[Tom Bishop]

So, in order to make all of this work, you also have to assume that this relationship does not hold over water for some reason, despite many centuries of people navigating via latitude/longitude over the oceans.

You also have to ask yourself why this perfectly aligns with a spherical earth model. Yes, I know, oblate spheroid, but it's so close to being a sphere that it might as well be, at least compared to, say, a flat model.

The phrase is "cognitive dissonance", and the reason you have it is because you are trying to examine evidence and fit it into a model that has been shown to not fit the evidence for thousands of years. Keep at it, and you will either start to ignore the evidence, or you will convince yourself the earth is not flat.

Where is your evidence that everything perfectly aligns with the Round Earth model?

Where is your data and study of paths between all points on earth and comparison with the lat/lon coordinate system?

If you cannot produce significant evidence for this wild claim, other than fallacious appeals, then you will need to stop making it.

[Tontogary]

So, in order to make all of this work, you also have to assume that this relationship does not hold over water for some reason, despite many centuries of people navigating via latitude/longitude over the oceans.

You also have to ask yourself why this perfectly aligns with a spherical earth model. Yes, I know, oblate spheroid, but it's so close to being a sphere that it might as well be, at least compared to, say, a flat model.

The phrase is "cognitive dissonance", and the reason you have it is because you are trying to examine evidence and fit it into a model that has been shown to not fit the evidence for thousands of years. Keep at it, and you will either start to ignore the evidence, or you will convince yourself the earth is not flat.

Where is your evidence that everything perfectly aligns with the Round Earth model?

Where is your data and study of paths between all points on earth and comparison with the lat/lon coordinate system?

If you cannot produce significant evidence for this wild claim, other than fallacious appeals, then you will need to stop making it.

And does any of the data align with the OP model? Maybe you can point out how the path of the sun follows over the OP model? And the distances used and measured by ships can be reconciled to the OP model?
How about the courses, from Luanda to Recife in Brazil? I have been on that voyage and didnt bump into Liberia. Can you explain why that was?

I believe this thread is based around the map created in the OP, therefore we are discussing the OP map?

On the same rationale, unless you can explain (other than just pointing at EnaG) how Fe hypothesis first in with what we see then surely you need to stop claiming the earth is flat?

[Tom Bishop]

We do generally admit the limits of our knowledge. However, you guys consistently state "this is known" and "the data is consistent" and similar statements. If you are going to make such claims of something being known, then you are expected to demonstrate your claims.

If you cannot demonstrate your claims, that is an automatic lose.

[douglips]

So, in order to make all of this work, you also have to assume that this relationship does not hold over water for some reason, despite many centuries of people navigating via latitude/longitude over the oceans.

You also have to ask yourself why this perfectly aligns with a spherical earth model. Yes, I know, oblate spheroid, but it's so close to being a sphere that it might as well be, at least compared to, say, a flat model.

The phrase is "cognitive dissonance", and the reason you have it is because you are trying to examine evidence and fit it into a model that has been shown to not fit the evidence for thousands of years. Keep at it, and you will either start to ignore the evidence, or you will convince yourself the earth is not flat.

Where is your evidence that everything perfectly aligns with the Round Earth model?

Where is your data and study of paths between all points on earth and comparison with the lat/lon coordinate system?

If you cannot produce significant evidence for this wild claim, other than fallacious appeals, then you will need to stop making it.

I have given you this several times in the past.
Navigation manuals from the Royal Navy from the early 19th century, including tables of latitude and longitude for many places around the world.
The logbooks of Captain Cook.

It goes on and on. Even you admitted that latitude and longitude are quantities that can be measured. Once you can measure them, and if you can also measure distances (which we can using a car's odometer), you can get the relationships I mentioned.

The nautical mile is DEFINED to be the distance of 1 minute of arc of latitude. That's a DEFINITION. I don't have to show you anything else.
All the other observations have been confirmed thousands of times by navigators all over the planet.

Max_Almond has posted to this thread, again, the website of shipping lanes.

It is literally every thread I have ever posted to on this board, and every automobile, airplane, ship, and covered wagon trip undergone on this planet for the past 500 years.

[edby]

There is also disconfirmation, which is generally a stronger test than confirmation. There is ample data to confirm the RE model. Of course you can always object 'this is not enough', although you need to specify what would count as enough.

There is also data to disconfirm the FE model. You don't need as much as to confirm the other model. All you need is four points on the earth, and reasonably accurate measurement of the six distances between them. Mathematically, this is enough to disconfirm FE.

Even you [Bishop] admitted that latitude and longitude are quantities that can be measured. Once you can measure them, and if you can also measure distances (which we can using a car's odometer), you can get the relationships I mentioned.

Correct. Latitude and longitude are essentially measures of position. Once you combine these with accurate measurement of surface distance, you can measure the shape of the earth’s surface.

An car odometer is a highly intuitive measure of surface distance, although changes in height will lessen its accuracy, plus you wouldn’t expect the combination of rubber and tarmac to give a super accurate figure.

Far more accurate is the system of triangulation which was used across the world from the 18th to the 19th century. Below is a picture of the Indian Survey which took about sixty years. The Shruve Arc was another such survey.

Tom, if you are suggesting there was something wrong with the method used in these surveys, you really need to say what this was. They occupied the time and labour of many thousands of people over hundreds of years, who were all striving for the greatest possible accuracy. What in your view was wrong with the measurement or method?

[douglips]

Here's a book from 1788:
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z7ZfAAAAcAAJ&pg=PR34&dq=geographical+mile&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbkITJgMHbAhVQJDQIHYHQCTsQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&f=false

See page xxxiii and xxxiv for the number of miles vs. latitude and longitude.

[Max_Almond]

I can't help but feeling we're getting a little off-topic here: the thread isn't about defending or proving the globe earth, it's about helping David Apple refine his proposed flat earth map.

So far we've done nicely with bringing him new information which will assist him in his project - and no doubt he's setting at it and will come back with an improved version.

But I can't help but feel this last page has been a bit of a derailment, and that it might not be better placed in a new thread.

Perhaps Tom could start one titled something like "Evidence that the globe earth isn't real" and give us something to look at.

In the meantime, I look forward to DA's updated version of his very attractive map.

[Tumeni]

We do generally admit the limits of our knowledge. However, you guys consistently state "this is known" and "the data is consistent" and similar statements. If you are going to make such claims of something being known, then you are expected to demonstrate your claims.

As was said, a nautical mile is defined as a particular subdivision of a degree of latitude or longitude.

In a similar fashion, there used to be, in Trafalgar Square, London, a brass plaque which defined the Imperial Inch, Foot and Yard. Can we take these as defined, or do you expect someone to show that these are "known"?

If I recall correctly, the metre was defined by someone or some body in France. Do we have to prove the metre is correct to satisfy you?

Are you expecting a proof of every definition?

[iamcpc]

We do generally admit the limits of our knowledge. However, you guys consistently state "this is known" and "the data is consistent" and similar statements. If you are going to make such claims of something being known, then you are expected to demonstrate your claims.

If you cannot demonstrate your claims, that is an automatic lose.

It's one thing to claim that the earth is flat. It's a totally different claim to say that, in hundreds of years of advancement in navigation, cartography, math, surveying, and science that the distance between two cities is totally unknown or a claim that we have no idea what a map of the earth looks like.

If we have no idea what a map of the earth looks like how on earth am I able to use google maps? How am I able to drive from Alaska to Mexico?

by the way Google maps has photographic evidence backing up their map "claims"

[Tontogary]

We do generally admit the limits of our knowledge. However, you guys consistently state "this is known" and "the data is consistent" and similar statements. If you are going to make such claims of something being known, then you are expected to demonstrate your claims.

If you cannot demonstrate your claims, that is an automatic lose.

It's one thing to claim that the earth is flat. It's a totally different claim to say that, in hundreds of years of advancement in navigation, cartography, math, surveying, and science that the distance between two cities is totally unknown or a claim that we have no idea what a map of the earth looks like.

If we have no idea what a map of the earth looks like how on earth am I able to use google maps? How am I able to drive from Alaska to Mexico?

by the way Google maps has photographic evidence backing up their map "claims"

And herein lies the problem.....
The “satellites” maps on google are claimed to be fake, because there are no satellites possible on FE. Therefore they cannot be accurate, or are representations of what we expect to see.

If you drive from one place to another using your Sat Nav, this is not accepted as there are reservations regarding it accuracy (i personally have no concerns, but that is my opinion) and of course if there are no satellites, GPS cannot exist.

Also one of the main issues of the FEers is that our charts and maps are created with the premise of the earth being round, and as it is known by the FE community to be flat, then the maps and charts must be in error.

So we need to explore ways of looking at the earth which do not rely upon the earth being a globe, and discuss methods and ideas that do not rely upon the basic principle of the world being a globe.

Challenging i know, and i look forwards to the discussions hopefully to follow by the FE believers

[davidapple]

I can't help but feeling we're getting a little off-topic here: the thread isn't about defending or proving the globe earth, it's about helping David Apple refine his proposed flat earth map.

So far we've done nicely with bringing him new information which will assist him in his project - and no doubt he's setting at it and will come back with an improved version.

But I can't help but feel this last page has been a bit of a derailment, and that it might not be better placed in a new thread.

Perhaps Tom could start one titled something like "Evidence that the globe earth isn't real" and give us something to look at.

In the meantime, I look forward to DA's updated version of his very attractive map.

Thanks Max. Yeah I'm working on it. Thanks everyone for the feedback, I don't mind reading through a few off topic posts to get some context.

[Dr David Thork]

Its the kind of map that isn't seen very often, and might therefore lend itself to T-shirts, mugs and other nice things if David wants some of his time back in the form of silver. From flat earth perspective, an alternative might be nice without the lines of longitude. IE without the working ... which can just be enjoyed from its own asthetic layout of the land masses.

David has one North Pole and 4 South Poles. Obviously for flat earth, those 4 points are actually are a single point, all joined by a circle (perimeter) with its centre at the North Pole.

[edby]

Its the kind of map that isn't seen very often, and might therefore lend itself to T-shirts, mugs and other nice things if David wants some of his time back in the form of silver. From flat earth perspective, an alternative might be nice without the lines of longitude. IE without the working ... which can just be enjoyed from its own asthetic layout of the lad masses.

David has one North Pole and 4 South Poles. Obviously for flat earth, those 4 points are actually are a single point, all joined by a circle (perimeter) with its centre at the North Pole.

[Dr David Thork]

You know what I mean. The whole South is the south pole on an FE map.

[edby]

You know what I mean. The whole South is the south pole on an FE map.

No it still makes no sense. Do you mean that all those places which are different on the FE map are actually the same place in reality? Then it's not an accurate map, is it. Imagine if I were trying to find Paddington station on a map which actually had four different spots where the station would be, quite far apart. Then I would have a 1 in 4 chance of getting there, no?

[iamcpc]

And herein lies the problem.....
The “satellites” maps on google are claimed to be fake, because there are no satellites possible on FE. Therefore they cannot be accurate, or are representations of what we expect to see.

If you drive from one place to another using your Sat Nav, this is not accepted as there are reservations regarding it accuracy (i personally have no concerns, but that is my opinion) and of course if there are no satellites, GPS cannot exist.

Also one of the main issues of the FEers is that our charts and maps are created with the premise of the earth being round, and as it is known by the FE community to be flat, then the maps and charts must be in error.

So we need to explore ways of looking at the earth which do not rely upon the earth being a globe, and discuss methods and ideas that do not rely upon the basic principle of the world being a globe.

Challenging i know, and i look forwards to the discussions hopefully to follow by the FE believers

Google maps has millions and millions of photographs taken from Google map cars which provides strong, non satellite, evidence that someone actually drove down those streets to create the map. I'm not talking about a round earth, i'm not talking about a satellite, i'm talking about a semi accurate map of the earth.

The earth could be flat, round, oval, or a freaking cylinder and we should at least be able to agree that we know that Canada is north of the United states. We should be able to agree that Brazil is in South America which is South of Mexico.

[douglips]

You know what I mean. The whole South is the south pole on an FE map.

That's great! And since the pole is at 90 degrees south latitude, you should be able to go there, measure 90 degrees latitude, travel a large number of miles in some direction, and still measure 90 degrees latitude!

Except - when Amundsen went there he only found one place with 90 degrees latitude.

[Max_Almond]

You know what I mean. The whole South is the south pole on an FE map.

There's an FE map? Can we see it?

[Tontogary]

And herein lies the problem.....
The “satellites” maps on google are claimed to be fake, because there are no satellites possible on FE. Therefore they cannot be accurate, or are representations of what we expect to see.

If you drive from one place to another using your Sat Nav, this is not accepted as there are reservations regarding it accuracy (i personally have no concerns, but that is my opinion) and of course if there are no satellites, GPS cannot exist.

Also one of the main issues of the FEers is that our charts and maps are created with the premise of the earth being round, and as it is known by the FE community to be flat, then the maps and charts must be in error.

So we need to explore ways of looking at the earth which do not rely upon the earth being a globe, and discuss methods and ideas that do not rely upon the basic principle of the world being a globe.

Challenging i know, and i look forwards to the discussions hopefully to follow by the FE believers

Google maps has millions and millions of photographs taken from Google map cars which provides strong, non satellite, evidence that someone actually drove down those streets to create the map. I'm not talking about a round earth, i'm not talking about a satellite, i'm talking about a semi accurate map of the earth.

The earth could be flat, round, oval, or a freaking cylinder and we should at least be able to agree that we know that Canada is north of the United states. We should be able to agree that Brazil is in South America which is South of Mexico.

Agreed, but google street view has nothing to do with mapping!
All that does is to take a picture and assign it to a geographical location on a map that is already drawn. It does not create a map.
They do however use sat nav to identify their position on a map when taking the pictures.....

Which does nothing to determine where the locations of various continents and other places on a map actually are.

[Tontogary]

You know what I mean. The whole South is the south pole on an FE map.

But Tom says in a different post that the flat earth community rejected the monopole idea over 100 years ago.

Then it cannot be true that the South Pole is all around the world at the south, which is a monopole model yes?

And the OP model does not have a bi polar model presented. I suggest that the OP might want to reflect the possibility of the bi polar model, just in case it turns out to be the accurate form?