The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Mock on August 11, 2017, 10:57:19 AM
-
Please, before commenting, at the very least read the summary and below. I know it's a lot of text, but it's important.
So, on the Ice Wall map / Azimuthal Equidistant Projection map. I'm sure y'all know which one I mean.
People have flown over Antarctica, and the flight distances on the southern hemiplane are way too big - let alone the fact that if it were true, planes wouldn't fly the routes they fly, but shorter ones without unnecessary arcs. It's been discussed in countless of threads.
Then there's the newer, bipolar map with Antarctica as an actual continent - yay! But with this model, there's absolutely NO explanation for people travelling from the USA to Japan in the comparatively small amount of time that is observed, since they would have to fly over the Atlantic, Europe and most of Asia.
Also, the map clearly shows there is something "south" of the South Pole, which is contradictory. It's also not how magnetic fields work. There would be large spaces of sea where a compass needle simply would do nothing at all, or just point away from the South Pole - but in this model, the direction opposite south apparently doesn't have to be north. This is in direct contradiction to what is observed everywhere on Earth. And yes, I know the geographic and magnetic South Pole are two different locations, but this problem arises no matter where specifically locate the south pole, as long as it is a fixed point. Compass readings would never be accurate whenever you are east or west of 0° longitude.
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/application/files/9614/6160/9987/michaelwilmore.jpeg)
To summarize:
The Antarctica as Ice Wall model cannot be true because (among other reasons, I'm sure I'm missing some)
- there would be bizarrely unrealistic flight durations and routes on the Southern Hemiplane, no matter where specifically the continents are located. If anyone can come up with a map where routes and distances actually behave even roughly like they do in real life, by all means enlighten us.
- Antarctica is an actual continent, not a huge ring of ice. You can visit it, and you can fly over it, and it's all been done before. If Antarctica is observed to NOT be an Ice Wall along the edge of Earth, then where could it possibly be located in this model so that everything (compass needles / the magnetic south pole; distance from other places) still approximately matches up? It's just not possible. Again, if you disagree, give me evidence (read: a map where it works).
The Two Pole model I've seen around lately cannot be true either, because
- There's stretches of sea (and islands) "south" (further down on a map) of the South Pole. Where does a compass needle point? North? In that case, the other readings on the compass are not correct, which is not what is observed in real life in those places. Does it just point straight away from the south pole because of magnetic repulsion of the magnetized needle? In that case, again, it doesn't point north, which is not what is observed, either. And don't tell me it's because the actual magnetic south pole is somewhere else, because we know where it is, and it's on (or extremely near) Antarctica, not far off at the South End of the World.
- There's the unfixable issue that you have to fly over the Atlantic and Europe to get to Japan, and even if you relocate stuff on the map (because people repeatedly say those are just models of how it could be, not maps), there's always the issue of planes on the west end of the Western Hemiplane having to fly over all of the rest of the world to reach the eastern edge of the Eastern Hemiplane. This is the case with all FE maps where neither of the Poles is in the center, and no amount of relocating continents can fix that, so the Bipolar Model CANNOT POSSIBLY be accurate. You should stop using it.
Please note what I am arguing here. This post is NOT trying to disprove FE theory. What I wanted to convey is that both models FE theory has at this moment for what the world roughly looks are not compatible with our observations of this world. My conclusion out of this is NOT that the Earth is round, but that your top priority at this moment should be finding a model of the Flat Earth that is actually in accordance with the real world. Again, I am not talking about specific distances and traveling times and stuff that can be fixed by relocating the continents. I am pointing out fundamental flaws in the very nature of the existing models.
-
Please, before commenting, at the very least read the summary and below. I know it's a lot of text, but it's important.
So, on the Ice Wall map / Azimuthal Equidistant Projection map. I'm sure y'all know which one I mean.
People have flown over Antarctica, and the flight distances on the southern hemiplane are way too big - let alone the fact that if it were true, planes wouldn't fly the routes they fly, but shorter ones without unnecessary arcs. It's been discussed in countless of threads.
Then there's the newer, bipolar map with Antarctica as an actual continent - yay! But with this model, there's absolutely NO explanation for people travelling from the USA to Japan in the comparatively small amount of time that is observed, since they would have to fly over the Atlantic, Europe and most of Asia.
Also, the map clearly shows there is something "south" of the South Pole, which is contradictory. It's also not how magnetic fields work. There would be large spaces of sea where a compass needle simply would do nothing at all, or just point away from the South Pole - but in this model, the direction opposite south apparently doesn't have to be north. This is in direct contradiction to what is observed everywhere on Earth. And yes, I know the geographic and magnetic South Pole are two different locations, but this problem arises no matter where specifically locate the south pole, as long as it is a fixed point. Compass readings would never be accurate whenever you are east or west of 0° longitude.
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/application/files/9614/6160/9987/michaelwilmore.jpeg)
To summarize:
The Antarctica as Ice Wall model cannot be true because (among other reasons, I'm sure I'm missing some)
- there would be bizarrely unrealistic flight durations and routes on the Southern Hemiplane, no matter where specifically the continents are located. If anyone can come up with a map where routes and distances actually behave even roughly like they do in real life, by all means enlighten us.
- Antarctica is an actual continent, not a huge ring of ice. You can visit it, and you can fly over it, and it's all been done before. If Antarctica is observed to NOT be an Ice Wall along the edge of Earth, then where could it possibly be located in this model so that everything (compass needles / the magnetic south pole; distance from other places) still approximately matches up? It's just not possible. Again, if you disagree, give me evidence (read: a map where it works).
The Two Pole model I've seen around lately cannot be true either, because
- There's stretches of sea (and islands) "south" (further down on a map) of the South Pole. Where does a compass needle point? North? In that case, the other readings on the compass are not correct, which is not what is observed in real life in those places. Does it just point straight away from the south pole because of magnetic repulsion of the magnetized needle? In that case, again, it doesn't point north, which is not what is observed, either. And don't tell me it's because the actual magnetic south pole is somewhere else, because we know where it is, and it's on (or extremely near) Antarctica, not far off at the South End of the World.
- There's the unfixable issue that you have to fly over the Atlantic and Europe to get to Japan, and even if you relocate stuff on the map (because people repeatedly say those are just models of how it could be, not maps), there's always the issue of planes on the west end of the Western Hemiplane having to fly over all of the rest of the world to reach the eastern edge of the Eastern Hemiplane. This is the case with all FE maps where neither of the Poles is in the center, and no amount of relocating continents can fix that, so the Bipolar Model CANNOT POSSIBLY be accurate. You should stop using it.
Please note what I am arguing here. This post is NOT trying to disprove FE theory. What I wanted to convey is that both models FE theory has at this moment for what the world roughly looks are not compatible with our observations of this world. My conclusion out of this is NOT that the Earth is round, but that your top priority at this moment should be finding a model of the Flat Earth that is actually in accordance with the real world. Again, I am not talking about specific distances and traveling times and stuff that can be fixed by relocating the continents. I am pointing out fundamental flaws in the very nature of the existing models.
Great timing for your post. We are actually working out a model in this thread. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0
If a flat map is possible it will come to light. If not it will be obvious. It's not an argument thread but a compilation of indisputable facts. Come join in.
-
Mock,
there is an ukrainian youtuber (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2+%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2+%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D1%8F+%26+%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B0), who tries to find out the real map layout of the world, basing on Slavic Aryan vedas, Indian vedas, ancient slavic fairytales(not joking!), ancient maps, his own intuition, claircognizance(almost the same as intuition, but, as i think, more empowered by ...).
He has a theory i wrote about a while back (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5861.msg112251#msg112251).
Great timing for your post.
And i've just stumbled upon a video about moon having an overlay of earth's true map (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5XDUoTv0tc)... Just imagine if this is true, and if the real map is floating in the sky on the face of the moon, and nobody from flat earthers pays attention to it. Yet we're not even questioning the flat earth map for its flaws.
-
The Two Pole model I've seen around lately cannot be true either, because
- There's stretches of sea (and islands) "south" (further down on a map) of the South Pole. Where does a compass needle point? North? In that case, the other readings on the compass are not correct, which is not what is observed in real life in those places. Does it just point straight away from the south pole because of magnetic repulsion of the magnetized needle? In that case, again, it doesn't point north, which is not what is observed, either. And don't tell me it's because the actual magnetic south pole is somewhere else, because we know where it is, and it's on (or extremely near) Antarctica, not far off at the South End of the World.
- There's the unfixable issue that you have to fly over the Atlantic and Europe to get to Japan, and even if you relocate stuff on the map (because people repeatedly say those are just models of how it could be, not maps), there's always the issue of planes on the west end of the Western Hemiplane having to fly over all of the rest of the world to reach the eastern edge of the Eastern Hemiplane. This is the case with all FE maps where neither of the Poles is in the center, and no amount of relocating continents can fix that, so the Bipolar Model CANNOT POSSIBLY be accurate. You should stop using it.
The magnetic field lines in the Bi-Polar model looks like a bar magnet:
(http://www.pstcc.edu/nbs/WebPhysics/D2102.gif)
N is over the North Pole, and S is over the South Pole (It was discovered that the North Pole is technically the South Pole, but that is unimportant). Wherever you are, the compass will align with the field lines. The needle will point towards the North Pole in the North and it will point towards the South Pole in the South. Traveling Eastwards in the North will take you in a circle around the North Pole and traveling Eastwards in the South will take you in a circle around the South Pole.
A true bi-polar map and continental layout is unknown and unstudied, but traveling between the US to Japan under that hypothetical layout does not take a path over Asia. Traveling Eastwards or Westwards would cause an arc around the North Pole.
-
And i've just stumbled upon a video about moon having an overlay of earth's true map (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5XDUoTv0tc)... Just imagine if this is true, and if the real map is floating in the sky on the face of the moon, and nobody from flat earthers pays attention to it. Yet we're not even questioning the flat earth map for its flaws.
What the bloody hell is that guy even talking about? Moon doesn't reflect Earth like a mirror - neither in RE, nor in FE theory. This "map" is just the Moon's natural rock formations. You can actually verify this yourself with a telescope.
I just noticed the video's category is Comedy. Explains a lot, doesn't it?
-
The magnetic field lines in that model looks like a bar magnet
(http://www.pstcc.edu/nbs/WebPhysics/D2102.gif)
N is over the North Pole, and S is over the South Pole (It was discovered that the North Pole is technically the South Pole, but that is unimportant). Wherever you are, the compass will align with the field lines. The needle will always point towards the North Pole in the North and it will always point towards the South Pole in the South.
Excuse me, but do you even know how a compass works? The needle doesn't simply point to the nearest magnetic pole. The needle is actually magnetized itself (Proof (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass#Magnetic_compass_2")), so the pointy end (most often red) will ALWAYS point north, unless you're too close to another magnet or are actually standing ON TOP OF one of Earth's magnetic poles. This is an observed fact.
What's true is that in the Southern Hemiplane, the bottom end of the needle would point towards the South Pole due to being magnetically attracted. The front part of the needle wouldn't point to the North Pole, though. This is contradictory to what is actually observed.
Also, it still doesn't solve the problem that there is an area to the south of the South Pole and north of the North Pole. Look at the field lines at the very tips of your bar magnet and imagine a magnetized compass needle a few inches to the right and above the bar magnet's North Pole. Now ask yourself, where would it point? And is this what is observed in our world?
Basically, in your model the s-pole of your compass needle will point north in the Northern Hemiplane, but the other side would at the same time not necessarily point south. This basically renders your compass useless for anything but locating the poles, and that is assuming you know which Hemiplane you are in.
-
Mock,
there is an ukrainian youtuber (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2+%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2+%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D1%8F+%26+%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B0), who tries to find out the real map layout of the world, basing on Slavic Aryan vedas, Indian vedas, ancient slavic fairytales(not joking!), ancient maps, his own intuition, claircognizance(almost the same as intuition, but, as i think, more empowered by ...).
He has a theory i wrote about a while back (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5861.msg112251#msg112251).
Great timing for your post.
And i've just stumbled upon a video about moon having an overlay of earth's true map (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5XDUoTv0tc)... Just imagine if this is true, and if the real map is floating in the sky on the face of the moon, and nobody from flat earthers pays attention to it. Yet we're not even questioning the flat earth map for its flaws.
Hey, go over to debate forum and look at the "Using airline flight data" thread. Maybe you can add to the discussion.
-
That is not true. If you have two bar magnets the two North ends will not always be pointing at each other. It is possible for the South ends to be in closer proximity and stronger connected.
What's true is that in the Southern Hemiplane, the bottom end of the needle would point towards the South Pole due to being magnetically attracted. The front part of the needle wouldn't point to the North Pole, though. This is contradictory to what is actually observed.
Yes, the North end of the compass will not point towards to the North Pole, but if you follow the direction of North on the compass it will eventually curve back to the North Pole, since the field lines change as you travel.
Also, it still doesn't solve the problem that there is an area to the south of the South Pole and north of the North Pole. Look at the field lines at the very tips of your bar magnet and imagine a magnetized compass needle a few inches to the right and above the bar magnet's North Pole. Now ask yourself, where would it point? And is this what is observed in our world?
The magnetic field lines have been experienced to be radiating away from the North Pole. I don't see what the issue is.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/1gxQwnm.png)
It can be observed that on a normal compass with a magnetized needle, whenever one end points towards the North Pole, the other points towards the South Pole and vice versa. With the bipolar FE model that gets promoted on here, this is clearly not always the case, as demonstrated by the above image I made using your bar magnet graphic for the field lines. At the bottom left position, for example, one end would clearly be attracted by the nearby South Pole, but the other certainly doesn't point north. Same with the far right position, just the other way around. This doesn't occur in real life.
-
[It can be observed that on a normal compass with a magnetized needle, whenever one end points towards the North Pole, the other points towards the South Pole and vice versa.
Who observed that?
-
It's common knowledge. Since I assume you don't have a compass handy, unlock your iPhone. Open the Compass app. You'll notice it works just like a real one. You'll also notice that "N" for north is at a 180 degree angle to "S" for south, and they don't change positions. This means that at any given position, if you face North and turn 180 degrees you'll face South. This is clearly not the case in the bipolar FE model, as I have illustrated:
(http://i.imgur.com/1gxQwnm.png)
At the position on the left, you actually get a very acute angle from North to South and certainly not 180 degrees. Ask yourself: What direction is West? To assert that the BP model is correct would be to assert there are points on Earth that inherently give inaccurate compass readings because of their position in the geomagnetic field (excluding the Poles, but that should be really obvious). The burden of proof is on you.
-
It's common knowledge.
I see. Then I suppose that we have nothing further to discuss, since truth is based on popular authority.
-
It's common knowledge.
I see. Then I suppose that we have nothing further to discuss, since truth is based on popular authority.
Come on, you just ignored everything else to focus on those three words instead? We have plenty to discuss. Just read the rest of the post and don't run away from the discussion because I assumed you know what a compass looks like and how it works. Excuse me, but that is common knowledge.
-
It's common knowledge.
I see. Then I suppose that we have nothing further to discuss, since truth is based on popular authority.
lol...nice cop out, once again. Aren't you a little too old to be acting like a little child?
Popular authority has nothing at all to do with this. We are talking about direct observations...ones that you can make for yourself.
Be honest, do you know you are dodging these conversations and actually believing people are buying it, or do you really have no idea what you are doing here?
-
I sent him a PM explaining in detail what I meant by "common knowledge". He's ignored it so far, yet he has obviously been online and active since I sent it almost a week ago. I guess that proves my point? ::)
Hello. To get straight to the point:
It's common knowledge.
I see. Then I suppose that we have nothing further to discuss, since truth is based on popular authority.
I think this is a very bizarre and, to be honest, also an unfair reaction. I made the effort to answer your question with a detailed explanation based on common knowledge (the common knowledge in this case being nothing more than "on a compass, the angle between North and South is 180 degrees, and the two ends of the needle simultaneously point north and south, respectively"). You then proceeded to dismiss my explanation, ignore the rest of the post and leave the thread just because my response is founded on common knowledge. Not all of it is automatically wrong, you know ("the sea is filled with saltwater" is common knowledge and a proven fact), and I NEVER asserted that truth is based on popular authority. That's just you being dishonest and looking for a way out.
[It can be observed that on a normal compass with a magnetized needle, whenever one end points towards the North Pole, the other points towards the South Pole and vice versa.
Who observed that?
I answered your question. Since you're not disputing my claim, until you give a proper answer I'll just assume you acknowledged that I'm right and gave up, and that you're not responding in order to save some face.
-
The evidence for your assertion was that it was "common knowledge". I just assumed that you had no further intellectual stimulation to contribute towards the topic.
-
The evidence for your assertion was that it was "common knowledge". I just assumed that you had no further intellectual stimulation to contribute towards the topic.
I've made this clear multiple times now, and I will once more: This is not the case. My two posts and the rather long PM you chose to ignore might have tipped you off. I'm not the one who stopped contributing for a week because of a minor detail. I'm sorry if said minor detail offended you, but had you read the rest of what I wrote and not just those three words, I'm sure that would have saved us lots of drama. The evidence for my assertion was not that it was common knowledge. The evidence was everything I said in the rest of the post, which you decided to disregard.
I've made my point on the topic:
It's common knowledge. Since I assume you don't have a compass handy, unlock your iPhone. Open the Compass app. You'll notice it works just like a real one. You'll also notice that "N" for north is at a 180 degree angle to "S" for south, and they don't change positions. This means that at any given position, if you face North and turn 180 degrees you'll face South. This is clearly not the case in the bipolar FE model, as I have illustrated:
(http://i.imgur.com/1gxQwnm.png)
At the position on the left, you actually get a very acute angle from North to South and certainly not 180 degrees. Ask yourself: What direction is West? To assert that the BP model is correct would be to assert there are points on Earth that inherently give inaccurate compass readings because of their position in the geomagnetic field (excluding the Poles, but that should be really obvious). The burden of proof is on you.
Since you seem to be willing to engage in the discussion again (which I am thankful for), by all means go ahead. I'm all ears.
-
Yes, North and South sometimes point off into nothingness, and so does East and West. If you follow the reading of East or West you will eventually make a circle around the earth. If you follow the Northern or Southern magnetic field lines you will eventually reach the North or South Pole. The turn will be very gradual.
Your assertion that we can somehow know that North and South are not curved by opening an iPhone compass app and relying on common knowledge that North and South does not curve is fallacious.
Under the Round Earth model East does not always point East (except at the equator), and Eastwards navigation is possible. Consider where "East" would point 20 feet from the point of Magnetic North in RET. Why must we believe that North always points North?
-
You can't compare North and South to West and East in this case. North and South always point towards distinct locations, while West and East just go in a direction perpendicular toward the direction of North and South.
Going East until you reach the point you started from again (i.e. one full circle around the Earth), a compass will always show you're going East. Conversely, you can't make a full circle around the Earth by just going North. At some point, your compass needle will spin around and then you'll be going South.
To point to my rough sketch of the bipolar model's magnetic field (which, for the protocol, you have taken no issue with as of now), imagine standing at the position of the far right compass symbol, straight behind the North Pole (but a fair distance away from it). Your compass needle's tip (indicating North) will obviously point at the North Pole, but what about the other directions?
Say you're facing the North Pole. Obviously, North is right in front of you. What about South? Your compass will display South as right behind you - but the magnetic South Pole will, too, be located in the direction you're facing, which is a contradiction.
Imagine going "South" (as read from a compass) from this position - instead of getting closer to the Southern Hemiplane, you would actually be increasing your distance from it. To get to, say, South Africa, you would actually have to travel further North at first.
That's not all, though. If North is straight ahead of you, then East will naturally be to your right and West to your left. Now imagine someone with a compass in the UK, also facing the North Pole. For them, North is also straight ahead, so East will be to their right and West to their left. Since those two observers are looking in opposite directions (facing each other, with the North Pole between them), they can't both be right, though. In this scenario, the Western Hemiplane would become the Eastern Hemiplane after passing the North Pole.
You seem to think that those discrepancies are not observed because one would turn to the right direction while travelling due to curvature of the magnetic field lines. This might be possible for lower longitudes (e.g. travelling from the US to Brazil), where the curvature is not as noticeable and you might not be able to detect the slight shift in direction over the huge distance. But surely a 180 degree turn that is necessary in this case would be noticed? Travelling South, I'm confident you would notice that you are now facing stars that were behind you earlier during the journey.
So by claiming the Bipolar Model can be valid, you are either asserting that
- a standard magnetized needle compass with N and S at a 180° angle displays a wildly incorrect direction for South when facing the North Pole from the side opposite Western Europe
- there are locations on the far side of the poles where the directions of West and East as displayed by a standard magnetized needle compass are inversed, i.e. the shortest way from Berlin to Moscow is to go West
or you are asserting that travelling South from the far side of the North Pole will result in a gradual 180 degree turn that is somehow not noticed despite the existence of navigational devices other than compasses.
While those are really outlandish things to say, if they are actually true they shouldn't be hard to prove at all.
-
Under the Round Earth model East does not always point East (except at the equator), and Eastwards navigation is possible. Consider where "East" would point 20 feet from the point of Magnetic North in RET. Why must we believe that North always points North?
The needle in a compass is magnetized, as I'm sure you know. North always points North because of magnetic attraction. I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with East?
-
Please, before commenting, at the very least read the summary and below. I know it's a lot of text, but it's important.
So, on the Ice Wall map / Azimuthal Equidistant Projection map. I'm sure y'all know which one I mean.
People have flown over Antarctica, and the flight distances on the southern hemiplane are way too big - let alone the fact that if it were true, planes wouldn't fly the routes they fly, but shorter ones without unnecessary arcs. It's been discussed in countless of threads.
Then there's the newer, bipolar map with Antarctica as an actual continent - yay! But with this model, there's absolutely NO explanation for people travelling from the USA to Japan in the comparatively small amount of time that is observed, since they would have to fly over the Atlantic, Europe and most of Asia.
Also, the map clearly shows there is something "south" of the South Pole, which is contradictory. It's also not how magnetic fields work. There would be large spaces of sea where a compass needle simply would do nothing at all, or just point away from the South Pole - but in this model, the direction opposite south apparently doesn't have to be north. This is in direct contradiction to what is observed everywhere on Earth. And yes, I know the geographic and magnetic South Pole are two different locations, but this problem arises no matter where specifically locate the south pole, as long as it is a fixed point. Compass readings would never be accurate whenever you are east or west of 0° longitude.
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/application/files/9614/6160/9987/michaelwilmore.jpeg)
To summarize:
The Antarctica as Ice Wall model cannot be true because (among other reasons, I'm sure I'm missing some)
- there would be bizarrely unrealistic flight durations and routes on the Southern Hemiplane, no matter where specifically the continents are located. If anyone can come up with a map where routes and distances actually behave even roughly like they do in real life, by all means enlighten us.
- Antarctica is an actual continent, not a huge ring of ice. You can visit it, and you can fly over it, and it's all been done before. If Antarctica is observed to NOT be an Ice Wall along the edge of Earth, then where could it possibly be located in this model so that everything (compass needles / the magnetic south pole; distance from other places) still approximately matches up? It's just not possible. Again, if you disagree, give me evidence (read: a map where it works).
The Two Pole model I've seen around lately cannot be true either, because
- There's stretches of sea (and islands) "south" (further down on a map) of the South Pole. Where does a compass needle point? North? In that case, the other readings on the compass are not correct, which is not what is observed in real life in those places. Does it just point straight away from the south pole because of magnetic repulsion of the magnetized needle? In that case, again, it doesn't point north, which is not what is observed, either. And don't tell me it's because the actual magnetic south pole is somewhere else, because we know where it is, and it's on (or extremely near) Antarctica, not far off at the South End of the World.
- There's the unfixable issue that you have to fly over the Atlantic and Europe to get to Japan, and even if you relocate stuff on the map (because people repeatedly say those are just models of how it could be, not maps), there's always the issue of planes on the west end of the Western Hemiplane having to fly over all of the rest of the world to reach the eastern edge of the Eastern Hemiplane. This is the case with all FE maps where neither of the Poles is in the center, and no amount of relocating continents can fix that, so the Bipolar Model CANNOT POSSIBLY be accurate. You should stop using it.
Please note what I am arguing here. This post is NOT trying to disprove FE theory. What I wanted to convey is that both models FE theory has at this moment for what the world roughly looks are not compatible with our observations of this world. My conclusion out of this is NOT that the Earth is round, but that your top priority at this moment should be finding a model of the Flat Earth that is actually in accordance with the real world. Again, I am not talking about specific distances and traveling times and stuff that can be fixed by relocating the continents. I am pointing out fundamental flaws in the very nature of the existing models.
Great timing for your post. We are actually working out a model in this thread. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0
If a flat map is possible it will come to light. If not it will be obvious. It's not an argument thread but a compilation of indisputable facts. Come join in.
There are no flat earth maps.
The Unipolar ("ice ring") and the Bipolar ("Antarctica as a Continent") are just two projections made from the globe.
-
And i've just stumbled upon a video about moon having an overlay of earth's true map (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5XDUoTv0tc)... Just imagine if this is true, and if the real map is floating in the sky on the face of the moon, and nobody from flat earthers pays attention to it. Yet we're not even questioning the flat earth map for its flaws.
What the bloody hell is that guy even talking about? Moon doesn't reflect Earth like a mirror - neither in RE, nor in FE theory. This "map" is just the Moon's natural rock formations. You can actually verify this yourself with a telescope.
I just noticed the video's category is Comedy. Explains a lot, doesn't it?
There was an ancient legend that the moon was a mirror reflection of the earth.
-
There are no flat earth maps.
Actually, there are.
-
There are no flat earth maps.
Actually, there are.
Would you be kind enough to point us to one then? Because I've seen told to us time and time again that the two images on the wiki are not maps, but suggestions on how things *could* look. Which makes sense as both of them are simple projections of the globe model onto a flat plane.
-
There are no flat earth maps.
Actually, there are.
Would you be kind enough to point us to one then? Because I've seen told to us time and time again that the two images on the wiki are not maps, but suggestions on how things *could* look. Which makes sense as both of them are simple projections of the globe model onto a flat plane.
Here is one example of a FE map (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=728.msg2079#msg2079).
You can also find more here (http://bit.ly/2ifxqwT).
-
There are no flat earth maps.
Actually, there are.
Would you be kind enough to point us to one then? Because I've seen told to us time and time again that the two images on the wiki are not maps, but suggestions on how things *could* look. Which makes sense as both of them are simple projections of the globe model onto a flat plane.
Here is one example of a FE map (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=728.msg2079#msg2079).
You can also find more here (http://bit.ly/2ifxqwT).
We've been told, repeatedly, on this site that those aren't actual maps. Does this mean you support them as actual maps we could use to attempt to measure distances and track navigation on? Because from what I'm aware all of those are simply projections of the globe Earth onto a flat map. Which does not equal a FE map. As amusing as it is that you're 'trolling' me with a lmgtfy link.
-
We've been told, repeatedly, on this site that those aren't actual maps.
I assure you they are maps.
Does this mean you support them as actual maps we could use to attempt to measure distances and track navigation on?
Not sure, haven't attempted it.
As amusing as it is that you're 'trolling' me with a lmgtfy link.
If you consider that to be trolling you probably shouldn't be online anymore...
-
We've been told, repeatedly, on this site that those aren't actual maps.
I assure you they are maps.
Does this mean you support them as actual maps we could use to attempt to measure distances and track navigation on?
Not sure, haven't attempted it.
As amusing as it is that you're 'trolling' me with a lmgtfy link.
If you consider that to be trolling you probably shouldn't be online anymore...
A map implies distances and shapes should be correct. I'm more than up for using those and doing some calculations and such on them. Just want to be sure.
Hence my '.' around the word. I'll remember not to jest with you going forward as you appear to lack a sense of humor.
-
There are no flat earth maps.
Actually, there are.
Just show them. They should be accurate in all respects. I have yet to see them.
-
There are no flat earth maps.
Actually, there are.
Just show them. They should be accurate in all respects. I have yet to see them.
And to be clear these should accurately represent the shape and size of the world, whatever it is.
-
Just show them.
Already done.
-
There are no flat earth maps.
Actually, there are.
Would you be kind enough to point us to one then? Because I've seen told to us time and time again that the two images on the wiki are not maps, but suggestions on how things *could* look. Which makes sense as both of them are simple projections of the globe model onto a flat plane.
Here is one example of a FE map (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=728.msg2079#msg2079).
You can also find more here (http://bit.ly/2ifxqwT).
There are no flat earth maps.
Actually, there are.
Just show them. They should be accurate in all respects. I have yet to see them.
Above is what he's given us. Apparently Junker believes these to be accurate depictions of the flat Earth we live on. Tom doesn't appear to agree with him on that, but at least Junker has offered something.
-
Apparently Junker believes these to be accurate depictions of the flat Earth we live on.
Curious, I don't remember claiming that.
-
Apparently Junker believes these to be accurate depictions of the flat Earth we live on.
Curious, I don't remember claiming that.
Then we must disagree on the meaning of the word 'map' because by the understanding of the word both myself and gecko have put forth that is exactly what you've said.
Just show them.
Already done.
We've been told, repeatedly, on this site that those aren't actual maps.
I assure you they are maps.
-
Apparently Junker believes these to be accurate depictions of the flat Earth we live on.
Curious, I don't remember claiming that.
Then we must disagree on the meaning of the word 'map' because by the understanding of the word both myself and gecko have put forth that is exactly what you've said.
Just show them.
Already done.
We've been told, repeatedly, on this site that those aren't actual maps.
I assure you they are maps.
I clearly must be missing something. I read everything you quoted and nowhere do any of my statements say what you claim.
-
Apparently Junker believes these to be accurate depictions of the flat Earth we live on.
Curious, I don't remember claiming that.
Then we must disagree on the meaning of the word 'map' because by the understanding of the word both myself and gecko have put forth that is exactly what you've said.
Just show them.
Already done.
We've been told, repeatedly, on this site that those aren't actual maps.
I assure you they are maps.
I clearly must be missing something. I read everything you quoted and nowhere do any of my statements say what you claim.
So in your world offering forth something when asked for it does not imply any sort of approval or agreement with that something when you don't state so? Huh, you really DO live in your own little world.
Maps were asked for/about.
You said there were maps and offered those up.
You now claim you never said you thought those were maps. O.o
So, as I said, clearly that means we disagree on what the word 'map' means, despite both gecko and myself laying out what we are looking for.
There are no flat earth maps.
Actually, there are.
Just show them. They should be accurate in all respects. I have yet to see them.
Here's what gecko said that you conveniently snipped most of away and replied "Already done." Perhaps you don't understand implication? Or how to be clear in your wording to avoid said implication?
-
Apparently Junker believes these to be accurate depictions of the flat Earth we live on.
Curious, I don't remember claiming that.
Then we must disagree on the meaning of the word 'map' because by the understanding of the word both myself and gecko have put forth that is exactly what you've said.
Just show them.
Already done.
We've been told, repeatedly, on this site that those aren't actual maps.
I assure you they are maps.
I clearly must be missing something. I read everything you quoted and nowhere do any of my statements say what you claim.
So in your world offering forth something when asked for it does not imply any sort of approval or agreement with that something when you don't state so? Huh, you really DO live in your own little world.
Maps were asked for/about.
You said there were maps and offered those up.
You now claim you never said you thought those were maps. O.o
So, as I said, clearly that means we disagree on what the word 'map' means, despite both gecko and myself laying out what we are looking for.
There are no flat earth maps.
Actually, there are.
Just show them. They should be accurate in all respects. I have yet to see them.
Here's what gecko said that you conveniently snipped most of away and replied "Already done." Perhaps you don't understand implication? Or how to be clear in your wording to avoid said implication?
If "they" are "already done", where are "they" ???
I have said it before and I guess I will say it again . LOL.
This website might be more interesting if the theme of the website was :
" Look.....We all now what the shape of the earth is. It is a globe. But have you ever wondered how things would have to be if the earth was not a globe ? This website is for those ideas . The first problem seems to be in coming up with a flat earth map that accurately shows the sizes and shapes of the Continents and the spaces and distances between them."
The only two main maps presented so far (Unipolar and Bipolar Projections of The Globe) certainly don't have those properties. As a start someone or some group needs to do some work.
-
Interesting train of thought.
So in a flat earth, there could be a "bar magnet" buried not too far below the surface. So if you were to travel in the direction that the compass points ("North") then you could find yourself moving towards or away from the setting sun (conventionally "West" and "East").
I'm pretty sure there is no record of such a remarkable event.
But I'm VERY sure it can't be true because "North" is also indicated by the position of the star "Polaris" (aka "The Pole Star")...and mariners all over the world will use a mix of compass navigation and celestial navigation.
If Polaris was off in one direction and the compass needle pointing off in some completely different direction (more than the handful of degrees accounted for by the magnetic and 'true' pole issue) - then I'm 100% certain that this would have been written about in EVERY guide to navigation...and it just isn't.
There is simply no way that the compass could be pointing other than within a few degrees of Polaris without us knowing about it. So if FET requires these crazy compass directions then it MUST be false.
I had assumed that you'd be imagining a magnetic field that closely matches that of RET...so a very deeply buried, curved magnet would be needed.
But there is simply no possibility that there are places on Earth where the compass points toward the rising or setting sun...NOT POSSIBLE!
-
Pointed this way from the 'Both the Ice Wall and Bipolar Maps Are Wrong' threat....
Ships heading south to the Antarctic will always end up in an area that is carefully controlled. Hence why detailed exploration is not possible
However on the standard FE map 'South' points in different directions. Therefore, ships heading south would meet the ice in different places along the range. And it is simply inconceivable that the 'UN Alliance' are able to strictly monitor and control the whole range nor set up identical sites around the ice to fool us!!
-
Pointed this way from the 'Both the Ice Wall and Bipolar Maps Are Wrong' threat....
Ships heading south to the Antarctic will always end up in an area that is carefully controlled. Hence why detailed exploration is not possible
However on the standard FE map 'South' points in different directions. Therefore, ships heading south would meet the ice in different places along the range. And it is simply inconceivable that the 'UN Alliance' are able to strictly monitor and control the whole range nor set up identical sites around the ice to fool us!!
So - when some one in South Africa looks towards the "south" (outwards from the center) - will they see the same "Southern Cross" star formation that someone in Australia or Southern Chile sees? (HINT: Yes, they do!) So where are those stars physically located?
-
Interesting train of thought.
So in a flat earth, there could be a "bar magnet" buried not too far below the surface. So if you were to travel in the direction that the compass points ("North") then you could find yourself moving towards or away from the setting sun (conventionally "West" and "East").
I'm pretty sure there is no record of such a remarkable event.
But I'm VERY sure it can't be true because "North" is also indicated by the position of the star "Polaris" (aka "The Pole Star")...and mariners all over the world will use a mix of compass navigation and celestial navigation.
If Polaris was off in one direction and the compass needle pointing off in some completely different direction (more than the handful of degrees accounted for by the magnetic and 'true' pole issue) - then I'm 100% certain that this would have been written about in EVERY guide to navigation...and it just isn't.
There is simply no way that the compass could be pointing other than within a few degrees of Polaris without us knowing about it. So if FET requires these crazy compass directions then it MUST be false.
I had assumed that you'd be imagining a magnetic field that closely matches that of RET...so a very deeply buried, curved magnet would be needed.
But there is simply no possibility that there are places on Earth where the compass points toward the rising or setting sun...NOT POSSIBLE!
Unless you have compass readings from all over the world, who are you to say what is possible?
-
Interesting train of thought.
So in a flat earth, there could be a "bar magnet" buried not too far below the surface. So if you were to travel in the direction that the compass points ("North") then you could find yourself moving towards or away from the setting sun (conventionally "West" and "East").
I'm pretty sure there is no record of such a remarkable event.
But I'm VERY sure it can't be true because "North" is also indicated by the position of the star "Polaris" (aka "The Pole Star")...and mariners all over the world will use a mix of compass navigation and celestial navigation.
If Polaris was off in one direction and the compass needle pointing off in some completely different direction (more than the handful of degrees accounted for by the magnetic and 'true' pole issue) - then I'm 100% certain that this would have been written about in EVERY guide to navigation...and it just isn't.
There is simply no way that the compass could be pointing other than within a few degrees of Polaris without us knowing about it. So if FET requires these crazy compass directions then it MUST be false.
I had assumed that you'd be imagining a magnetic field that closely matches that of RET...so a very deeply buried, curved magnet would be needed.
But there is simply no possibility that there are places on Earth where the compass points toward the rising or setting sun...NOT POSSIBLE!
Unless you have compass readings from all over the world, who are you to say what is possible?
Umm, Tom, we do have compass readings from all over the world. Even have maps with magnetic readings from all over the globe. FET doesn't even have a map, you may want to stop commenting on such topics until you figure out what your version of the Earth looks like.
-
Umm, Tom, we do have compass readings from all over the world. Even have maps with magnetic readings from all over the globe.
If you have them then it should be trivial to link those records here for us.
-
Interesting.
Will you consider adding this on the wiki here?: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model
The concept with this is solid in my view.
I obviously don't expect it to be part of a replacement model for the planarists mainstream position, but it's something that interests me.
-
Umm, Tom, we do have compass readings from all over the world. Even have maps with magnetic readings from all over the globe.
If you have them then it should be trivial to link those records here for us.
If you google "magnetic readings map" you will find what I am referring to. You could do this before replying and not junk the thread up with useless posts asking to prove something that is widely available. I've owned cars that used these maps to further fine tune the accuracy of their built-in compass. This isn't some new theory.
-
Umm, Tom, we do have compass readings from all over the world. Even have maps with magnetic readings from all over the globe.
If you have them then it should be trivial to link those records here for us.
If you google "magnetic readings map" you will find what I am referring to. You could do this before replying and not junk the thread up with useless posts asking to prove something that is widely available. I've owned cars that used these maps to further fine tune the accuracy of their built-in compass. This isn't some new theory.
What's so hard about a link? We are talking about magnetic readings of the bi-polar model in this thread. It is not off topic.
Post your link and then show us how it is incompatible with a bi-polar model.
-
Umm, Tom, we do have compass readings from all over the world. Even have maps with magnetic readings from all over the globe.
If you have them then it should be trivial to link those records here for us.
If you google "magnetic readings map" you will find what I am referring to. You could do this before replying and not junk the thread up with useless posts asking to prove something that is widely available. I've owned cars that used these maps to further fine tune the accuracy of their built-in compass. This isn't some new theory.
What's so hard about a link? We are talking about magnetic readings of the bi-polar model in this thread. It is not off topic.
Post your link and then show us how it is incompatible with a bi-polar model.
Because this isn't a specific study or one picture in particular. Google magnetic map of Earth and there are literally dozens of global and local maps. I don't understand how a flat Earth even has a uniform magnetic field without the dynamo effect of a spinning Earth, but I'm sure there is a theory for that in FET.
-
If you don't have the data then you have no right to claim that such data exists as the basis of your argument.
You are sending us off to look at maps and we are supposed to assume that somebody actually measured the things you claim rather than being projected assumptions.
No. Show us the data and tell us how and who collected it.
-
If you don't have the data then you have no right to claim that such data exists as the basis of your argument.
You are sending us off to look at maps and we are supposed to assume that somebody actually measured the things you claim rather than being projected assumptions.
No. Show us the data and tell us how and who collected it.
It isn't one entity that produced these maps. US Geological Survey, NOAA, European Space Agency, and others. And no, these aren't assumptions. They are actual measurements. The USGS flew a plane over the continental US and measured the magnetic field. ESA used satellites. I'm assuming NOAA used satellites, but didn't specifically look because satellites can't exist. smh...
-
If you don't have the data then you have no right to claim that such data exists as the basis of your argument.
You are sending us off to look at maps and we are supposed to assume that somebody actually measured the things you claim rather than being projected assumptions.
No. Show us the data and tell us how and who collected it.
It isn't one entity that produced these maps. US Geological Survey, NOAA, European Space Agency, and others. And no, these aren't assumptions. They are actual measurements. The USGS flew a plane over the continental US and measured the magnetic field. ESA used satellites. I'm assuming NOAA used satellites, but didn't specifically look because satellites can't exist. smh...
Show us the data and tell us how it can only suggest a round earth rather than just expecting people to believe that it supports you.
-
If you don't have the data then you have no right to claim that such data exists as the basis of your argument.
You are sending us off to look at maps and we are supposed to assume that somebody actually measured the things you claim rather than being projected assumptions.
No. Show us the data and tell us how and who collected it.
It isn't one entity that produced these maps. US Geological Survey, NOAA, European Space Agency, and others. And no, these aren't assumptions. They are actual measurements. The USGS flew a plane over the continental US and measured the magnetic field. ESA used satellites. I'm assuming NOAA used satellites, but didn't specifically look because satellites can't exist. smh...
Show us the data and tell us how it can only suggest a round earth rather than just expecting people to believe that it supports you.
What makes you think the shape of the earth is not round?
Look at timeanddate.com for data, as you have been told many times. Is it correct for your location?
If you were serious you would look for the data yourself, why have you not? No clever replies please.
-
If you don't have the data then you have no right to claim that such data exists as the basis of your argument.
You are sending us off to look at maps and we are supposed to assume that somebody actually measured the things you claim rather than being projected assumptions.
No. Show us the data and tell us how and who collected it.
It isn't one entity that produced these maps. US Geological Survey, NOAA, European Space Agency, and others. And no, these aren't assumptions. They are actual measurements. The USGS flew a plane over the continental US and measured the magnetic field. ESA used satellites. I'm assuming NOAA used satellites, but didn't specifically look because satellites can't exist. smh...
Show us the data and tell us how it can only suggest a round earth rather than just expecting people to believe that it supports you.
What makes you think the shape of the earth is not round?
Is it news to you that people don't think that?
What is the name of this site again?
-
Show us the data and tell us how it can only suggest a round earth rather than just expecting people to believe that it supports you.
Hey Tom. Let me help you. Move your mouse over the line of text below this one and push the button on the left of the mouse:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=magnetic+field+map+of+earth
-
Show us the data and tell us how it can only suggest a round earth rather than just expecting people to believe that it supports you.
Hey Tom. Let me help you. Move your mouse over the line of text below this one and push the button on the left of the mouse:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=magnetic+field+map+of+earth
And how does it only support a round earth? Is that in one of the links there?
-
Interesting.
Will you consider adding this on the wiki here?: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model
The concept with this is solid in my view.
I obviously don't expect it to be part of a replacement model for the planarists mainstream position, but it's something that interests me.
The "Davis Model" (and all others that appeal to General Relativity) are broken because they didn't actually read what Einstein wrote. Gravity and Acceleration are only equivalent for a UNIFORM gravitational field and UNIFORM acceleration.
No "real world" gravitational field is uniform because it lessens in proportion to the square of the distance between bodies. This is why we have tides. In RET, the earth experiences a non-uniform gravitational field from the moon because the near-side and far-sides of the planet are appreciably different distances from it. In FET, no such effect could happen.
So the "Davis Model" is a pile of poop - just like all the others.
I REALLY wish people would read the things they quote...they look such idiots when they don't.
-
The "Davis Model" (and all others that appeal to General Relativity) are broken because they didn't actually read what Einstein wrote. Gravity and Acceleration are only equivalent for a UNIFORM gravitational field and UNIFORM acceleration.
Gravitational pull and acceleration are equivalent, both are an inertial force. Uniformly across a mass is beside the point.
No "real world" gravitational field is uniform because it lessens in proportion to the square of the distance between bodies. This is why we have tides. In RET, the earth experiences a non-uniform gravitational field from the moon because the near-side and far-sides of the planet are appreciably different distances from it. In FET, no such effect could happen.
Looks like you aren't dealing with the model but are rather trying to assert FE could never explain this.
So the "Davis Model" is a pile of poop - just like all the others.
You didn't even make an objection to the model.
-
The "Davis Model" (and all others that appeal to General Relativity) are broken because they didn't actually read what Einstein wrote. Gravity and Acceleration are only equivalent for a UNIFORM gravitational field and UNIFORM acceleration.
Gravitational pull and acceleration are equivalent, both are an inertial force. Uniformly across a mass is beside the point.
No - ONLY if the gravitational field is uniform - which it isn't. Gravitational fields vary according to square of the distance from the source. Einstein's statement is a part of a thought experiment.
No "real world" gravitational field is uniform because it lessens in proportion to the square of the distance between bodies. This is why we have tides. In RET, the earth experiences a non-uniform gravitational field from the moon because the near-side and far-sides of the planet are appreciably different distances from it. In FET, no such effect could happen.
Looks like you aren't dealing with the model but are rather trying to assert FE could never explain this.
The Davis model asserts that gravitation and acceleration are equivalent...and then goes on to say that there is universal acceleration and that we couldn't tell the difference between that and "true" gravity because Einstein says they are equivalent. But that's not what Einstein said - so this is a FALSE justification.
In practice, you can tell the difference between gravity and acceleration - which is why (for example) gravity is less on mountain peaks...something which universal acceleration can't explain because a "fake gravity" created by acceleration would produce what would appear to be a uniform gravitational field...and it clearly ain't uniform because of the mountain thing.
So the reality of variable gravimetric readings is proof that acceleration cannot explain these phenomena.
So the "Davis Model" is a pile of poop - just like all the others.
You didn't even make an objection to the model.
Sorry - I assumed you could deduce that from the fact that the justification for it is bullshit (on account of not actually reading what Einstein said).