if I go one way and you go the opposite way to get to the same destination there would be two of the same destination, me in one version, you in another.
-
This discussion is about why the FE community can't agree more unanimously on a map of the earth.
This discussion (which I started) is about creating a projection from RE data to FE data, and why nobody in the FE community has done it.
In order to fake all the RE data, there must be a single projection from (real) FE data to (fake) RE data. And it should be relatively easy to work out what this projection is by comparing RE data with the real (FE) data on the ground.
So the question is why nobody in the FE community has ever done this. It is not that there are multiple maps that the FE community can't agree on, it is that there literally no usable maps of the flat Earth. If there were, it would be possible to work out this projection and create highly detailed flat Earth maps.
-
I don't think there is a standard RE map. There seem to be several different ones if you look for them. Many of them offer a very euro-centric view of the world with Europe given greater space than is accurate. How can RE maps be assumed "accurate" if they have these inbuilt biases? FE maps should avoid this pitfall I think.
BTW I'm new so go easy on me!
-
I don't think there is a standard RE map. There seem to be several different ones if you look for them. Many of them offer a very euro-centric view of the world with Europe given greater space than is accurate. How can RE maps be assumed "accurate" if they have these inbuilt biases? FE maps should avoid this pitfall I think.
BTW I'm new so go easy on me!
The ‘standard RE map’ is a globe.
Everything else suffers from some sort of error, and which errors you choose to live with depends on what you need the map for and, yes, bias certainly creeps in - witness the fact that we choose to orientate the earth north-up, for example.
However, the fact that it is impossible to accurately represent a globe earth on a flat map is not in any way an argument to support the contention that the earth isn’t a globe.
Flat earth, on the other hand, shouldn’t have any such problem - it should be easy to create a map of the world, with distances and bearings all accurately represented. The fact is that it can’t be done, and there’s a very good reason for that.
-
I don't think there is a standard RE map. There seem to be several different ones if you look for them. Many of them offer a very euro-centric view of the world with Europe given greater space than is accurate. How can RE maps be assumed "accurate" if they have these inbuilt biases? FE maps should avoid this pitfall I think.
BTW I'm new so go easy on me!
The ‘standard RE map’ is a globe.
Everything else suffers from some sort of error, and which errors you choose to live with depends on what you need the map for and, yes, bias certainly creeps in - witness the fact that we choose to orientate the earth north-up, for example.
However, the fact that it is impossible to accurately represent a globe earth on a flat map is not in any way an argument to support the contention that the earth isn’t a globe.
Flat earth, on the other hand, shouldn’t have any such problem - it should be easy to create a map of the world, with distances and bearings all accurately represented. The fact is that it can’t be done, and there’s a very good reason for that.
How are you so confident that the "standard" round earth map is so accurate?
I've seen this baseless and shallow argument pop up countless times in these forums.
-
I don't think there is a standard RE map. There seem to be several different ones if you look for them. Many of them offer a very euro-centric view of the world with Europe given greater space than is accurate. How can RE maps be assumed "accurate" if they have these inbuilt biases? FE maps should avoid this pitfall I think.
BTW I'm new so go easy on me!
The ‘standard RE map’ is a globe.
Everything else suffers from some sort of error, and which errors you choose to live with depends on what you need the map for and, yes, bias certainly creeps in - witness the fact that we choose to orientate the earth north-up, for example.
However, the fact that it is impossible to accurately represent a globe earth on a flat map is not in any way an argument to support the contention that the earth isn’t a globe.
Flat earth, on the other hand, shouldn’t have any such problem - it should be easy to create a map of the world, with distances and bearings all accurately represented. The fact is that it can’t be done, and there’s a very good reason for that.
How are you so confident that the "standard" round earth map is so accurate?
I've seen this baseless and shallow argument pop up countless times in these forums.
How is the claim baseless?
-
How are you so confident that the "standard" round earth map is so accurate?
I've seen this baseless and shallow argument pop up countless times in these forums.
The RE model explains the South Pole, the motion of the Sun, the Seasons, and the relative sizes of the different continents. It has been accepted for thousands of years and is supported by the overwhelming percentage of the data that has ever been collected. And RE data continues to be collected at a huge rate by thousands of scientific instruments every day.
The baseless and shallow argument is the one the claims it is all a hoax. There is absolutely no evidence for this. There isn't even a plausible theory about how "they" might be able to create such a massive fake.
-
How are you so confident that the "standard" round earth map is so accurate?
I've seen this baseless and shallow argument pop up countless times in these forums.
How am I so confident? Personally, because I have navigated over large distances, on land, sea and air, using distances and bearings derived from the widely agreed globe earth mapping. Moreover, the shape of the world features in almost aspect of our lives, and on both micro and macro levels I'm not aware of a single example of the dimensions of any country or continent being found to be wrong. Every flight, every long distance truck journey, railway, global shipping operations...they all use this data and don't find it wanting.
So, nobody has ever found a problem with it, and there is not a single FE map that's presented on this website that doesn't have an immediate, obvious problem with it. When these problems are pointed, they get waved away as if the presence of lots of other equally wrong FE maps somehow makes it ok. Falling back on 'we aren't quite sure which map is correct yet' fails to account for the fact that all of the proposed maps and models are wrong - none of them match our observed earth.
-
I don't think there is a standard RE map. There seem to be several different ones if you look for them. Many of them offer a very euro-centric view of the world with Europe given greater space than is accurate. How can RE maps be assumed "accurate" if they have these inbuilt biases? FE maps should avoid this pitfall I think.
BTW I'm new so go easy on me!
The ‘standard RE map’ is a globe.
Everything else suffers from some sort of error, and which errors you choose to live with depends on what you need the map for and, yes, bias certainly creeps in - witness the fact that we choose to orientate the earth north-up, for example.
However, the fact that it is impossible to accurately represent a globe earth on a flat map is not in any way an argument to support the contention that the earth isn’t a globe.
Flat earth, on the other hand, shouldn’t have any such problem - it should be easy to create a map of the world, with distances and bearings all accurately represented. The fact is that it can’t be done, and there’s a very good reason for that.
How are you so confident that the "standard" round earth map is so accurate?
I've seen this baseless and shallow argument pop up countless times in these forums.
How many millions of intercontinental flights based on RET would it take to convince you?
-
How are you so confident that the "standard" round earth map is so accurate?
I've seen this baseless and shallow argument pop up countless times in these forums.
I think if any Flat Earth model is to get any lift at all, it will have to accept a few given things.
A flat Earth model will have to accept that we do indeed know the size and shapes of the major continents and incorporate that into their model. I've crossed North America professionally a couple of times and I know my gas consumption and mileage. Many, many everyday people are intimately familiar with the size and shape of the continent they live on.
A flat Earth model will have to embrace the idea that Antarctica does indeed exist as a continent. I have seen Flat Earth models that have a complete map of the North Pole and the South Pole inside the edge of the disk. Of course, the travel distances over the oceans were then massively distorted by orders of magnitude but fewer people are as intimately familiar with crossing the ocean. It would be easier to sell the idea of some Pac-Man effect or navigational hoax in the middle of the ocean.
-
https://geodesy.noaa.gov/INFO/geodesy.shtml
The US geodetic survey is about determining position over distances large enough that the curve of the earth matters. There are markers all over the US. There is a database that locates them in 3d space.
If you need to know the precise position of points all over the country, you can use this data base. Or you could come to this web site and look at the maps in the FAQ. You could post questions on the forums about how to find distances between places without GPS or the USGS database (being the product of fools or liars, doncha' know, a few sociopathic liars fooling most of their stupid staff sheep, doncha' know).
Not clear whether FE believes gps and distances on google maps. The only thing I have ever found that all FEs believe is that the earth is not round.
Would love to see the meeting where someone says "We can't use the data from the govt agencies, because the earth is flat and it is all a giant hoax. I am researching FE. So far, no consensus on what the map is or distances, but we are watching Jeranism, DMarble, Globebusters, and many others. Please do not tell anyone outside this room because if the NASA thugs find out we are revealing the truth, they will threaten us and our families with whatever force necessary to shut us up."
-
The only thing I have ever found that all FEs believe is that the earth is not round.
Indeed. FEs are defined by what they don't believe, not what they do believe. That is why they spend so much effort trying to prove that RE is wrong, but spend almost no effort trying to prove that FE is right.
That is why (as suggested by the question) there is no standard map of the Earth. FE simply aren't interested in what the Earth actually looks like as long as it is not Round.
-
How are you so confident that the "standard" round earth map is so accurate?
I've seen this baseless and shallow argument pop up countless times in these forums.
I think if any Flat Earth model is to get any lift at all, it will have to accept a few given things.
A flat Earth model will have to accept that we do indeed know the size and shapes of the major continents and incorporate that into their model. I've crossed North America professionally a couple of times and I know my gas consumption and mileage. Many, many everyday people are intimately familiar with the size and shape of the continent they live on.
A flat Earth model will have to embrace the idea that Antarctica does indeed exist as a continent. I have seen Flat Earth models that have a complete map of the North Pole and the South Pole inside the edge of the disk. Of course, the travel distances over the oceans were then massively distorted by orders of magnitude but fewer people are as intimately familiar with crossing the ocean. It would be easier to sell the idea of some Pac-Man effect or navigational hoax in the middle of the ocean.
Regarding the underlined, I don't see how that's possible considering:
- The area of the earth (according to RET) is 510.1 million sq km.
- If the size and shape of continents are agreed upon, the distance from the north pole to the equator is therefore agreed to be 10,000 km.
- That would create a flat earth disc with a radius of 20,000 km.
- The area of said disc would be 1,256.637 million sq km.
- Therefore a flat earth would have 746.537 million sq km more area (2.4635 times) than a globe earth.
- Because the size and shape of land masses is agreed upon (I assume the shape and size of islands is also agreed upon), ALL of the extra area would have to be ocean.
- The area covered by ocean according to RET is 361 million sq km. The area in your scenario of FET would therefore be 361 million plus 746.5 million, or 1.107 billion sq km.
- That comes to slightly more than 3 times as much ocean on a flat earth.
- Accounting for such a spectacular amount of extra ocean is simply not possible without it creating equally spectacularly changed distances between continents compared to those of RET
The size of land masses, the distance between them, and the direction between any two points of earth can never be reconciled between FET and RET.
-
The RE model explains the South Pole, the motion of the Sun, the Seasons, and the relative sizes of the different continents. It has been accepted for thousands of years and is supported by the overwhelming percentage of the data that has ever been collected. And RE data continues to be collected at a huge rate by thousands of scientific instruments every day.
The baseless and shallow argument is the one the claims it is all a hoax. There is absolutely no evidence for this. There isn't even a plausible theory about how "they" might be able to create such a massive fake.
Indeed. FEs are defined by what they don't believe, not what they do believe. That is why they spend so much effort trying to prove that RE is wrong, but spend almost no effort trying to prove that FE is right.
You need to read over what you've just said and stop letting your emotions get in the way.
You are the only person making claims here - therefore you need to provide the evidence.
Claim 1: RE model has been accepted for thousands of years - I can't wait to see how you back this claim up
Claim 2: RE has been supported by the overwhelming percentage of the data - What data?
Claim 3: RE data continues to be collected at a huge rate by thousands of scientific instruments every day - name one instrument that proves RE...
How many millions of intercontinental flights based on RET would it take to convince you?
You need to learn how flights work. Airliners use filed flight plans and radar communication with air traffic control. The filed flight plans are based off of years of historic data collection. Nothing here proves the shape of the earth.
-
How many millions of intercontinental flights based on RET would it take to convince you?
You need to learn how flights work. Airliners use filed flight plans and radar communication with air traffic control. The filed flight plans are based off of years of historic data collection. Nothing here proves the shape of the earth.
I don't know about "proving" the shape of the earth, but flight systems and navigational protocols rely on Globe earth calculations, maps, and geodesy. For example, see this from the FAA:
Maximum Course Length between Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Waypoints
It is the purpose of this analysis to determine a maximum distance between RNP waypoints, which ensure that overall risk to navigation remains at or below an acceptable level...
Manufacturers of FMS systems were contacted regarding the computational course solution used in their FMS systems, including satellite navigation. Each indicated that the computations used in each of their respective systems are based upon great circles of the volumetric sphere. The paper cited in the references from Smiths Industries also examines the differences between spherical great circle and geodesic WGS-84 ellipsoid solutions. The results shown are consistent with the analysis contained herein...
Similarly, for routes with designed primary widths of 8 NM constructed using Lambert projections and flown with either great circle or WGS-84 geodetic computations, it is recommended that maximum route length between waypoints be set at 100 NM. [/font][/size]
http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/afs420-92.pdf
I'm sure you're aware what Great Circles are and how they conform to a spherical earth. As well, I'm sure you're familiar with the WGS-84 ellipsoid model. Well, that's what Airliners use.
Here's what Lambert Conformal flight chart looks like:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Baltimore-Washington_TAC_82.png/2880px-Baltimore-Washington_TAC_82.png)
It, like many others, is a projection from a globe. Here's how a Lambert conical projection is rendered:
(https://www.pooleys.com/media/4942/487.jpg)
In short, Airliners correctly or incorrectly rely on a spherical earth for all things navigation all the way down to calculating required fuel amounts for a given leg. So I'm not sure where you are getting your information from that they don't. But if you have a source, feel free to present it.
-
You are the only person making claims here - therefore you need to provide the evidence.
If you look at the subject line you will see that I am asking a question about FE.
Claim 1: RE model has been accepted for thousands of years - I can't wait to see how you back this claim up
Claim 2: RE has been supported by the overwhelming percentage of the data - What data?
Claim 3: RE data continues to be collected at a huge rate by thousands of scientific instruments every day - name one instrument that proves RE...
1) It was know before the time of Jesus that the Earth was a globe, and this has not been seriously challenged since then. During the religious arguments of the C16 about the motion of the Sun, neither side claimed that the Earth was flat. Many people were prepared to risk their life to challenge the accepted model and say that the Sun is stationary, but nobody was prepared to risk their life to say that the Earth is flat.
2) Detailed measurements of the movement of the Sun and stars support the RE model. If there was a detailed FE model then those measurements would disprove that.
3) Perseverance, GPS, SOHO, a Campbell–Stokes recorder, a time-lapse camera, or even just marks on a piece of paper at the Equinox.
-
You need to learn how flights work. Airliners use filed flight plans and radar communication with air traffic control. The filed flight plans are based off of years of historic data collection. Nothing here proves the shape of the earth.
[/quote].
We seem to have an oxymoron here; flight plans are based off years of historic data collection (i.e. the distance and vector relationships between all the world's airports), but this tells us nothing about the shape of the world? Some would argue that this tells us everything about its shape.
And maybe we need to look again at the role of Air Traffic Control. The safe navigation of an aircraft is entirely the responsibility of its captain. He (she) decides the destination and is responsible for ensuring sufficient fuel and adequate means of navigation. He is assisted in safely making the journey by ATC.
In this last week, a Boeing of Icelandair carried a group of scientists between Munich and the Norwegian blue-ice Troll airstrip in Antarctica, and return. It's unlikely that Icelandair has done this before, but they did it by knowing the relative positions of Munich and Troll. And don't expect much intervention from ATC, as much of the South Atlantic is beyond the range of VHF radio and radar.
-
Hello everyone my name is Anthony and I am new here. I have sort of thought the maps we have are wrong but I didn't understand why. I guess I had other things going on so this issue got put on the back burner for years. I have always found maps to be very interesting. Last week I came across a youtube channel about maps from the age of discovery. These guys made some really incredible maps but what they were putting on them did not fit with what we today see as the world we live in.
Well the ancient maps are what got me started looking at the Earth. Then recently I came across a map made from a reflection of the earth on the moon. Oh wow I cannot describe what was on that map. If correct then the earth is absolutely flat however that is only half of the prize. I do not know if I can explain this so you can understand but I will give it a go. To put it simply the North pole is magnetic so circles out from it at certain distances are how we navigate. Pretty simple but only half the story. What if there is something beyond what we know of as Earth? What if there would be a way to get there? Not by going through the government controlled region around the so called south pole. I believe there is a way to get outside of the known area of earth. Anyone interested? You can email me on here or so the forum says. I have never been the one who had a truly enormous idea, a idea that could really change our world. I cannot do it alone.
-
Round earth theory has a very precise and accurate map of the earth
Who developed this map and where can I find it? I'm interested to know what makes a map "round"
Take a look at WGS-84. https://www.unoosa.org/pdf/icg/2012/template/WGS_84.pdf
This should get you started on your requested information.
Any person operating a ship on the high seas will use a series of WGS-84 charts of the earth's surface for navigation. Each and every day you will see the ship's navigator on the bridge using his dividers and scales to plot the ship's progress on it's route to the next port. Yes, there's also an electronic version of these same charts and I would update them on a weekly basis. We were confident of the accuracy of these charts to a couple of meters and they would keep our ship 'off the rocks'. If this weren't enough, I also had access to the finer details of our navigational gyros. These gyros were important and greatly reduced the workload of the watch officer and the lookout. If you took a good look at the data stream from the gyros over a period of time a globe earth shape would be confirmed. So now you have very detailed and accurate charts drawn from a globe earth projection and a couple of gyros also confirming the shape of the earth. I am puzzled as to why this evidence would be disregarded as invalid.
-
FEs are defined by what they don't believe, not what they do believe. That is why they spend so much effort trying to prove that RE is wrong, but spend almost no effort trying to prove that FE is right.
You need to read over what you've just said and stop letting your emotions get in the way.
I stand by this statement, and I can't see anything emotional about it. From my observations so far, FEs are united about what is wrong the science that says the Earth is round, but they are divided about what is right with the FE model.
“si monumentum requiris, circumspice”
-
I guess my ideas are so far out there that no one will even think beyond flat or round. Ya'll know the amount of land, and the size of the earth, or do you? If the powers that be can hide the very shape of our planet could they not then hide half or more of the landmasses on said planet?
The round earth police have gotten you into defense mode. You are so caught up in proving your right and they are wrong you have all missed the larger picture. I don't care if the earth is round or square or a inside out triangle. What I do care about is the truth of it. Not just the truth of the shape but also the size. Is no one interested in the idea that the earth could be much larger than we have ever dreamed or been told?
-
I guess my ideas are so far out there that no one will even ....
It’s nothing to do with how far out there your ideas might be - you’re expected to produce evidence or references which back up those ideas. Perhaps lots of us would be interested in the map you “cannot describe” but if you can’t even tell where to find it then yawn, next please. ::)
Try to back up what you’re saying first: the rest of us are expected to do it and so should you. There’s more than you with “out there” ideas.
-
I guess my ideas are so far out there that no one will even think beyond flat or round. Ya'll know the amount of land, and the size of the earth, or do you? If the powers that be can hide the very shape of our planet could they not then hide half or more of the landmasses on said planet?
The round earth police have gotten you into defense mode. You are so caught up in proving your right and they are wrong you have all missed the larger picture. I don't care if the earth is round or square or a inside out triangle. What I do care about is the truth of it. Not just the truth of the shape but also the size. Is no one interested in the idea that the earth could be much larger than we have ever dreamed or been told?
If you are looking for a 'treasure' then you have to have a map, or at least an idea of where you will start to look. If you think you know of some land area on the surface of the earth that isn't already known then give us an idea of just where that might be. Who knows, maybe someone has already looked there and could give you some hints. Why try to 're-invent' the wheel? If you have a location on the map where no one has been then you might need some help to mount an expedition. Again, you have to have a concrete plan and a known area to look. Please share your detailed ideas, we know you might need some help.
-
@AnthonyDodson
No need to be coy. Lay it on us!
-
Is no one interested in the idea that the earth could be much larger than we have ever dreamed or been told?
Based upon what you've posted, I would say, no, not interested in your "idea". The, "hey, I've got an idea, earth is bigger than we think it is," is not even remotely compelling. Try and gussy up your notion with some evidence or just even something that actually means something.
-
I came across a youtube channel recently called vibes of cosmos. They have a map of earth on there based on a reflection of our land masses on the surface of the moon. They look like ancient maps of earth pre 1700's. It just got me thinking. Is it possible the powers that be are hiding the fact of large areas of land that we the people are not even allowed to know about? Sounds like something they would do if they could get away with it. I do not know for sure but it sure looks interesting.
-
Can you provide any details?
What exactly do you mean when you say this map is based on a reflection of our land masses on the moon? Is it a map of earth or a map of the moon with earth-like continents and oceans?
What areas appeared on these ancient maps that arent part of the modern 'known' world?
Who are the powers that be and why are they hiding this new land from us?
-
Is it possible the powers that be are hiding the fact of large areas of land that we the people are not even allowed to know about? Sounds like something they would do if they could get away with it. I do not know for sure but it sure looks interesting.
The powers-that-be are incompetent idiots that serve special interest and are at the mercy of their own lascivious appetites.
They are incapable of hiding their their own corruption much less the corruption of a worldwide organization. In America, entire presidential administrations have fallen because they couldn't keep a secret. There is no way the Donald could keep his mouth shut about UFOs, a flat Earth, or a large Earth.
Even with unlimited resources and no oversight, America's most top-secret agency failed to keep their most top secret program a secret. There is no way they're hiding Bigfoot or the shape of the Earth or anything else that would shake humanity.
-
As long as our computer monitors are 2D, earth will stay flat!
-
As long as our computer monitors are 2D, earth will stay flat!
The same with photos. It takes 3D depth perception to see a sphere.
-
As long as our computer monitors are 2D, earth will stay flat!
The same with photos. It takes 3D depth perception to see a sphere.
You could do it using something like a Looking Glass Holographic Display.
(https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Aug-22-2018-15-55-45.gif?w=730&crop=1)
-
Or indeed using a video sequence, which you have just done to demonstrate the hologram on our 2D screens.
-
Time-lapse photos taken of the earth from space that shows rotation would create the illusion of depth perception in the same way.
-
So why can't we work out how they do this?
That, of course, is not the issue.
You need to understand that cartography is not for determining the shapes of things. It is for direction and (estimated) duration. That is how they (maps) are built, and why.
There are small amounts of topographical maps of course, but we don't do these for the ocean's surface (only land, sometimes including some of the land beneath the ocean).
Making a map, and determining the shape of something (especially something that you are standing on, and is too large to measure in one go) are fundamentally different challenges.
Inferring the shape of the world because you took trips on or above it, is stupid. To determine the shape of the entire world, it must be rigorously and repeatedly measured (no, just riding on a vehicle to get there and timing it is not adequate).
Maps are a military asset, which is one of the many reasons that the maps in the average citizen's hands are always incorrect, historically. This was a large part of keeping poor european slaves/"commoners" from going to north america during/on from the middle ages.
I know of no one on either side (FE or RE) seriously involved in topographical cartography and I agree that it is an oversight. In any case, it is a large undertaking and there are bigger fish to fry currently (especially for independent researchers).
The WGS-83 model is universally accepted to be correct.