[Pete Svarrior]

If I claim that 2+1=3, is this RET? How?

Well, you did assume base 10. 2+1 could very well be 10. Since the model critiqued has not been specified, we don't have a way of ascertaining what CHL is attacking.

Lol the azimuthal equidistant projection is the model.

No, it isn't. The image you're referring to is a common feature of the vast majority of models.

No Flat Earth model relies on a projection of the globe. Your feeling that some of them look similar is none of my concern.

[JanQuadrantVincent]

I'll try to be more specific this time and just tackle one thing at a time.

1. How do flat Earth advocates reconcile the distance problem that CHL highlighted in this video?

It seems that many of you have established that he's making assumptions about which model to use, and that the model CHL chose is incorrect. Okay then. This act of his likely has implications, so let's address those.

1a. Which model ought he have used? Why?
1b. In what way does the use of the proper model affect CHL's geometric analysis?
1c. Does the proper model leave any other problems unresolved?

JQV

[Curious Squirrel]

I'll try to be more specific this time and just tackle one thing at a time.

1. How do flat Earth advocates reconcile the distance problem that CHL highlighted in this video?

It seems that many of you have established that he's making assumptions about which model to use, and that the model CHL chose is incorrect. Okay then. This act of his likely has implications, so let's address those.

1a. Which model ought he have used? Why?
1b. In what way does the use of the proper model affect CHL's geometric analysis?
1c. Does the proper model leave any other problems unresolved?

JQV

For the record, in general the FE side insists that there IS no model of the flat Earth. "We don't have a map" is an oft repeated phrase. Hence none of your questions, or indeed CHL's video, contains any relevance.

[JanQuadrantVincent]

I'll try to be more specific this time and just tackle one thing at a time.

1. How do flat Earth advocates reconcile the distance problem that CHL highlighted in this video?

It seems that many of you have established that he's making assumptions about which model to use, and that the model CHL chose is incorrect. Okay then. This act of his likely has implications, so let's address those.

1a. Which model ought he have used? Why?
1b. In what way does the use of the proper model affect CHL's geometric analysis?
1c. Does the proper model leave any other problems unresolved?

JQV

For the record, in general the FE side insists that there IS no model of the flat Earth. "We don't have a map" is an oft repeated phrase. Hence none of your questions, or indeed CHL's video, contains any relevance.

And that is just a tragedy... I looked through your links in your signature. Wow. "The distance is unknown" has to be one of the most uninformed replies I've ever seen on any topic anywhere. There's no way that guy believes that. He must be making money off of this somehow. I wonder what they think the distance is from one wall to another in their home. Is that unknown too?

I'm hoping my first two replies will catch the eye and response of someone who is as willing to have their opinion informed as I am, rather than viewing this forum a place where one must defend their ideas. Based on your comment, I'm not holding my breath.

It seems more and more like the flat Earth hypothesis is based on the limits of the human body and intuition, and seeks no help from precision measurement tools or mathematical augmentation. Worse, it seems, the hypothesis requires the absence of such tools and augmentation.

[Pete Svarrior]

1a. Which model ought he have used? Why?

For the purpose of a video like this, it doesn't matter in particular - it'll just be addressing the specific model you've chosen. It's when you choose to make up your own version of the argument you're debunking that you've got a problem.

[JanQuadrantVincent]

1a. Which model ought he have used? Why?

For the purpose of a video like this, it doesn't matter in particular - it'll just be addressing the specific model you've chosen. It's when you choose to make up your own version of the argument you're debunking that you've got a problem.

A couple of questions on that.

1. Why doesn't it matter which model he uses? The whole point of his video is to demonstrate, via geometric analysis, that the model we use to represent and make useful predictions about the earth absolutely does matter. I understand that there are several flat Earth models, so it's seems that for any geometric analysis, it ought to matter which of these flat Earth models we use. Maybe I'm interpreting what you said in the wrong way. If so, please clarify.

2. What statements make his version of the flat Earth argument erroneous? In what way are they misrepresentative of the flat Earth argument?

2b. Please correct the statements by providing an accurate representation of your version of the flat Earth argument, so we can talk about those, instead of wasting time (and causing you frustration) due to me informing my dialogue based on my erroneous misinterpretation of what those arguments are.

[iamcpc]

I'll try to be more specific this time and just tackle one thing at a time.

1. How do flat Earth advocates reconcile the distance problem that CHL highlighted in this video?
1a. Which model ought he have used? Why?
1b. In what way does the use of the proper model affect CHL's geometric analysis?
1c. Does the proper model leave any other problems unresolved?

JQV

1. How do flat Earth advocates reconcile the distance problem that CHL highlighted in this video?

It's impossible to accurately measure distance because round earth measuring devices and systems are specifically built to return results that support a round earth. Beyond a certain distance a flat earth mile is very different than a round earth mile.

1a. Which model ought he have used? Why?

There is no accurate flat earth model or flat earth map. one has yet to be created.

1b. In what way does the use of the proper model affect CHL's geometric analysis?

There is no accurate flat earth model or flat earth map. one has yet to be created.

1c. Does the proper model leave any other problems unresolved?

since There is no accurate flat earth model or flat earth map someone first needs to make a tested flat earth model and a flat earth map which is agreed upon by a majority of the flat earth community.

This is very difficult when some flat earthers believe there is a dome, some do not.
Some believe in gravity, some do not.
Some believe in a huge ice wall around the edge and some believe that we are in the middle of an infinite plane.
Some believe that we are the center of the universe some do not.

[inquisitive]

I'll try to be more specific this time and just tackle one thing at a time.

1. How do flat Earth advocates reconcile the distance problem that CHL highlighted in this video?
1a. Which model ought he have used? Why?
1b. In what way does the use of the proper model affect CHL's geometric analysis?
1c. Does the proper model leave any other problems unresolved?

JQV

1. How do flat Earth advocates reconcile the distance problem that CHL highlighted in this video?

It's impossible to accurately measure distance because round earth measuring devices and systems are specifically built to return results that support a round earth. Beyond a certain distance a flat earth mile is very different than a round earth mile.

1a. Which model ought he have used? Why?

There is no accurate flat earth model or flat earth map. one has yet to be created.

1b. In what way does the use of the proper model affect CHL's geometric analysis?

There is no accurate flat earth model or flat earth map. one has yet to be created.

1c. Does the proper model leave any other problems unresolved?

since There is no accurate flat earth model or flat earth map someone first needs to make a tested flat earth model and a flat earth map which is agreed upon by a majority of the flat earth community.

This is very difficult when some flat earthers believe there is a dome, some do not.
Some believe in gravity, some do not.
Some believe in a huge ice wall around the edge and some believe that we are in the middle of an infinite plane.
Some believe that we are the center of the universe some do not.

Clearly there is only one map of the world, which will tell us the shape.

[iamcpc]

Clearly there is only one map of the world, which will tell us the shape.

I believe this is incorrect. After reviewing these flat earth forums it's a very common agreement that no accurate map of the earth exists. There are many theoretical flat earth maps which are all very different. (how can you draw a map of an infinite plane?, How can you draw a map of the dome?, How can you draw a map of the great ice wall?)  If you find an accurate flat earth map we could go about testing it. when the distances we observe are very different than the distances on the flat earth map that you provide then we know that it is not an accurate flat earth map.

[Pete Svarrior]

1. Why doesn't it matter which model he uses?

Because he currently doesn't use one at all. Moving from debunking a position that nobody holds to a position that somebody holds is a net positive, regardless of who said somebody is.

2. What statements make his version of the flat Earth argument erroneous? In what way are they misrepresentative of the flat Earth argument?

I'm going to have to cop out of that one. This discussion originally took place more than a year ago, and I just don't have it in me to re-watch it and generate a list, plus I see no value in doing so. I'll point to the fact that most RE'ers who spent some time here readily acknowledge that the video is misrepresentative.

[AATW]

Although he does to a fair bit of straw manning, the basic problem he's highlighting in parts of the video (which I also can't be bothered re-watching in any detail because of his condescending tone) is valid.

It is not possible to plot a flat earth map which matches reality. That is not my opinion, it is geometry.

That is a massive problem for flat earth. By "reality" I mean accepted distances between places. If those distances are correct then the earth cannot be flat because there is no arrangement of places on a flat plane which matches distances.

So the question becomes what basis is there for thinking those distances are wrong given that we have hundreds of years of mapping and surveying which has now become very detailed, and we now have a global shipping and airline industry which gets people ans goods around reliably.

[Pete Svarrior]

It is not possible to plot a flat earth map which matches reality. That is not my opinion, it is geometry.

Which geometry?

If those distances are correct

If.

See, this is the problem with discussing pure mathematics with no reference to the corporeal world. Your assumptions can, and will, be questioned. Your insistence on calling your assumptions "reality" only shows you to be unreliable.

[AATW]

It is not possible to plot a flat earth map which matches reality. That is not my opinion, it is geometry.

Which geometry?

...the geometry of a flat plane. You guys believe the earth is flat. They can't be if the distances given between cities are correct.
They simply don't fit on a flat plane - there was some YouTube video someone posted where some flat earther decided to sit down and try and make it work, gave up when he realised he couldn't and gave up being a flat earther.

Yes, I am assuming that those distances are correct, but it's not just a blind assumption.
It is backed up by centuries of cartography and surveying which has now got to the stage with Google Earth that you can zoom from the entire globe down to house level. I have never found that data to be inaccurate in the places I've travelled to.
And it's now backed up by a global shipping and airline industry, I have been on cruise lines and planes and they have got me where they say they will at the time they say they will. Is the suggestion that they don't know how far places are apart? That ship laying cables don't know how much cable they use?

Do you have any reason and evidence to doubt the mapping of the globe and the generally accepted distances between cities other than those distances don't work on a flat plane ergo they must be wrong? If so then please present it.

[Pete Svarrior]

...the geometry of a flat plane

Which brings us back to the absolute necessity of picking a model before trying to debunk it. Not everyone will accept your assumption of Euclidean geometry.

[AATW]

...the geometry of a flat plane

Which brings us back to the absolute necessity of picking a model before trying to debunk it. Not everyone will accept your assumption of Euclidean geometry.

I'm struggling a bit here with what you're suggesting. We can take the generally accepted distances between cities and scale those so you can try and fit them together on a flat plane. So New York to London is apparently 3,459 miles. Let's scale that down and make that 34.59cm, 34.6 to make life easier.
You can look at the distances between other pairs of cities and do a drawing to see if they fit on a large sheet of paper. If they don't then either:
1) The earth isn't flat or
2) The distances are wrong - and that will need some evidence given the things I've mentioned.

Are you suggesting that triangles work differently depending on the scale?

[Pete Svarrior]

You can look at the distances between other pairs of cities and do a drawing to see if they fit on a large sheet of paper. If they don't then either:
1) The earth isn't flat or
2) The distances are wrong - and that will need some evidence given the things I've mentioned.

Are you suggesting that triangles work differently depending on the scale?

No, I'm suggesting that you have to pick a model in order to dispute it. If said model is based on Euclidean geometry, then I have no issue with that, since I also believe them to be wrong. I will, however, object to the idea that this somehow disproves all Flat Earthers' views.

[AATW]

No, I'm suggesting that you have to pick a model in order to dispute it. If said model is based on Euclidean geometry, then I have no issue with that, since I also believe them to be wrong. I will, however, object to the idea that this somehow disproves all Flat Earthers' views.

Ooh. That's a bit slippery.
That would be fair enough if you had a coherent model but Tom has said that there isn't a model. He says that there's not enough investment for FE research and you don't have the resources.
But that means that whatever objection we present you can say we are objecting to a different model to the model you believe in.

If you're going to play fair you should at least present the model you DO believe in so people can comment on it.
And I guess the you is singular there if you (plural) don't have an agreed model

I'm intrigued at what other geometry you think works on a flat plane. If the earth is flat then it can be modelled by a 2d surface, yes, no?
If no then...what?! I'd like you to elaborate on where that reasoning falls down.

If yes then...OK. So let's say we have a piece of paper which I hope we can agree is a 2D surface which we will use to represent the whole earth.
London is somewhere on that surface, it has an X and Y co-ordinate. So does New York. So does Sydney. And so on.
You will find that if you start with a blank piece of paper and try and plot the locations of those cities starting with one arbitrarily and using the round earth distances between them then you will be unable to. This is why RE says that there is no flat earth map which can work, ergo the earth is not flat.
So either...

1) You don't accept the distances as given by the RE model
2) You reject the whole premise of modelling the earth by a flat plane like a piece of paper.

Or both. If 2 then how would you model it? If 1 then what is your basis for rejecting those distances? I've said above why I believe there is good evidence for them.

[Curious Squirrel]

No, I'm suggesting that you have to pick a model in order to dispute it. If said model is based on Euclidean geometry, then I have no issue with that, since I also believe them to be wrong. I will, however, object to the idea that this somehow disproves all Flat Earthers' views.

Ooh. That's a bit slippery.
That would be fair enough if you had a coherent model but Tom has said that there isn't a model. He says that there's not enough investment for FE research and you don't have the resources.
But that means that whatever objection we present you can say we are objecting to a different model to the model you believe in.

If you're going to play fair you should at least present the model you DO believe in so people can comment on it.
And I guess the you is singular there if you (plural) don't have an agreed model

I'm intrigued at what other geometry you think works on a flat plane. If the earth is flat then it can be modelled by a 2d surface, yes, no?
If no then...what?! I'd like you to elaborate on where that reasoning falls down.

If yes then...OK. So let's say we have a piece of paper which I hope we can agree is a 2D surface which we will use to represent the whole earth.
London is somewhere on that surface, it has an X and Y co-ordinate. So does London. So does Sydney. And so on.
You will find that if you start with a blank piece of paper and try and plot the locations of those cities starting with one arbitrarily and using the round earth distances between them then you will be unable to. This is why RE says that there is no flat earth map which can work, ergo the earth is not flat.
So either...

1) You don't accept the distances as given by the RE model
2) You reject the whole premise of modelling the earth by a flat plane like a piece of paper.

Or both. If 2 then how would you model it? If 1 then what is your basis for rejecting those distances? I've said above why I believe there is good evidence for them.

I believe Pete is stating (or implying very poorly instead of just spitting it out) that he holds to a model of a flat Earth, where the space above the flat plane of the Earth is non-Euclidean. As such, all of these 'measured distances' can technically be correct when based upon the assumption of a Euclidean space, but instead of the Earth being curved space is curved. Roughly. It was a model I never grokked very well personally, and is not particularly well presented anywhere here as far as I'm aware.

[JanQuadrantVincent]

...the geometry of a flat plane

Which brings us back to the absolute necessity of picking a model before trying to debunk it. Not everyone will accept your assumption of Euclidean geometry.

Hi Pete

I keep seeing you and other people do this. I'm actually on your side on this. Note that I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, I'd rather discuss with you your thoughts about this subject, instead of what I think are your thoughts on the subject. The latter gets us nowhere, as we're seeing in this thread. Since there are many models (or no models apparently, in some people's view) let's just focus on you, then. I think that will be the most productive use of our time here.

On what model or, system of measurements, do you base your position that the earth is flat? That's what I was getting at anyways in my first post where I asked what would be an appropriate correction to CHL's assumptions, so let's just jump to that end and discuss it.

If you have time (I know you said you're a busy guy, so am I), could you go over some of the wave tops? I don't need supreme detail - though an idea of some of the maths involved would be a nice addition. For example, if I were making some claim based on arc lengths I'd bring up trigonometry but save the details of S=rθ

NOTE: My arc length bit is just a "for instance."  I just want to provide an idea of the level of detail (not much) that I'm looking for as a stepping off point for our conversation.

JQV

[jcks]

...the geometry of a flat plane

Which brings us back to the absolute necessity of picking a model before trying to debunk it. Not everyone will accept your assumption of Euclidean geometry.

Hi Pete

I keep seeing you and other people do this. I'm actually on your side on this. Note that I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, I'd rather discuss with you your thoughts about this subject, instead of what I think are your thoughts on the subject. The latter gets us nowhere, as we're seeing in this thread. Since there are many models (or no models apparently, in some people's view) let's just focus on you, then. I think that will be the most productive use of our time here.

On what model or, system of measurements, do you base your position that the earth is flat? That's what I was getting at anyways in my first post where I asked what would be an appropriate correction to CHL's assumptions, so let's just jump to that end and discuss it.

If you have time (I know you said you're a busy guy, so am I), could you go over some of the wave tops? I don't need supreme detail - though an idea of some of the maths involved would be a nice addition. For example, if I were making some claim based on arc lengths I'd bring up trigonometry but save the details of S=rθ

NOTE: My arc length bit is just a "for instance."  I just want to provide an idea of the level of detail (not much) that I'm looking for as a stepping off point for our conversation.

JQV

Just so you know Pete doesn't normally take a stance on these issues. As such it can be frustratingly difficult to get a straight answer from him. After all you can't be wrong if you don't commit to anything.