The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: CathInfo on December 20, 2021, 08:35:54 AM

Title: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: CathInfo on December 20, 2021, 08:35:54 AM
I'm arguing with some Catholics on another forum about Flat Earth, and I'd like to know if there are any well-accepted, accurate maps of Flat Earth.
There is so much I don't know, as I just started looking into Flat Earth recently (and yes, quite convinced, as you'd expect).
I'm just not an expert yet, enough to answer peoples' stupid questions and through argumentation take away their security blanket (globe earth) that they're clinging to so fiercely.

Thank you,

Matthew
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: AATW on December 20, 2021, 09:23:28 AM
Out of interest, why are you convinced about FE when there is no agreed upon map?
The RE response to this is that an accurate FE Map cannot be made because the earth isn't flat, so any map of the whole earth has to be projected from the surface of a sphere to a plane. No perfect projection can be done, so all map projections contain some distortion.
Were the earth flat a map could be made which represents the whole earth accurately. I haven't seen a map which does that.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: SteelyBob on December 20, 2021, 09:56:10 AM
I'm arguing with some Catholics on another forum about Flat Earth, and I'd like to know if there are any well-accepted, accurate maps of Flat Earth.
There is so much I don't know, as I just started looking into Flat Earth recently (and yes, quite convinced, as you'd expect).
I'm just not an expert yet, enough to answer peoples' stupid questions and through argumentation take away their security blanket (globe earth) that they're clinging to so fiercely.

Thank you,

Matthew

You should wade into the wiki on this site to understand what the maps are proposed to be. But while you’re there, note that no one particular map is held up as the correct version, and note also that despite this being a debating forum, you never see two FE people debating which map might be correct. That is, i suspect, because this is T about a genuine inquiry into the shape of the world, but rather a club, or religion, who’s membership is defined by believing in FE - whatever layout that may be.

Implicit in believing in FE is the belief that our current understanding of the distances between known places is wrong. Everything from the distance from your house to the shops, to a flight across the Atlantic - they are all wrong, to varying degrees, if you believe in FE. But oddly, again, you never ever see FE proponents trying to measure distances between places to figure out where we’ve got it wrong. If they were genuinely interested, and in possession of such a monumental truth, they would be all over this stuff.

But they aren’t, and there’s a reason for that.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: CathInfo on December 20, 2021, 09:56:49 AM
Well, as I told others on another forum:

Quote
If the model needs a bit of work to bring it to a fine polish, that is to be expected.

What % of our science dollars and man-hours is being WASTED on Evolution, finding "the origins of the universe", "origins of mankind", "dark matter", alien life, and countless other nonsense? All that time and money is literally WASTED which leaves true science extremely impoverished and ignored.

There is no money -- no resources left -- for true science to be done.

True science is only being done part-time by amateurs now -- just like media reporting. All the "professionals" are shills chasing a paycheck, who will say ANYTHING on camera their bosses tell them to. There is no investigative reporting outside a few lower-budget alternative news channels -- little more than vloggers or youtubers.

If the rag-tag group of underdogs called "Flat Earth Truthers" haven't managed to create a great Flat Earth map YET -- maybe they have families, day jobs, and other obligations, and can't dedicate their whole life to this hobby -- that isn't a dealbreaker.

What IS certain and a complete dealbreaker for the mainstream paradigm (globe earth, moving earth) is NASA being caught in lies hundreds of times.
And being able to see WAY TO FAR for a globe earth to be our reality.
Also, water seeks its own level. Water doesn't ever bulge anywhere, on a macro OR micro scale. It is always flat and level.
Spinning balls tend to SHAKE OFF water, not hold it fast.

And how can "gravity" keep a death grip on millions of tons of water on the bottom of the globe, yet it will let a helium ballon "go", no problem.

Why does gravity SOMETIMES hold things fast like a death grip, and other times cause things to orbit it? It seems to me, you can't have it both ways.

Those are some of the most convincing arguments for FE I can think of right now -- but there are others.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: SteelyBob on December 20, 2021, 10:59:11 AM
Well, as I told others on another forum:

Quote
If the model needs a bit of work to bring it to a fine polish, that is to be expected.

But it can’t be polished, that’s the problem. There is no way you can represent our current surveyed world on a flat map without distorting distances. That means that either a) the world is indeed the round shape we think it is, or b) the world is flat and our knowledge of distances is completely wrong. If it’s b), show me the wrong distances please.

Quote
What % of our science dollars and man-hours is being WASTED on Evolution, finding "the origins of the universe", "origins of mankind", "dark matter", alien life, and countless other nonsense? All that time and money is literally WASTED which leaves true science extremely impoverished and ignored.

There is no money -- no resources left -- for true science to be done.

True science is only being done part-time by amateurs now -- just like media reporting. All the "professionals" are shills chasing a paycheck, who will say ANYTHING on camera their bosses tell them to. There is no investigative reporting outside a few lower-budget alternative news channels -- little more than vloggers or youtubers.

If the rag-tag group of underdogs called "Flat Earth Truthers" haven't managed to create a great Flat Earth map YET -- maybe they have families, day jobs, and other obligations, and can't dedicate their whole life to this hobby -- that isn't a dealbreaker.

What IS certain and a complete dealbreaker for the mainstream paradigm (globe earth, moving earth) is NASA being caught in lies hundreds of times.


Whilst I don’t share your views on NASA (it’s always NASA, isn’t it, as if other countries and organisations aren’t involved in space…), the great thing is that you can verify the shape of the earth yourself, and you can falsify the FE claims yourself, without needing to trust large organisations and governments.

Quote
And being able to see WAY TO FAR for a globe earth to be our reality.

Discussed earlier. Any calculation or experiment that ignores refraction can be instantly dismissed as garbage.

Quote
Also, water seeks its own level. Water doesn't ever bulge anywhere, on a macro OR micro scale. It is always flat and level.
Spinning balls tend to SHAKE OFF water, not hold it fast.

The earth is spinning, so yes, there is a slight ‘shake it off’ effect. It is easy to do the maths. If you crunch the numbers, the effect of the earth’s rotation is a slight (1% or thereabouts) reduction in g at the equator. Measurable, but small. That’s why the water isn’t shaken off. It’s not surprising if you think about it - yes a spinning ball would shake off water…but try spinning a ball at 15 degrees per hour…

Quote
And how can "gravity" keep a death grip on millions of tons of water on the bottom of the globe, yet it will let a helium ballon "go", no problem.

Why does gravity SOMETIMES hold things fast like a death grip, and other times cause things to orbit it? It seems to me, you can't have it both ways.

Helium balloons are less dense than the air around them. Gravity does act in the helium, but it also acts on the air around it - just like oil on water. The balloon behaves exactly as one would expect it to, as does the ISS, and indeed every other orbiting body.

Quote
Those are some of the most convincing arguments for FE I can think of right now -- but there are others.

They aren’t convincing at all, I’m afraid. They are reasonable questions to ask, but when shown the answers, you have to reassess your own views.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: AATW on December 20, 2021, 10:59:37 AM
If the rag-tag group of underdogs called "Flat Earth Truthers" haven't managed to create a great Flat Earth map YET -- maybe they have families, day jobs, and other obligations, and can't dedicate their whole life to this hobby -- that isn't a dealbreaker.
Which is fair, but the fact that every proposed map has errors in the known sizes and shapes of land masses and distances between places should give you pause.
Most of the rest of your post is you simply not understanding basic physics. To go through it quickly:

Quote
What IS certain and a complete dealbreaker for the mainstream paradigm (globe earth, moving earth) is NASA being caught in lies hundreds of times.
Can you give an example of this?
Quote
And being able to see WAY TO FAR for a globe earth to be our reality.
Can you give an example of this? As I said in another thread, the examples I've seen are people doing their maths wrong, not accounting for refraction properly or simply misidentifying distant landmarks.
Quote
Also, water seeks its own level. Water doesn't ever bulge anywhere, on a macro OR micro scale. It is always flat and level.
Demonstrably not true on the micro scale - see water drops. On the macro scale, if that's true then why do ships disappear bottom first below the horizon as they go out to sea? What are they going behind?
Quote
Spinning balls tend to SHAKE OFF water, not hold it fast.
This is you not understanding angular velocity. If there's a ball with a thin film of water on it try rotating it at an angular speed of one rotation per 24 hours, see how much water shakes off.
Quote
And how can "gravity" keep a death grip on millions of tons of water on the bottom of the globe, yet it will let a helium ballon "go", no problem.
It's because there are millions of tons of water. The force of gravity is proportional to mass. A helium balloon has a very low mass, and the helium is less dense than air makes it buoyant. Same principle with hot air balloons, they only rise when the air inside is heated such that the density is low enough to make it bouyant.
Quote
Why does gravity SOMETIMES hold things fast like a death grip, and other times cause things to orbit it? It seems to me, you can't have it both ways.
You can if you understand about forces balancing. An orbiting satellite is subject to gravity but it's also going fast enough horizontally that as it "falls" the earth curves away from it. If you get the speed right it will stay at the same altitude relative to the ground. And because it's in a vacuum there's no air-resistance to slow it down so it just keeps going round. Although that isn't strictly 100% true, space isn't a perfect vacuum so over time it does slow a little which is why satellites do end up falling back to earth, or they have to be occasionally boosted to account for this.
Quote
Those are some of the most convincing arguments for FE I can think of right now -- but there are others.
Sorry dude, but none of those are arguments for FE, they're simply you not understanding physics
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: CathInfo on December 20, 2021, 12:49:21 PM
So far, I've encountered 2 active members on this forum. Both apparent zealots for Globe Earth.

I have an honest question:

Are there any "Flat Earth" proponents on this "Flat Earth Society" forum?

This forum seems to be improperly named. It should be "Globe Earth Society". At least according to my experience so far, which is admittedly limited.

Did all the FE supporters get weary of the constant arguments and leave, or what? Seriously, the forum seems to have been taken over.


Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Iceman on December 20, 2021, 02:09:02 PM
The are billions of millions of tons of water in the ocean. 1.45x10^21 kg. Plus they’ve gained another nine million million tons from melting of ice sheets since the 60’s.

But that’s all a drop in the bucket compared to the earth’s 5.9x10^24 kg mass. And because of its size, that means that all that water amounts to little more than a thin skin around it. Similar in comparison to the amount of water that would stick to a basketball after submerging it in a bucket of water 🤷🏼‍♂️
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Barry_Edmiston on December 20, 2021, 02:13:36 PM
I'd like to know if there are any well-accepted, accurate maps of Flat Earth.

There is, but it has not been generally implemented because, unfortunately, despite all the airlines in the world, there is not one that employs anyone smart enough to figure it out: https://disk.yandex.com/i/RAPR57pE0o6GTg
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on December 20, 2021, 03:37:48 PM

If the rag-tag group of underdogs called "Flat Earth Truthers" haven't managed to create a great Flat Earth map YET -- maybe they have families, day jobs, and other obligations, and can't dedicate their whole life to this hobby -- that isn't a dealbreaker.


Lots of us have families and obligations.  Until I retired recently I had a day-job, and occasional night jobs, for 50 years. 

The majority of people of all viewpoints work, they have computers, they have hobbies and they travel on vacation. 

On your computer?  Follow a flight- or shipping-tracking site.  Look at where they are going, and the routes they are taking.  See how fast the aircraft are travelling, and correlate that with the claimed distance. 

Taking a flight on holiday?  How far is it claimed to be by the Round-Earth media and NASA?  The cruising speeds of airliners are well known.  What route are they claiming to take?  Look out the window and verify it yourself.  Time the flight. 

Claiming that FE'ers have no facility for research is an utter cop-out. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: SteelyBob on December 20, 2021, 10:26:04 PM
So far, I've encountered 2 active members on this forum. Both apparent zealots for Globe Earth.

I have an honest question:

Are there any "Flat Earth" proponents on this "Flat Earth Society" forum?

This forum seems to be improperly named. It should be "Globe Earth Society". At least according to my experience so far, which is admittedly limited.

Did all the FE supporters get weary of the constant arguments and leave, or what? Seriously, the forum seems to have been taken over.

Interesting that, when confronted with reasonable rebuttals to your points, you chose to pivot into a criticism of why there weren’t more people like you on the forum, rather than engaging with the specific points made.

Do you agree with the points that AATW and I made? Or not? If not, why not?
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: J-Man on December 21, 2021, 02:10:55 AM
So far, I've encountered 2 active members on this forum. Both apparent zealots for Globe Earth.

I have an honest question:

Are there any "Flat Earth" proponents on this "Flat Earth Society" forum?

This forum seems to be improperly named. It should be "Globe Earth Society". At least according to my experience so far, which is admittedly limited.

Did all the FE supporters get weary of the constant arguments and leave, or what? Seriously, the forum seems to have been taken over.

You've encountered and read satanic gibberish. The earth is flat as explained by God in the Bible. You shouldn't play around here unless you're well armed and blast the truth of Jesus our Savior.The demons here will play games with you and spew fake science. Satan is everywhere, you're outnumbered, hold strong to your beliefs and laugh at them just before SWISH --->>>>>>>>  the righteous blade slays them.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: AATW on December 21, 2021, 07:43:23 AM
The earth is flat as explained by God in the Bible.
Or maybe you don’t understand the Bible correctly. Given all the easily verifiable evidence which shows the earth isn’t flat.
I assume you go to church, do all the people there believe the earth is flat? If not are they all wrong?
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 21, 2021, 08:46:33 AM
So far, I've encountered 2 active members on this forum. Both apparent zealots for Globe Earth.
What makes you think this forum would be exclusively populated by FE'ers? The whole point of a discussion forum is to have two sides for a discussion.

If you're looking for a FE echo chamber, Twitter is the way to go. Unfortunately, you'll only get the worst FE has to offer that way.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: J-Man on December 21, 2021, 09:39:37 PM
The earth is flat as explained by God in the Bible.
Or maybe you don’t understand the Bible correctly. Given all the easily verifiable evidence which shows the earth isn’t flat.
I assume you go to church, do all the people there believe the earth is flat? If not are they all wrong?

Last I checked, any two who gather in HIS name is CHURCH. Flat earth is not a prerequisite to entering the Kingdom of Heaven. Being a satanist here would preclude you from the very narrow gates. Thanks for playing swish swish --l>>>>>>


"The Bible clearly establishes that the Earth is flat. There are hundreds of scriptures that suggest that the Earth is a stationary object and flat. According to 1 Chronicles 16:30, it states that "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable," which means that the Earth is an immobile, fixed object within space. This line of reasoning is continued with other scriptures including Psalm 93:1 which states that "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..." and Isaiah 45:18 with "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."[1]

Although flat Earth is never explicitly stated within the Bible, the state of the Earth as a flat object can be inferred from verses such as Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth... reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds." [2] If the Earth were actually spherical, then it would be impossible to see this tree from all corners of the Earth. Because it is possible, it proves that the Earth is flat.

The flatness of the Earth is further proven due to the ability of people within the Bible to see to all edges of the Earth. Matthew 4:8 states that "Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory." Seeing all of the kingdoms in the world would be impossible unless the Earth was flat. This is further supported by Revelation 1:7 stating "Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him..." A flat Earth would allow everyone on the planet to see someone who is flying above them."

https://www.parlia.com/a/bible-says-earth-flat
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: GoldCashew on December 22, 2021, 04:20:15 AM
The earth is flat as explained by God in the Bible.
Or maybe you don’t understand the Bible correctly. Given all the easily verifiable evidence which shows the earth isn’t flat.
I assume you go to church, do all the people there believe the earth is flat? If not are they all wrong?

Last I checked, any two who gather in HIS name is CHURCH. Flat earth is not a prerequisite to entering the Kingdom of Heaven. Being a satanist here would preclude you from the very narrow gates. Thanks for playing swish swish --l>>>>>>


"The Bible clearly establishes that the Earth is flat. There are hundreds of scriptures that suggest that the Earth is a stationary object and flat. According to 1 Chronicles 16:30, it states that "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable," which means that the Earth is an immobile, fixed object within space. This line of reasoning is continued with other scriptures including Psalm 93:1 which states that "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..." and Isaiah 45:18 with "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."[1]

Although flat Earth is never explicitly stated within the Bible, the state of the Earth as a flat object can be inferred from verses such as Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth... reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds." [2] If the Earth were actually spherical, then it would be impossible to see this tree from all corners of the Earth. Because it is possible, it proves that the Earth is flat.

The flatness of the Earth is further proven due to the ability of people within the Bible to see to all edges of the Earth. Matthew 4:8 states that "Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory." Seeing all of the kingdoms in the world would be impossible unless the Earth was flat. This is further supported by Revelation 1:7 stating "Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him..." A flat Earth would allow everyone on the planet to see someone who is flying above them."

https://www.parlia.com/a/bible-says-earth-flat


If you are going to use and quote Biblical scripture as your proof of a flat earth, than I would challenge your assertions with the following:

1 Chronicles 16:30: it states that "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable".
- By "firm, immovable" what if scripture meant that the earth wasn't a gaseous mass but a solid. How do you know scripture meant an immobile stationary object vs. meant that the earth was a solid.

Daniel 4:10-11: the king "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth... reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds."
- What if said tree had tree branches or limbs that grew in such a way that they reached out and curved around a Globe Earth. If this be the case, then it's possible that someone on the other side of the tree on a globe earth could see it's branches.

Matthew 4:8: states that "Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory."
- The word here is cosmos, which could also refer to the heavens and the stars above and not the Earth.

Revelation 1:7: stating "Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him..."
- Given EA (Electromagnetic Acceleration) / bendy light, I suspect that every eye would not be able to see him coming with the clouds, so this would not really be possible.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: stack on December 22, 2021, 05:50:22 AM
The earth is flat as explained by God in the Bible.
Or maybe you don’t understand the Bible correctly. Given all the easily verifiable evidence which shows the earth isn’t flat.
I assume you go to church, do all the people there believe the earth is flat? If not are they all wrong?
"The Bible clearly establishes that the Earth is flat.

Which bible?
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: scomato on December 22, 2021, 06:14:18 AM
The earth is flat as explained by God in the Bible.
Or maybe you don’t understand the Bible correctly. Given all the easily verifiable evidence which shows the earth isn’t flat.
I assume you go to church, do all the people there believe the earth is flat? If not are they all wrong?

Last I checked, any two who gather in HIS name is CHURCH. Flat earth is not a prerequisite to entering the Kingdom of Heaven. Being a satanist here would preclude you from the very narrow gates. Thanks for playing swish swish --l>>>>>>


"The Bible clearly establishes that the Earth is flat. There are hundreds of scriptures that suggest that the Earth is a stationary object and flat. According to 1 Chronicles 16:30, it states that "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable," which means that the Earth is an immobile, fixed object within space. This line of reasoning is continued with other scriptures including Psalm 93:1 which states that "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..." and Isaiah 45:18 with "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."[1]

Although flat Earth is never explicitly stated within the Bible, the state of the Earth as a flat object can be inferred from verses such as Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth... reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds." [2] If the Earth were actually spherical, then it would be impossible to see this tree from all corners of the Earth. Because it is possible, it proves that the Earth is flat.

The flatness of the Earth is further proven due to the ability of people within the Bible to see to all edges of the Earth. Matthew 4:8 states that "Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory." Seeing all of the kingdoms in the world would be impossible unless the Earth was flat. This is further supported by Revelation 1:7 stating "Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him..." A flat Earth would allow everyone on the planet to see someone who is flying above them."

https://www.parlia.com/a/bible-says-earth-flat

Not sure what your point with all of this when the Quran is the definitive word of God, there is unanimous consensus amongst medieval Muslim scholars to the contrary.

Ibn Hazm (d. 1064 CE), wrote over a thousand years ago in his book al-Fisal, "I do not know of a single scholar worth the title of scholar who claims other than that the earth is round. Indeed the evidences in the Quran and Sunnah are numerous to this effect" [al-Fisal, v. 2 p. 78]. Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328 CE), wrote that there is unanimous consensus of all the scholars of Islam that the world is round, and that reality and perception also proves this, for, as he writes, it is well known that the Sun sets on different peoples at different times, and does not set on the whole world at the same time. In fact, writes Ibn Taymiyya, it is truly an ignorant person who claims that the earth is not round. [Majmu al-Fatawa, v. 6, p. 586]. And there are many others scholars, such as al-Razi, who wrote on this subject, and I do not know of any medieval scholar who held another view.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: AATW on December 22, 2021, 09:59:31 AM
Although flat Earth is never explicitly stated within the Bible, the state of the Earth as a flat object can be inferred from verses
Right. You can interpret certain verses that way. But when the earth has been so conclusively shown to be a sphere, the only logical conclusion is that your interpretation is wrong. The verses you cite contain poetic language or relate visions. No church I’ve been in interprets those verses the way you do.

I did a preach on Science and Christianity a couple of years back. In it I suggested that while Scripture isn’t wrong, our interpretation of it may be. Our interpretation should be subject to change as our knowledge does. The church pushed back on the Copernican model because of their interpretation of some of the verses you cite. But, ultimately, the evidence became overwhelming so the church had to change their interpretation.

Some Christians see science as “the enemy”. I don’t see it that way. Science and Religion ask different questions, or they ask them in a different way. Science tells us we are insignificant, Religion tells us we are. But they’re talking about different things. Science is talking about where we are (as in our physical location, we are not literally at the centre of the universe). But our significance in Christianity doesn’t come from where we are but who we are in Christ.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Iceman on December 23, 2021, 02:33:21 AM
One of my former Profs held similar views. And I always thought it was impressive how he held both his religion and his scientific endeavours in equally high regard. For a guy who does cutting age research on constraining the age and metamorphic processes involve in a 1Billion year-old mountain building event, it was oddly refreshing to see that he was still a devout Christian. I’m not remembering he ended up writing a book about it and I kinda want to track down the title now…
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Kangaroony on January 02, 2022, 07:59:41 PM
What IS certain and a complete dealbreaker for the mainstream paradigm (globe earth, moving earth) is NASA being caught in lies hundreds of times.

Personally, I've never seen any convincing evidence that NASA has been caught lying about its
findings "hundreds" of times.  As there are purportedly so many lies, could you list half a dozen
that you think proves the claim?

Quote from: CathInfo
And being able to see WAY TO FAR for a globe earth to be our reality.

I'm not sure I understand this;  can you please clarify it?

Quote from: CathInfo
Also, water seeks its own level. Water doesn't ever bulge anywhere, on a macro OR micro scale. It is always flat and level.

Not so, as is easily observed in a test tube of water.  Nowhere in these two tubes is the
surface of the water "flat".
(https://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/convex_concave.jpg)

Quote from: CathInfo
Spinning balls tend to SHAKE OFF water, not hold it fast.

That's simply because the centrifugal forces on the molecules of water are greater then the
gravitational attraction from the ball, which is minuscule—to effectively non-existent.

Quote from: CathInfo
And how can "gravity" keep a death grip on millions of tons of water on the bottom of the globe, yet it will let a helium balloon "go", no problem.

The force of gravity that attracts water molecules to the CoG of the Earth, is exactly what
prevents you from flying off into space.  And if you don't understand why a helium-filled balloon
rises, then maybe you should be reading some stuff on a few basic physics site. 
Hint:  a litre of air has a mass of around 1 gram, whilst a litre of helium has a mass of 0.1785g.

Quote from: CathInfo
Why does gravity SOMETIMES hold things fast like a death grip, and other times cause things
to orbit it? It seems to me, you can't have it both ways.

Gravity does not hold you in a "death grip".  Can you not jump up off the ground?  Have you never
noticed birds easily resisting gravity?  Elevators in buildings resist gravity hundreds of time every day.
And satellites maintain their orbits by balancing two factors: their velocity (the speed it takes to travel
in a straight line) and the gravitational pull that Earth has on them.

Quote from: CathInfo
Those are some of the most convincing arguments for FE I can think of right now -- but there are others.

Sorry, but no.  None of those things are arguments supporting the flat earth theory.  Rather they're
arguments attempting to discredit round earth theory.  And they're not even good, science-based
arguments of yours; they're simply guesses based on the misinterpretation of what we see around us.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Action80 on January 04, 2022, 12:41:20 PM
Out of interest, why are you convinced about FE when there is no agreed upon map?
Out of interest, why are you convinced about RE when there is no agreed upon map?
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: AATW on January 04, 2022, 01:02:40 PM
Out of interest, why are you convinced about FE when there is no agreed upon map?
Out of interest, why are you convinced about RE when there is no agreed upon map?
Do you mean there are lots of different projections?
If so then there are indeed different maps which depict the whole earth in different ways.
And that's because the earth isn't flat. So any map of the earth has to project reality - the surface of a (rough) sphere - onto a flat plane. In doing so some accuracy is lost because geometry. So different projections do this in different ways, each has its own strengths and weaknesses.

But were the earth flat there would be no problem. The earth is flat, maps are flat, the only issue is therefore scale. It should be possible to make a map which accurately represents the whole earth, sizes and shapes of land masses should be accurate as should the distances between them and between places in the land masses. No such map exists. I'll leave as an exercise for the reader to consider why that might be...
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Action80 on January 04, 2022, 03:13:51 PM
Out of interest, why are you convinced about FE when there is no agreed upon map?
Out of interest, why are you convinced about RE when there is no agreed upon map?
Do you mean there are lots of different projections?
No.

I mean exactly what I wrote.

Do you have an answer or not?
If so then there are indeed different maps which depict the whole earth in different ways.
And that's because the earth isn't flat. So any map of the earth has to project reality - the surface of a (rough) sphere - onto a flat plane. In doing so some accuracy is lost because geometry. So different projections do this in different ways, each has its own strengths and weaknesses.

But were the earth flat there would be no problem. The earth is flat, maps are flat, the only issue is therefore scale. It should be possible to make a map which accurately represents the whole earth, sizes and shapes of land masses should be accurate as should the distances between them and between places in the land masses. No such map exists. I'll leave as an exercise for the reader to consider why that might be...
Nice way to state the simplest argument.

You get bullshit when you try to paint reality (i.e., flat earth) in unreal terms (i.e., spherical)
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: AATW on January 04, 2022, 03:26:24 PM
I mean exactly what I wrote.

Do you have an answer or not?
I don't think I understand the question. In what way is there no agreed map of the earth?
By "map" here, I don't mean a flat piece of paper. I mean it in the more general sense that the earth has been mapped - we know the size and shapes of land masses and the distances between places.
In what way do you think any of that is in dispute? We have a whole global transport system and technologies like GPS which rely on this being the case.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: WTF_Seriously on January 04, 2022, 04:24:39 PM
You get bullshit when you try to paint reality (i.e., flat earth) in unreal terms (i.e., spherical)

Actually, you get bullshit when you try to paint flat earth into real tearms.  This is why there is no agreed upon FE map.  IF the earth were flat, creating a map of said earth would be an incredibly simple task with modern technology.  It actually would have been an incredibly simple task with less than modern technology.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: ichoosereality on January 05, 2022, 05:20:16 PM
I don't think I understand the question. In what way is there no agreed map of the earth?
By "map" here, I don't mean a flat piece of paper. I mean it in the more general sense that the earth has been mapped - we know the size and shapes of land masses and the distances between places.
In what way do you think any of that is in dispute? We have a whole global transport system and technologies like GPS which rely on this being the case.
I'm pretty sure I know what you meant, but just to make it clear:  GPS itself (the satellite system) does not rely on any exiting maps.  It does rely on the know circular orbits of the transmitting satellites which will only happen with a globe earth.  Given the satellite ID and transmission time received from 4 satellites the receiver computes  the globe based latitude, longitude and altitude of the receiver (irrespective of any map), which when plugged into a map (all conveniently done in the various map apps on one's phone these days) will show your position (within 30 ft or so).  The map in your phone is based on the globe model and GPS verifies it to be correct.  e.g. if I am standing on the edge of San Francisco bay and ask my phone "were am I" it correctly shows me at the edge of the bay.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Tumeni on January 06, 2022, 12:11:22 AM
... why are you convinced about RE when there is no agreed upon map?

There is an agreed-upon map.

If there were not, international travellers would be getting lost, every day. The fact that they all get to their destinations, whether by international flight, ocean voyage, by train or by motor vehicle, is the proof the map is agreed.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 06, 2022, 12:20:39 AM
You don't need a map to go from one coordinate to the next and to navigate between two points. In the North the coordinates are based on the altitude of Polaris (which latitude is based on, which is why 90 degrees N is the North Pole) and timezones (which longitude is based on). With that you can travel between any two points in the North.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Iceman on January 06, 2022, 12:23:01 AM
What about the south.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 06, 2022, 12:31:38 AM
There is no easily seen Southern Star. To find North-South in the South celestial navigation uses various constellations that have stars in them that tend to be aligned North-South. There are also other methods to determine latitude by the stars without needing a Southern Star.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: RonJ on January 06, 2022, 12:43:05 AM
You don't need a map to go from one coordinate to the next and to navigate between two points. In the North the coordinates are based on the altitude of Polaris (which latitude is based on, which is why 90 degrees N is the North Pole) and timezones (which longitude is based on). With that you can travel between any two points in the North.
Wrong.
 When you are navigating a ship between two ports on the Pacific Ocean, for example, you always want to have an accurate map showing all the relevant land masses and sea mounts or other locations where there may be obstacles to navigation.  At any moment along the way you may be required to change course because of weather, or other factors.  It is always critical that a good voyage plan has been made before leaving the dock, but that plan is subject to change when factors change along the way.  Maps are updated on a regular basis as well.  The fact of the matter is that it would be illegal for a ship or an aircraft to depart without relevant maps showing the areas where they expect to go.  An accurate map is obviously a critical safety factor.   
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 06, 2022, 12:43:57 AM
No, "navigation" doesn't imply that you are in a ship on the ocean.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: RonJ on January 06, 2022, 12:47:16 AM
No, "navigation" doesn't imply that you are in a ship on the ocean.

Obviously, you could be on a sailboat, a life raft, or on an airplane.  A nice road map would even be handy if you were driving a car.  ‘Navigation’ implies operating and/or planning a trip on your relevant conveyance, between two, or more, points on the earth.  It’s obvious that to do that job safely and efficiently that you have an accurate map that can be used to determine distances and bearings between any two points on the map. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: ichoosereality on January 06, 2022, 01:06:06 AM
...In the North the coordinates are based on the altitude of Polaris (which latitude is based on, which is why 90 degrees N is the North Pole) and timezones (which longitude is based on). With that you can travel between any two points in the North.
That may well have been how latitude and longitude emerged, but today you find your position via gps, not looking at constellations.  The distances between at least some places in the southern hemisphere on a flat earth would have to be much further apart than we experience in travel.  How can that be?

And since you brought up the north star.  As you travel south it does not get dimmer but only lower.  As you get to the equator it is near the horizon but still the same brightness.  Then a bit further south and it is quite suddenly no longer visible (drops below the horizon).  FE theory claims its just further away, right?  Why the non-linearity in brightness going bright, bright, ..... bright, gone.  Why can't you see it from the southern hemisphere with a telescope?

oh wait, I forgot, its "bendy light" right?  that aspect of light that can not be precisely stated nor demonstrated in the lab but dominates our observations of the cosmos.  right.  ok, forget that just answer the travel distance question.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 06, 2022, 08:13:22 AM
Signal based navigation which gives your coordinates is also based on the stars. Whatever the signal is coming from gets its coordinates from land based stations, which themselves have a known coordinate which was based on a survey of the sky at some point. The LORAN broadcasting towers had to know their own coordinates to be able to provide ships their coordinates via radio wave, which was ultimately derived in the traditional manner from celestial bodies.

The only way to know your latitude is if it was somehow based on the stars or celestial bodies down the line. It doesn't just come from nothing.

Also, the stars get dimmer near the horizon as the atmosphere builds up. The assertion that they don't get dim is incorrect.

https://books.google.com/books?id=pDOsAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA261&ots=Vyjd4uh4kf&pg=PA261#v=onepage&q&f=false

Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: AATW on January 06, 2022, 10:17:24 AM
Also, the stars get dimmer near the horizon as the atmosphere builds up. The assertion that they don't get dim is incorrect.
Right. As the atmosphere builds up and only near the horizon, not because of distance.
On a FE your distance from Polaris should change significantly as you go further south, there should be a constant dimming.
Your explanation for the sun maintaining a consistent angular size and magnitude doesn't work for dim stars (It doesn't work at all by the way, it wouldn't work for a crescent moon and your examples on the Wiki page show images with a lot of glare which invalidates any conclusions you can draw from them).

Coming back to maps, you have conceded that we have the technology to accurately tell you your coordinates. How do you think that technology works if it doesn't have an accurate underlying map of the earth and thus knows where those co-ordinates are and how far they are from other co-ordinates?
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 06, 2022, 10:37:52 AM
Incorrect. The Sun gets gradually weaker and outputs less intensity as it descends. The sun is not giving out as much energy at 45 degrees than when it is directly overhead. Your assertion that the Sun maintains its output or intensity is fundamentally incorrect.

On Sunlight Intensity:

https://firstrays.com/supplemental-light/

"Natural sunlight intensity starts at zero just before dawn, reaches a peak at noon and then fades back to zero at dusk. As we have shown, that “intensity curve” can be estimated by a triangle."

(https://firstrays.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/sunlight1.jpg)

By the measure of sunlight intensity we find that you are incorrect. It is approximated by a triangle - gradual.

Quote
Your explanation for the sun maintaining a consistent angular size and magnitude doesn't work for dim stars

An incorrect assumption. You are assuming that the sizes of the stars we see are true to their size according to perspective, and that a further star would be smaller than a closer star. The diameter of the stars is explained to be an illusion by conventional science, and are not their actual size based on perspective. That's not even how it works in your model. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

The angular size of galaxies are also an illusion (https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies#Angular_Size_of_Galaxies)
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: AATW on January 06, 2022, 11:55:04 AM
Incorrect. The Sun gets gradually weaker and outputs less intensity as it descends. The sun is not giving out as much energy at 45 degrees than when it is directly overhead.
Of course it is. It's just spread out over a larger area. But OK, I think I'm going to basically concede this point.
So I guess the question is do the observations fit better with a FE model (the sun's distance continuously varies throughout the day) or a RE one (the distance is constant but the earth rotates which makes the angle different)? I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader in terms of luminosity although I'd note you may wish to look at the inverse square law.

I'd also suggest that the constant angular size fits better with the RE model than a FE one. Your explanation is to invent a mechanism rather than accept the simplest explanation - that the consistent angular size is because of a consistent distance. You are usually a fan of Occam's razor.

Quote
You are assuming that the sizes of the stars we see are true to their size according to perspective, and that a further star would be smaller than a closer star.
Stars are so distant that they are pretty much a point light source, so no. The planets do vary in angular size with distance though as they orbit.

I note you have once again dodged the question about how the technology which you concede can tell us accurately our co-ordinates can work unless it has accurate maps which tell it where those co-ordinates are and how far apart they are from other co-ordinates.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: RonJ on January 06, 2022, 04:36:06 PM
Signal based navigation which gives your coordinates is also based on the stars. Whatever the signal is coming from gets its coordinates from land based stations, which themselves have a known coordinate which was based on a survey of the sky at some point. The LORAN broadcasting towers had to know their own coordinates to be able to provide ships their coordinates via radio wave, which was ultimately derived in the traditional manner from celestial bodies.

The only way to know your latitude is if it was somehow based on the stars or celestial bodies down the line. It doesn't just come from nothing.
Loran is based upon known locations on earth, that is true, but Loran hasn’t been in common use for many years.  Ship owners have uninstalled the Loran receivers years ago.  GPS is obviously a space-based navigation system and has no fixed location. Receivers on ships, or even in your cell phone, use the signal data transmitted by several GPS satellites to resolve the current position.  The GPS satellites use built in atomic clocks to provide the precise timing necessary.  This system depends on a spherical earth and the positions wouldn’t be accurate if it were not.  The same goes for the navigation procedures used ancient navigators using a sextant and the sightings of the Sun, Moon, planets, or stars. These days you wouldn’t need stars to establish your position because particular spots on the earth have agreed upon coordinates.  Ships are still required to carry sextants, navigation tables, and accurate maps based upon a spherical earth in case of a massive GPS failure.  It’s the law.   
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 06, 2022, 04:45:59 PM
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Stars are so distant that they are pretty much a point light source, so no.

The article quoted on the page (https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion) I linked says that this is false. In one example the angular diameter of Sirius is given as over one-tenth the visible diameter of the Moon.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
I'd also suggest that the constant angular size fits better with the RE model than a FE one. Your explanation is to invent a mechanism rather than accept the simplest explanation - that the consistent angular size is because of a consistent distance.

Yet the articles cited in page above explains that the sizes of stars do not represent their distance from the observer, and that they are not point light sources.

This system depends on a spherical earth and the positions wouldn’t be accurate if it were not.

Not sure about that one.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/book/export/html/1644

Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: RonJ on January 06, 2022, 05:24:45 PM
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Stars are so distant that they are pretty much a point light source, so no.

The article quoted on the page (https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion) I linked says that this is false and that the angular diameter of Sirius is over one-tenth the visible diameter of the Moon, for example.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
I'd also suggest that the constant angular size fits better with the RE model than a FE one. Your explanation is to invent a mechanism rather than accept the simplest explanation - that the consistent angular size is because of a consistent distance.

Yet the articles cited in page above explains that the sizes of stars do not represent their distance from the observer, and that they are not point light sources.

This system depends on a spherical earth and the positions wouldn’t be accurate if it were not.

Not sure about that one.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/book/export/html/1644 (https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/book/export/html/1644)

  • “ Welcome to Lesson Six of this GPS course. And this time, we'll be talking about two coordinate systems. And I have a little bit of discussion concerning heights. We've touched on that a little bit. Now these coordinate systems that we're going to discuss are plane coordinate systems based upon the fiction that the earth is flat, which, of course, immediately introduces distortion. However, much of GIS work—and GPS work as well—is done based upon this presumption. ”
It’s not unusual for some concessions to be given to the guys in the field who can’t spend hours & hours making detailed calculations to be accurate to within an inch when it usually doesn’t matter much.  I would sometimes log the exact GPS position of the ship when we were at the dock in Japan and compare that figure with the one I logged months previously.  The readings were usually very close and usually plus or minus 10 feet.  Did this really matter that much on a ship that was 1000 feet long?  Many years ago when I was first experimenting with my sextant and learning navigation I started checking my work by using the known survey markers on my land.  I couldn’t get everything to correlate and spent an inordinate number of hours working out the details.  The results were that the survey markers were incorrect and the coordinates on my property deed were incorrect.  Eventually I went to my lawyer to get everything fixed.  We have known each other for 40 years and the other day he said “yea, you cost me $200 to get your deed fixed, with a smile”.  The geodetic system is an invention by man and as long as accurate maps can be made detailing arbitrary boundaries that everyone can agree with everything should work out OK.  If there’s a seamount in the middle of the ocean its precise position is good to know.  You wouldn’t want to run your ship aground and damage the hull costing the shipping company millions and the captain and navigator their jobs.   
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: ichoosereality on January 06, 2022, 05:41:21 PM
Signal based navigation which gives your coordinates is also based on the stars. Whatever the signal is coming from gets its coordinates from land based stations, which themselves have a known coordinate which was based on a survey of the sky at some point. The LORAN broadcasting towers had to know their own coordinates to be able to provide ships their coordinates via radio wave, which was ultimately derived in the traditional manner from celestial bodies.
I specifically stated GPS as the navigation system.

Also, the stars get dimmer near the horizon as the atmosphere builds up. The assertion that they don't get dim is incorrect.
But then why do they wink out at/past the horizon rather then just continue to get dimmer?  (I'm guessing it will be "bendy light" to the rescue).
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: ichoosereality on January 06, 2022, 06:03:37 PM
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Stars are so distant that they are pretty much a point light source, so no.

The article quoted on the page (https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion) I linked says that this is false and that the angular diameter of Sirius is over one-tenth the visible diameter of the Moon, for example.
I see two referenced articles and neither say that.
The Scientific American article (https://web.archive.org/web/20190827223436/https://ia601409.us.archive.org/10/items/scientificamericanthecaseagainstcopernicus/Scientific%20American%20-%20The%20Case%20Against%20Copernicus.pdf) explores the thinking in the early 1600's, when Kepler made this claim, but ends with:
"By Hooke’s time [1674] a growing majority of scientists accepted Copernicanism, although, to a degree, they still did so in the face of scientific difficulties. Nobody convincingly recorded the annual stellar parallax until Friedrich Bessel did it in 1838. Around that same time, George Airy produced the first full theoretical explanation for why stars appear to be wider than they are, and Ferdinand Reich first successfully detected the deflection of falling bodies induced by Earth’s rotation. Also, of course, Isaac Newton’s physics—which did not work with Brahe’s system—had long since provided an explanation of how Brahe’s “hulking, lazy” Earth could move."

Likewise the Natuilus article (https://nautil.us/issue/60/searches/the-popular-creation-story-of-astronomy-is-wrong) ends with
"But the story of the Copernican Revolution shows that science was, from its birth, a dynamic process, with good points and bad points on both sides of the debate. Not until decades after Kepler’s On the New Star and Locher and Scheiner’s Mathematical Disquisitions did astronomers begin to come upon evidence suggesting that the star sizes they were measuring, either with the eye or with early telescopes, were a spurious optical effect, and that stars did not need to be so large in a Copernican universe."

So unless you want to rely on 1600's thinking as your authoritative source, the claim that angular measurement of stars supports FE is simply wrong.  We well understand this issue today and the stars are indeed very very far away and not vastly bigger than our sun.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: stack on January 06, 2022, 07:33:35 PM
This system depends on a spherical earth and the positions wouldn’t be accurate if it were not.

Not sure about that one.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/book/export/html/1644

    “ Welcome to Lesson Six of this GPS course. And this time, we'll be talking about two coordinate systems. And I have a little bit of discussion concerning heights. We've touched on that a little bit. Now these coordinate systems that we're going to discuss are plane coordinate systems based upon the fiction that the earth is flat, which, of course, immediately introduces distortion. However, much of GIS work—and GPS work as well—is done based upon this presumption. ”

Your article is specific to State Plane Coordinates and Heights, that’s actually the title of the article. The entire lesson/article is about how to account for a spherical earth in regard to plane maps while surveying. I’m not sure why you picked this article. It’s all about a projections of a globe earth.

In the United States, State Plane systems based on the Transverse Mercator projection, an Oblique Mercator projection, and the Lambert Conic map projection, grid every state, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands into their own plane rectangular coordinate system…

State Plane Coordinates rely on an imaginary flat reference surface with Cartesian axes…

Despite the fact that the assumption of a flat Earth is fundamentally wrong, calculation of areas, angles and lengths using latitude and longitude can be complicated, so plane coordinates persist because they are convenient. The calculations can be done with plane trigonometry…

Therefore, the projection of points from the Earth’s surface onto a reference ellipsoid and finally onto flat maps is still viable.


How State plane maps are created:

(https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog862/files/images/Lesson06/Map%20Projection3.png)

How GIS surveyors handle elevation factors when converting from a state plane map to the ellipsoid:

(https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog862/files/images/Lesson06/Elevation%20Factor.png)
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 06, 2022, 07:34:11 PM
Quote from: ichoosereality
So unless you want to rely on 1600's thinking as your authoritative source, the claim that angular measurement of stars supports FE is simply wrong.  We well understand this issue today and the stars are indeed very very far away and not vastly bigger than our sun.

The author of the cited articles is clearly indicating that the diameter of the stars we see are spurious and illusions:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200402225228/https://www.vofoundation.org/blog/strange-tales-galileo-proving-splitting-stars/


The author is a professor of physics and astronomy:

(https://i.imgur.com/nOm9F0j.png)

Quote from: ichoosereality
The Scientific American article explores the thinking in the early 1600's, when Kepler made this claim, but ends with:
"By Hooke’s time [1674] a growing majority of scientists accepted Copernicanism, although, to a degree, they still did so in the face of scientific difficulties. Nobody convincingly recorded the annual stellar parallax until Friedrich Bessel did it in 1838. Around that same time, George Airy produced the first full theoretical explanation for why stars appear to be wider than they are, and Ferdinand Reich first successfully detected the deflection of falling bodies induced by Earth’s rotation. Also, of course, Isaac Newton’s physics—which did not work with Brahe’s system—had long since provided an explanation of how Brahe’s “hulking, lazy” Earth could move."

This is not on the topic of the angular size of the stars. There is a different page for that - https://wiki.tfes.org/Stellar_Parallax

Your article is specific to State Plane Coordinates and Heights, that’s actually the title of the article. The entire lesson/article is about how to account for a spherical earth in regard to plane maps while surveying. I’m not sure why you picked this article. It’s all about a projections of a globe earth.

In the United States, State Plane systems based on the Transverse Mercator projection, an Oblique Mercator projection, and the Lambert Conic map projection, grid every state, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands into their own plane rectangular coordinate system…

State Plane Coordinates rely on an imaginary flat reference surface with Cartesian axes…

Despite the fact that the assumption of a flat Earth is fundamentally wrong, calculation of areas, angles and lengths using latitude and longitude can be complicated, so plane coordinates persist because they are convenient. The calculations can be done with plane trigonometry…

Therefore, the projection of points from the Earth’s surface onto a reference ellipsoid and finally onto flat maps is still viable.


Actually your quote here implies that they use FE assumptions.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: stack on January 06, 2022, 08:19:14 PM
Your article is specific to State Plane Coordinates and Heights, that’s actually the title of the article. The entire lesson/article is about how to account for a spherical earth in regard to plane maps while surveying. I’m not sure why you picked this article. It’s all about a projections of a globe earth.

In the United States, State Plane systems based on the Transverse Mercator projection, an Oblique Mercator projection, and the Lambert Conic map projection, grid every state, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands into their own plane rectangular coordinate system…

State Plane Coordinates rely on an imaginary flat reference surface with Cartesian axes…

Despite the fact that the assumption of a flat Earth is fundamentally wrong, calculation of areas, angles and lengths using latitude and longitude can be complicated, so plane coordinates persist because they are convenient. The calculations can be done with plane trigonometry…

Therefore, the projection of points from the Earth’s surface onto a reference ellipsoid and finally onto flat maps is still viable.


Actually your quote here implies that they use FE assumptions.

I'm not sure how this, "Despite the fact that the assumption of a flat Earth is fundamentally wrong" in any way supports FE. Using State Plane maps, which are based on an ellipsoid, are just simpler to use for these distances. But the whole article is all about how you get to proper elevation data based upon the ellipsoid whilst using a State Plane map. As seen by this, "Therefore, the projection of points from the Earth’s surface onto a reference ellipsoid and finally onto flat maps is still viable."

This is why State Plane coordinate systems in the United States use secant projections. In the case of Lambert projection, there are two parallels of latitude where the mapping plane cuts the Earth. In the case of Transverse Mercator, there are two approximately north-south lines that are not meridian of longitude. In both cases, these are lines of exact scale.

(https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog862/files/images/Lesson06/TangentCase.png)
Tangent Case
Source: GPS for Land Surveyors

(https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog862/files/images/Lesson06/SecantCase.png)
Secant Case
Source: GPS for Land Surveyors

Lambert & Mercator Projections:

(https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog862/files/images/Lesson06/Plane%20Coordinates.png)

This is all from the article you cited.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 06, 2022, 08:25:56 PM
I'm not sure how this, "Despite the fact that the assumption of a flat Earth is fundamentally wrong" in any way supports FE.

The key word there is "despite". Despite that it's wrong (allegedly), it's used.

Quote
Using State Plane maps, which are based on an ellipsoid

It's the other way around. The spherical coordinates are approximated from plane surveying - https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: ichoosereality on January 06, 2022, 08:43:16 PM
Quote from: ichoosereality
So unless you want to rely on 1600's thinking as your authoritative source, the claim that angular measurement of stars supports FE is simply wrong.  We well understand this issue today and the stars are indeed very very far away and not vastly bigger than our sun.

The author of the cited articles is clearly indicating that the diameter of the stars we see are spurious and illusions:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200402225228/https://www.vofoundation.org/blog/strange-tales-galileo-proving-splitting-stars/

You see, the disk-like appearance of stars that Galileo saw through his telescope was completely spurious. Telescopes have limitations, brought on by the fact that light is a wave. They cannot concentrate light waves down into a small enough spot to show a star truly (the scientific term for this issue is diffraction). Very small telescopes are particularly limited in this regard. That disk-like appearance of 5 arc seconds in diameter that Galileo writes about is entirely a product of his telescope. That disk is formed inside the telescope. It does not exist outside the telescope. And since it does not exist outside the telescope, it cannot be cut in half by anything outside the telescope. But Galileo did not know this.

This is, in fact, how astronomers first began to figure out that the star disks were spurious. They watched the moon pass in front of stars. They noticed (to their surprise) that the moon did not cut into a star and gradually cover up the star’s disk. Rather, the moon had no effect on the star at all for a while, and then suddenly the star winked out all at once (when the moon finally covered the true body of the star, which is just a vanishingly small point as measured from Earth). But at the time of Galileo and the Dialogue, no one had realized this.
The Scientific American articles that is referenced from the fe wiki page you offered DOES specially deal with stellar angular sizes, but no matter.
So we are all agreed that the method of estimating the size of a distant star by measuring the size of the disk one sees in a telescope is spurious.  I thought you were arguing FOR this technique when you said
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The article quoted on the page I linked says that this is false and that the angular diameter of Sirius is over one-tenth the visible diameter of the Moon, for example.
apologies if I got that wrong.

The distance to "nearby" stars like Proxima Centauri (4.24 ly == 4.88 trillion miles) that appear to move (as the earth orbits the sun) against the background of stars that do not appear to move can be estimated via parallax from opposed sides of the earth's orbit (see https://www.britannica.com/story/how-do-we-know-how-far-away-the-stars-are).  Much more distant stars present much more of a challenge, but even Proxima Centauri is vastly further away that allowed for in the FE model, isn't it?

Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: stack on January 06, 2022, 09:18:23 PM
I'm not sure how this, "Despite the fact that the assumption of a flat Earth is fundamentally wrong" in any way supports FE.

The key word there is "despite". Despite that it's wrong (allegedly), it's used.

It's used because, as your article states, "Despite the fact that the assumption of a flat Earth is fundamentally wrong, calculation of areas, angles and lengths using latitude and longitude can be complicated, so plane coordinates persist because they are convenient. The calculations can be done with plane trigonometry…"

Quote
Using State Plane maps, which are based on an ellipsoid

It's the other way around. The spherical coordinates are approximated from plane surveying - https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

Not according to your article, "Therefore, the projection of points from the Earth’s surface onto a reference ellipsoid and finally onto flat maps is still viable."

You realize that "State Plane" maps refer to the United States only, hence the name. And you realize that GPS stands for Global Positioning System. And GPS is based on the WGS84 ellipsoid standard. I guess GPS only works in the US?

The State Plane Coordinate System (SPCS), which is only used in the United States, is a plane coordinate system (north-south and east-west lines are perpendicular) in which each individual state has between one to six zones, depending on the state's size and shape. This coordinate system’s high level of accuracy is achieved through the use of relatively small zones.
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-state-plane-coordinate-system-can-gps-provide-coordinates-these-values


Outside a specific state plane zone accuracy rapidly declines, thus the system is not useful for regional or national mapping.
http://wiki.gis.com/wiki/index.php/State_Plane_Coordinate_System
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2022, 02:40:21 AM
Quote from: ichoosereality
The Scientific American articles that is referenced from the fe wiki page you offered DOES specially deal with stellar angular sizes, but no matter.
So we are all agreed that the method of estimating the size of a distant star by measuring the size of the disk one sees in a telescope is spurious.  I thought you were arguing FOR this technique when you said

Apparently the sizes of the galaxies are also an illusion. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies#Angular_Size_of_Galaxies)

If something is causing the stars and galaxies to enlarge, and the perspective rules don't apply to them, the argument that the Sun would shrink becomes less powerful. Since it is difficult to conduct controlled experimentation on the celestial bodies this argument of what "should" happen exists as an exercise of assumptions.

Recall the quote on this page (https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience) by Edgar Zilsel - "Natural events are usually compounds of numerous effects produced by different causes, and these can hardly be separately investigated until most of them are eliminated by artificial means. There is, therefore, in all empirical sciences a distinct trend toward experimentation."

Since it is difficult to do experimental work with the stars, and astronomy exists nearly entirely of fallible human assumption and attempt at logic, we can see that we don't know much.

Quote from: ichoosereality
The distance to "nearby" stars like Proxima Centauri (4.24 ly == 4.88 trillion miles) that appear to move (as the earth orbits the sun) against the background of stars that do not appear to move can be estimated via parallax from opposed sides of the earth's orbit (see https://www.britannica.com/story/how-do-we-know-how-far-away-the-stars-are).  Much more distant stars present much more of a challenge, but even Proxima Centauri is vastly further away that allowed for in the FE model, isn't it?

This is contradicted by the negative parallax that occurs. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Stellar_Parallax)
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: ichoosereality on January 07, 2022, 04:14:52 AM
Quote from: ichoosereality
The Scientific American articles that is referenced from the fe wiki page you offered DOES specially deal with stellar angular sizes, but no matter.
So we are all agreed that the method of estimating the size of a distant star by measuring the size of the disk one sees in a telescope is spurious.  I thought you were arguing FOR this technique when you said

Apparently the sizes of the galaxies are also an illusion. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies#Angular_Size_of_Galaxies)

If something is causing the stars and galaxies to enlarge, and the perspective rules don't apply to them, the argument that the Sun would shrink becomes less powerful. Since it is difficult to conduct controlled experimentation on the celestial bodies this argument of what "should" happen exists as an exercise of assumptions.

Recall the quote on this page (https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience) by Edgar Zilsel - "Natural events are usually compounds of numerous effects produced by different causes, and these can hardly be separately investigated until most of them are eliminated by artificial means. There is, therefore, in all empirical sciences a distinct trend toward experimentation."

Since it is difficult to do experimental work with the stars, and astronomy exists nearly entirely of fallible human assumption and attempt at logic, we can see that we don't know much.
I'd say that the consensus of astronomers/cosmologists is that in the last 20-30 years we have seen the birth of a new era of astronomy clearly departing from the era of assumptions and grounded in observations.  Not merely Hubble and Gaia but the vast number of space telescopes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_telescopes) has revolutionized our understanding of the cosmos and that will continue with Kepler.   Since Zilsel died in 1944 we don't know his view.

Quote from: ichoosereality
The distance to "nearby" stars like Proxima Centauri (4.24 ly == 4.88 trillion miles) that appear to move (as the earth orbits the sun) against the background of stars that do not appear to move can be estimated via parallax from opposed sides of the earth's orbit (see https://www.britannica.com/story/how-do-we-know-how-far-away-the-stars-are).  Much more distant stars present much more of a challenge, but even Proxima Centauri is vastly further away that allowed for in the FE model, isn't it?

This is contradicted by the negative parallax that occurs. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Stellar_Parallax)
Referencing your own wiki as authoritative  come on.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2022, 07:15:09 AM
Apparently the sizes of the galaxies are also an illusion. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies#Angular_Size_of_Galaxies)

If something is causing the stars and galaxies to enlarge, and the perspective rules don't apply to them, the argument that the Sun would shrink becomes less powerful. Since it is difficult to conduct controlled experimentation on the celestial bodies this argument of what "should" happen exists as an exercise of assumptions.

Recall the quote on this page (https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience) by Edgar Zilsel - "Natural events are usually compounds of numerous effects produced by different causes, and these can hardly be separately investigated until most of them are eliminated by artificial means. There is, therefore, in all empirical sciences a distinct trend toward experimentation."

Since it is difficult to do experimental work with the stars, and astronomy exists nearly entirely of fallible human assumption and attempt at logic, we can see that we don't know much.
I'd say that the consensus of astronomers/cosmologists is that in the last 20-30 years we have seen the birth of a new era of astronomy clearly departing from the era of assumptions and grounded in observations.  Not merely Hubble and Gaia but the vast number of space telescopes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_telescopes) has revolutionized our understanding of the cosmos and that will continue with Kepler.   Since Zilsel died in 1944 we don't know his view.

Even under those claims, the spacecraft are still just observing, and not experimenting, on the stars to know their true nature.

It's also not only his claim that experimentation is required for quality science. See: The Scientific Method, The Scientific Renaissance, Roger Bacon, the Astronomy is a Pseudoscience (https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience) page

Quote from: ichoosereality
Quote from: ichoosereality
The distance to "nearby" stars like Proxima Centauri (4.24 ly == 4.88 trillion miles) that appear to move (as the earth orbits the sun) against the background of stars that do not appear to move can be estimated via parallax from opposed sides of the earth's orbit (see https://www.britannica.com/story/how-do-we-know-how-far-away-the-stars-are).  Much more distant stars present much more of a challenge, but even Proxima Centauri is vastly further away that allowed for in the FE model, isn't it?

This is contradicted by the negative parallax that occurs. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Stellar_Parallax)
Referencing your own wiki as authoritative  come on.

In many cases the Wiki does not provide content of its own, and its pages are references of sources. I could simply just spam it all here; but I am kind enough to allow you to go there to organized pages with organized sections and see that you are incorrect.

Avoiding addressing the content linked to you is a very weak debate tactic.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2022, 07:19:03 AM
Quote from: stack
It's used because, as your article states, "Despite the fact that the assumption of a flat Earth is fundamentally wrong, calculation of areas, angles and lengths using latitude and longitude can be complicated, so plane coordinates persist because they are convenient. The calculations can be done with plane trigonometry…"

The reason why they think or assert they are using it is rather irrelevant compared to the main point that they are using it.

Quote from: stack
Quote from: Tom Bishop
It's the other way around. The spherical coordinates are approximated from plane surveying - https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

Not according to your article, "Therefore, the projection of points from the Earth’s surface onto a reference ellipsoid and finally onto flat maps is still viable."

Actually your quote was not about plane surveying. The page I link chronicles how the maps are flat, plane surveying is flat, and that the idealized spherical world model is based upon those flat maps.

Quote from: stack
You realize that "State Plane" maps refer to the United States only, hence the name. And you realize that GPS stands for Global Positioning System. And GPS is based on the WGS84 ellipsoid standard. I guess GPS only works in the US?

The State Plane Coordinate System (SPCS), which is only used in the United States, is a plane coordinate system (north-south and east-west lines are perpendicular) in which each individual state has between one to six zones, depending on the state's size and shape. This coordinate system’s high level of accuracy is achieved through the use of relatively small zones.

Other countries have their own mapping systems, and they are flat. Again, it's explained in the page I linked.

The point is that the supposedly "round" systems use flat systems for presenting data to users. Utah Geographic Reference Center wrote an article about it: The Earth is Not Round! Utah, NAD83 and WebMercator Projections (https://gis.utah.gov/nad83-and-webmercator-projections/)

The spherical models are getting data from flat datasets. When you claim that the systems are inaccurate because they are using flat data you are betraying your own proof of using these systems as evidence for a spherical model.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: AATW on January 07, 2022, 09:51:52 AM
If something is causing the stars and galaxies to enlarge, and the perspective rules don't apply to them, the argument that the Sun would shrink becomes less powerful. Since it is difficult to conduct controlled experimentation on the celestial bodies this argument of what "should" happen exists as an exercise of assumptions.

Your arguments are all over the place. I said:

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Stars are so distant that they are pretty much a point light source, so no.

You replied:

The article quoted on [my own wiki which I wrote and everything] says that this is false. In one example the angular diameter of Sirius is given as over one-tenth the visible diameter of the Moon.

And then literally in the same page you say:

The author of the cited articles is clearly indicating that the diameter of the stars we see are spurious and illusions

And quote this article, by someone you hold up as an authority. The article you quoted says:
the true body of the star, which is just a vanishingly small point as measured from Earth). But at the time of Galileo and the Dialogue, no one had realized this.

My emphasis. So you've started off by disagreeing with a point I made and then almost immediately quoted someone you hold as an authority who says pretty much the same as what I did ???

And this issue, which is now well understood, does not apply to the sun and moon which are a lot closer than other celestial objects like other stars and galaxies. It's nothing to do with "celestial objects" being special in any way, it's an issue with diffraction of point light sources. So you still need to explain why the sun and moon don't vary in angular size throughout the day and night. You have some explanation on the Wiki, I've explained why it doesn't work.

You keep trying to derail this thread, which is about maps.
Can you explain how the technology which you concede can tell us accurately our co-ordinates can work unless it has accurate maps which tell it where those co-ordinates are and how far apart they are from other co-ordinates?
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: ichoosereality on January 07, 2022, 06:52:48 PM
Even under those claims, the spacecraft are still just observing, and not experimenting, on the stars to know their true nature.
Experiments are of course good, but observations alone are very useful as at least those tell us what exists and whether or not they match predictions.   Gravity probe B was designed specifically to directly observe the curvature of space and it was successful and confirmed General Relativey on this point as well as Frame Dragging (which I would likely not try to explain even if I understood it, which I do not).

The actual paper by Maxim Sukharev (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.06165.pdf) about pseudoscience does not insist on an experiment where all conditions can be controlled but only experimentally testable (i.e. observable) results as to whether or not they match prediction (in his example that our cave got dark at the predicted time or in a more modern example that Gravity Probe B would detect a particular curvature, which it did).
Quote
1. Observe – sometimes it is dark in our cave and sometimes we see the light.
2. Question – we then question these observations as to why we see periodic changes.
3. Hypothesis – we need a possible explanation based on our previously acquired knowledge.
At early stage any hypothesis would work (but remember that it is better to propose simple
and logical hypotheses because they are easier to verify experimentally).
4. Predict – this is where it gets really interesting! In order to test our hypothesis, however mystical and crazy it may look, we need to make an experimentally testable prediction: in
10 hours it is going to be dark again.
5. Test predictions – well, is it dark? It is vital in this method that a given test must be done
objectively and could be independently repeated. This is where the scientific method truly distinguishes between what is real (objective) and what is just a figure of our imagination (or fraudulent attempt).
6. Draw a conclusion – if our prediction was successfully verified, we keep our hypothesis for now and come up with another possible test until we either disprove it or promote it to the level of theory.
Clearly FE theory falls very flat (pun intended) on this score.
Does not the methodology laid out by Sukharev clearly show FET to be false?

It's also not only his claim that experimentation is required for quality science. See: The Scientific Method, The Scientific Renaissance, Roger Bacon, the Astronomy is a Pseudoscience (https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience) page
Interesting that none of these references call out modern astronomy as a pseudoscience.  Stanford University doesn't seem to have an issue with the observational nature of astronomy https://physics.stanford.edu/research/experimental-and-observational-astrophysics-and-cosmology.

Quote from: ichoosereality
The distance to "nearby" stars like Proxima Centauri (4.24 ly == 4.88 trillion miles) that appear to move (as the earth orbits the sun) against the background of stars that do not appear to move can be estimated via parallax from opposed sides of the earth's orbit (see https://www.britannica.com/story/how-do-we-know-how-far-away-the-stars-are).  Much more distant stars present much more of a challenge, but even Proxima Centauri is vastly further away that allowed for in the FE model, isn't it?

This is contradicted by the negative parallax that occurs. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Stellar_Parallax)
This appears to be self published.  Further it is about the claim that stellar parallax proves the earth orbits the sun, which is not at issue here.  This is a classic technique of the FE crowed.  Find some snippet in some paper that you think supports your case.  But its the scientific consensus that we lay folks need to pay attention too.

In many cases the Wiki does not provide content of its own, and its pages are references of sources. I could simply just spam it all here; but I am kind enough to allow you to go there to organized pages with organized sections and see that you are incorrect.

Avoiding addressing the content linked to you is a very weak debate tactic.
Offering quotes from people who died centuries ago (Bacon for example) as support for your claims (particularly around things like modern astronomy that Bacon could not have dreamed of) is hardly a strong debate tactic.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: stack on January 07, 2022, 08:09:42 PM
Quote from: stack
It's used because, as your article states, "Despite the fact that the assumption of a flat Earth is fundamentally wrong, calculation of areas, angles and lengths using latitude and longitude can be complicated, so plane coordinates persist because they are convenient. The calculations can be done with plane trigonometry…"

The reason why they think or assert they are using it is rather irrelevant compared to the main point that they are using it.

Why would the reason for using something be irrelevant to using something?

Quote from: stack
Quote from: Tom Bishop
It's the other way around. The spherical coordinates are approximated from plane surveying - https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

Not according to your article, "Therefore, the projection of points from the Earth’s surface onto a reference ellipsoid and finally onto flat maps is still viable."

Actually your quote was not about plane surveying. The page I link chronicles how the maps are flat, plane surveying is flat, and that the idealized spherical world model is based upon those flat maps.

Where does it say in the article that "the idealized spherical world model is based upon those flat maps."? I can't find that anywhere.

Quote from: stack
You realize that "State Plane" maps refer to the United States only, hence the name. And you realize that GPS stands for Global Positioning System. And GPS is based on the WGS84 ellipsoid standard. I guess GPS only works in the US?

The State Plane Coordinate System (SPCS), which is only used in the United States, is a plane coordinate system (north-south and east-west lines are perpendicular) in which each individual state has between one to six zones, depending on the state's size and shape. This coordinate system’s high level of accuracy is achieved through the use of relatively small zones.

Other countries have their own mapping systems, and they are flat. Again, it's explained in the page I linked.

What mapping systems are those. Other than UTM, I couldn't find any in the article.

The point is that the supposedly "round" systems use flat systems for presenting data to users. Utah Geographic Reference Center wrote an article about it: The Earth is Not Round! Utah, NAD83 and WebMercator Projections (https://gis.utah.gov/nad83-and-webmercator-projections/)

The spherical models are getting data from flat datasets. When you claim that the systems are inaccurate because they are using flat data you are betraying your own proof of using these systems as evidence for a spherical model.

You are wrong. The State Plane mapping system was developed in the 1930's. It uses two globe projections, both spherical, Lambert Conformal & Transverse Mercator, depending on the State shape.

This coordinate system is referred to here as the State Plane Coordinate System of 1927 (SPCS 27). It is based on a network of geodetic control points referred to as the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 1927 or NAD27).
https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/10.3/guide-books/map-projections/state-plane-coordinate-system.htm#GUID-6233DDDC-9ABF-48AB-AE30-04DC268229C9

Originally, the state plane coordinate systems were based on the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Plane_Coordinate_System

The North American Datum (NAD) is the horizontal datum now used to define the geodetic network in North America. A datum is a formal description of the shape of the Earth along with an "anchor" point for the coordinate system.

n 1887 the English surveyor Colonel Alexander Ross Clarke CB FRS RE was awarded the Gold Medal of the Royal Society for his work in determining the figure of the Earth. The international ellipsoid was developed by John Fillmore Hayford in 1910 and adopted by the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) in 1924, which recommended it for international use.

In 1901 the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey adopted a national horizontal datum called the United States Standard Datum, based on the Clarke Ellipsoid of 1866

As more data were gathered, discrepancies appeared, so the datum was recomputed in 1927, using the same spheroid and origin as its predecessor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Datum

From NOAA's 'Manual NOS NGS5' titled, "State Plane Coordinate System 1983" (https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/ManualNOSNGS5.pdf), dated 1990:

Not only will the published geodetic position of each control point change, but the State plane coordinates will change for the following reasons:

- The plane coordinates are mathematically derived (using "mapping equations") from Geodetic coordinates:.


Geodetic Coordinates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_coordinates)

Geodetic coordinates are a type of curvilinear orthogonal coordinate system used in geodesy based on a reference ellipsoid.

So you see, sorry, you are wrong. The Ellipsoid datums and spherical projections are what were (are) used as the underlying structure of the State Plane map system. Not the other way around as you contend. Not to mention the original reference ellipsoid used pre-dates State Plan map creation by 60+ years.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2022, 08:47:50 AM
I said:

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Stars are so distant that they are pretty much a point light source, so no.

You replied:

The article quoted on [my own wiki which I wrote and everything] says that this is false. In one example the angular diameter of Sirius is given as over one-tenth the visible diameter of the Moon.

And then literally in the same page you say:

The author of the cited articles is clearly indicating that the diameter of the stars we see are spurious and illusions

And quote this article, by someone you hold up as an authority. The article you quoted says:
the true body of the star, which is just a vanishingly small point as measured from Earth). But at the time of Galileo and the Dialogue, no one had realized this.

My emphasis. So you've started off by disagreeing with a point I made and then almost immediately quoted someone you hold as an authority who says pretty much the same as what I did ???

Actually he says that the stars appear as measurable disks in telescopes:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200402225228/https://www.vofoundation.org/blog/strange-tales-galileo-proving-splitting-stars/

Quote
You see, the disk-like appearance of stars that Galileo saw through his telescope was completely spurious. Telescopes have limitations, brought on by the fact that light is a wave. They cannot concentrate light waves down into a small enough spot to show a star truly (the scientific term for this issue is diffraction). Very small telescopes are particularly limited in this regard. That disk-like appearance of 5 arc seconds in diameter that Galileo writes about is entirely a product of his telescope. That disk is formed inside the telescope. It does not exist outside the telescope. And since it does not exist outside the telescope, it cannot be cut in half by anything outside the telescope. But Galileo did not know this.

This is, in fact, how astronomers first began to figure out that the star disks were spurious. They watched the moon pass in front of stars. They noticed (to their surprise) that the moon did not cut into a star and gradually cover up the star’s disk. Rather, the moon had no effect on the star at all for a while, and then suddenly the star winked out all at once (when the moon finally covered the true body of the star, which is just a vanishingly small point as measured from Earth). But at the time of Galileo and the Dialogue, no one had realized this.

The "true body of the star" is not the visible star that we see; but is something which is supposedly the "real star".

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
And this issue, which is now well understood, does not apply to the sun and moon which are a lot closer than other celestial objects like other stars and galaxies. It's nothing to do with "celestial objects" being special in any way, it's an issue with diffraction of point light sources. So you still need to explain why the sun and moon don't vary in angular size throughout the day and night. You have some explanation on the Wiki, I've explained why it doesn't work.

You are assuming now that the Sun we see is the real sun as it appears to perspective. Considering that you lied to make an argument, by ignoring that there is a difference between the stars we see and their "true" forum, we can see how dishonest you are.

No, actually, you need to explain why the stars and galaxies are illusions but nothing else is in the sky.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2022, 09:10:32 AM
Experiments are of course good, but observations alone are very useful as at least those tell us what exists and whether or not they match predictions.

Observational science is defined as pseudoscience. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience) Science must follow the scientific method.

Quote from: ichoosereality
Clearly FE theory falls very flat (pun intended) on this score.
  • FET predicts some sort of atmospheric containment mechanism (all encompassing dome, 70 mile high ice wall, infinite plane, or ...) at the rim of the claimed flat disk yet despite centuries of travel no such thing has ever been observed.
  • FET predicts distances and hence travel times that are significantly different from RET times particularly from the equator to the "rim" (which ever hemisphere your favored FE model uses), yet again after centuries of travel the FET times are not observed while RET times and distances fit perfectly.
  • FET can not deal with sunrise and sunset (or star rise and set) without "bendy light" which is not even specified sufficiently to make a testable prediction.
Does not the methodology laid out by Sukharev clearly show FET to be false?

Some elements in FE are pseudoscience, and some of it is not. Anything astronomy is pseudoscience, like in RE astronomy is largely pseudoscience, since it cannot be directly tested.

Travel in the South can be tested, and there are various anomalies which are of interest: https://wiki.tfes.org/Flight_Anomalies

Quote from: ichoosereality
Interesting that none of these references call out modern astronomy as a pseudoscience.  Stanford University doesn't seem to have an issue with the observational nature of astronomy https://physics.stanford.edu/research/experimental-and-observational-astrophysics-and-cosmology.

Scientific American has a problem with the cosmology professed on websites like that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSREKOX4Img&ab_channel=jeranism%5BMirrorChannel%5D

Quote from: ichoosereality
This appears to be self published.  Further it is about the claim that stellar parallax proves the earth orbits the sun, which is not at issue here.  This is a classic technique of the FE crowed.  Find some snippet in some paper that you think supports your case.  But its the scientific consensus that we lay folks need to pay attention too.

Refusal to appropriately address the argument provided means that you lost it.

Quote from: ichoosereality
Offering quotes from people who died centuries ago (Bacon for example) as support for your claims (particularly around things like modern astronomy that Bacon could not have dreamed of) is hardly a strong debate tactic.

Actually it's easy to find that the Scientific Method is still the standard for science, and has nothing to do with only applying to Roger Bacon's time.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience

Quote
Phys.org

Science website phys.org says:

How scientists can learn what distinguishes science from pseudoscience (https://phys.org/news/2014-11-scientists-distinguishes-science-pseudoscience.html) (Archive)

  “ Pseudoscience mimics aspects of science while fundamentally denying the scientific method. A useful definition of the scientific method is:

    principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

A key phrase is "testing of hypotheses". We test hypotheses because they can be wrong. ”

Livescience

According to What is Science? (https://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html) (Archive) on livescience.com we read:

  “ When conducting research, scientists use the scientific method to collect measurable, empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis (often in the form of an if/then statement), the results aiming to support or contradict a theory. ”

US Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court (1993) in Daubert v. Merrell made a determination (https://law.onecle.com/ussc/509/509us590.html) (Archive) of what qualifies as "scientific knowledge":

  “ [I]n order to qualify as ‘scientific knowledge,’ an inference or assertion must be derived by the scientific method. ”
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2022, 09:51:32 AM
Quote from: stack
It's used because, as your article states, "Despite the fact that the assumption of a flat Earth is fundamentally wrong, calculation of areas, angles and lengths using latitude and longitude can be complicated, so plane coordinates persist because they are convenient. The calculations can be done with plane trigonometry…"

The reason why they think or assert they are using it is rather irrelevant compared to the main point that they are using it.

Why would the reason for using something be irrelevant to using something?

Because the main point is that they are using them. The question of why it is in use compared to the statement that they are in use is a different line of inquiry entirely and does nothing to contradict it.

Quote from: stack
Where does it say in the article that "the idealized spherical world model is based upon those flat maps."? I can't find that anywhere.

Right here:

http://www.boshamlife.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/PrimeMeridian.pdf

  “ By 1911, the Greenwich meridian had been accepted as the prime meridian for the whole world. However, relating the maps of an individual country or region to a standard system of latitude and longitude is not only difficult, it is nearly impossible. The earth is approximately spherical, but maps are flat. They are fitted as closely as possible to the surface of the earth in one region, but when fitting them to a standard system of latitude and longitude, there are bound to be slight discrepancies. The differences between the coordinate systems used by different maps really didn’t matter until recently. When the GPS system was introduced in the 1980s, it was realised that having dozens of ‘local’ systems of latitude and longitude for different countries wasn’t going to work. A single coordinate system had to be devised, which would give the best results for every part of the world. It is known as WGS 84 (World Geodetic System 1984).

The spherical earth is based on "flat maps".

Quote from: stack
You are wrong. The State Plane mapping system was developed in the 1930's. It uses two globe projections, both spherical, Lambert Conformal & Transverse Mercator, depending on the State shape.

Incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Plane_Coordinate_System

  “ The State Plane Coordinate System (SPS or SPCS) is a set of 124 geographic zones or coordinate systems designed for specific regions of the United States. Each state contains one or more state plane zones, the boundaries of which usually follow county lines. There are 110 zones in the contiguous US, with 10 more in Alaska, 5 in Hawaii, and one for Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands. The system is widely used for geographic data by state and local governments. Its popularity is due to at least two factors. First, it uses a simple Cartesian coordinate system to specify locations rather than a more complex spherical coordinate system (the geographic coordinate system of latitude and longitude). By using the Cartesian coordinate system's simple XY coordinates, "plane surveying" methods can be used, speeding up and simplifying calculations.

It literally has the word "plane" in the name.  ::)

Quote
The North American Datum (NAD) is the horizontal datum now used to define the geodetic network in North America. A datum is a formal description of the shape of the Earth along with an "anchor" point for the coordinate system.

Lower down in the above article we read that the State Plane Coordinate Systems are associated with the North American Datum of 1983:

  “ Originally, the state plane coordinate systems were based on the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27). Later, the more accurate North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) became the standard (a geodetic datum is the way a coordinate system is linked to the physical Earth). More recently there has been an effort to increase the accuracy of the NAD83 datum using technology that was not available in 1983. ”

The United States Government echoes the same association:

https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/united-states-stateplane-zones-nad83

  “ United States Stateplane Zones - NAD83 Metadata Updated: August 11, 2016

U.S. State Plane Zones (NAD 1983) represents the State Plane Coordinate System (SPCS) Zones for the 1983 North American Datum within United States. ”

These systems involve flat coordinate systems. There may be a backend element which uses an ellipsoid to connect to other systems for converting coordinates between geographic models, but the data is flat. Utah's page The Earth is Not Round! Utah, NAD83 and WebMercator Projections (https://gis.utah.gov/nad83-and-webmercator-projections/) says that the spherical models are getting data from the flat ones.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: AATW on January 10, 2022, 10:22:00 AM
Actually he says that the stars appear as measurable disks in telescopes
Yes. And he explains why. It's amusing that you accuse me of dishonesty when you have bolded the part which makes your point, quoted the part which explains why but didn't bold it  :D

Quote
No, actually, you need to explain why the stars and galaxies are illusions but nothing else is in the sky.
It's explained in the part you quoted. Try reading it.

Your continued attempt to derail this thread, which is about maps, is noted. So I'll try again:
Can you explain how the technology which you concede can tell us accurately our co-ordinates can work unless it has accurate maps which tell it where those co-ordinates are and how far apart they are from other co-ordinates?
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Gonzo on January 10, 2022, 11:24:54 AM


Travel in the South can be tested, and there are various anomalies which are of interest: https://wiki.tfes.org/Flight_Anomalies



I've been an air traffic controller for 23 years, and I find nothing anomalous about air travel in the southern hemishpere. It's literally tested every day.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: stack on January 10, 2022, 05:36:27 PM
Quote from: stack
It's used because, as your article states, "Despite the fact that the assumption of a flat Earth is fundamentally wrong, calculation of areas, angles and lengths using latitude and longitude can be complicated, so plane coordinates persist because they are convenient. The calculations can be done with plane trigonometry…"

The reason why they think or assert they are using it is rather irrelevant compared to the main point that they are using it.

Why would the reason for using something be irrelevant to using something?

Because the main point is that they are using them. The question of why it is in use compared to the statement that they are in use is a different line of inquiry entirely and does nothing to contradict it.

The answer to the question as to why they are used is right up there, above, "Despite the fact that the assumption of a flat Earth is fundamentally wrong, calculation of areas, angles and lengths using latitude and longitude can be complicated, so plane coordinates persist because they are convenient." But they become inaccurate when using larger areas:

"Now these coordinate systems that we're going to discuss are plane coordinate systems based upon the fiction that the earth is flat, which, of course, immediately introduces distortion."

Quote from: stack
Where does it say in the article that "the idealized spherical world model is based upon those flat maps."? I can't find that anywhere.

Right here:

http://www.boshamlife.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/PrimeMeridian.pdf

  “ By 1911, the Greenwich meridian had been accepted as the prime meridian for the whole world. However, relating the maps of an individual country or region to a standard system of latitude and longitude is not only difficult, it is nearly impossible. The earth is approximately spherical, but maps are flat. They are fitted as closely as possible to the surface of the earth in one region, but when fitting them to a standard system of latitude and longitude, there are bound to be slight discrepancies. The differences between the coordinate systems used by different maps really didn’t matter until recently. When the GPS system was introduced in the 1980s, it was realised that having dozens of ‘local’ systems of latitude and longitude for different countries wasn’t going to work. A single coordinate system had to be devised, which would give the best results for every part of the world. It is known as WGS 84 (World Geodetic System 1984).

The spherical earth is based on "flat maps".

From one of the articles you previously cited:

It's when the flat map, the flat coordinate system, extends beyond a limited area that the distortion can get out of hand.  Therefore, the projection of points from the Earth’s surface onto a reference ellipsoid and finally onto flat maps (https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/book/export/html/1644) is still viable.

As for this new citation above regarding the UK's version of "State Plane Maps", you missed some bits. In the article it states that:

The datum for most Ordnance Survey maps is ‘OSGB 1936’, in which the Greenwich meridian is, indeed, zero degrees. Other maps, using ‘WGS 84’ as the datum, or any device which is based on the GPS system, will show a discrepancy comparable to the one which I found.

‘OSGB 1936’:

The grid is based on the OSGB36 datum (Ordnance Survey Great Britain 1936, based on the Airy 1830 ellipsoid), and was introduced after the retriangulation of 1936–1962.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_National_Grid

All mapping in Great Britain is in the OSGB36 National Grid coordinate reference system, and heights are above mean sea level defined at Newlyn in Cornwall – Ordnance Datum Newlyn (ODN).  OSGB36 is what might be termed a “traditional” datum.  The “36” refers to 1936 when the coordinate reference system concepts were designed and adopted. It uses an ellipsoid, known as Airy 1830, that’s fitted close to the geoid just across the area of GB.

Quote from: stack
You are wrong. The State Plane mapping system was developed in the 1930's. It uses two globe projections, both spherical, Lambert Conformal & Transverse Mercator, depending on the State shape.

Wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Plane_Coordinate_System

  “ The State Plane Coordinate System (SPS or SPCS) is a set of 124 geographic zones or coordinate systems designed for specific regions of the United States. Each state contains one or more state plane zones, the boundaries of which usually follow county lines. There are 110 zones in the contiguous US, with 10 more in Alaska, 5 in Hawaii, and one for Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands. The system is widely used for geographic data by state and local governments. Its popularity is due to at least two factors. First, it uses a simple Cartesian coordinate system to specify locations rather than a more complex spherical coordinate system (the geographic coordinate system of latitude and longitude). By using the Cartesian coordinate system's simple XY coordinates, "plane surveying" methods can be used, speeding up and simplifying calculations.

It literally has the word "plane" in the name.  ::)

Sure, using the plane maps allows for "plane surveying" techniques to be used. That's the whole point as to why they exist, Plane surveying techniques, "...so plane coordinates persist because they are convenient."

Quote
The North American Datum (NAD) is the horizontal datum now used to define the geodetic network in North America. A datum is a formal description of the shape of the Earth along with an "anchor" point for the coordinate system.

Lower down in the above article we read that the State Plane Coordinate Systems are associated with the North American Datum of 1983:

  “ Originally, the state plane coordinate systems were based on the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27). Later, the more accurate North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) became the standard (a geodetic datum is the way a coordinate system is linked to the physical Earth). More recently there has been an effort to increase the accuracy of the NAD83 datum using technology that was not available in 1983. ”

The United States Government echoes the same association:

https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/united-states-stateplane-zones-nad83

  “ United States Stateplane Zones - NAD83 Metadata Updated: August 11, 2016

U.S. State Plane Zones (NAD 1983) represents the State Plane Coordinate System (SPCS) Zones for the 1983 North American Datum within United States. ”

These systems involve flat coordinate systems. There may be a backend element which uses an ellipsoid to connect to other systems for converting coordinates between geographic models, but the data is flat. Utah's page The Earth is Not Round! Utah, NAD83 and WebMercator Projections (https://gis.utah.gov/nad83-and-webmercator-projections/) says that the spherical models are getting data from the flat ones.

Yes, quite the compelling title for the article, "The Earth is not Round". However, everything in the article references a baseline of an ellipsoid. Heck, they even have an image as to how Utah is positioned on a globe earth:

(https://gis.utah.gov/images/projections.png)

The State Plane Coordinate System of 1927 was designed in the 1930s by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (predecessor of the National Ocean Service) to enable surveyors, mappers, and engineers to connect their land or engineering surveys to a common reference system, the North American Datum of 1927.

NAD27:

The North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) uses a starting point at a base station in Meades Ranch, Kansas and the Clarke Ellipsoid to calculate the shape of the Earth.

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/why-are-usgs-historical-topographic-maps-referenced-outdated-datums

And in your quote above, "Originally, the state plane coordinate systems were based on the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27)."

What about "based on" are you unclear about?

The long an short of all this is nowhere can you point to where State plane maps are not based on an ellipsoid model. Whether it be NAD27, NAD83, WGS84 datums, or otherwise. Not to mention that all State plane maps use Globe projections for display.  Your entire assertion that State plane maps are not based on an ellipsoid is completely dismantled by the evidence.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: ichoosereality on January 10, 2022, 07:00:27 PM
Experiments are of course good, but observations alone are very useful as at least those tell us what exists and whether or not they match predictions.

Observational science is defined as pseudoscience. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience) Science must follow the scientific method.
The only reference to "observational science" on that wiki page is the U of Madison statement that astronomy is an observational science, sure that's obvious.
You completely ignored my quote from Maxim Sukharev's paper on the scientific method (he is your FIRST quote on the wiki here about the scientific method).  Here is the key part
Quote
4. Predict – this is where it gets really interesting! In order to test our hypothesis, however mystical and crazy it may look, we need to make an experimentally testable prediction: in
10 hours it is going to be dark again.
5. Test predictions – well, is it dark? It is vital in this method that a given test must be done
objectively and could be independently repeated. This is where the scientific method truly distinguishes between what is real (objective) and what is just a figure of our imagination (or fraudulent attempt).
Note that the key part is to make a prediction and test that prediction against observation.  That observation can of course be of a controled experiment where you can modify numerous conditions but it need not be (as it was not in Sukharev's example).

Quote from: ichoosereality
Clearly FE theory falls very flat (pun intended) on this score.
  • FET predicts some sort of atmospheric containment mechanism (all encompassing dome, 70 mile high ice wall, infinite plane, or ...) at the rim of the claimed flat disk yet despite centuries of travel no such thing has ever been observed.
  • FET predicts distances and hence travel times that are significantly different from RET times particularly from the equator to the "rim" (which ever hemisphere your favored FE model uses), yet again after centuries of travel the FET times are not observed while RET times and distances fit perfectly.
  • FET can not deal with sunrise and sunset (or star rise and set) without "bendy light" which is not even specified sufficiently to make a testable prediction.
Does not the methodology laid out by Sukharev clearly show FET to be false?

Some elements in FE are pseudoscience, and some of it is not. Anything astronomy is pseudoscience, like in RE astronomy is largely pseudoscience, since it cannot be directly tested.
My question was not whether FE claims are pseudoscience (that's obvious), but whether FETheory is FALSE according to Sukharev's outline of the scientific method. 

Travel in the South can be tested, and there are various anomalies which are of interest: https://wiki.tfes.org/Flight_Anomalies
We have traveled extensively around the planet and the times/distance match the RE model and are not close to matching the FE model.  Grasping at straws of "well they are not non-stop flights" and "there are storms and unusual winds" does not get you out of this. Such things are not remotely of sufficient scale to account for the extreme distances around the edge of FET claimed disk not to mention no one ever observing this claimed edge despite global travel (much of which should be impossible with the FE model).

Plus of course you completely ignored the atmospheric containment mechanism that FET predicts but has never been observed.

Quote from: ichoosereality
Interesting that none of these references call out modern astronomy as a pseudoscience.  Stanford University doesn't seem to have an issue with the observational nature of astronomy https://physics.stanford.edu/research/experimental-and-observational-astrophysics-and-cosmology.

Scientific American has a problem with the cosmology professed on websites like that:
(link to Jeranism reading a Scientific American article deleted).  If you would like to hold Scientific American up as a source of truth, then show us an article there claiming the earth is flat?
Of course you can not do so.  Further it is not one published paper which makes the case, that is only the first step.  The work must be repeated and verified and stand the test of time.

I agree that cosmology is highly speculative (so do many, maybe even most, cosmologists).  We were not talking about cosmology, if my reference to the astrophysics work at Stanford where they clearly delineate observation vs experiment (clearly finding scientific value in both) side tracked that conversation then my bad  The point of the article is that even in their experimental work, it is often about making a special tool to observe.  e.g. we can not generate gravity waves but the project to detect them is clearly classified as experimental.

Quote from: ichoosereality
This appears to be self published.  Further it is about the claim that stellar parallax proves the earth orbits the sun, which is not at issue here.  This is a classic technique of the FE crowed.  Find some snippet in some paper that you think supports your case.  But its the scientific consensus that we lay folks need to pay attention too.
Refusal to appropriately address the argument provided means that you lost it.
No Tom, your insistence to pluck quotes from random self published papers means you never really made the argument.  The whole point of peer review is that lay folks like you and I and likely everyone on this site, do not have the expertise to know what is being left out, what should the author have addressed, how was the analysis performed etc. 

Quote from: ichoosereality
Offering quotes from people who died centuries ago (Bacon for example) as support for your claims (particularly around things like modern astronomy that Bacon could not have dreamed of) is hardly a strong debate tactic.

Actually it's easy to find that the Scientific Method is still the standard for science, and has nothing to do with only applying to Roger Bacon's time.
The Scientific Method does not require experiments where all conditions can be controlled but predictions which can be tested by observation (potentially of an experiment, but that is not required).  My reference to Bacon who lived 700 years ago was that he could not comment about modern astronomy.

I am not questioning the scientific method, I am asserting that those pushing FET are NOT using it.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Kangaroony on January 11, 2022, 09:45:16 AM
There is no easily seen Southern Star. To find North-South in the South celestial navigation uses various constellations that have stars in them that tend to be aligned North-South. There are also other methods to determine latitude by the stars without needing a Southern Star.

Of course there's a "Southern Star"  —visible from the entire southern hemisphere, and even from
some extremely southerly land masses within the northern hemisphere.  It's within a constellation
know as the "Crux" or cross.  Its brightest multiple star system is Acrux, which looks like a single
bright star.

(https://i.postimg.cc/kX0VndRH/Deep-Crux-wide-field-with-fog-1.jpg)

I can walk out of my house now, and find it (and determine north) in about 5 seconds.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Action80 on January 11, 2022, 11:59:40 AM
... why are you convinced about RE when there is no agreed upon map?

There is an agreed-upon map.
Patently untrue.
If there were not, international travellers would be getting lost, every day. The fact that they all get to their destinations, whether by international flight, ocean voyage, by train or by motor vehicle, is the proof the map is agreed.
Utterly ridiculous.

There is a recommended route to many destinations, but no agreed upon map, even for RE.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Action80 on January 11, 2022, 12:09:28 PM
I mean exactly what I wrote.

Do you have an answer or not?
I don't think I understand the question. In what way is there no agreed map of the earth?
By "map" here, I don't mean a flat piece of paper. I mean it in the more general sense that the earth has been mapped - we know the size and shapes of land masses and the distances between places.
In what way do you think any of that is in dispute? We have a whole global transport system and technologies like GPS which rely on this being the case.
I understand your need to firmly cling to the concept: Humanity has a grip on the size and shape of land masses and the distances between places.

And for most places we do; however, the "go to" argument for many RE-adherents here is this: Why the FE map has a problem with the size of Australia, conveniently ignoring, for instance, the problem with the size of Greenland AND Africa on the Mercator.

The fact of the matter is, given the many imperfections of the land (mountains, valleys, hills, and dales, etc.) the true flat earth plane could be relegated to a sphere of the appropriate size accounting for these imperfections and not indicative of its true shape.

That is how the globe came to be.
You get bullshit when you try to paint reality (i.e., flat earth) in unreal terms (i.e., spherical)

Actually, you get bullshit when you try to paint flat earth into real tearms(sic).  This is why there is no agreed upon FE map.  IF the earth were flat, creating a map of said earth would be an incredibly simple task with modern technology.  It actually would have been an incredibly simple task with less than modern technology.
When you have an agreed upon RE map, then feel free to come back and tell us how "easy," it is.

Jesus, you write as if you are a world renown cartographer or something.

You have no clue about how easy something would be. If you did, then you would have used an "easy," spell check to correct your post.

I'll give you the something (maybe you were a boy scout and took the map reading badge course, who knows), but I will not concede the world-renown cartographer.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: AATW on January 11, 2022, 12:58:19 PM
the "go to" argument for many RE-adherents here is this: Why the FE map has a problem with the size of Australia, conveniently ignoring, for instance, the problem with the size of Greenland AND Africa on the Mercator.
Wow.

The reason the Mercator map has a problem with the sizes and shapes of places is because the earth is (roughly) a sphere and a map is not.
It is not geometrically possible to accurately depict the surface of a sphere on a plane.
So any map is a projection from the surface of a sphere on to a plane. That's why all map projections have distortions. Different projections simply distort things in different ways.
This is also why Google Maps now, when you zoom out enough, starts showing the earth as a sphere so as not to distort things.

But none of this would be a problem if the earth was flat. If the earth is flat and maps are flat then the only issue is scaling.
So the fact there is no RE map - as you are defining it - is evidence that the earth isn't flat.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Tumeni on January 11, 2022, 04:48:18 PM
Patently untrue.

Why? Just because you say so?

There is a recommended route to many destinations, but no agreed upon map, even for RE.

Again, why? Because you say so?

I said there's an agreed map, and gave reason why. Do you have any reasons?
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Kangaroony on January 15, 2022, 02:23:34 PM
Incorrect. The Sun gets gradually weaker and outputs less intensity as it descends. The sun is not giving out as much energy at 45 degrees than when it is directly overhead. Your assertion that the Sun maintains its output or intensity is fundamentally incorrect.

Not so.  The energy output remains exactly the same at every part of the day (and night).  It's done
so for billions of years, and in all likelihood will effectively do so for billions more.  To claim that
the output of the sun varies on a periodic basis is erroneous.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
On Sunlight Intensity:

https://firstrays.com/supplemental-light/

"Natural sunlight intensity starts at zero just before dawn, reaches a peak at noon and then fades back to zero at dusk. As we have shown, that “intensity curve” can be estimated by a triangle."

This is referring to the amount of sunlight striking the earth's surface at a given time, and not any
variation in the output of the sun's energy.  And that amount varies—naturally—from sunrise to noon
to sunset.  You've completely misinterpreted that report and graph from the gardening site Tom.  Sorry.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
You are assuming that the sizes of the stars we see are true to their size according to perspective, and that a further star would be smaller than a closer star.

Of course two stars of the same physical size will appear to be larger or smaller than the other dependent
on their distance from the observer.  This is not an "assumption" but an optical and/or geometric fact.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: inquisitive on February 25, 2022, 08:32:19 PM
I mean exactly what I wrote.

Do you have an answer or not?
I don't think I understand the question. In what way is there no agreed map of the earth?
By "map" here, I don't mean a flat piece of paper. I mean it in the more general sense that the earth has been mapped - we know the size and shapes of land masses and the distances between places.
In what way do you think any of that is in dispute? We have a whole global transport system and technologies like GPS which rely on this being the case.
I understand your need to firmly cling to the concept: Humanity has a grip on the size and shape of land masses and the distances between places.

And for most places we do; however, the "go to" argument for many RE-adherents here is this: Why the FE map has a problem with the size of Australia, conveniently ignoring, for instance, the problem with the size of Greenland AND Africa on the Mercator.

The fact of the matter is, given the many imperfections of the land (mountains, valleys, hills, and dales, etc.) the true flat earth plane could be relegated to a sphere of the appropriate size accounting for these imperfections and not indicative of its true shape.

That is how the globe came to be.
You get bullshit when you try to paint reality (i.e., flat earth) in unreal terms (i.e., spherical)

Actually, you get bullshit when you try to paint flat earth into real tearms(sic).  This is why there is no agreed upon FE map.  IF the earth were flat, creating a map of said earth would be an incredibly simple task with modern technology.  It actually would have been an incredibly simple task with less than modern technology.
When you have an agreed upon RE map, then feel free to come back and tell us how "easy," it is.

Jesus, you write as if you are a world renown cartographer or something.

You have no clue about how easy something would be. If you did, then you would have used an "easy," spell check to correct your post.

I'll give you the something (maybe you were a boy scout and took the map reading badge course, who knows), but I will not concede the world-renown cartographer.
It is not about maps. It's the model. WGS83.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: astroman on March 04, 2022, 12:29:26 PM
Quote
The article quoted on the page I linked says that this is false. In one example the angular diameter of Sirius is given as over one-tenth the visible diameter of the Moon.
Where do you get this tosh from Tom? Sirius over one tenth the visible diameter of the Moon!?! You don't actually believe that to be true do you?  The Moons visible diameter is half a degree give or take a few arc minutes. Lets call it 32 arc minutes.

That means one tenth of that is 3.2 arc minutes which is actually larger than the apparent size of Jupiter in a telescope at opposition. Jupiter was 47 arc seconds in size last August 20th when it was opposition. 47 arc seconds is less than 1 minute of arc (60") as I'm sure you know.  Do something for me Tom. Next clear night aim your telescope at Sirius and confirm for me that it looks over 190 arc seconds to you. That would be pretty amazing! That would be saying that the disk size of Sirius is over 3x the apparent size of Jupiter! Absolutely no way.

The little disk we see when we look at a star through a telescope is known as the Airy disk. The size of that depends on telescope aperture and is an optical effect only. The larger the aperture the smaller the Airy disk. Nothing to do with the star itself.

You link mentions about Kepler who was and still is renowned for his equations for planetary motion. His views about the size and distance of the stars however it seems were in need of some revision.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: astroman on March 04, 2022, 05:01:52 PM
Quote
Even under those claims, the spacecraft are still just observing, and not experimenting, on the stars to know their true nature.
Oh I see, so just because we can't go sample collecting among the stars to bring back to Earth for experimenting on, that means we haven't a clue about the nature of the stars. Right Tom? I can probably learn more about the stars from my back garden using my own spectroscope than you will ever know.

Obviously your definition of the scientific method does not include observation as a means of collecting data. I wonder why that would be? I think many others would take a different view. Especially those who do not confine themselves to the flat Earth version of the scientific method.
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2022, 05:11:33 PM
Quote
The article quoted on the page I linked says that this is false. In one example the angular diameter of Sirius is given as over one-tenth the visible diameter of the Moon.
Where do you get this tosh from Tom? Sirius over one tenth the visible diameter of the Moon!?! You don't actually believe that to be true do you?  The Moons visible diameter is half a degree give or take a few arc minutes. Lets call it 32 arc minutes.

Why are you asking for a source when I gave it, and you cut it out of your quote? Dishonest.

Quote
The little disk we see when we look at a star through a telescope is known as the Airy disk. The size of that depends on telescope aperture and is an optical effect only. The larger the aperture the smaller the Airy disk. Nothing to do with the star itself.

Yeah, claiming that the sizes of the stars are optical illusions definitely supports the narrative that the sizes of the stars and celestial bodies are not optical illusions. ::)

Quote
Oh I see, so just because we can't go sample collecting among the stars to bring back to Earth for experimenting on, that means we haven't a clue about the nature of the stars. Right Tom? I can probably learn more about the stars from my back garden using my own spectroscope than you will ever know.

You can do so, but it is not considered scientific knowledge. The US Supreme Court (1993) in Daubert v. Merrell made a determination of what qualifies as "scientific knowledge":

https://web.archive.org/web/20211108172509/https://law.onecle.com/ussc/509/509us590.html

  “ [I]n order to qualify as ‘scientific knowledge,’ an inference or assertion must be derived by the scientific method. ”
Title: Re: Flat Earth maps?
Post by: astroman on March 04, 2022, 05:15:52 PM
Quote
Why are you asking for a source when I gave it, and you cut it out of your quote? Dishonest.
Who needs 'sources' in the form of descriptions of how big they imagined the stars to be during the 17th century when you can simply go out and have a look for yourself? In any case Tom your 'sources' are always just links to a page of your FE Wiki. Hardly what can be described as 'independent'. Just go outside, look through a telescope at any star and then look at Jupiter or Saturn even.  See the difference?  You can see the disk of Jupiter with a simple pair of binoculars but Sirius will only ever appear as a point source. Surprise surprise!

It is completely ludicrous to even suggest that Sirius is ever going to look much bigger in an eyepiece than the largest planet in the solar system.  Don't you think? I don't know what telescopes they were using back in the 17th century but if that's the impression that Kepler got then there was something seriously wrong going on.

If you can see Sirius looking like a disk 3x the size of Jupiter through your telescope Tom then either it doesn't work, you are looking through the wrong end (only kidding) or it is seriously out of focus. A star out of focus is going to look like a big disk. I don't know about you but I always find telescopes perform better when they are in focus.

Quote
Yeah, claiming that the sizes of the stars are optical illusions definitely supports the narrative that the sizes of the stars and celestial bodies are not optical illusions.
I never said anything about optical illusions did I.  I said the Airy disk is an optical effect of how telescopes work.  Lenses and mirrors are round and the focal plane forms a small circle.  That is the Airy disk. Nothing to do with optical illusions.

Quote
You can do so, but it is not considered scientific knowledge. The US Supreme Court (1993) in Daubert v. Merrell made a determination of what qualifies as "scientific knowledge":

Good for them...I don't particularly give a damn what the US supreme court says about scientific knowledge. I tend to go with scientific organisations rather than the law courts to decide on a  definition about what is or what isn't scientific knowledge. Count up how many times the word 'observation' crops up in this source about what scientific knowledge is. Is the US Supreme Court a recognised scientific organisation? Scientific knowledge is gained from the data that we gather. How can we do that completely if we don't count the observations that we make of how nature works? Even when carrying out experiments we learn by observing the results of those experiments.

https://whatmaster.com/what-is-scientific-knowledge/

or indeed this one.. this one even mentions about ancient beliefs about the world being flat!

https://www.visionlearning.com/en/library/Process-of-Science/49/The-Nature-of-Scientific-Knowledge/185

We know the distance to Sirius and anyone with an ounce of common sense will realise that you are never going to see any physical disk on something that far away with any telescope. The reason being the visible disk diameter is much, much less than the resolving power of any telescope. Hence we see them as point sources.

You may not accept modern methods of measuring the distances to the stars because they don't fall in line with what you want to believe, but that in itself doesn't make them any less valid. Mother nature decides what is true and what isn't, not you. 

With regards to Keplers 'De Stella Nova' publication, I have downloaded the publication but I cannot find any reference to where he apparently addressed the size of the nova. As suggested by the Wiki article...

Quote
In On the New Star, Kepler addressed the size of the nova
He did describe the position of the nova relative to nearby stars (with excellent accuracy) and the brightness curve but not the 'size'. He also described how he imagined that all other stars to be giants.  But it doesn't mention the size of the nova specifically. Perhaps you could provide a page number where he addresses that?   Many people seem to describe brightness in terms of size. For example I have heard people say 'I saw Venus last night and it looked really big'. But of course what they mean is it looked really bright. 

Obviously knowledge of the stars in general back in the early 17th century was not quite on a par with what it is today. Thanks largely to developments in spectroscopy and optics during the mid-19th century. You cannot really base your understanding of the stars now with what was known about them during the 17th century.  Except perhaps if it helps your position on what you believe.