Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ICanScienceThat

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100 proofs
« on: July 02, 2019, 05:29:17 PM »
I have certain difficult to understand the text from the item #53 below, I would appreciate someone with native English language to explain it to me.  What he means by "travels quicker as he goes further south"?   AFIK, the angular speed of the globe Earth is exactly the same at any latitude, 15°/hour.

53.   Every year the Sun is as long south of the equator as he is north; and if the Earth were not "stretched out" as it is, in fact, but turned under, as the Newtonian theory suggests it would certainly get as intensive a share of the Sun's rays south as north; but the Southern region being, in consequence of the fact stated, - far more extensive than the region North, the Sun, having to complete his journey round every twenty-four hours, travels quicker as he goes further south, from September to December, and his influence has less time in which to accumulate at any given point. Since, then the facts could not be as they are if the Earth were a globe, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
I think I understand it. Let me try.
On the AE map, the circumference of the Sun's path over the Tropic of Cancer (northern summer) is shorter than the path over the Tropic of Capricorn (northern winter).
Since we've observed that the length of a day is the same in the summer as in the winter, that means the Sun must move faster when it's down south than when it's up north.
Simply put, on the AE map, the southern "hemisphere" has a lot more surface area than the northern "hemisphere". That means the sunlight must be more spread out in the south.
So with the sunlight so much more spread out in the south, one would expect the south to be colder than the north.
Here's where the important part seems to have been left out. I THINK he's saying that since it's colder in the South than in the North, this is evidence for the flatness. He doesn't actually SAY that in the quote, but it's fair to say that Antarctica is colder than the north pole.

If you're curious, the science and math behind this can be investigated. I think you'll find reality wins again. Here's AB science geeking out on this:

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: July 01, 2019, 10:23:04 PM »
This thread is presumably about the flat Earth being unable to produce a map that is consistent with reality. Within this thread, only one person has put forth any attempt to address this, and the models put forth are Bing's interactive Mercator projection and what looks to be an Albers conic projection.

Are we truly being asked to accept that either of these maps represent the reality of the Earth? There's truly no accounting for what somebody might believe, but it sure seems a stretch that anyone might believe that either of these maps satisfies this test - particularly someone as thoughtful and well-spoken as iamcpc is.

In the end, a very specific request was answered with diagrams that EXPLICITLY fail to satisfy the request. What can we conclude? The obvious conclusion I draw from this is that iamcpc is deliberately failing to satisfy the request. From this, I further conclude that iamcpc fully understands the request, but CHOOSES to act like they do not.

Simply put, the obvious conclusion is that iamcpc is not representing something they actually believe, but is instead attempting to draw out the conversation to the frustration of their opponents. Unless this is your first time on the internet, you may have encountered a pattern like this before, and it has come to be called, "trolling."

To iamcpc, let me be perfectly clear. I do not believe that you are representing any honest belief that the Earth really works like bing maps. I do not believe you. Call it "devil's advocate" if you like, but you are not being genuine with us. If you care about my trust in you, that is the challenge you would have to overcome at this point.

To the rest of you, I'd say, "Don't feed the trolls."

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: July 01, 2019, 03:26:00 AM »
2) Is it possible to trace the line of such a circular East-bound travel on either of these maps with an unbroken line?
Yes.
In that case, please show us this unbroken line on your Bing map. Please take a screenshot of your Bing map and draw over it a hypothetical trip from New York to London to Tokyo to LA and then back to New York. The trip should go Eastward and must not be broken. And just to save us an iteration of this nonsense, please don't try to use the excuse that you can dynamically scroll the map to make the trip by a series of unbroken lines. I asked for a single unbroken line.

I have already done this here:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14046.msg187564#msg187564
Thanks. I think that makes it all extremely clear. You are trolling. I believe trolling is completely within the rules here on TFES, so go for it.
Ultimately, that's the answer I'm really looking for, so I appreciate your participation.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: June 30, 2019, 07:14:47 AM »
I'm curious about the origin of the UA concept. Is this one of Rowbotham's inventions? Does anyone know?

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: June 29, 2019, 03:03:44 PM »
2) Is it possible to trace the line of such a circular East-bound travel on either of these maps with an unbroken line?
Yes.
In that case, please show us this unbroken line on your Bing map. Please take a screenshot of your Bing map and draw over it a hypothetical trip from New York to London to Tokyo to LA and then back to New York. The trip should go Eastward and must not be broken. And just to save us an iteration of this nonsense, please don't try to use the excuse that you can dynamically scroll the map to make the trip by a series of unbroken lines. I asked for a single unbroken line.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: June 29, 2019, 04:28:10 AM »
So in short, your posts are not relevant to the OP's question then?
Your maps do NOT show how a flat Earth could work. If you'd like to assert otherwise, I'd like to hear how.

Again this is just a difference of opinion. In my opinion I have given a map, which depicts the earth as a flat plane, in which the map, by my definition, is undistorted.  Again we get back to semantics of what the definition of "distorted" means when referring to a map and how different people can have different criteria for what is, or is not, distorted.

If you show Bing maps to anyone in the world and ask them what this is the map of I'm willing to bet that 99% of the population who graduated the 6th grade could tell you that it's a map of the earth.
Bing maps also resembles maps which are on almost the wall of virtually every school that I've seen in America.



It meets all of the criteria listed below:

1. The map has countries the correct size (based on the interactive scale of the map).
2. The map shows countries the correct distance away from each other (based on the interactive scale of the map).
3. The map has Countries the correct direction relative to each other
4. The map is usable to accurately navigate every country on earth


Some got correct angles and others correct lengths but they can't have both at the same time.

5. The map has correct angles.
6. The map has correct lengths (based on the interactive scale of the map).


So in short, your posts are not relevant to the OP's question then?

It's my opinion that, based on the information presented above, my post are relevant to the OP's question.
If you disagree you are certainly entitled to your opinion on that matter.

The problem is that people started rejecting the map because it has an interactive scale. Thus I had to present another a non interactive map with a more universal scale.

If you want me to believe that you are honest, then answer these questions with a simple yes or no.

These 2 questions will not completely answer the issue of relevant distortion, but it is my claim that your maps cannot do this, but any acceptable map must meet this criteria. The AE map can, and even the dual-polar map can sort of.

1) Do you believe that on our actual Earth, one can start at any point, travel due East, and eventually return to their starting point? (With the exception of the poles.)
2) Is it possible to trace the line of such a circular East-bound travel on either of these maps with an unbroken line?

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: June 28, 2019, 06:39:23 PM »

The point of the original post was very clear. "If the earth is flat, we should have a map that has got both of those Attributes, in other words we should be able to have a perfect map of the earth without any distortion. Is there such a map?"
They are not asking for a map that can be used to navigate. They are asking for a map that shows how a flat Earth could actually work. Your maps do not do this. Your maps show how a globe Earth works.

In my opinion interactive maps like bing which have an interactive scale which changes based on where you look and what level you are zoomed into have  correct angles and correct lengths. When someone says that Greenland is the same size as Africa they are looking at the scale of the interactive map associated with another country instead of the interactive scale associated with Greenland.
So in short, your posts are not relevant to the OP's question then?
Your maps do NOT show how a flat Earth could work. If you'd like to assert otherwise, I'd like to hear how.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: June 28, 2019, 06:08:05 PM »
On the Weight Variation by Latitude see: https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude

This experiment is uncontrolled. Can you reference where these experiments have been conducted in vacuum chambers?
You are right. I really should have shown that page along with the altitude one.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: June 28, 2019, 05:13:36 PM »
As it is not listed on Wiki, I previously calculated; the UA force to accelerate the FE mass to 9.8m/s² is equivalent to 1 billion billion Saturn-V rocket engines trust.
AFAIR from the calculation, it is equivalent to 100 thousand Saturn V rockets per km² of FE area.
It would be 1 rocket per each 10m², it would not even physically fit.
I wonder the source of this unimaginable continuous energy flow for eons, a star that comes along?

There is a huge difference between Gravity and UA;  Gravity doesn't need huge forces or energy, UA requires huge amounts of energy to accelerate mass.

Want some comparison?

Try to hold a 100kg block of steel hanging from the ceiling, just using strong neodymium magnets bolt to the ceiling, then, try to do the same using electromagnets.  The later will require constant energy to create the strong magnetic field to hold the steel block, while the neodymium magnets will do the job for years without consuming any extra energy at all.

I argue that you are being unfair. Simply because we do not know where the energy comes from, it doesn't mean we can't see the energy. For example, before we understood nuclear fusion, we had no idea what powered the Sun, but we were pretty darn sure that the Sun was generating a metric boat load of energy. From more modern times, what powers the expansion of the Universe? We call it "dark energy" because we don't know what it is. Just because we don't know where it comes from, it doesn't mean we say the observations are false.

Here are my thoughts on the subject. I'd love to have you participate.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: June 28, 2019, 05:07:56 PM »
Ok iamcpc. Your definition of "distorted" is different from mine. That seems valid. By your definition, your maps are not distorted. Great.
So let's circle back to the reason we're talking about distortion in the first place:

Hi!

I did a bit of Research on the Flat Earth Theory in the last couple of months and in all that time I haven't got a good answer to a Question I think is one of the main Things I am skeptical about with that Theory.

It's about the Flat Earth Map. Maths tells us that you can't map out a sphere, there are Proofs for that, so no map of the earth is correct. The different maps obtained by projections (as claimed) all have one thing in common: They are distorted.
Some got correct angles and others correct lengths but they can't have both at the same time.

Now to my Question: If the earth is flat, we should have a map that has got both of those Attributes, in other words we should be able to have a perfect map of the earth without any distortion. Is there such a map?

If there is, I'm fully convinced that you're right, because the only way we could have a perfect map is when the earth is flat.

Thanks in Advance for your answers :)

Reading that back, using honesty, objectivity, and every possible measure of fairness; your definition of "distorted" does not seem to match the original poster's. He says specifically, "Some got correct angles and others correct lengths but they can't have both at the same time." He was pretty clear what he was asking for here. The angles on the Bing map are correct - sort of, but not really. They are useful for navigation because they are correct in the sense of compass directions, but if you were to make a triangle out of 3 cities with very different latitudes, you'd see the angles of the triangle don't work out. The lengths are correct, only if you account for the dynamic scale.

The original poster did not mention the cuts, but I'd like to add the cuts. Any 3D shape can be squashed out flat with some amount of stretching, but no matter how much stretching you do, math says a 3D closed volume MUST be cut in order to lay it out flat. The OP talks about, "Maths tells us that you can't map out a sphere," and this is part of what they are talking about, so I think this extension is fair. (It isn't really required, but it's easier to see cuts than stretches.)

The point of the original post was very clear. "If the earth is flat, we should have a map that has got both of those Attributes, in other words we should be able to have a perfect map of the earth without any distortion. Is there such a map?"
They are not asking for a map that can be used to navigate. They are asking for a map that shows how a flat Earth could actually work. Your maps do not do this. Your maps show how a globe Earth works.

11
Flat Earth Community / Re: Here comes more of the same.. sorry
« on: June 28, 2019, 04:42:47 AM »
Welcome. I'm not a FE, but I can answer your purely science based questions.
How does the UA theory explain spherical formations within the earth’s atmosphere such as raindrops, organic processes, or even the atmosphere itself really? (I can visualize a bubble on a tabletop for the atmosphere, but the bubble would have a flat bottom and a rounded top, so where is the bottom of our bubble.) wouldn’t constant upward acceleration pass the tension threshold of such a thin layer of gasses?
UA manifests itself as (virtually) identical to Newtonian gravity. That is Einstein's equivalence principle. If a raindrop would form a sphere under Newtonian gravity, it would do the same under UA.
More detail... Under UA, the Earth (the ground - not the air) is being accelerated upwards. The raindrops are in the air - just sitting there, floating in a zero-g environment. The raindrops are pulled into a spherical shape by surface tension, and there is no force pulling them down, so they just chill there. But then up comes the Earth - zooming up to catch the raindrops.

That's the raindrops. For the bubble of atmosphere, I'll defer to the FEs to answer.

Similarly, how would ultralight gasses move upward against the force of UA?
Like I said above, Einstein's equivalence principle says that UA and gravity should act the same. As you mentioned above, something is holding the atmosphere onto the Earth. I'm not sure what that is, but while we wait for an answer to that, let's imagine a big glass dome. The dome is shoved upwards either along with the Earth or by the Earth. The air is shoved upwards by the Earth. This creates a huge air cavity inside a container that is being shoved upwards at 9.8 m/s^2. This air is being shoved upwards by the Earth, and it has inertia. The denser gasses have more inertia than the light gasses, so the denser gasses are shoved to the bottom forcing the lighter gasses upwards. To see this effect in a practical demonstration, I suggest this video from SmarterEveryDay:

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: June 28, 2019, 03:30:02 AM »
iamcpc, Perhaps you could add equatorial lines to that map while you're at it.  Would Brazil be as cold as Canada in this map?

I'm not an experience cartographer so I would not be able to do that for you. I'm sorry
Shall we sum this whole thing up then?

1) Do you now understand and agree that the 2 maps you have posted are distorted?
2) Do you now understand and agree that these maps are too distorted to answer the criticism that the flat Earth has no undistorted map?

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: June 27, 2019, 08:00:43 PM »
I had already linked a map, with an interactive changing scale, in which the countries were the correct size, distance apart etc. It was rejected because it had an interactive scale which changes depending on which country you look at. So I presented a map which did not have an interactive scale in the the countries were more to scale which was not interactive.
The only other link I saw you link was Bing maps, which uses the Mercator projection (at least when you zoom out far). The Mercator projection is certainly distorted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Distortion

My definition of undistorted when referring to a map:

1. The map must have countries the correct size (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level).
2. Countries should be the correct distance away from each other (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level)
3. Countries should be the correct direction relative to each other
4. The map must be able to be used to accurately navigate every country on earth

Bing maps has all of those listed above but was rejected because it has an interactive scale. I've only really done a lot of extensive traveling in North America, South America, and Europe so I can't corroborate the accuracy of #4 in Africa, Asia, and Australia but, based on my sample data, I will assume that you can.

Let me help you out.
1) The first test I'm going to apply to your "undistorted map" is "Can I measure distances between major cities and verify that they match accepted values?" It's simple enough to look up flight times to verify that the distances are at least in the plausible range. I will not consider this map "undistorted" unless a single, static scale can be used to represent these distances.
2) The next test would be to check whether those flights match up with real-world flights at all. For example, if we were to fly from New York to London, the course should take us Eastward over the Atlantic Ocean. If we end up flying West across Canada and Russia along the way, somebody is going to notice.
3) Next up, I'm going to look for pac-manning. Those are situations where you fly off one edge of the map and appear on the other. Like in your most recent attempt, if I fly out of New York across the Atlantic Ocean, I'll fly off the top of the map and then appear again flying down off the top of the map on the left - near Europe.
4) The Bing map shows this effect quite plainly. Perhaps it's more "Defender" than "Pac-Man," but the problem is the same. You should see that on the left and right edges of the map, flying off one edge makes you appear back on the other edge. You can drag-scroll it left/right to move where that boundary is. Place the US right in the middle. Fly East out of NY to London. Fly West out of LA to Tokyo. How do you get from Tokyo to London? Can we fly West off the edge of the map and appear on the right side again?

If you could solve these issues, you'd have REAL progress. If you somehow made that work, we'd next want to check the location and orientations of things.
5) Is the latitude and longitude of each major city correct? These can be verified by the Sun & Stars.
6) Is the relative direction from one city to the next correct?

In short, I want the equivalent of a God's eye view of the flat Earth. A top-down image that looks as if it were a photograph taken from a great distance above the plane.

These are the reasons that you cannot make an undistorted 2D map of a sphere. It's geometrically impossible. You need to cut it somewhere, and most projections stretch it as well.

Both of the maps you have presented so far are massively distorted. They both exhibit cuts (pac-manning) and stretching. Those are distortions.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: June 27, 2019, 04:45:32 PM »
I said no such thing. I said, "If the Earth is a sphere, there is no possible way to draw an undistorted 2D map of it.


If there is no possible way to draw an undistorted 2D map of a sphere and I have presented you with an undistroted 2d map of the earth are you saying that you honestly now believe the earth is not a sphere?


If the Earth is flat, an undistorted 2D map should be no problem. So present us such an undistorted 2D map, and we have our answer. Lacking such a map, we can continue to conclude that the Earth simply is not flat."

I feel like you didn't make it to the end of my previous post. Allow me to repeat:
So now, let's be honest. Do you honestly think the map you linked is "undistorted"? If you think that, I'd challenge you to imagine a flight from New York to London. I would certainly call such a flight path significantly "distorted." Don't you agree?

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: June 27, 2019, 04:31:09 PM »
I don't see the need for UA to explain the downward force on an FE. Is it really any more fantastical to just say there's a giant 'artificial gravity generator', like something from Star Trek? UA describes a quasi-plausible scenario, but still requires an unknown power source and a designed origin...something purposely built and put into motion. Why not 'artificial gravity'? Accepting that is not even an extra step, just a slightly different path.

I agree with this completely. Gravity with an unknown source is no worse than UA with an unknown source. Adding UA simply adds a layer of needless complication. It explains literally nothing that "Gravity pulls stuff down" doesn't already explain, and instead it introduces new questions.

Gravity with an unknown source could easily have unknown sources of variation. This makes it far inferior to Newtonian gravity, but it's better than UA already because of this.

I am forced to suggest once more that just MAYBE the person who came up with UA was trolling. Why come up with that in the first place? It explains nothing, but adds complications. The wiki doesn't say who originated the idea. Maybe we should look into that.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: June 27, 2019, 04:23:27 PM »
You sir are the one who says look a distorted map! The earth is a sphere! Yet, when presented with a map with no distortion you won't flip 180 degrees and say look! a map with no distortion! The earth is flat!

I'm telling you that I believe that both ways of thinking are false.
I said no such thing. I said, "If the Earth is a sphere, there is no possible way to draw an undistorted 2D map of it. If the Earth is flat, an undistorted 2D map should be no problem. So present us such an undistorted 2D map, and we have our answer. Lacking such a map, we can continue to conclude that the Earth simply is not flat."

Please read that back. Notice how I did NOT say that a distorted map proves a sphere. I said quite specifically that an undistorted 2D map should be no problem for a flat Earth. Let me clarify that right now. If you can produce an accurate, undistorted 2D map of the Earth, I will concede ahead of time that this would be a genuine breakthrough. Would it "prove" that the Earth is flat? Not all by itself, but this would be a tremendous piece of evidence. This would be a paradigm shift in the flat Earth movement. It would be worth real money. I know of a guy offering $40,000 for such a thing.

If you can produce such a thing, I promise to re-evaluate EVERYTHING I have studied so far in relation to flat Earth. I promise to promote this new map. I will feature it on YouTube, and I will add comments to my existing videos about just how important a map like that would be.

That's real objectivity. That's honesty.

So now, let's be honest. Do you honestly think the map you linked is "undistorted"? If you think that, I'd challenge you to imagine a flight from New York to London. I would certainly call such a flight path significantly "distorted." Don't you agree?

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: June 26, 2019, 10:25:54 PM »
If you don't like the distorted map then why on earth is it used so commonly and widely for just about everything??

If i'm able to take a map with an interactive scale and use it to accurately navigate hundreds of thousands of square miles on the earth i'm pretty happy with the map.  I've seen 2d map of the earth without an interactive scale which I had linked previously in this thread and I didn't like it because it didn't line up well with the cardinal directions.
The question is truly one of, "Is it possible that the Earth is flat?" If the Earth is a sphere, there is no possible way to draw an undistorted 2D map of it. If the Earth is flat, an undistorted 2D map should be no problem. So present us such an undistorted 2D map, and we have our answer. Lacking such a map, we can continue to conclude that the Earth simply is not flat.

And again, it seems CERTAIN that you know exactly why we're having this discussion. You know that an undistorted 2D map is KEY to the flat Earth question.

I posit once more that it seems extremely unlikely that you are seriously proposing a distorted map as any sort of validation that the Earth could truly be flat. I have the distinct feeling of a fishhook in my cheek.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: June 26, 2019, 10:03:18 PM »
If not, then consider... if the map must dynamically change scale, then it could NOT be the same as a physical, static object. (I'm assuming we can agree that the Earth isn't dynamically scaling.)

So can we agree that the bing map is the projection of some higher dimensional shape onto a 2D plane? This projection has caused significant distortions as indicated by the dynamic scale. Agreed?

No. I don't agree. Just because a map has a scale which changes does not mean that the earth is a sphere. The earth could be more shaped like a dinner plate or some other shape which is more "flat" than a sphere and have an interactive scale.


In that case, I would suggest that we can now agree the Earth cannot look like this. What are the possibilities that remain?

This is a moot point. Any map I present can just be claimed to be a projection of a sphere therefore a round earth map. The map with the interactive scale you claim to be a projection of a sphere could also be a projection of an oblate spheroid correct? What about an ellipsoid?

I think that's a pretty good summation of exactly what I'm claiming. Are you suggesting that a projection of a sphere CAN qualify as a flat earth map? Or perhaps you are suggesting that the same map could be BOTH a projection from a sphere and an accurate presentation of the flat Earth?

We have a different definition of a flat earth map. You define a flat earth map as a map of the earth in which the earth is represented as a flat plane in which the map is also a projection of a flat plane.
by your definition there is no flat earth map.

My definition of a flat earth map is a map which represents the earth as a flat plane which can be verified as accurate.

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the Bing map could be a distortion from a flat shape into it's current flat shape. Right?
I agree. It could. But here we agree that it is significantly distorted, right?

Can we please have a map that is not distorted this badly? Something that represents a God's eye view of the Earth as it really is?

I'd be happy to take the Bing map and un-distort it for you to show you what that looks like. Have you ever seen that? Do you want to?

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: June 26, 2019, 09:44:40 PM »
Is an interactive map with a scale that changes a joke? I don't think so.
Is my belief that the most accurate flat earth map that I've seen resembles Bing maps? I don't think so.


When you ask if i'm FE I don't know what that means. Could you please elaborate?

If, by FE, you mean do I believe 100% that we have proven the earth to be flat then: no. I'm not.

If, by FE, you mean that I honestly believe there is real evidence, and logical arguments which supports the idea that the earth is flat (or some flattish shape)  as well as real evidence and logical arguments which weaken the round earth model then: Yes I am
Everything you wrote there is great, and I respect it all.

Let's talk about the bing map and your presentation of it. Is it "flat"? Sure, insofar as it is 2 dimensional, yeah it's flat. But could this be a representation of what the Earth is really like? You pointed out the dynamic scale, so I'm forced to say the representation is clearly a distortion of reality, and you clearly understand that. So I'm led to the most obvious conclusion that the suggestion that this map is the best "flat earth map" was meant to be cheeky.

If not, then consider... if the map must dynamically change scale, then it could NOT be the same as a physical, static object. (I'm assuming we can agree that the Earth isn't dynamically scaling.)

So can we agree that the bing map is the projection of some higher dimensional shape onto a 2D plane? This projection has caused significant distortions as indicated by the dynamic scale. Agreed?

In that case, I would suggest that we can now agree the Earth cannot look like this. What are the possibilities that remain?

a) You were being cheeky all along, and I've fallen into your trap.
b) You hadn't really thought about it before, but now you realize this map doesn't meet the criteria of a "flat earth map".
c) You still don't understand why the bing map cannot be the "flat earth map" we're looking for.

If you want to go with c), there are 2 possibilities:
c1) You possess an understanding of an abstract type of geometry that I am failing to consider
c2) You don't respect the same rules of 2D geometry and 3D geometry that I do.

It's hard to talk about maps when people claim for any map that it's just a projection of a sphere therefore does not count as a flat earth map.
I think that's a pretty good summation of exactly what I'm claiming. Are you suggesting that a projection of a sphere CAN qualify as a flat earth map? Or perhaps you are suggesting that the same map could be BOTH a projection from a sphere and an accurate presentation of the flat Earth?

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: June 26, 2019, 08:36:53 PM »
Forgive me if my comments seem offensive, but is iamcpc even a FE?
This is classic Poe, right?

Sorry... the moderators will hate that. Let me explain.
I had the impression already that iamcpc isn't a FE. IIRC, I've seen them chiming in from various points of view.

iamcpc has already stated that the scale of bing maps changes as you scroll North/South. This indicates they clearly understand the the projection isn't "flat". I mean it's flat, sure, but it's clearly a projection onto flat. If you printed it on paper that sliding scale wouldn't happen, and iamcpc clearly shows it.

So... is this a joke? or... what?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16  Next >