The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: ShootingStar on December 18, 2018, 05:42:14 PM
-
If you zoom out far enough in Google Earth or Google Maps you will quickly see the Earth become a spherical shape. Does this mean then that FE believers don't use what is probably the worlds most used digital mapping system?
-
If you zoom out far enough in Google Earth or Google Maps you will quickly see the Earth become a spherical shape. Does this mean then that FE believers don't use what is probably the worlds most used digital mapping system?
It's widely accepted, among the flat earth community, that no map of the earth exists.
Yahoo maps is pretty much the same. The main difference is that if you zoom out the earth is not a sphere. The earth is show as a flat 2d image. Why this could not be used as a flat earth map is totally beyond me. It says nothing about the shape of the earth.
https://search.yahoo.com/search/?p=maps
I've used this map, or several other maps which are are 2d to navigate thousands and thousands of square miles of this earth by plane, train, bus, and car in multiple continents.
Take Tom Bishop for example. He is the most vocal FE supporter here. His belief is that:
-no one has created a map.
-There is no map creating budget.
-If a map is created and it does not match reality then there are almost an infinite number of continental configurations and we just have to try another one
-there are small flat earth maps being used for navigation on small scale but no global maps. The coordinates are not known or are classified.
We can use maps to travel from Kansas to Alaska
then use that exact same map to travel from Alaska to Brazil
then use that exact same map to travel to and from all the continents and countries on earth.
It seems to me like someone has pieced together one full map of locations of all of the countries on earth. Do you disagree?
I don't agree that all way-points are available. Not only is it based on flat maps, some of the coordinate transformations are actually classified by government.
-
Yes I have read many of Mr Bishops comments and they are interesting to say the least. I have seen that he often 'defends' most of the statements he makes my simply claiming that are personal opinions. That though doesn't make him right. It is my personal opinion that the Earth is a sphere (well... oblate spheroid in the sense that the polar diameter is slightly less than the equatorial).
I'm pretty sure that the flat earth community is not a large one and when one reads through many of the claims made in the FEW pages, that is hardly surprising. They seem to rely very heavily on material which is out dated and in many cases quite simply wrong. On this basis the FE 'theory' is more an ideology. The claims made by FE theorists seem to change more often that the British weather! After reading "If a map is created and it does not match reality then there are almost an infinite number of continental configurations and we just have to try another one" the old saying about trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole comes very much to mind!
It concerns me when you say about FE believers don't accept that any map of the Earth actually exists. What is the circular 'monopole' model of the Earth featured in FEW if that is not some kind of world map?
-
It concerns me when you say about FE believers don't accept that any map of the Earth actually exists. What is the circular 'monopole' model of the Earth featured in FEW if that is not some kind of world map?
It's an idea of what the flat earth might possibly maybe kinda sort look like. When you bring up questions about the impossibility travel between locations on the edge of the 'monopole' model. (specifically impossible distances corroborated by travel times, shipping times, cartography, and surveying) the response is:
1. That is not the map of the earth.
2. There is no map of the earth
3. You have disproved continental configuration 21398572938759287 what about continental configuration 21398572938759288?
What really blows my mind is that you can get on a plane in America and fly to virtually any country on earth yet people believe there is no map of the earth.
-
Rowbotham didn't have the funds and resources to map and decipher the world on his own. He was just a medical doctor. Nor has any Flat Earther since. FET doesn't have billions of dollars being pumped into it like RET, to develop construct. Rowbotham interpreted what was available to him, just like today.
RET has layers and layers of assumptions and clockwork; the goal here is to decipher the truth.
-
Rowbotham didn't have the funds and resources to map and decipher the world on his own. He was just a medical doctor. Nor has any Flat Earther since. FET doesn't have billions of dollars being pumped into it like RET, to get it to work.
RET has layers and layers of assumptions and clockwork; the goal here is to decipher the truth.
How would you start if the funding was available? What equipment would you use?
-
Interesting comments yet again Tom. You talk about funding as if RET were some kind of research project rather than modern scientific fact.
If Rowbotham is one of the leading figures of FET then that probably explains a lot about why the global opinion about a flat Earth has gone a little bit err well flat.
I don't know who you are trying to convince more, us or yourself.
-
I've proved several times using Rowbotham's own procedures and tables that the earth is a sphere. All Rowbotham had to do was read his own book and make a couple of simple corrections in the calculations. With that knowledge he could have started producing an accurate map. Maybe Rowbotham just had the book 'ghost written' and maybe that's the source of the 'errors'. Who knows.
-
Rowbotham didn't have the funds and resources to map and decipher the world on his own. He was just a medical doctor. Nor has any Flat Earther since. FET doesn't have billions of dollars being pumped into it like RET, to develop construct. Rowbotham interpreted what was available to him, just like today.
RET has layers and layers of assumptions and clockwork; the goal here is to decipher the truth.
What you have available to you today is the ability to fly from America to over 150 different countries on every continent on earth.
Then the ability to fly from those countries back to America. I don't understand how you can admit that this is possible and does happen every day but are unable to admit that there is some sort of a map that these planes are using.
First off do you have any evidence that all cartographers and modern map makers were NOT flat earthers?
Do you have any evidence that making a map costs billions of dollars?
Do you have any evidence that no one has put money into making a flat map?
Tom, are the maps that I've linked flat maps or not? If they are not flat maps please tell me why.
(please note that EVERY one of these maps represents a 2d earth not a sphere earth)
https://www.mapquest.com/
https://search.yahoo.com/search/?p=maps
http://suncalc.net/#/51.508,-0.125,2/2018.12.19/10:21
-
My guess is that cartographers are (round - flat) earth agnostic. They just collect that data and organize it. That data doesn't have to fit in any given category, it just has to accurately as possible match what is there. In other words the cartographers are just the messenger.
The core question is: Do the maps produced by the cartographers accurately match the real earth?
A flat earth person has access to the same data base that the round earth person does. You don't have to collect your own survey data you just have to take that same data and produce a map that can accurately represent a distance and bearing between any two points on the map.
You could produce a 'Flatle' map and compete with Google. The main problem that I see with this procedure is that it would be impossible. If you cut thru all the BS and get to the core of the question you will find that spherical trigonometry and plane trigonometry are mutually exclusive. Spherical trigonometry accurately represents the data and can be used to determine the distance between any two coordinates on the earth. That won't work with plane trigonometry. The main problem is that spherical trigonometry involves 3 different variables. You need an x,y, and z dimension. Plane trigonometry only requires a x and y dimension. You could massage all the survey data you want to produce a flat earth map, but it wouldn't be accurate because you are ignoring 33% of the data.
-
This society is about the search for knowledge. What is a latitude? What is a longitude? How was it originally calculated in relation to the celestial bodies, and what does it mean? What do latitude or longitude the formulas used in relation to the moon mean? What must it mean?
If you are to profess knowledge and truth then you should be expected to show and demonstrate knowledge of the coordinate systems used, the types of maps used, the jet streams, the nature of north and south and east and west, the admitted increase of time to flight times (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/Are-airlines-exaggerating-flight-times-so-theyre-never-late/), the available routes, and knowledge of those which may be unavailable, as was mentioned by iampc above.
We all want to be educated on this matter. Unless you can teach to any reasonable thinking person, of how all of this works, then you have no knowledge.
If you happen to come to the conclusion that you have no knowledge, then you should admit as such, and then seek to know what you do not know.
"They must know..." is not enough. Show. Demonstrate. Tell us, so that multiple different people, even if I am excluded, may look at your information say that it is clearly the correct answer and all is unanimous. We have provided that platform for you here, and allow all to participate.
-
This society is about the search for knowledge. What is a latitude? What is a longitude? How was it originally calculated in relation to the celestial bodies, and what does it mean? What do latitude or longitude the formulas used in relation to the moon mean? What must it mean?
You're only a couple of Google searches away from this knowledge.
If you are to profess knowledge and truth then you should be expected to show and demonstrate knowledge of the coordinate systems used, the types of maps used, the jet streams, the nature of north and south and east and west, the admitted increase of time to flight times (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/Are-airlines-exaggerating-flight-times-so-theyre-never-late/), the available routes, and knowledge of those which may be unavailable, as was mentioned by iampc above.
Search this forum, you will find the information you seek has been presented many, many times.
Unless you can teach to us, and explain to us, or any reasonable thinking person, how all of this works, then you have no knowledge.
Why is it up to us to teach you. Wouldn't the Zetetic way to be to find out for yourself? You don't believe the "teacher" anyway.
If you are to come to the conclusion that you have no knowledge, then you must admit as such, and seek to know what you do not know.
I would agree. And it seems like you're saying FE has no knowledge of a mapped world so then you must seek what you do not know.
"They must know..." is not enough. Show. Demonstrate. We have provided that platform for you here, and allow all to participate. Until done, messages which read as whining are likely of little value.
The bottomline is that all of goods and human transport/navigation work extremely well under Globe theory/maps. It is incumbent upon FE to show us a better way. Until FE can demonstrate how all of this works, no flat earth map means no flat earth. In the mean time, we'll keep going about our business under the guise of a spherical earth.
-
The bottomline is that all of goods and human transport/navigation work extremely well under Globe theory/maps
If this is the claim, then those who profess that claim should be expected to show that it works well for all situations, and is a globe theory or a map. The goal is to demonstrate our claims. All claims are in question here. If there is something which cannot be demonstrated, then it should be relegated to the status of unknown.
If a claim is stated without evidence then it is therefore discarded without evidence.
This is the root of Zetetic philosophy, applies to not only this, but to many subjects. Of all human knowledge and the sciences. A philosophy which is, perhaps, possibly unattainable on some matters, yet remains as the key to truth and understanding.
-
The bottomline is that all of goods and human transport/navigation work extremely well under Globe theory/maps
If this is the claim, then those who profess that claims should be expected to show that it works well for all situations, and is a globe theory or a map. The goal is to demonstrate our claims. All claims are in question here.
If a matter is stated without evidence than it is discarded without evidence.
This is the root of Zetetic philosophy, applies to not only this, but to many subjects. Of all human knowledge and the sciences. A philosophy which is, perhaps, possibly unattainable on some matters, yet remains as the key to truth and understanding.
Perhaps you should address the OP's question first.
-
The bottomline is that all of goods and human transport/navigation work extremely well under Globe theory/maps
If this is the claim, then those who profess that claims should be expected to show that it works well for all situations, and is a globe theory or a map. The goal is to demonstrate our claims. All claims are in question here. If there is something which cannot be demonstrated, then it should be relegated to the status of unknown.
If a claim is stated without evidence then it is therefore discarded without evidence.
This is the root of Zetetic philosophy, applies to not only this, but to many subjects. Of all human knowledge and the sciences. A philosophy which is, perhaps, possibly unattainable on some matters, yet remains as the key to truth and understanding.
You make the claim that no flat map of the earth exists. Where is your evidence of such a claim?
I am making claim that there is a FLAT 2d map of the earth which is used for navigation all over the world. Allow me to present my evidence:
(please note that all the maps listed below show a FLAT 2d plane and not a sphere)
https://www.mapquest.com/
https://search.yahoo.com/search/?p=maps
http://suncalc.net/#/51.508,-0.125,2/2018.12.19/10:21
Will you please review www.mapquest.com. Please not that this map is a 2d FLAT plane and not a sphere. Please look on and around your neighborhood. Please use the FLAT 2d map (which is a representation of a FLAT plane and not a sphere) to look on and around locations that you have personally traveled. When you claim that no flat 2d map of the earth exists are you of the belief that:
1. www.mapquest.com does not exist?
2. is www.mapquest.com not a flat 2d map?
3. www.mapquest.com is not a map of the earth?
4. All of the above?
-
Claiming that something does not exist is a negative claim. It is the positive claims which must be verified. "Not" is the default. Who must provide the evidence in a discussion of "ghosts exist" versus "ghosts do not exist"? Those with the positive claim.
I do try to provide evidence for my positive claims. And I, and we, admit that the matter of navigation is beond our current power to entirely decipher with our resources available, just as you must admit that you are unable to explain and answer all questions which are poised to you on that matter.
-
Claiming that something does not exist is a negative claim. It is the positive claims which must be verified. "Not" is the default. Who must provide the evidence in a discussion of "ghosts exist" versus "ghosts do not exist"? Those with the positive claim.
I do try to provide evidence for my positive claims. And I, and we, admit that the matter of navigation is beond our current power to entirely decipher with our resources available, just as you must admit that you are unable to explain and answer all questions which are poised to you on that matter.
What’s a question you have regarding this topic that hasn’t been answered?
-
Claiming that something does not exist is a negative claim. It is the positive claims which must be verified. "Not" is the default. Who must provide the evidence in a discussion of "ghosts exist" versus "ghosts do not exist"? Those with the positive claim.
I do try to provide evidence for my positive claims. And I, and we, admit that the matter of navigation is beond our current power to entirely decipher with our resources available, just as you must admit that you are unable to explain and answer all questions which are poised to you on that matter.
The angle of the sun, satellite dishes and measured distances all prove the shape of the earth. Please state any of this you do not accept.
-
Claiming that something does not exist is a negative claim. It is the positive claims which must be verified. "Not" is the default. Who must provide the evidence in a discussion of "ghosts exist" versus "ghosts do not exist"? Those with the positive claim.
I do try to provide evidence for my positive claims. And I, and we, admit that the matter of navigation is beond our current power to entirely decipher with our resources available, just as you must admit that you are unable to explain and answer all questions which are poised to you on that matter.
What’s a question you have regarding this topic that hasn’t been answered?
This is a very vast topic. There is a lot.
The nature of the jet streams and the trade winds, for example. How were they measured and under what assumptions? There is a void of knowledge. Planes do use these on international flights and they do play a significant part. And they do travel in multiple directions in both the north and south, with common permanent streams of air. It is not enough to look at a map and see them moving with a number next to them. Doppler radar? Under what assumptions is that number derived from in the tools themselves? A spherical coordinate system of latitude and longitudes? Of particular weather models which interpret?
No claim or implication is made on what over-or-under estimations would be necessary for a Flat Earth for any particular model or layout. One would just like to know the answer.
This is just an example of the questions one would face when venturing to construct a map based on that kind of data. Many more like it.
Any answer given will just spawn 10 more on that topic, each of which will spawn 10 others, and one can see how the venture is fruitless. This is why this particular venture of creating a world model of all the earth is of low importance for me. Low resources, of available knowledge and manpower, are available to this society at this time. There are more tangible things to discuss.
There are those who do claim to know all answers here. And we ask to those who do: Tell us.
-
The latitude & longitude system is completely arbitrary. It could have been anything. Probably the reason it exists in the current form is because it makes navigation at sea about as easy as possible. The defined nautical mile of 1 minute of latitude makes things easier for the navigator using a straight edge & dividers to fix a position. The system also made sense because it conformed to what was thought to be the form of the world when the maps were originally made.
Survey data for airports, for example, are readily available for all, at no cost. It would be a straightforward process to take the latitude & longitude data and do a mathematical transform to a flat earth grid. A desktop computer could do that quickly. The cost would be nothing but your time to devise the mathematical transform and to write a program in something like C# or Python.
The only real issue with any map is the question: can the navigator get a usable distance and bearing for point A to point B. Everything else mentioned is a diversion plain & simple. If the earth is flat and a piece of paper is flat then transforming a position on the flat earth to a position on a flat piece of paper is a simple process. It's so simple even a cave man could do it.
-
Claiming that something does not exist is a negative claim. It is the positive claims which must be verified. "Not" is the default. Who must provide the evidence in a discussion of "ghosts exist" versus "ghosts do not exist"? Those with the positive claim.
I do try to provide evidence for my positive claims. And I, and we, admit that the matter of navigation is beond our current power to entirely decipher with our resources available, just as you must admit that you are unable to explain and answer all questions which are poised to you on that matter.
What’s a question you have regarding this topic that hasn’t been answered?
This is a very vast topic. There is a lot.
The nature of the jet streams and the trade winds, for example. How were they measured and under what assumptions? There is a void of knowledge. Planes do use these on international flights and they do play a significant part. And they do travel in multiple directions in both the north and south, with common permanent streams of air. It is not enough to look at a map and see them moving with a number next to them. Doppler radar? Under what assumptions is that number derived from in the tools themselves? A spherical coordinate system of latitude and longitudes? Of particular weather models which interpret?
No claim or implication is made on what would be necessary for a Flat Earth for any particular model or layout. One would just like to know the answer.
This is just an example of the questions one would face when venturing to construct a map based on that kind of data. Many more like it.
Any answer given will just spawn 10 more on that topic, each of which will spawn 10 others, and one can see how the venture is fruitless. This is why this particular venture of creating a world model of all the earth is of low importance for me. Low resources, of available knowledge and manpower, are available to this society at this time. There are more tangible things to discuss.
There are those who do claim to know all answers here. And we ask to those who do: Tell us.
As someone who insists the world is flat it is strange that you show no interest in actually determining its shape to show that accepted data is actually wrong. And you still fail to explain what resources you might require and how you would use them.
The answers are published for all to see and check, such as the path of the sun and measured distances.
-
This society is about the search for knowledge. What is a latitude? What is a longitude?
If I can put it simply Tom. Latitude is a measure in angular degrees, minutes and seconds of how far north or south a point on the Earths surface is relative to the equator. For example I live at a location that is 51.d degrees north of the equator. This is also the same angle above the north horizon that I see Polaris.
Longitude is a measure of how far east or west a point on the Earths surface is relative to the Greenwich meridian. On the opposite side of the world we find the international date line.
Longitude lines are ALL great circles. Latitude lines are small circles with only the equator being a great circle since it has a centre marked by the centre of the Earth.
So there you go... you asked, I have answered your questions. I do expect you to accept my answers? No of course not.
-
As someone who insists the world is flat it is strange that you show no interest in actually determining its shape to show that accepted data is actually wrong. And you still fail to explain what resources you might require and how you would use them.
The answers are published for all to see and check, such as the path of the sun and measured distances.
You are the person with the positive claim here, figuratively, with a device which you claim can detect ghosts. Prove it. It's your claim. We made no such claim. You came here, claiming things.
If, you cannot answer these questions, and cannot demonstrate clairvoyance on all questions poised to you, then you are obligated to submit and admit and declare ignorance on the matter. And there is nothing wrong with that.
-
Claiming that something does not exist is a negative claim. It is the positive claims which must be verified. "Not" is the default. Who must provide the evidence in a discussion of "ghosts exist" versus "ghosts do not exist"? Those with the positive claim.
I do try to provide evidence for my positive claims. And I, and we, admit that the matter of navigation is beond our current power to entirely decipher with our resources available, just as you must admit that you are unable to explain and answer all questions which are poised to you on that matter.
You are claiming our modern society exists without a map of this planet. Is that not a positive claim? Do you have evidence that such a society exists?
You have claimed that travel/navigation paths are top secret. Is that not a positive claim? Do you have evidence that travel/navigation paths (or coordinates) are top secret?
I have made a positive claim. My positive claim is that anywhere from 90-99% of the earth has been mapped on a FLAT 2d map. I have provided evidence which supports my claim:
https://www.mapquest.com/
https://search.yahoo.com/search/?p=maps
http://suncalc.net/#/51.508,-0.125,2/2018.12.19/10:21
Did you even look at mapquest? Did you compare the mapquest data to the data you have in your street/neighborhood/zip code/county/state/country?
-
You are claiming our modern society exists without a map of this planet. Is that not a positive claim? Do you have evidence that such a society exists?
I don't believe that I said that. But that would be a negative claim.
You have claimed that travel/navigation paths are top secret. Is that not a positive claim? Do you have evidence that travel/navigation paths (or coordinates) are top secret?
I did provide a source which stated that there were transformations that were not available to the public. You linked to it on page one of the thread. That is all of the information I have on the matter at present time.
I have made a positive claim. My positive claim is that anywhere from 90-99% of the earth has been mapped on a FLAT 2d map. I have provided evidence which supports my claim:
https://www.mapquest.com/
https://search.yahoo.com/search/?p=maps
http://suncalc.net/#/51.508,-0.125,2/2018.12.19/10:21
You would have to find someone who knows the truth of the round earth to help you on that matter. I find that those round arguments are often sub-par and do not intend on adopting those arguments.
-
All of the above are simply strawman arguments used to hide the underlying issue. Can you take a database of spherical earth vectors (x, y, z) of known points, accurate to within a foot or two and convert them into an accurate flat earth map? All the survey data is there for the taking. You just have to have a usable flat earth map transform. You can make a map, but it wouldn't be accurate or have any practical uses especially in the Southern hemisphere. The flat earth paradigm isn't credible without a map that accurately represents the surface of the earth. No accurate flat earth map = the earth isn't flat. I would take any further obfuscations as evidence against the flat earth.
You can talk the talk, now can you walk the walk?
-
All of the above are simply strawman arguments used to hide the underlying issue. Can you take a database of spherical earth vectors (x, y, z) of known points, accurate to within a foot or two and convert them into an accurate flat earth map? All the survey data is there for the taking. You just have to have a usable flat earth map transform. You can make a map, but it wouldn't be accurate or have any practical uses especially in the Southern hemisphere. The flat earth paradigm isn't credible without a map that accurately represents the surface of the earth. No accurate flat earth map = the earth isn't flat. I would take any further obfuscations as evidence against the flat earth.
You can talk the talk, now can you walk the walk?
Refer to the thread iampc linked on the first page, and the multitude of recent discussions we have had about this. There is no such round earth map model. Your statement appears false. The world models are using a bunch of small flat maps. And I am more than happy to copy and paste the contents of those threads here for you. It is you who need to demonstrate your paradigm for it to be credible.
These are your claims, and it is your burden to demonstrate your claims. I seek to demonstrate all of my claims. You came here with claims, undemonstrated, and therefore, disregarded.
-
Refer to the thread iampc linked on the first page, and the multitude of recent discussions we have had about this. There is no such round earth map model. Your statement appears false. The world models are using a bunch of small flat maps.
That's quite the claim. Are you referring to State Plane maps that have already been demonstrated to be based upon oblate spheroid datum with either a Mercator or Lambert Globe projection with an x/y grid placed on top of them? Those maps?
-
Refer to the thread iampc linked on the first page, and the multitude of recent discussions we have had about this. There is no such round earth map model. Your statement appears false. The world models are using a bunch of small flat maps.
That's quite the claim. Are you referring to State Plane maps that have already been demonstrated to be based upon oblate spheroid datum with either a Mercator or Lambert Globe projection with an x/y grid placed on top of them? Those maps?
That is not a positive claim. That is a negative claim. One may even say that all human knowledge is false, with that statement being absolutely true. Negative claims are true by default. "Not" is the default. Ghosts do not exist by default. Any possible knowledge must be first demonstrated true, for it to be true.
-
You are just throwing out more strawman arguments. You give me any two accurate coordinates on the earth and I will use spherical trigonometry to accurately tell you the distance between those points. Can you use flat plane trigonometry to do the same? That will be a good test for you to demonstrate the accuracy of the flat earth paradigm.
The fact that I'm alive and well is an ample demonstration that spherical trigonometry based upon globe earth maps work. All the navigation on 100s of trips across the 7 seas of this earth were conducted using spherical trigonometric based navigation. Just take a look at the American Practical Navigator for details. Isn't that an adequate demonstration of my claims?
If these claims are insufficient just what kind of demonstrations do you require?
-
Refer to the thread iampc linked on the first page, and the multitude of recent discussions we have had about this. There is no such round earth map model. Your statement appears false. The world models are using a bunch of small flat maps.
That's quite the claim. Are you referring to State Plane maps that have already been demonstrated to be based upon oblate spheroid datum with either a Mercator or Lambert Globe projection with an x/y grid placed on top of them? Those maps?
That is not a positive claim. That is a negative claim. One may even say that all human knowledge is false, with that statement being absolutely true. Negative claims are true by default. "Not" is the default. Ghosts do not exist by default. Any possible knowledge must be first demonstrated true, for it to be true.
There is no such thing as a flat earth model, a flat earth map or a flat earth. So I guess that is a true statement, by default.
-
Refer to the thread iampc linked on the first page, and the multitude of recent discussions we have had about this. There is no such round earth map model. Your statement appears false. The world models are using a bunch of small flat maps.
That's quite the claim. Are you referring to State Plane maps that have already been demonstrated to be based upon oblate spheroid datum with either a Mercator or Lambert Globe projection with an x/y grid placed on top of them? Those maps?
That is not a positive claim. That is a negative claim. One may even say that all human knowledge is false, with that statement being absolutely true. Negative claims are true by default. "Not" is the default. Ghosts do not exist by default. Any possible knowledge must be first demonstrated true, for it to be true.
There is no such thing as a flat earth model, a flat earth map or a flat earth. So I guess that is a true statement, by default.
Correct. All negative statements are true by default. Only until evidence is presented, does a matter have veracity.
This is the base message of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, of the Zetetic Philosophy. It is under this keen eye which our truth must be demonstrated.
-
Refer to the thread iampc linked on the first page, and the multitude of recent discussions we have had about this. There is no such round earth map model. Your statement appears false. The world models are using a bunch of small flat maps.
That's quite the claim. Are you referring to State Plane maps that have already been demonstrated to be based upon oblate spheroid datum with either a Mercator or Lambert Globe projection with an x/y grid placed on top of them? Those maps?
That is not a positive claim. That is a negative claim. One may even say that all human knowledge is false, with that statement being absolutely true. Negative claims are true by default. "Not" is the default. Ghosts do not exist by default. Any possible knowledge must be first demonstrated true, for it to be true.
There is no such thing as a flat earth model, a flat earth map or a flat earth. So I guess that is a true statement, by default.
Correct. All negative statements are true by default. Only until evidence is presented, does a matter have veracity.
This is the base message of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, of the Zetetic Philosophy. It is under this keen eye which our truth must be demonstrated.
It's the semantic message of ENAG. You're dodging and not addressing the OP or the larger issue.
-
It's the semantic message of ENAG. You're dodging and not addressing the OP or the larger issue.
It addresses the OP and all issues. If you profess to know something, that the Google Maps shows a spherical earth, for example, show it. It's not true until one shows it.
iampc provided the points against the OP's assertion, a link to a previous thread on the subject, and I came in provided more insight to that. What more are we to discuss here, truly?
-
It's the semantic message of ENAG. You're dodging and not addressing the OP or the larger issue.
It addresses the OP and all issues. If you profess to know something, that the Google Maps shows a spherical earth, for example, show it. It's not true until one shows it.
Google maps, there, showed it. True or not?
(https://i.imgur.com/oCUtYkZ.png?1)
-
That looks like a spherical earth to me. I agree.
Next, I believe the OP was also questioning how it relates to the earth, and how that model works. In previous threads we did talk about that. A spherical geographical system using flat maps beneath, as iampc referenced on page one. Workings of this spherical model is a deeper question, and would take much more research for team ball to demonstrate their claim. You know our arguments, already, as you have been involved in multiple discussions on this matter.
If, you have forgotten the discussions, or, if that link isn't working for you, I am more than happy to paste all content here for you or any curious person.
-
That looks like a spherical earth to me. I agree.
Next, I believe the OP was also questioning how it relates to the earth, and how that model works. In previous threads we did talk about that. A spherical geographical system using flat maps beneath, as iampc referenced on page one. Workings of this spherical model is a deeper question, and would take much more research for team ball to demonstrate their claim. You know our arguments, already, as you have been involved in multiple discussions on this matter.
If, you have forgotten the discussions, or, if that link isn't working for you, I am more than happy to paste all content here for you or any curious person.
Actually the OP question was this:
"Does this mean then that FE believers don't use what is probably the worlds most used digital mapping system?"
-
That looks like a spherical earth to me. I agree.
Next, I believe the OP was also questioning how it relates to the earth, and how that model works. In previous threads we did talk about that. A spherical geographical system using flat maps beneath, as iampc referenced on page one. Workings of this spherical model is a deeper question, and would take much more research for team ball to demonstrate their claim. You know our arguments, already, as you have been involved in multiple discussions on this matter.
If, you have forgotten the discussions, or, if that link isn't working for you, I am more than happy to paste all content here for you or any curious person.
Actually the OP question was this:
"Does this mean then that FE believers don't use what is probably the worlds most used digital mapping system?"
If that is the OP's question and only intent, and I had read far too into it, then my answer is that I use Google Maps every day.
-
That looks like a spherical earth to me. I agree.
Next, I believe the OP was also questioning how it relates to the earth, and how that model works. In previous threads we did talk about that. A spherical geographical system using flat maps beneath, as iampc referenced on page one. Workings of this spherical model is a deeper question, and would take much more research for team ball to demonstrate their claim. You know our arguments, already, as you have been involved in multiple discussions on this matter.
If, you have forgotten the discussions, or, if that link isn't working for you, I am more than happy to paste all content here for you or any curious person.
Actually the OP question was this:
"Does this mean then that FE believers don't use what is probably the worlds most used digital mapping system?"
If that is the OPs question and only intent, and I had read far too into it, then my answer is that I use Google Maps every day.
And presumably, if you use it every day, it works for you. Yet it is based upon a spherical earth model. Regardless of the distances you travel while using it, it is a mapping system based upon the earth being a globe. How does that square when one holds the concept that the shape of the earth does not conform to a system that you use successfully every day?
-
That looks like a spherical earth to me. I agree.
Next, I believe the OP was also questioning how it relates to the earth, and how that model works. In previous threads we did talk about that. A spherical geographical system using flat maps beneath, as iampc referenced on page one. Workings of this spherical model is a deeper question, and would take much more research for team ball to demonstrate their claim. You know our arguments, already, as you have been involved in multiple discussions on this matter.
If, you have forgotten the discussions, or, if that link isn't working for you, I am more than happy to paste all content here for you or any curious person.
Actually the OP question was this:
"Does this mean then that FE believers don't use what is probably the worlds most used digital mapping system?"
If that is the OPs question and only intent, and I had read far too into it, then my answer is that I use Google Maps every day.
And presumably, if you use it every day, it works for you. Yet it is based upon a spherical earth model. Regardless of the distances you travel while using it, it is a mapping system based upon the earth being a globe. How does that square when one holds the concept that the shape of the earth does not conform to a system that you use successfully every day?
It pulls up the flat map for my area and projects the globe's coordinates upon it.
-
And works for you, the globe coordinates.
-
Transposed onto a planar map, yes.
-
Transposed onto a planar map, yes.
Transposed from a globe onto a planar map? As evidenced by all we have gone through already? If not, propose evidence that equates to a map not derived from a globe model used for modern navigation over long haul distances. Simple challenge: SFO to Tokyo, to make it easy, by plane, non-stop.
In FET show:
- Route to take on map of choice, your call.
- Distance traveled
- Duration of flight
Go.
-
We would need a copy of a piece of software such as ARCGIS to see the underlying flat maps used and those transformations, assuming all transformations exist for that situation. I don't have it. We have read about them already, and know that this is how it works. Future discovery on the matter, if interested, is up to you.
-
We would need a copy of a piece of software such as ARCGIS to see the underlying flat maps used and those transformations, assuming all transformations exist for that situation. I don't have it. We have read about them already, and know that this is how it works. Future discovery on the matter, if interested, is up to you.
Actually, you don't. Choose your FE model and just show the route from SFO to Tokyo. I don't need any ARCGIS maps to show you the route, therefore you shouldn't need them either. What's the FE route, SFO to Tokyo? It's a flight that occurs a dozen times per day. Simple as that.
-
We would need a copy of a piece of software such as ARCGIS to see the underlying flat maps used and those transformations, assuming all transformations exist for that situation. I don't have it. We have read about them already, and know that this is how it works. Future discovery on the matter, if interested, is up to you.
Actually, you don't. Choose your FE model and just show the route from SFO to Tokyo. I don't need any ARCGIS maps to show you the route, therefore you shouldn't need them either. What's the FE route, SFO to Tokyo? It's a flight that occurs a dozen times per day. Simple as that.
The answer is: ?
Lack of available research and resources. And, talking to the all knowing people here does not appear to be much help, as they cannot even explain something as simple as the trade winds and jetstreams and flight time padding.
What good is it to continue these discussions if they are of no benefit?
-
Bobbing and weaving, jick'n & jiv'n as usual.
Glad that ARCGIS was mentioned. There is an open source version of a GIS package available for free if you do a little research. You load the data into a Microsoft Access data base program and can then process it from there. I've personally use Microsoft Access in combination with the C# language so I know that you could for free generate a flat earth map. You would just come up with a flat earth transform between the coordinates in the GIS database and a flat earth one. Yes, all the GIS data is based upon a spherical earth. Any mapping effort could be somewhat accurate on a small scale. Maps covering a larger area would become increasingly inaccurate. That's not something that I made up. That's just the mathematics speaking. Math doesn't lie, people do.
Flight time padding due to winds is just a strawman argument and has nothing to do with the basic map technology showing the actual distance between point A and point B. If that can't be done accurately using the flat earth paradigm, then it's obviously flawed. Rowbotham couldn't deal with it and I see you are unable to as well.
-
We would need a copy of a piece of software such as ARCGIS to see the underlying flat maps used and those transformations, assuming all transformations exist for that situation. I don't have it. We have read about them already, and know that this is how it works. Future discovery on the matter, if interested, is up to you.
Actually, you don't. Choose your FE model and just show the route from SFO to Tokyo. I don't need any ARCGIS maps to show you the route, therefore you shouldn't need them either. What's the FE route, SFO to Tokyo? It's a flight that occurs a dozen times per day. Simple as that.
The answer is: ?
Lack of available research and resources. And, talking to the all knowing people here does not appear to be much help, as they cannot even explain something as simple as the trade winds and jetstreams and flight time padding.
What good is it to continue these discussions if they are of no benefit?
I wasn't asking about flight times, tradewinds and jetstreams. Just the route. The path that thousands of people fly to and from take, SFO/Tokyo. A line across the earth. What is that line? Shouldn't be that hard. You don't need an ARCGIS map and all of the globe derivations to determine what the route is. All you have to do is draw a line on a map, maybe using photoshop or like, showing the path a plane takes 100's of times per year, with people on it, from SFO to Tokyo. Pick your FE model of choice. Just show the path and we'll see how it conforms to reality.
If you can't answer such a simple challenge, I'm afraid FE has no perspective and no Zetetic reality based realm to play in.
-
In order to make a map with multipe points we will need to know many more details about all flights and routes and possibilities. If no one can share their knowledge of doppler radar, jet streams, flight time padding, coordinate systems, and the small flat maps, then there is nothing more to discuss on the matter.
We are asking for knowledge and getting none. What are we to do when our users lack knowledge to assist?
-
In order to make that map we will need to know many more details about all flights and routes and possibilities. If no one can share their knowledge of doppler radar, jet streams, flight time padding, coordinate systems, and the small flat maps, then there is nothing more to discuss on the matter.
I am asking for knowledge and I am getting none.
No one has to share such "knowledge". You just simply have to show the route that planes take today from SFO to Tokyo on a flat earth. They happen a lot. I'm not asking you to make a world map, just show how that one route works. It's real, it happens and Zetetically, is observed by many. If you can't do that, then well, we have not a flat earth.
-
The logic is flawed. The other data is needed to know what polar projection or possible continetal layout to use.
If our users, who we ask for knowledge, have no knowledge, despite claiming that they do, then the creation of any map is the fault of their own.
-
Jeeeez. I was a commercial pilot myself for 30 years. You don't need anything other than a simple distance between point A and point B to start. Once you have the distance data from a map, THEN you can crank in all the other extra stuff that can have an effect on your flight times. The most import thing for the flight, the distance between two airports, can't be gotten from a flat earth map.
The question remains.......Can an accurate flat earth map be produced? Failure to do so means the failure of FET.
ANY polar projection or continental layout would be acceptable. Just the distances, please
-
We are asking you, our users, for knowledge to explain, show and demonstrate the truth of all phenomena and mapping systems.
-
The logic is flawed. The other data is needed to know what polar projection or possible continetal layout to use.
From a map standpoint, it's clear what the globe projections are and if you're disputing, your claim being, that what we know of the continental layouts are incorrect, then you need to show how they are incorrect.
That aside, in FET, what is the route as asked? If you can't answer the question for a Zetetically observable scenario, then I'm afraid you're hiding behind funding, research, is unacceptable. These flights happen multiple times per day and people arrive where their ticket afforded them. No FE route, no FE.
-
The logic is flawed. The other data is needed to know what polar projection or possible continetal layout to use.
From a map standpoint, it's clear what the globe projections are and if you're disputing, your claim being, that what we know of the continental layouts are incorrect, then you need to show how they are incorrect.
Do I? You are making the positive claim of correctness. I, however, am not. Show these ghosts. Demonstrate.
-
I've been on that route myself by sea. The maps we used were the standard WGS84 charts. Accuracy is good. They are globe earth maps. Where are the flat earth versions?
-
I've been on that route myself by sea. The maps we used were the standard WGS84 charts. Accuracy is good. They are globe earth maps. Where are the flat earth versions?
WGS84. See previous discussions on the flat maps. It was demonstrated to use flat maps of the earth. Demonstrated. Unlike the hundreds of claims of our opponents.
-
I have seen those discussions. Everything is irrelevant here. Globe earth maps work between point A and point B. Where are the flat earth ones? Simple question.
The maps are flat, the earth is not. You can't use a curved map very easily on a ship. They just slide all over the place in heavy seas. This is an old question and is just another strawman argument.
Spherical trigonometry is still valid on the WGS84 charts so they are based upon a spherical surface. That has been demonstrated.
-
I've been on that route myself by sea. The maps we used were the standard WGS84 charts. Accuracy is good. They are globe earth maps. Where are the flat earth versions?
WGS84. See previous discussions on the flat maps. It was demonstrated to use flat maps of the earth. Demonstrated. Unlike the hundreds of claims of our opponents.
Correct, it WAS demonstrated to use flat maps of earth that are based upon a spherical model. How is that evidence lost on you?
Simple challenge: Draw the route of an SFO to Tokyo flight on any map of your choice.
-
I just checked -- Jeppesen uses the WGS84 model based upon the standard earth spheroid. It's been many years since I was actively engaged in commercial flying but I personally used the Jeppesen charts when I did. They were always accurate. Another point for the spherical earth model. All maps are FLAT, but are projections of the actual spherical earth. It's hard to have anything but a flat map hanging on a clip on your control wheel in an aircraft. You need it there for reference during your final approach to the runway. Accuracy is paramount. The flat map argument is just another FET strawman argument.
The globe earth model has been demonstrated to be an accurate in all important navigational respects. How about the flat earth model? Where are the accurate maps? The data is available for free. The Microsoft Access database program has been around for a long time and is available in the Microsoft Office package. All that is needed is a flat earther who can come up with an accurate transform to convert spherical latitude & longitude to the flat earth model. I fear that an accurate map is impossible. Especially for the Southern hemisphere, any flat earth maps would be highly inaccurate. Rowbotham's disciples could have a good time with them showing everyone just how flat the earth actually is. Of course if you compared the actual earths landscape to the map there wouldn't be a high correlation.
I'll go along with Stack....draw a SFO to Tokyo flat earth route and show that it's accurate. I double dare ya.
-
We are asking you, our users, for knowledge to explain, show and demonstrate the truth of all phenomena and mapping systems.
You just need to refer to all the information online.
This idea that you are trying to make the discussions some sort of test for users here does not work.
-
Rowbotham didn't have the funds and resources to map and decipher the world on his own. He was just a medical doctor
So he had no scientific training and didn't work professionally as a scientist.
And no serious scientists at his time or since agreed with his ideas.
Are you seeing a problem here with placing so much faith in him and his ideas?
This society is about the search for knowledge.
And yet when shown multiple simple, quick and cheap ways to test the assertion that the horizon always rises to eye level you refused to try any of them, just saying you were too busy. You don't seem that bothered about searching for knowledge
The bottomline is that all of goods and human transport/navigation work extremely well under Globe theory/maps
If this is the claim, then those who profess that claim should be expected to show that it works well for all situations, and is a globe theory or a map.
OK. Well, I was in Dubai on a work trip recently. In both directions at all times on the flights a map was displayed showing the route the plane was taking, it showed us where we were at all times, how fast we were going, our time to destination. And we got there exactly when they said we would. And, of course, the map was a globe. How did all that work if the earth was flat? Are they "in on it"?
I think we'd know about it if the global transport industry shipping goods and people around the world simply didn't work.
And I, and we, admit that the matter of navigation is beyond our current power to entirely decipher with our resources available.
But it has been deciphered by mapping the world as a globe and it demonstrably works.
I did provide a source which stated that there were transformations that were not available to the public.
Why are transformations necessary? On a flat earth you'd just need to scale, not transform.
That is not a positive claim. That is a negative claim. One may even say that all human knowledge is false, with that statement being absolutely true. Negative claims are true by default. "Not" is the default. Ghosts do not exist by default. Any possible knowledge must be first demonstrated true, for it to be true.
There's a difference between ghosts and goats.
Ghosts do not exist by default because they cannot be seen or observed.
If people claim to have seen/experiences ghosts then the burden of proof is on them.
Goats do exist by default because they can be seen and observed.
If people claim that goats are fake then the burden of proof is on them.
The globe earth has been observed. Not by me but by hundreds of people, 7 of whom were space tourists and paid for the privilege.
I've personally seen a space shuttle take off.
There is endless film and photos of the globe earth. If your assertion is that all these people are lying and that all this footage is fake then the burden of proof is on you.
It pulls up the flat map for my area and projects the globe's coordinates upon it.
Again, why is any projection needed?
-
We would need a copy of a piece of software such as ARCGIS to see the underlying flat maps used and those transformations, assuming all transformations exist for that situation. I don't have it. We have read about them already, and know that this is how it works. Future discovery on the matter, if interested, is up to you.
I don't have ARCGIS, but I do have an equivalent GIS package - QGIS. What exactly do you want to see? I can easily take screenshots.
I don't understand what you mean by "see the underlying flat maps used".
When constructing a map with a GIS package such as ARCGIS or QGIS, you choose the coordinate system and projection for the project, then add various layers, each of which might be in a different coordinate system and then reproject everything to the coordinate system of the project.
To show a flight path for example, you'd add a vector layer and then add a multi-segment line to the layer. The points can be specified in either easting/northing for a projected cartesian coordinate system or lat/long for a non-projected coordinate system, but for a flight path, I'd definitely choose the latter - much simpler to work with. Bottom line is any "map" in GIS is likely to be composed of data from a mix of projected or non-projected source material.
-
We would need a copy of a piece of software such as ARCGIS to see the underlying flat maps used and those transformations, assuming all transformations exist for that situation. I don't have it. We have read about them already, and know that this is how it works. Future discovery on the matter, if interested, is up to you.
QGIS is free. See https://www.qgis.org/en/site/
Please let us know what you find.
-
The GIS software is available but its all based upon the globe earth model. All the latitude & longitude values could be processed as a 3 dimensional vector originating from the center of the earth to the location of the coordinates. Distances are just the dot multiplication of those two vectors. Any answers you get are just a great circle route and spherical. That's the real problem with the flat earth model using any GIS data. The first thing that would have to happen would be to transform the spherical GIS data to a 2 dimensional flat earth model. That's where you throw away all the accuracy and that's why the flat earth paradigm just isn't viable. The rules for spherical trigonometry are different from plane trigonometry. You can philosophize all you want about the flat earth model but it doesn't work mathematically and any maps made would be useless for anything but as a novelty. Any flat earth map makers would be broke and/or sued after the users of their maps keep getting lost.
-
Tom, here's a simple question for you. According to DistanceFromTo.net, the shortest distance from San Francisco to Tokyo is 5151 miles (8290 km). Do you believe that this quoted distance is correct according to the Flat Earth model?
-
The GIS software is available but its all based upon the globe earth model.
Very true, however it's perfectly normal using GIS software to add a layer from some external source which is available in a projected CRS (coordinate reference system) e.g a Mercator projection. So long as you tell the GIS software exactly what the CRS is (which must include the underlying reference ellipsoid being used), you can use it in your project and combine it with other data either projected (x/y coordinates) or non-projected (lat/long). You can even mix different datums, so you could combine NAD83 with WGS84 quite happily. That's the power of GIS software in a nutshell.
At the end of the day a position on the Earth in one CRS can be translated to the equivalent position in another CRS. GIS does this for you.
Fundamentally, as you rightly say, under the hood the model being used is entirely a globe earth model. But I think Tom is confusing the fact that GIS software can deal with "flat" data if necessary (by transforming/reprojecting) and believing that this means it's entirely based on a flat model - which it so obviously isn't.
-
Yea, I know it was possible to do multiple layers with the GIS software. However before doing any presentation all the data would have to be transformed between the existing spherical basis to a flat basis. Over small distances that difference would be small and you could probably sneak it by. Any map that was of a larger area, like the United States, would be immediately busted because the known distances between points would be obviously incorrect. Australia and New Zealand maps would be comical because of the diverging longitude lines the flat earth paradigm dictates.
The geodetic data is available as is the software to process and transform it. The presentation part is well covered by the GIS software. Of course the elephant hiding in the closet is doing a spherical to flat transform that can't be immediately deemed ridiculous. It would be like mathematically trying to get a square peg in a round hole.
Of course all this fosters controversy and this site thrives on that.
-
Rowbotham didn't have the funds and resources to map and decipher the world on his own. He was just a medical doctor.
You should have no problem proving he was a medical doctor right? You know I have nothing but respect for you Tom (as I say often in AR) but there is no evidence that he was anything but a fraud.
-
Rowbotham didn't have the funds and resources to map and decipher the world on his own. He was just a medical doctor.
You should have no problem proving he was a medical doctor right? You know I have nothing but respect for you Tom (as I say often in AR) but there is no evidence that he was anything but a fraud.
I will suggest that you look further into the matter.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science lists him as Dr. Samuel Rowbotham in his 1885 obituary, as does the obit in Eng. Mechanic and World of Science. The Bookseller obituary confirms he was a practicing doctor of medicine as a "legitimate profession with immense success (https://books.google.com/books?id=f-IiAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA12&dq=%22exercised+his+legitimate+profession%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiI0drD6JPfAhVHPK0KHf1mBy0Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22exercised%20his%20legitimate%20profession%22&f=false)."
Rowbotham's work is cited in medical texts.
https://books.google.com/books?id=atPGizuKTYoC&dq=Rowbotham%20phosphorus&pg=PA650#v=onepage&q=Rowbotham%20phosphorus&f=false
(https://i.imgur.com/Z0DtD5l.png)
Please tell us, since you know, how Rowbotham went his entire career pretending to be a medical doctor and treated people with medicine, and how he got away with it, especially with all of the scrutiny he was under by the entire world?
-
You are claiming our modern society exists without a map of this planet. Is that not a positive claim? Do you have evidence that such a society exists?
I don't believe that I said that. But that would be a negative claim.
There is no Flat Earth Map.
Again I refute this claim. There is a FLAT 2d map of the earth. Allow me to provide evidence of this claim:
www.mapquest.com
Actually, you don't. Choose your FE model and just show the route from SFO to Tokyo. I don't need any ARCGIS maps to show you the route, therefore you shouldn't need them either. What's the FE route, SFO to Tokyo? It's a flight that occurs a dozen times per day. Simple as that.
The answer is: ?
Lack of available research and resources.
Tom do you have any evidence that there is a lack of available research and resources? Please provide evidence for your positive claims.
Maybe you didn't know but there are FLAT 2d maps which show the flight path between SFO and Tokyo.
Allow me to provide evidence of my positive claim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXY6o-sRUgM
In order to make a map with multiple points we will need to know many more details about all flights and routes and possibilities.
Do you have any evidence that details about all flights and routes is necessary to make a map? Please provide evidence for your positive claims.
How did we make a map before planes?
What are we to do when our users lack knowledge to assist?
I am assisting by pointing out that there already is an accurate FLAT 2d map of the earth. Please note that this map does not show the earth as a sphere. This map shows the earth as a FLAT plane. Allow me to provide the evidence:
www.mapquest.com
The other data is needed to know what polar projection or possible continetal layout to use.
Do you have any evidence that other data is needed to know the polar projection or continental layout? You need to provide evidence for these positive claims.
I've been on that route myself by sea. The maps we used were the standard WGS84 charts. Accuracy is good. They are globe earth maps. Where are the flat earth versions?
It was demonstrated to use flat maps of the earth. Demonstrated. Unlike the hundreds of claims of our opponents.
Tom do you have any evidence that shows that it was it was demonstrated to use flat maps of the earth? Please provide evidence of your positive claims.
-
Evidence was provided for the flat maps. See the discussions that you linked and that you provided in the second post of this thread.
All other claims you are pointing out from me are of the negative variety, and therefore, are unimpeached until impeached.
If you are asking me whether that map you posted in that mapquest link looks flat, sure it does.
Asking me how we made maps before planes sounds like an educational topic that you should engage in and report back to us about.
-
This thread seems to be getting more and more involved. Going back to my original post, I would have thought that an organisation such as Google would not have modeled their mapping system on a global system if they did not have reasonable grounds for doing so.
So I put the challenge to you Tom...please provide us with THE single best piece of evidence that convinces YOU that the Earth is flat? Precise, clear and to the point please.
-
This thread seems to be getting more and more involved. Going back to my original post, I would have thought that an organisation such as Google would not have modeled their mapping system on a global system if they did not have reasonable grounds for doing so.
So I put the challenge to you Tom...please provide us with THE single best piece of evidence that convinces YOU that the Earth is flat? Precise, clear and to the point please.
I'm not TOM but finding evidence that supports a flat earth is easy.
Here's a youtube video with 200:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ax_YpQsy88
-
This thread seems to be getting more and more involved. Going back to my original post, I would have thought that an organisation such as Google would not have modeled their mapping system on a global system if they did not have reasonable grounds for doing so.
So I put the challenge to you Tom...please provide us with THE single best piece of evidence that convinces YOU that the Earth is flat? Precise, clear and to the point please.
There is no single piece of evidence. The evidence is cumulative.
First admit that you have no knowledge. Then look out your window. Then go on a journey to discover what the truth may be on your own, for your own self.
-
Evidence was provided for the flat maps. See the discussions that you linked and that you provided in the second post of this thread.
All other claims you are pointing out from me are of the negative variety, and therefore, are unimpeached until impeached.
If you are asking me whether that map you posted in that mapquest link looks flat, sure it does.
Asking me how we made maps before planes sounds like an educational topic that you should engage in and report back to us about.
If the mapquest link looks FLAT (and also represents the earth as a FLAT plane) then how can you make a claim that there is no flat earth map?
Did you spend any time comparing the mapquest data to your neighborhood to what you know about your neighborhood?
-
Evidence was provided for the flat maps. See the discussions that you linked and that you provided in the second post of this thread.
All other claims you are pointing out from me are of the negative variety, and therefore, are unimpeached until impeached.
If you are asking me whether that map you posted in that mapquest link looks flat, sure it does.
Asking me how we made maps before planes sounds like an educational topic that you should engage in and report back to us about.
If the mapquest link looks FLAT (and also represents the earth as a FLAT plane) then how can you make a claim that there is no flat earth map?
Did you spend any time comparing the mapquest data to your neighborhood to what you know about your neighborhood?
If your intent is to profess the pac-man style Flat Earth models, I cannot contradict you. Who is qualified to tell you whether the universe ends and repeats on itself? Not me.
If you are asking for commentary on your idea, my only comment on that matter is that the particular path the planes make to their destination on the maps and videos you posted do suggest, to me, that either the planes are traveling in that manner according to the beliefs of the operators, or, that some of those areas may be pulled around what one thinks are the North or South Poles.
-
If your intent is to profess the pac-man style Flat Earth models, feel free. I cannot contradict you. Who is qualified to tell you that the universe does not end and repeat on itself? Not me.
If you are asking for commentary, my only comment on that matter is that the particular path the planes make to their destination on the maps and videos you posted do suggest, to me, that either the planes are traveling in that manner according to the beliefs of the operators, or that some of those areas may be curved around what one thinks are the North or South Poles.
My intent is to try to find out why you believe there is no map which represents the earth as a FLAT surface. Why are you unable to acknowledge that FLAT maps of the entire earth do exist after I have presented you with several?
-
If your intent is to profess the pac-man style Flat Earth models, feel free. I cannot contradict you. Who is qualified to tell you that the universe does not end and repeat on itself? Not me.
If you are asking for commentary, my only comment on that matter is that the particular path the planes make to their destination on the maps and videos you posted do suggest, to me, that either the planes are traveling in that manner according to the beliefs of the operators, or that some of those areas may be curved around what one thinks are the North or South Poles.
My intent is to try to find out why you believe there is no map which represents the earth as a FLAT surface. Why are you unable to acknowledge that FLAT maps of the entire earth do exist after I have presented you with several?
There isn't a map that the Flat Earth movement agrees on, clearly. See the rest of the sentence that you had quoted.
One may take a blank piece of paper and write "earth map" onto it. Is that the Flat Earth map, or a Flat Earth map? In, such discussions, would we talking be talking about "the" map, or "a" possible map?
-
Rowbotham didn't have the funds and resources to map and decipher the world on his own. He was just a medical doctor.
You should have no problem proving he was a medical doctor right? You know I have nothing but respect for you Tom (as I say often in AR) but there is no evidence that he was anything but a fraud.
I will suggest that you look further into the matter.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science lists him as Dr. Samuel Rowbotham in his 1885 obituary, as does the obit in Eng. Mechanic and World of Science. The Bookseller obituary confirms he was a practicing doctor of medicine as a "legitimate profession with immense success (https://books.google.com/books?id=f-IiAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA12&dq=%22exercised+his+legitimate+profession%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiI0drD6JPfAhVHPK0KHf1mBy0Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22exercised%20his%20legitimate%20profession%22&f=false)."
Rowbotham's work is cited in medical texts.
https://books.google.com/books?id=atPGizuKTYoC&dq=Rowbotham%20phosphorus&pg=PA650#v=onepage&q=Rowbotham%20phosphorus&f=false
(https://i.imgur.com/Z0DtD5l.png)
So you agree that he was not a professional scientist and thus not qualified to try and refute the entirety of scientific knowledge.
The lack of scientific background wouldn't be so big a problem if any other serious scientists at the time or since had taken his ideas seriously.
But they haven't.
Because they have no veracity and are so easily proven false. Bobby has very clearly shown the claim about horizon at eye level as false and he is an amateur, the fact you have refused to do your own tests about that is telling.
Please tell us, since you know, how Rowbotham went his entire career pretending to be a medical doctor and treated people with medicine, and how he got away with it, especially with all of the scrutiny he was under by the entire world?
I don't think most of the entire world had heard of him. He is quite rightly forgotten by history, I'd never heard of him till I came here.
And this question is ironic when you're claiming a massive global conspiracy about space travel and satellites and so on.
They seem to be getting away with it in the sense that only a tiny minority of scientific illiterates are claiming it's all a hoax.
Some people are just good conmen - watch "Catch Me If You Can", that dude actually got hired as a doctor and worked for some time in a hospital.
I'm not actually saying Rowbotham was a conman - well, he was, but he might well also have been a medical doctor. But I wouldn't expect a medical doctor to be qualified to write a book which revolutionises the scientific community, and he didn't.
-
So you agree that he was not a professional scientist and thus not qualified to try and refute the entirety of scientific knowledge.
The lack of scientific background wouldn't be so big a problem if any other serious scientists at the time or since had taken his ideas seriously.
But they haven't.
Because they have veracity and are so easily proven false. Bobby has very clearly shown the claim about horizon at eye level as false and he is an amateur, the fact you have refused to do your own tests about that is telling.
The images presented were what appeared to be images suggesting that the atmosphere affects the horizon. The horizon changes over time and with location and environment. Rowbotham never said that the atmosphere could not affect the horizon. ENAG doesn't really speak much about it. The error is that the Wiki doesn't speak of the atmosphere. Going onto a plane and seeing a foggy horizon, it is pretty obvious what is happening.
A rather weak point, to insist on.
And what university courses do you know Rowbotham participated in? What books did he read? What makes you think he knew nothing of astronomy? Rowbotham sources his knowledge in Earth Not a Globe. The majority of the book is nothing but references to credible sources of the era.
What did Copernicus do, exactly, to demonstrate his model?
I don't think most of the entire world had heard of him. He is quite rightly forgotten by history, I'd never heard of him till I came here.
And this question is ironic when you're claiming a massive global conspiracy about space travel and satellites and so on.
They seem to be getting away with it in the sense that only a tiny minority of scientific illiterates are claiming it's all a hoax.
Some people are just good conmen - watch "Catch Me If You Can", that dude actually got hired as a doctor and worked for some time in a hospital.
I'm not actually saying Rowbotham was a conman - well, he was, but he might well also have been a medical doctor. But I wouldn't expect a medical doctor to be qualified to write a book which revolutionises the scientific community, and he didn't.
If Flat Earth were demonstrated wrong, no one would be here. All the world tries, but none successful.
The problem is that the Round Earth Theory has not been demonstrated to be correct.
Demonstration is a must.
Should it matter that most people accept the word of their first grade teacher? Resting one's argument that most people and men of the scientific community believed and accepted the word their first grade teacher without question or that they laughed at an idea about a Flat Earth they had read is a pretty bad debating tactic. What did they do? What did they discover and show? "My first grade teacher told me so" is not an argument that is going to get you far in life.
Demonstrate. This is key. Until the matter can be demonstrated to conclusiveness the logical and philosophical arguments against are empirically weak.
-
This and many other threads all seem to end up in the same way with everyone disagreeing with each other all the time and basically achieving nothing. I am all for a good discussion and debate about these issues but we never seem to get anywhere. Where is this all heading? There are various links to videos and photos etc but as the FES often states itself, in this modern age of digital technology, such evidence is discredited due to the ease by which it can be processed to suite a particular point of view.
And yes Tom, I concede to you this much... when I look out of my window and admire the landscape around me the world does indeed look flat. Had I lived a few centuries ago I might well have accepted that evidence alone to believe that the world is indeed flat. But I live in the 21st century and I know that seeing is not always believing.
There are a LOT of people out there who have gathered more than sufficient evidence to me to convince me that the world is in fact.... stand by for revelation.... ROUND!
-
This thread seems to be getting more and more involved. Going back to my original post, I would have thought that an organisation such as Google would not have modeled their mapping system on a global system if they did not have reasonable grounds for doing so.
So I put the challenge to you Tom...please provide us with THE single best piece of evidence that convinces YOU that the Earth is flat? Precise, clear and to the point please.
There is no single piece of evidence. The evidence is cumulative.
First admit that you have no knowledge. Then look out your window. Then go on a journey to discover what the truth may be on your own, for your own self.
I look out of the window and see the path of the sun, as do many others. Compile these observations and they show a round earth. Add satellite dish angles to help your answer.
Do you agree the published times of sunrise and sunset are correct?
Please describe the tests, observations and experiments you would use to determine the shape of the earth.
-
There isn't a map that the Flat Earth movement agrees on, clearly. See the rest of the sentence that you had quoted.
One may take a blank piece of paper and write "earth map" onto it. Is that the Flat Earth map, or a Flat Earth map? In, such discussions, would we talking be talking about "the" map, or "a" possible map?
I didn't ask for your commentary about plane paths. I'm not asking about the beliefs of the flat earth movement. I asked for your commentary about your disbelief that there is map which represents the earth as a FLAT surface. Why are you unable to acknowledge that FLAT maps of the entire earth do exist after I have presented you with several?
In terms of the Flat earth movement agreeing as a whole this is the crux of the situation.
Some of the flat earth movement believe the earth is an infinite plane. (or an infinite repeating plane)
Some believe the earth has a dome and no ice wall.
Some believe the earth has an ice wall and no dome.
Some believe the earth has both a dome and an ice wall.
Some believe the earth has neither a dome nor an ice wall.
Based on this it is impossible to create a map that the flat earth movement agrees on. Any map that has an ice wall will alienate anyone who believes there is an ice wall and visa versa.
I have presented a map. Based on my independent investigation (by way of both national and international travels) this map is accurate among dozens of countries and multiple continents. The evidence suggests that is is likely accurate on a global scale.
-
Bobby has shown some images suggesting that the atmosphere affects the horizon. Rowbotham never said that the atmosphere could not affect the horizon. ENAG doesn't really speak much about it. The error is that the Wiki doesn't speak of the atmosphere. Going onto a plane and seeing a foggy horizon, it is pretty obvious what is happening.
And this is where you invoke a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument.
Rowbotham's claim is that the horizon stays at eye level. His evidence for that is that it looks like it's at eye level.
Ridiculously, one of the experiments he cites as evidence is viewings from a hotel in Brighton, a building nowhere near tall enough to sensibly test the claim.
Bobby did some more controlled experiments at an altitude where the result of horizon dip can be seen clearly.
So now you are laughably claiming that the true horizon IS still at eye level, it's just that the sharp line in Bobby's photo isn't the true horizon. One of his photos was taken at sunset so it's pretty clear where the horizon is and it's clearly below eye level.
Even your own page quotes someone at an altitude saying it's "practically" at eye level, so your own page admits horizon dip.
Your argument basically boils down to:
"The horizon remains at eye level - the evidence for that is our observations which show it is at eye level"
And when you're shown observations which show the reverse then you just claim the observation is wrong and it isn't really the horizon.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
I don't know if you've heard about "black swans". It's the idea of an unexpected event. So to Europeans all swans are white. But not in Australia, there they have black swans. So if you have a theory that "all swans are white" and then you go to Australia and find that they have black swans then you have to amend your theory. That is the rational thing to do. You have new information which shows your original theory to be wrong. What you do is the equivalent of just saying those black swans aren't really swans so you can stick to your original theory. You need to learn a bit about cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.
If you're going to claim to believe things based on observation then it's a bit rich to only admit observations which match your existing view.
And what university courses do you know Rowbotham participated in? What books did he read? What makes you think he knew nothing of astronomy?
I'm sure he had some scientific knowledge. I'm not a scientist by education (apart from school) or profession but I've learned enough and read enough to have a decent grasp of some things. But I'm not qualified to write a book claiming that all science is bunk. If I did and tried to get it published then I would be quite rightly laughed out of the room.
Someone who worked as a medical doctor does not shout "scientific revolutionary" at me.
Rowbotham sources his knowledge in Earth Not a Globe. The majority of the book is nothing but references to credible sources of the era.
If he's anything like you then he probably misrepresents or misunderstands them, but why is he using sources? I thought your and his approach was to question everything and do your own observations? And if these sources are so credible and he is representing them accurately then why have none of Rowbotham's ideas been taken seriously by anyone in the scientific community and why has he been basically forgotten by history?
If Flat Earth were demonstrated wrong, no one would be here. All the world tries, but none successful.
Not successful by your criteria, but that is only because you are so invested in FE. Pretty much everyone else is convinced.
I don't know if you've noticed, but most of the people here are globe earthers shaking their collective head in incredulity at some of the FE ideas posted on here. There are some flat earthers in the same way there are people who believe all kinds of crazy ideas. With the wonder of the internet it makes it easier for fringe views to be publicised. Just because some people believe something that doesn't mean that thing is right. As I've said before, you're just a person who doesn't believe in kangaroos
Tom: "Kangaroos don't exist"
Me: "What? Of course they do. A heard about someone who went to Australia and saw some"
Tom: "He's a liar, he's part of the great kangaroo conspiracy"
Me: "Right. Look, here's a photo of one"
Tom: "That's fake, have you not heard of Photoshop?"
Me: "OK. Here's a documentary with some film of one"
Tom: "Have you not seen Jurassic Park? You'll be telling me dinosaurs are real next"
Me: "Look. We're at the zoo. There's a kangaroo..."
Tom: "Looks like an animatronic."
Then on forum.kangaroosarefake.org you'd be posting things like
"If Kangaroos were demonstrated to exist, no one would be here. All the world tries, but none successful"
Now, obviously this is me being silly but it demonstrates a point. If you operate in the sceptical context then you can always cast doubt on something.
The problem is that the Round Earth Theory has not been demonstrated to be correct.
Well, there are photos of the globe earth taken by space agencies from multiple countries, hundreds of people have been to space and seen the globe earth, so it has.
Google Maps clearly uses a globe model and clearly works.
The global transport industry gets people and goods around using a globe model - I related my experience on a recent work trip above.
The globe model demonstrably works.
Demonstrate. This is key. Until the matter can be demonstrated to conclusiveness the logical and philosophical arguments against are empirically weak.
What have you demonstrated about flat earth?
Bobby demonstrated that the horizon dips below eye level (as predicted on the globe model). The photos are pretty conclusive. This is a good example of something which has been demonstrated and you just dismiss that demonstration because it doesn't fit your model. You demand demonstration but dismiss it when it is provided and provide no demonstrations of anything yourself.
-
Demonstration is a must.
That demonstration is all around you Tom. We just have different interpretations of that demonstration. I see the world in a certain way which seems to be shared by a lot of other people. You see it in a different way. That is up to you.
Let me put to you again the challenge I put to you earlier but in a slightly different way. Is there a single 'demonstration' would alter your conviction that the Earth is flat? If so what is it? I am completely open minded and always have been. I registered on here so that I could explore the evidence presented by the FET. But so far I have seen no evidence or 'demonstration' that changes my position on things.
-
Demonstration is a must.
That demonstration is all around you Tom. We just have different interpretations of that demonstration. I see the world in a certain way which seems to be shared by a lot of other people. You see it in a different way. That is up to you.
Let me put to you again the challenge I put to you earlier but in a slightly different way. Is there a single 'demonstration' would alter your conviction that the Earth is flat? If so what is it?
Have you heard of the bishop experiment?
https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#The_Bishop_Experiment
Here's another version of the bishop experiment. With an adamant round earther admitting the evidence suggest that either the earth is flat or that it's not an oblate spheroid.
Now THIS is interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8TsCPMCR_s
I watched without sound so I don't know if there are other details narrated, but this is what 13+ miles across a shorter section of Monterey Bay looks like under magnification, and you can't see details on the distant beach.
But, they did what I want to do and use a mirror to reflect sunlight, and check the results! Unless they fudged their images and didn't really collect video with the camera and mirror where they showed them to be, this convincingly shows light traveling between two points that would be expected to be obscured on a globe.
The video claims "max refraction" which isn't true. He misinterprets standard refraction as maximum, but still. Credit for even acknowledging that refraction must be considered.
I checked the tide tables and also judging by where they've set up from the water level, the estimates of height above water are low, but even when I bump it up to 6-8', that still leaves mirror in the "shadow" of curvature by about 40-45 feet WITH standard atmospheric refraction. To get the mirror flash visible, according to an earth curvature calculator, I had to bump the refractive index up to k=0.77, which is considered "severe." Another sighting on another day under different conditions might provide indication whether or not the structures/stacks in the background look that way normally or if looming/towering conditions were evident which could indicate strong super-refraction. But my gut tells me k=.77 is ridiculously extreme.
When I can reschedule this excursion, I'll add this sighting and see if I can duplicate it. It validates the signal mirror idea, which I think is a more convincing method of detection than trying to identify features at the shoreline of a distant shore. If this is what 13 miles across the bay looks like, 23 miles will be even worse.
Oh, and I know already that my kids have bought a Meade Infinity 90mm refractor for my birthday. (I discovered it accidentally and now I have to act surprised on the day; I suck at feigning.) It's not the one I would have chosen, but I'm tickled they thought to do that. Little do they know my main interest is terrestrial "digiscoping", and looking at the reviews it looks like it will be more than adequate for that purpose even if a little cumbersome.
Here is the round earther admitting that the experimental evidence suggests that the earth is not a globe
@bobby It sounds like you are saying the observation of the signal mirror in the video you posted is not consistent with a globe. Did I understand correctly?
You did; and yes that's what I'm saying. Unlike other video demos claiming they are showing a flat earth that I feel I can refute, this one I can't.
Maybe a surface duct for a part of that distance? I'd be most interested to see if it is repeatable. But as it stands now, I think that's "score 1" for flat earth.
Do you disagree?
-
Yes I have heard and read about the Bishop Experiment thanks.... and?
-
Yes I have heard and read about the Bishop Experiment thanks.... and?
You are asking for something that suggests the earth is flat. I have provided you with over 200 examples of real life observations suggesting that the earth is flat.
-
Yes and imagery from space and many other sources suggest the world is not flat... The FES discredit any video evidence so how does your link help here? The FES seem to ignore all the modern evidence that shows what shape the Earth is for no other reason that I can see than it contradicts their beliefs.
-
The evidence suggests that is is likely accurate on a global scale.
If it is accurate, then the earth is a globe. I have pointed this out to you many times.
-
The evidence suggests that is is likely accurate on a global scale.
If it is accurate, then the earth is a globe. I have pointed this out to you many times.
Thank you for correcting my wording. I meant to say that the evidence suggests that these maps are likely accurate on a planetary scale (regardless of the shape of said planet)
Yes and imagery from space and many other sources suggest the world is not flat... The FES discredit any video evidence so how does your link help here? The FES seem to ignore all the modern evidence that shows what shape the Earth is for no other reason that I can see than it contradicts their beliefs.
I don't understand it either. Blindly dismissing evidence is something that round earthers can be equally dismissive of. Although I have seen several round earthers admit when evidence suggests the earth might not be an oblate spheroid.
I've never seen a flat earther see the episode of mythbusters where one of them went into a super high altitude plane and admitted that the evidence suggests the earth might not be flat.
Bobby, what appears to images suggesting that the atmosphere affects the horizon. The horizon changes over time. Rowbotham never said that the atmosphere could not affect the horizon. ENAG doesn't really speak much about it. The error is that the Wiki doesn't speak of the atmosphere. Going onto a plane and seeing a foggy horizon, it is pretty obvious what is happening.
Tom Bobby also said that altitude (in addition to atmospheric optical variables) changes the position of the horizon. The higher the altitude the lower the horizon. I also am making that claim. Allow me to provide evidence:
This video was shot on the same day, at the same time, under the same atmospheric and optical conditions. Notice how as how the altitude of the drone increases the horizon decreases? You can use your mouse to mark the position of the high altitude horizon and clearly see that the position of the low altitude horizon is higher.
https://youtu.be/NzY5du8LMgk
-
We are asking you, our users, for knowledge to explain, show and demonstrate the truth of all phenomena and mapping systems.
Science does not do 'demonstration'. Science collects all the evidence available, using the most accurate measuring instruments where available or necessary, then decides on the most economical explanation.
The test is then the simplicity and parsimony of the explanation. Example, the theory of gravity. We can't prove the theory as we would a mathematical proof. But it relies on very few assumptions. Of course acceleration downwards could be caused by pixie dust. It could be caused by anything at all. We could never know for certain. All we know is that the explanation given by science is simple and (so far) robust.
By contrast, the FE explanation of gravity has no consensus, and is highly complex. So science does not choose that explanation, whatever it is.
-
The evidence suggests that is is likely accurate on a global scale.
If it is accurate, then the earth is a globe. I have pointed this out to you many times.
Thank you for correcting my wording. I meant to say that the evidence suggests that these maps are likely accurate on a planetary scale (regardless of the shape of said planet)
No. As I keep pointing out, if they are likely accurate on a planetary scale, then the earth is likely a globe. This is very basic geometry.
[edit] I remember earlier I gave you the example of a tetrahedron. If we measure the six distances between the points using a tape measure, then we can 'map' the tetrahedron onto a flat surfaces. But the distances on the map will not reflect the measured distances. Try it.
-
This was a very nice video that illustrates that the earth is a globe. I have forgotten about the Lake Pontchartrain bridge, but I've personally driven across it a couple of times, but its been a while ago. The first time across my wife was a little upset because it looks like the bridge just goes off into the lake.
The video was shot from Sunset Point Fishing Pier at 30 degrees 21' 39''N by 90 degrees 05' 20"W. The building you see is the New Orleans Marriott Hotel at 3838N Causeway Blvd, Metairie, LA. The coordinates there are 30 degrees 01' 06"N by 90 degrees 09' 20"W.
Calculated distance between those two coordinates is right at 24 miles.
You can take the drive yourself someday on a nice trip to New Orleans or you can just do the trip via Google Earth. Either way you can get the effect of the earth's nice curvature. I'm surprised that this site hasn't just said that this was all just a cgi effect. Unfortunately, there are those that have taken the trip and seen the sights personally, the Zetetic way.
-
In the FAQ page it states and I quote
In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered. Many of the videos posted here to "prove a round earth" by showing curvature will show no curvature or even concave curvature at parts. The sources are so inaccurate it's difficult to build an argument on them in either case. Furthermore, barrel distortion and other quirks of modern cameras will cause a picture to distort in ways which may not be immediately obvious or apparent, especially without references within the picture. Photographs are also prone to distortion when taken through the bent glass of a pressurized cabin as well as atmospheric conditions on the outside. With this litany of problems, it's easy to see why photographic evidence is not to be trusted.
Which seems to imply that the FES discredit any photographic or video evidence that proves a round Earth but no mention is made of whether such evidence that suggests a flat Earth is similarly discredited. Do I take it then that the FES do support any videos that are created to support the FE belief? You cant cherry pick and have it both ways. Either you accept photo/video evidence or you don't.
-
Getting back to the map business. Literally the only FE argument against the veracity of world maps, navigation, transport, which are all based upon spherical data/projections, great circles, globe earth, is that 'everyone is doing it wrong'. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. So until such time that FE can demonstrate how we're all doing it wrong, I'm afraid the Globe prevails. It's a cold, hard truth.
-
Quite agree Stack. FE people seem to be very good at dismissing all the evidence (or demonstrations to use Toms preferred terminology) for RE maps yet the one thing they all seem to agree about is that they cannot provide a single FE map that everyone on their side of the fence agrees with. So they are essentially firing back with blanks.
If FE people don't accept Google Maps as it is then they are essentially dismissing the hard work and efforts of a lot of people who are experts in their field and should know their stuff. What better a demonstration could dear Tom want?
Before it is pointed out, the cameras they use to create the Street View are 360 degree cameras which do distort the true sense of scale to an extent. Buidings, mountains etc look further away from the camera and smaller than they actually are. I found that out very clearly when I visited the Swiss Alps recently. The Eiger looks a lot bigger and closer when you arrive at Grindlewald than the impression given on screen. However this purely a local effect and has no bearing or relevance on the current discussion.
-
This video clearly illustrates the matter of Soundly's observations on that lake:
https://youtu.be/JygBcqehnNg
-
Getting back to the map business. Literally the only FE argument against the veracity of world maps, navigation, transport, which are all based upon spherical data/projections, great circles, globe earth, is that 'everyone is doing it wrong'. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. So until such time that FE can demonstrate how we're all doing it wrong, I'm afraid the Globe prevails. It's a cold, hard truth.
Again, the round guys came here claiming that this is based on spherical data, and are ignoring the evidence that it is not.
Where is your evidence that it is all based on spherical data?
You guys have provided no evidence. Only an assumption and a claim. Since you have provided a claim without evidence, that claim is therefore discarded without evidence. That is how truth works. Period. End of.
-
Since you have provided a claim without evidence, that claim is therefore discarded without evidence. That is how truth works. Period. End of.
Can I quote you on that?
-
This video clearly illustrates the matter of Soundly's observations on that lake:
Soundly posts this video to show how (some) flat earth advocates (like Ranty) misunderstand refraction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPEisT7AmKA
Ranty posts a video response (Tom's post) demonstrating exactly what Soundly was illustrating.
So that we're all on the same sheet of music...
On a convex surface, refraction bending light down, in the same direction as the curvature, will make the surface appear less curved and even flat or convex if greater than curvature.
On a flat surface, refraction bending light up and away from parallel will make the surface appear curved.
We can all agree on what conditions will refract light and in what direction.
For a flat earth to appear convex due to refraction, air density must increase with elevation to cause the light to bend upward.
For a convex earth to appear flat due to refraction, air density must decrease with elevation at a higher rate than normal to cause light to bend less or not at all.
So which is it? Just showing images of optically wiggling objects isn't analysis. Ranty hasn't refuted anything. He's just exhibited the very behavior Soundly was criticizing.
-
Getting back to the map business. Literally the only FE argument against the veracity of world maps, navigation, transport, which are all based upon spherical data/projections, great circles, globe earth, is that 'everyone is doing it wrong'. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. So until such time that FE can demonstrate how we're all doing it wrong, I'm afraid the Globe prevails. It's a cold, hard truth.
Again, the round guys came here claiming that this is based on spherical data, and are ignoring the evidence that it is not.
Where is your evidence that it is all based on spherical data?
You guys have provided no evidence. Only an assumption and a claim. Since you have provided a claim without evidence, that claim is therefore discarded without evidence. That is how truth works. Period. End of.
Quite simply:
1) "The (Google) Maps JavaScript API uses the following coordinate systems: Latitude and longitude values, which reference a point on the world uniquely. (Google uses the World Geodetic System WGS84 standard.)"
https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/coordinates
2) "The WGS 84 datum surface is an oblate spheroid with equatorial radius a = 6378137 m at the equator and flattening f = 1/298.257223563.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System
-
This video clearly illustrates the matter of Soundly's observations on that lake:
There is a big difference here. Your video are over the course of hours showcasing how the change in temperature, time of day, and atmosphere affects the horizon.
Between 9 AM and midnight there is a HUGE variance between temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, etc etc.
https://youtu.be/CPEisT7AmKA
This video is over the course of minutes in which there is minimal change in temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, etc etc.
Over this relatively short period of time the optical conditions changed a very small amount but the altitude changed DRAMATICALLY.
In addition if this was 100% optics we would see the horizon moving up and down randomly. Instead we see it move down as the altitude increases and up as the altitude decreases.
https://youtu.be/NzY5du8LMgk
-
The light maintians it's curvature when the drone descends, causing the land to appear to sink. It wouldn't change over seconds.
The video of light bending over time in that area pretty much discredits any one observation, if not all of them. Considering that timelapse, it must now be shown whether light is bending or not.
The fact that the earth is pretty much the size of Kerbal in Soundly's images isn't too crediting, either.
-
The light maintians it's curvature when the drone ascends, causing the land to appear to sink.
The video of light bending over time in that area pretty much discredits any one observation, if not all of them. Considering that timelapse, it must now be shown whether light is bending or not.
The fact that the earth is pretty much the size of Kerbal in Soundly's images isn't too crediting, either.
I'm not seeing the land appear to sink, per se, just more being revealed the higher it goes.
What's a Kerbal?
-
The light maintians it's curvature when the drone descends, causing the land to appear to sink. It wouldn't change over seconds.
The video of light bending over time in that area pretty much discredits any one observation, if not all of them. Considering that timelapse, it must now be shown whether light is bending or not.
The fact that the earth is pretty much the size of Kerbal in Soundly's images isn't too crediting, either.
None of what you say changes the fact that this video is yet more evidence that the perceived horizon does NOT rise to eye level. This video, in addition to dozens of observations made by bobby suggest that the perceived horizon drops below eye level as the altitude increases. The drones perceived horizon drops as the altutde increases. It does not change the fact that the horizon drops below eye level as the altitude of the drone increases.
-
The timelapse video demonstrates that light can, is, and does bend in that area:
This video clearly illustrates the matter of Soundly's observations on that lake:
https://youtu.be/JygBcqehnNg
What you have provided in rebuttal is imagination, not demonstration.
The bending lasts for hours, with video evidence, and you want us to ignore this evidence in favor of what one of Soundly's images or or clips of video "suggests"?
You must provide an experiment that takes refraction into account. There is obviously an issue there.
-
What you have provided in rebuttal is imagination, not demonstration.
The bending lasts for hours, with video evidence, and you want us to ignore this evidence in favor of what one of Soundly's images or or clips of video "suggests"?
You must provide an experiment that takes refraction into account. There is obviously an issue there.
I don't understand because the image at the peak and the image at 500 feet have a similar humidity, temperature, time of day, barometric pressure, location, and atmospheric composition. I am of the opinion that the refractive index between them is a pretty controlled variable in this example.
Do you think that at the time of takeoff the refractive index is 1 at takeoff and then, at an altitude of 500 feet or so the refractive index goes up to 3, then goes back down to 1 when it lands? If that is the case you still arrive at the same conclusion.
Because the refraction index increases with altitude an increase in altitude will decrease the perceived horizon below eye level.
Because light bends upwards an increase in altitude will cause the horizon to be perceived below eye level.
-
You can tell the temperature and pressure at the objects in the distance, between the path of the camera, and at the camera, just by looking at the video or images? Can you tell us how you determined that?
The curvature wouldn't need to change when the drone ascends or descends. It can stay the same. Upwardly curving light will cause bodies to sink when descending.
-
You can tell the temperature and pressure at the objects in the distance, between the path of the camera, and at the camera, just by looking at the video or images? Can you tell us how you determined that?
Tom,
If I provided temperature and pressure and atmospheric measurements between for A and point B then you can just easily ask for temperature and pressure and atmospheric measurements halfway between or then every 1/4th of the distance between point A and point B. Then ask for temperature and pressure and atmospheric measurements every 1/8th of the distance ad infinitum. If you watch the video it's not like there are sunshine and rainbows here and we see a hurricane off in the distance. When the weatherman tells me it's 50 degrees in St. Louis I don't then proceed to ask for a temperature measurement every 1-5 square miles across the entire city of St. Louis.
You had a similar argument when someone made the claim that the sun passes almost directly overhead on the equator. You asked for a worldwide sun observation project and observations made from every point on earth to document sun activities:
Just link us to the documents for the world-wide sun observation project which the calculators are (hopefully) based on. What is so flipping difficult about that?
Did timeanddate.com send agents to every point on earth to carefully document the activities and actions of the sun throughout the year?
My response then will be the same now
If you made a claim that a mile was 5280 feet, with no source provided as to how this prediction was created, or how accurate it is. I need a link for the documents showing the world-wide mile project showing that everywhere on earth a mile is 5280 feet.
You have used the Pythagorean theorem in several of your post.
A claim that A²+B² = C². I'm going to need a source provided. An explanation as to how this prediction was created. I need a link of documents showing the world wide triangle project showing that for A²+B² = C² for all triangles with sides less than 6 inches for all over the world.
-
Getting back to the map business. Literally the only FE argument against the veracity of world maps, navigation, transport, which are all based upon spherical data/projections, great circles, globe earth, is that 'everyone is doing it wrong'. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. So until such time that FE can demonstrate how we're all doing it wrong, I'm afraid the Globe prevails. It's a cold, hard truth.
Again, the round guys came here claiming that this is based on spherical data, and are ignoring the evidence that it is not.
Where is your evidence that it is all based on spherical data?
You guys have provided no evidence. Only an assumption and a claim. Since you have provided a claim without evidence, that claim is therefore discarded without evidence. That is how truth works. Period. End of.
Quite simply:
1) "The (Google) Maps JavaScript API uses the following coordinate systems: Latitude and longitude values, which reference a point on the world uniquely. (Google uses the World Geodetic System WGS84 standard.)"
https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/coordinates
2) "The WGS 84 datum surface is an oblate spheroid with equatorial radius a = 6378137 m at the equator and flattening f = 1/298.257223563.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System
I see there has been no response to these details, so we can assume they have been accepted.