The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: zp0okii on August 21, 2017, 06:57:26 PM

Title: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: zp0okii on August 21, 2017, 06:57:26 PM
If the earth is flat, why was the path of totality for the solar eclipse curved down through Georgia? Shouldn't the path of totality move around the "perimeter" of a flat earth? I'm pretty sure there isn't a cliff a few miles off the southeast coast of Florida... seeing as there is a continent to the south and the Atlantic Ocean with dozens of island nations to the southeast and east.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: muffinskill on August 21, 2017, 07:24:31 PM
For some reason they say it could be an "..object separate from the moon.."

lol.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 22, 2017, 05:09:10 PM
You are assuming that North America on a Flat Earth would shaped as it is in Round Earth Theory.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: inquisitive on August 22, 2017, 05:18:17 PM
You are assuming that North America on a Flat Earth would shaped as it is in Round Earth Theory.
There is only one shape of the earth, how would you propose determining it?
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: zp0okii on August 22, 2017, 06:03:27 PM
I am assuming that North America looks the way topographers/cartographers have depicted it for centuries now. How do you believe North America is shaped? How could North America be shaped to explain the curve of the path of totality? What's more, why can NASA predict, down to the minute and mile, when and where the path of totality will be?

You are assuming that North America on a Flat Earth would shaped as it is in Round Earth Theory.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 22, 2017, 06:24:49 PM
I am assuming that North America looks the way topographers/cartographers have depicted it for centuries now. How do you believe North America is shaped?

We presently lack the funding to look into the matter to any acceptable level. However, the point stands.

Quote
How do you believe North America is shaped?

The Round Earth coordinate system would look different on a Flat Earth, since lat/long assumes a Round Earth, and therefore the landmasses would look different. This is deserving of a research project. Unfortunately there is a lack of funding to look into this matter at present.

Quote
What's more, why can NASA predict, down to the minute and mile, when and where the path of totality will be?

The sun and moon have traveled over the surface of the earth for eons. It is possible to create a model which predict where the coordinates of the Sun's path will be tomorrow based on previous occurrences. It has traveled that path before and is therefore predicable.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: StinkyOne on August 22, 2017, 06:27:38 PM
I am assuming that North America looks the way topographers/cartographers have depicted it for centuries now. How do you believe North America is shaped?

We presently lack the funding to look into the matter to any acceptable level. However, the point stands.

Quote
How do you believe North America is shaped?

The Round Earth coordinate system would look different on a Flat Earth, since lat/long assumes a Round Earth, and therefore the landmasses would look different. This is deserving of a research project. Unfortunately there is a lack of funding to look into this matter at present.

Quote
What's more, why can NASA predict, down to the minute and mile, when and where the path of totality will be?

The sun and moon have traveled over the surface of the earth for eons. It is possible to create a model which predict where the coordinates of the Sun's path will be tomorrow based on previous occurrences. It has traveled that path before and is therefore predicable.

Tom - how do the sun and moon cross paths if they orbit one another?
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 22, 2017, 06:29:14 PM
Tom - how do the sun and moon cross paths if they orbit one another?

Where in our materials have you seen it stated that they orbit each other?
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: inquisitive on August 22, 2017, 06:34:25 PM
I am assuming that North America looks the way topographers/cartographers have depicted it for centuries now. How do you believe North America is shaped?

We presently lack the funding to look into the matter to any acceptable level. However, the point stands.

Quote
How do you believe North America is shaped?

The Round Earth coordinate system would look different on a Flat Earth, since lat/long assumes a Round Earth, and therefore the landmasses would look different. This is deserving of a research project. Unfortunately there is a lack of funding to look into this matter at present.

Quote
What's more, why can NASA predict, down to the minute and mile, when and where the path of totality will be?

The sun and moon have traveled over the surface of the earth for eons. It is possible to create a model which predict where the coordinates of the Sun's path will be tomorrow based on previous occurrences. It has traveled that path before and is therefore predicable.
Who, again,  is 'we'?  Please describe how you would create this model.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: StinkyOne on August 22, 2017, 06:52:07 PM
Tom - how do the sun and moon cross paths if they orbit one another?

Where in our materials have you seen it stated that they orbit each other?
Fully willing to admit I may be misinterpreting your theory, but from the images I've seen in the wiki, it appears they share an orbit around a common gravitational center. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: TomInAustin on August 22, 2017, 07:04:12 PM
You are assuming that North America on a Flat Earth would shaped as it is in Round Earth Theory.

The shape of North America is well known. Please provide evidence that it's not.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: zp0okii on August 22, 2017, 07:28:16 PM

Quote
We presently lack the funding to look into the matter to any acceptable level. However, the point stands.

So, you have no evidence to stand against the work of cartographers? Are all cartographers conspiring to propagate the "Round Earth Myth"? You need to provide evidence of some kind if this is the case - a defector's interview, or something to that effect. Are you prepared to furnish those?

Quote
The Round Earth coordinate system would look different on a Flat Earth, since lat/long assumes a Round Earth, and therefore the landmasses would look different. This is deserving of a research project. Unfortunately there is a lack of funding to look into this matter at present.

Cartographers are paid to do this kind of thing all the time - and many do it for fun on their own! How are we able to travel if our maps are incorrect? We have sacrificed relative size of regions for accuracy in distance (the classic maps we see are an example of this) - if the world were flat, this wouldn't be necessary! Distance and size would be constant due to transcribing locations from a flat plane (a flat earth) onto another flat plane (some paper).

Quote
The sun and moon have traveled over the surface of the earth for eons. It is possible to create a model which predict where the coordinates of the Sun's path will be tomorrow based on previous occurrences. It has traveled that path before and is therefore predicable.

But NASA can predict the next path of totality for the solar eclipse in 2024 - can Flat Earthers do this?
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 22, 2017, 07:36:08 PM
The sun and moon have traveled over the surface of the earth for eons. It is possible to create a model which predict where the coordinates of the Sun's path will be tomorrow based on previous occurrences. It has traveled that path before and is therefore predicable.

But NASA can predict the next path of totality for the solar eclipse in 2024 - can Flat Earthers do this?
FE (using the Saros cycle) can indeed predict a path and date, because each pass of a Saros cycle moves by a known amount. What I believe they cannot predict - at the very least to the same degree of accuracy - is the precise times the eclipse passes over any location, and how long it stays there. That isn't something the Saros cycle would know as far as I'm aware, but NASA can in fact predict with their equations.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: geckothegeek on August 23, 2017, 04:53:48 AM
Tom - how do the sun and moon cross paths if they orbit one another?

Where in our materials have you seen it stated that they orbit each other?

One animated diagram shows the moon and the sun in the same orbital path over the flat earth.
One flat earth definition says the moon and the sun are both 30 miles in diameter and 3000 miles above the earth.
Since the moon and the sun travel at different speeds, what keeps them from colliding with each other ?
The animated diagram shows them always separated by 180 degrees, but this would be impossible ?


Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 23, 2017, 09:06:24 AM
Are all cartographers conspiring to propagate the "Round Earth Myth"?
Of course not. What a preposterous suggestion. There is no Round Earth conspiracy. Cartographers operate under the false premise of the Earth being round because the people we've entrusted as experts in the field have told us the Earth is round. It's not the cartographers' fault - they're merely doing their job following a set of sensible instructions.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: inquisitive on August 23, 2017, 09:54:57 AM
Are all cartographers conspiring to propagate the "Round Earth Myth"?
Of course not. What a preposterous suggestion. There is no Round Earth conspiracy. Cartographers operate under the false premise of the Earth being round because the people we've entrusted as experts in the field have told us the Earth is round. It's not the cartographers' fault - they're merely doing their job following a set of sensible instructions.
Where are these instructions?
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: rabinoz on August 23, 2017, 11:17:46 AM
You are assuming that North America on a Flat Earth would shaped as it is in Round Earth Theory.
What shape would you suggest for the USA, something like this?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/p5m45gm7gojagmu/1888_Topographic_Survey_Map_of_the_United_States_-_Geographicus_-_USA-topographcialsurvey-1888%20-%201200%20pix.jpg?dl=1)
1888 Topographic Survey Map of the United States
Or is "North America on a Flat Earth" somehow different?  How about this one? It does not look markedly different.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/kevm6eer1rdbmkv/1892-new-standard-map-of-the-world%20-%20North%20America.jpg?dl=1)
1892-new-standard-map-of-the-world - North America
So maybe you could give us a definitive map of North America on three real world.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Mock on August 23, 2017, 11:30:43 AM
Since Tom probably won't bother to reply anyway (as he always does when he gets stuck), let me save you some waiting time.

"You'll have to prove those maps are not based on RE latitudes and longitudes or using other RE assumptions"
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Rounder on August 23, 2017, 12:41:27 PM
FE (using the Saros cycle) can indeed predict a path and date, because each pass of a Saros cycle moves by a known amount. What I believe they cannot predict - at the very least to the same degree of accuracy - is the precise times the eclipse passes over any location, and how long it stays there. That isn't something the Saros cycle would know as far as I'm aware, but NASA can in fact predict with their equations.
They really can't, in fact.  The Saros cycle is a good tool to estimate the eclipse timing, but tells you only the approximate longitudes where it may be visible, not the precise path.  To get the path requires accuracy to the second (which the Saros cycle does not provide) and correct geometry (which the FE does not provide).  The Saros cycle method doesn't tell you if the eclipse will be partial, total, annular, or hybrid.  It doesn't give you duration.  It doesn't give you path width.   

Consider the data for the Saros cycle of the August 2017 eclipse.  Here is that data:

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Rk94NrEtUfQjXrqZYepQq3gOr8uXrSIfDqGd2PGNAmCvY46p7OvKe8h8ER8oNF_VVShl1O45arrG5GT3JTgXHOviSRGTNB9QUF20gzHJ965-YqnzhAWViIAViPgJcreyAv4BDVrMq8Uk37QjxycAsXNPQ-MxG1Xq5feWKiuXYbPIza0JVU0E4mf0IkLGILHU0-4AlqqUjEHscXb01kLew9GQd4KddQN3mBZgTTpy9pOOHNt1dUbaryRknFpdxsFgJeuywoZaAKJ2CLuNQg-sX0DiU7ZKUGQU6Pnc-jFyB5bx3NMb4Bw6JHrWgNgqo_ZW8qcuK4QxG-3hTeXqnJ9vk4ceiTUb_sjINM9-kwKd_DG5JyTDE-dhxxJCZNBrp9rmq5uWz56lnZHVMMVyvmO2o0sE9XxyjpDtXC3jRzy0cxav95r4-zTwYLKn2WvbP94KR5MT0MbyR2gYliECxURRTrH98OAKpIFA_z-AnK5dK5gRLBoSgCU_Kzm1AcrjXIXy8AmbvmBimDjV8r1Ej3nHoXzEtLZkV4vJhiTsBSGlLo_YX8cQHylW6EvRGUPXHDxjfmO9DIuqmShOvkiFZva1A8uAFR13UG3Ztyu_UOZdzk5-XH9JgP4qeNXflBdnSibunfgXSISFjmVWnhTJlX5_WrRy-TD6WqtONy73VHTCRTc=w796-h397-no)

Notice the 4th column, which gives the difference between consecutive eclipses in this Saros cycle.  If one could accurately calculate it by simply adding 8 years, 11 days, and 8 hours, then that column would all have the same number in it.  The reason it does not: the Saros cycle is a convenient way to categorize eclipses and to ESTIMATE their timing.  To get timing accurate to the second, and a corresponding geographic accuracy, one must calculate by understanding the orbital ephemeris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeris) of the bodies involved.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: zp0okii on August 23, 2017, 05:01:31 PM
I would love for Tom Bishop to respond to my response to him!
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Mock on August 23, 2017, 05:23:34 PM
I would love for Tom Bishop to respond to my response to him!
Oh sweet summer child ...
We would all love it if FE'ers actually engaged in proper discussions with us. Sadly, that's not what usually happens :(
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: TomInAustin on August 23, 2017, 05:26:17 PM
I would love for Tom Bishop to respond to my response to him!
Oh sweet summer child ...
We would all love it if FE'ers actually engaged in proper discussions with us. Sadly, that's not what usually happens :(

I really don't get it.  FE is akin to religion as it's based totally on faith over science.  That said, people on religious forums will debate all day long.  Of course, they too rely on dusty old books.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: J-Man on August 23, 2017, 07:15:06 PM
I would love for Tom Bishop to respond to my response to him!
Oh sweet summer child ...
We would all love it if FE'ers actually engaged in proper discussions with us. Sadly, that's not what usually happens :(

I really don't get it.  FE is akin to religion as it's based totally on faith over science.  That said, people on religious forums will debate all day long.  Of course, they too rely on dusty old books.

Science? Faith? When presented with facts the globers have just as much difficulty explaining.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7TKg9oV5oU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7TKg9oV5oU
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: zp0okii on August 23, 2017, 07:20:17 PM
I would love for Tom Bishop to respond to my response to him!
Oh sweet summer child ...
We would all love it if FE'ers actually engaged in proper discussions with us. Sadly, that's not what usually happens :(

I really don't get it.  FE is akin to religion as it's based totally on faith over science.  That said, people on religious forums will debate all day long.  Of course, they too rely on dusty old books.

Science? Faith? When presented with facts the globers have just as much difficulty explaining.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7TKg9oV5oU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7TKg9oV5oU



Can you answer any of the questions I posed to Tom, or are you only posting non-sequitur videos?

My questions can be found here, in case you want to pretend like you didn't see them earlier in the thread in order to avoid being tasked with them:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6765.msg123497#msg123497
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: TomInAustin on August 23, 2017, 07:23:33 PM
I would love for Tom Bishop to respond to my response to him!
Oh sweet summer child ...
We would all love it if FE'ers actually engaged in proper discussions with us. Sadly, that's not what usually happens :(

I really don't get it.  FE is akin to religion as it's based totally on faith over science.  That said, people on religious forums will debate all day long.  Of course, they too rely on dusty old books.

Science? Faith? When presented with facts the globers have just as much difficulty explaining.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7TKg9oV5oU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7TKg9oV5oU


When posting a 19-minute video it helps if you give time codes for "facts".   What I saw of your video was nonsense.  Please post a list of "facts".
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: zp0okii on August 23, 2017, 07:29:10 PM
I would love for Tom Bishop to respond to my response to him!
Oh sweet summer child ...
We would all love it if FE'ers actually engaged in proper discussions with us. Sadly, that's not what usually happens :(

I really don't get it.  FE is akin to religion as it's based totally on faith over science.  That said, people on religious forums will debate all day long.  Of course, they too rely on dusty old books.

Science? Faith? When presented with facts the globers have just as much difficulty explaining.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7TKg9oV5oU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7TKg9oV5oU


When posting a 19-minute video it helps if you give time codes for "facts".   What I saw of your video was nonsense.  Please post a list of "facts".

I watched the whole thing and it was absolute nonsense. FE can not explain why the path of totality is different during every eclipse. This guy's calculations were WAY off in terms of timestamps for totality visibility.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 26, 2017, 12:34:06 AM
Tom - how do the sun and moon cross paths if they orbit one another?

Where in our materials have you seen it stated that they orbit each other?
Fully willing to admit I may be misinterpreting your theory, but from the images I've seen in the wiki, it appears they share an orbit around a common gravitational center. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct. The sun and moon orbit around that center, not each other.

So, you have no evidence to stand against the work of cartographers? Are all cartographers conspiring to propagate the "Round Earth Myth"? You need to provide evidence of some kind if this is the case - a defector's interview, or something to that effect. Are you prepared to furnish those?

Cartographers operate under the assumption that the earth is a globe. Also, they mostly just copy each other's work. For example, for over three hundred years California was depicted as an island off of the coast of America. Supposedly educated men lived for generations on California under the assumption that they were living on an island.

Quote
Cartographers are paid to do this kind of thing all the time - and many do it for fun on their own! How are we able to travel if our maps are incorrect? We have sacrificed relative size of regions for accuracy in distance (the classic maps we see are an example of this) - if the world were flat, this wouldn't be necessary! Distance and size would be constant due to transcribing locations from a flat plane (a flat earth) onto another flat plane (some paper).

People travel just fine with a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than Africa and Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents put together. What makes you think that travel would not be possible on another model?

Quote
But NASA can predict the next path of totality for the solar eclipse in 2024 - can Flat Earthers do this?

There is some information on that on this link: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_shadow_on_the_moon_during_a_Lunar_Eclipse_is_round
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: StinkyOne on August 26, 2017, 04:13:12 AM
Tom - how do the sun and moon cross paths if they orbit one another?

Where in our materials have you seen it stated that they orbit each other?
Fully willing to admit I may be misinterpreting your theory, but from the images I've seen in the wiki, it appears they share an orbit around a common gravitational center. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct. The sun and moon orbit around that center, not each other.

So, you have no evidence to stand against the work of cartographers? Are all cartographers conspiring to propagate the "Round Earth Myth"? You need to provide evidence of some kind if this is the case - a defector's interview, or something to that effect. Are you prepared to furnish those?

Cartographers operate under the assumption that the earth is a globe. Also, they mostly just copy each other's work. For example, for over three hundred years California was depicted as an island off of the coast of America. Supposedly educated men lived for generations on California under the assumption that they were living on an island.

Quote
Cartographers are paid to do this kind of thing all the time - and many do it for fun on their own! How are we able to travel if our maps are incorrect? We have sacrificed relative size of regions for accuracy in distance (the classic maps we see are an example of this) - if the world were flat, this wouldn't be necessary! Distance and size would be constant due to transcribing locations from a flat plane (a flat earth) onto another flat plane (some paper).

People travel just fine with a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than Africa and Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents put together. What makes you think that travel would not be possible on another model?

Quote
But NASA can predict the next path of totality for the solar eclipse in 2024 - can Flat Earthers do this?

There is some information on that on this link: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_shadow_on_the_moon_during_a_Lunar_Eclipse_is_round

>>You are correct. The sun and moon orbit around that center, not each other.

Then they can never cross paths. If they share a common orbital center point, which would be created by their celestial gravitation, having them move to the same side of that orbital circle would change their orbital center. Think of it like an unbalanced wheel. At best, it would throw them apart into an unstable orbit. Most likely they would continue to approach one another on ever smaller orbits and collide.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: 3DGeek on August 26, 2017, 07:03:35 PM
People travel just fine with a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than Africa and Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents put together. What makes you think that travel would not be possible on another model?

Ah - another "Educating Tom" moment!

The reason Mercator projections are used (they are actually DESIGNED for maritime navigation) is that Mercator projections preserve ANGLES at the price of making DISTANCES appear wildly distorted.   If you're navigating by compass and stars - then angles matter very much to you - but distances less so.

FE maps other than Mercator preserve neither angles nor distances - which makes them "wrong" rather than useful.

In fact, it's impossible to make an FE map that correctly preserves both angles and distances as compared to the RE world.

This results in desperate FE proponents having to argue that headings (compass/astronomical/solar) and distances (GPS, airlines, etc) are somehow being mistaken by all of the professional people who rely on them.

So please don't trot out nonsense you don't understand Tom.  You WILL be called on it from now on.

Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: zp0okii on August 29, 2017, 02:23:21 PM
Quote
People travel just fine with a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than Africa and Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents put together. What makes you think that travel would not be possible on another model?

That is because the Mercator map preserves angles and distance at the expense of relative size of landmasses... a well documented fact about the Mercator model.

Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2017, 02:43:33 PM
People travel just fine with a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than Africa and Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents put together. What makes you think that travel would not be possible on another model?

Ah - another "Educating Tom" moment!

The reason Mercator projections are used (they are actually DESIGNED for maritime navigation) is that Mercator projections preserve ANGLES at the price of making DISTANCES appear wildly distorted.   If you're navigating by compass and stars - then angles matter very much to you - but distances less so.

FE maps other than Mercator preserve neither angles nor distances - which makes them "wrong" rather than useful.

In fact, it's impossible to make an FE map that correctly preserves both angles and distances as compared to the RE world.

This results in desperate FE proponents having to argue that headings (compass/astronomical/solar) and distances (GPS, airlines, etc) are somehow being mistaken by all of the professional people who rely on them.

So please don't trot out nonsense you don't understand Tom.  You WILL be called on it from now on.

You don't need to know distances when circumnavigating or navigating with the Mercator map. What nonsense.

Quote
People travel just fine with a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than Africa and Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents put together. What makes you think that travel would not be possible on another model?

That is because the Mercator map preserves angles and distance at the expense of relative size of landmasses... a well documented fact about the Mercator model.

A ship captain is hardly in the position to know his true distance traveled independently of his Round Earth lat/lon coordinate device.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: zp0okii on August 29, 2017, 02:57:37 PM
People travel just fine with a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than Africa and Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents put together. What makes you think that travel would not be possible on another model?

Ah - another "Educating Tom" moment!

The reason Mercator projections are used (they are actually DESIGNED for maritime navigation) is that Mercator projections preserve ANGLES at the price of making DISTANCES appear wildly distorted.   If you're navigating by compass and stars - then angles matter very much to you - but distances less so.

FE maps other than Mercator preserve neither angles nor distances - which makes them "wrong" rather than useful.

In fact, it's impossible to make an FE map that correctly preserves both angles and distances as compared to the RE world.

This results in desperate FE proponents having to argue that headings (compass/astronomical/solar) and distances (GPS, airlines, etc) are somehow being mistaken by all of the professional people who rely on them.

So please don't trot out nonsense you don't understand Tom.  You WILL be called on it from now on.

You don't need to know distances when circumnavigating or navigating with the Mercator map. What nonsense.

Quote
People travel just fine with a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than Africa and Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents put together. What makes you think that travel would not be possible on another model?

That is because the Mercator map preserves angles and distance at the expense of relative size of landmasses... a well documented fact about the Mercator model.

A ship captain is hardly in the position to know his true distance traveled independently of his Round Earth lat/lon coordinate device.


>>> So how do you suggest we figure out a map then? If ship captains can't properly know their location/how far they have traveled, how should they chart their course?

Also, you don't need to know DISTANCE to travel accurately, but you do need to know ANGLES, which is what the Mercator model is all about - a flat earth model would have the same angles on a map as exist on the flat earth plane, which simply isn't how maps have been proven to work.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2017, 03:09:39 PM
So how do you suggest we figure out a map then? If ship captains can't properly know their location/how far they have traveled, how should they chart their course?

Why are you assuming that it possible to easily know how far you have traveled on the open ocean?

You could use the altitude of the North Star to get a latitude, but you would need to know what latitudes points mean and how they relate to each other in regards to the total shape of the earth to get a real meaning.

Quote
Also, you don't need to know DISTANCE to travel accurately, but you do need to know ANGLES, which is what the Mercator model is all about - a flat earth model would have the same angles on a map as exist on the flat earth plane, which simply isn't how maps have been proven to work.

What makes you think that an angle is preserved on a flat Mercator map when transmuted into a globe? 
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: zp0okii on August 29, 2017, 03:12:17 PM
So how do you suggest we figure out a map then? If ship captains can't properly know their location/how far they have traveled, how should they chart their course?

Why are you assuming that it possible to easily know how far you have traveled on the open ocean?

You could use the altitude of the North Star to get a latitude, but you would need to know what latitudes points mean in regards to the total shape of the earth to get a real meaning.

Quote
Also, you don't need to know DISTANCE to travel accurately, but you do need to know ANGLES, which is what the Mercator model is all about - a flat earth model would have the same angles on a map as exist on the flat earth plane, which simply isn't how maps have been proven to work.

What makes you think that an angle is preserved on a flat Mercator map when transmuted into a globe?

Because that's the whole reason it was created! It provides the most reliable (but not fastest) route from point A to point B. A straight line on the Mercator results in a "J" shaped path, even though, when using a compass, it appears that you traveled a straight line along an x degree trajectory.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2017, 03:28:35 PM
So how do you suggest we figure out a map then? If ship captains can't properly know their location/how far they have traveled, how should they chart their course?

Why are you assuming that it possible to easily know how far you have traveled on the open ocean?

You could use the altitude of the North Star to get a latitude, but you would need to know what latitudes points mean in regards to the total shape of the earth to get a real meaning.

Quote
Also, you don't need to know DISTANCE to travel accurately, but you do need to know ANGLES, which is what the Mercator model is all about - a flat earth model would have the same angles on a map as exist on the flat earth plane, which simply isn't how maps have been proven to work.

What makes you think that an angle is preserved on a flat Mercator map when transmuted into a globe?

Because that's the whole reason it was created! It provides the most reliable (but not fastest) route from point A to point B. A straight line on the Mercator results in a "J" shaped path, even though, when using a compass, it appears that you traveled a straight line along an x degree trajectory.

The angles aren't preserved. Look at the Mercator map:

(https://media.wired.com/photos/59333555d80dd005b42b165b/master/w_440,c_limit/Equirectangular_projection_400.jpg)

Use the following three points:

A: The lower-most point in the bottom-left corner of the map. (Antarctica).
B: The bottom tip of Africa.
C: The lower-most point in the bottom-right corner of the map. (Antarctica).

Are you seriously going to tell us that this angle will be preserved on a globe?
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Ga_x2 on August 29, 2017, 03:31:12 PM
The angles aren't preserved. Look at the Mercator map:

(https://media.wired.com/photos/59333555d80dd005b42b165b/master/w_440,c_limit/Equirectangular_projection_400.jpg)

Use the following three points:

A: The lower-most point in the bottom-left corner of the map. (Antarctica).
B: The bottom tip of Africa.
C: The lower-most point in the bottom-right corner of the map. (Antarctica).

Are you seriously going to tell us that this angle will be preserved on a globe?
That isn't a Mercator Map, fwiw. Try again with google XD
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: zp0okii on August 29, 2017, 03:32:32 PM
So how do you suggest we figure out a map then? If ship captains can't properly know their location/how far they have traveled, how should they chart their course?

Why are you assuming that it possible to easily know how far you have traveled on the open ocean?

You could use the altitude of the North Star to get a latitude, but you would need to know what latitudes points mean in regards to the total shape of the earth to get a real meaning.

Quote
Also, you don't need to know DISTANCE to travel accurately, but you do need to know ANGLES, which is what the Mercator model is all about - a flat earth model would have the same angles on a map as exist on the flat earth plane, which simply isn't how maps have been proven to work.

What makes you think that an angle is preserved on a flat Mercator map when transmuted into a globe?

Because that's the whole reason it was created! It provides the most reliable (but not fastest) route from point A to point B. A straight line on the Mercator results in a "J" shaped path, even though, when using a compass, it appears that you traveled a straight line along an x degree trajectory.

The angles aren't preserved. Look at the Mercator map:

(https://media.wired.com/photos/59333555d80dd005b42b165b/master/w_440,c_limit/Equirectangular_projection_400.jpg)

Use the following three points:

A: The lower-most point in the bottom-left corner of the map. (Antarctica).
B: The bottom tip of Africa.
C: The lower-most point in the bottom-right corner of the map. (Antarctica).

Are you seriously going to tell us that this angle will be preserved on a globe?

For navigational purposes, yes it is! When using a compass to travel from point A from above to point C from above, you only have to follow the angle between the two referenced from a Mercator map in order to make it to the location - it may form a "J" on the globe, but the navigational angle is preserved! That's literally the entire reason it was commissioned!
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2017, 03:32:59 PM
The angles aren't preserved. Look at the Mercator map:

(https://media.wired.com/photos/59333555d80dd005b42b165b/master/w_440,c_limit/Equirectangular_projection_400.jpg)

Use the following three points:

A: The lower-most point in the bottom-left corner of the map. (Antarctica).
B: The bottom tip of Africa.
C: The lower-most point in the bottom-right corner of the map. (Antarctica).

Are you seriously going to tell us that this angle will be preserved on a globe?
That isn't a Mercator Map, fwiw. Try again with google XD

My example doesn't get any better for you on this one:

(https://media.wired.com/photos/59333553714b881cb296a313/master/w_660,c_limit/Mercator_projection_660.jpg)
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2017, 03:35:35 PM
So how do you suggest we figure out a map then? If ship captains can't properly know their location/how far they have traveled, how should they chart their course?

Why are you assuming that it possible to easily know how far you have traveled on the open ocean?

You could use the altitude of the North Star to get a latitude, but you would need to know what latitudes points mean in regards to the total shape of the earth to get a real meaning.

Quote
Also, you don't need to know DISTANCE to travel accurately, but you do need to know ANGLES, which is what the Mercator model is all about - a flat earth model would have the same angles on a map as exist on the flat earth plane, which simply isn't how maps have been proven to work.

What makes you think that an angle is preserved on a flat Mercator map when transmuted into a globe?

Because that's the whole reason it was created! It provides the most reliable (but not fastest) route from point A to point B. A straight line on the Mercator results in a "J" shaped path, even though, when using a compass, it appears that you traveled a straight line along an x degree trajectory.

The angles aren't preserved. Look at the Mercator map:

(https://media.wired.com/photos/59333555d80dd005b42b165b/master/w_440,c_limit/Equirectangular_projection_400.jpg)

Use the following three points:

A: The lower-most point in the bottom-left corner of the map. (Antarctica).
B: The bottom tip of Africa.
C: The lower-most point in the bottom-right corner of the map. (Antarctica).

Are you seriously going to tell us that this angle will be preserved on a globe?

For navigational purposes, yes it is! When using a compass to travel from point A from above to point C from above, you only have to follow the angle between the two referenced from a Mercator map in order to make it to the location - it may form a "J" on the globe, but the navigational angle is preserved! That's literally the entire reason it was commissioned!

Points A and C are near the same point in my example, the South Pole, according the Mercator map. How could two points near each other at the South Pole have such a wide angle originating from Africa in the Round Earth model?

Angles are most assuredly not preserved.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 29, 2017, 03:39:27 PM
The angles aren't preserved. Look at the Mercator map:

(https://media.wired.com/photos/59333555d80dd005b42b165b/master/w_440,c_limit/Equirectangular_projection_400.jpg)

Use the following three points:

A: The lower-most point in the bottom-left corner of the map. (Antarctica).
B: The bottom tip of Africa.
C: The lower-most point in the bottom-right corner of the map. (Antarctica).

Are you seriously going to tell us that this angle will be preserved on a globe?
That isn't a Mercator Map, fwiw. Try again with google XD

My example doesn't get any better on this one:

(https://media.wired.com/photos/59333553714b881cb296a313/master/w_660,c_limit/Mercator_projection_660.jpg)
That looks like the one posted here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection) and I would note this one calls out the map only being accurate between 82°S and 82°N.
I also don't see why those angles can't be correct considering you would be going in opposite directions.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: zp0okii on August 29, 2017, 03:47:46 PM
So how do you suggest we figure out a map then? If ship captains can't properly know their location/how far they have traveled, how should they chart their course?

Why are you assuming that it possible to easily know how far you have traveled on the open ocean?

You could use the altitude of the North Star to get a latitude, but you would need to know what latitudes points mean in regards to the total shape of the earth to get a real meaning.

Quote
Also, you don't need to know DISTANCE to travel accurately, but you do need to know ANGLES, which is what the Mercator model is all about - a flat earth model would have the same angles on a map as exist on the flat earth plane, which simply isn't how maps have been proven to work.

What makes you think that an angle is preserved on a flat Mercator map when transmuted into a globe?

Because that's the whole reason it was created! It provides the most reliable (but not fastest) route from point A to point B. A straight line on the Mercator results in a "J" shaped path, even though, when using a compass, it appears that you traveled a straight line along an x degree trajectory.

The angles aren't preserved. Look at the Mercator map:

(https://media.wired.com/photos/59333555d80dd005b42b165b/master/w_440,c_limit/Equirectangular_projection_400.jpg)

Use the following three points:

A: The lower-most point in the bottom-left corner of the map. (Antarctica).
B: The bottom tip of Africa.
C: The lower-most point in the bottom-right corner of the map. (Antarctica).

Are you seriously going to tell us that this angle will be preserved on a globe?

For navigational purposes, yes it is! When using a compass to travel from point A from above to point C from above, you only have to follow the angle between the two referenced from a Mercator map in order to make it to the location - it may form a "J" on the globe, but the navigational angle is preserved! That's literally the entire reason it was commissioned!

Points A and C are near the same point in my example, the South Pole, according the Mercator map. How could two points near each other at the South Pole have such a wide angle originating from Africa in the Round Earth model?

Angles are most assuredly not preserved.

They absolutely are, and there are hard mathematics behind it - the reason the angles are so "wide" but so close is because you are going to the west for point A and to the east for point C. If you shifted the viewpoint of the Mercator map by a few miles either direction, points A and C would be next to each other, meaning you could just travel either East or West to reach the midpoint between the two - preserving the angles.

Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2017, 03:49:38 PM
So how do you suggest we figure out a map then? If ship captains can't properly know their location/how far they have traveled, how should they chart their course?

Why are you assuming that it possible to easily know how far you have traveled on the open ocean?

You could use the altitude of the North Star to get a latitude, but you would need to know what latitudes points mean in regards to the total shape of the earth to get a real meaning.

Quote
Also, you don't need to know DISTANCE to travel accurately, but you do need to know ANGLES, which is what the Mercator model is all about - a flat earth model would have the same angles on a map as exist on the flat earth plane, which simply isn't how maps have been proven to work.

What makes you think that an angle is preserved on a flat Mercator map when transmuted into a globe?

Because that's the whole reason it was created! It provides the most reliable (but not fastest) route from point A to point B. A straight line on the Mercator results in a "J" shaped path, even though, when using a compass, it appears that you traveled a straight line along an x degree trajectory.

The angles aren't preserved. Look at the Mercator map:

(https://media.wired.com/photos/59333555d80dd005b42b165b/master/w_440,c_limit/Equirectangular_projection_400.jpg)

Use the following three points:

A: The lower-most point in the bottom-left corner of the map. (Antarctica).
B: The bottom tip of Africa.
C: The lower-most point in the bottom-right corner of the map. (Antarctica).

Are you seriously going to tell us that this angle will be preserved on a globe?

For navigational purposes, yes it is! When using a compass to travel from point A from above to point C from above, you only have to follow the angle between the two referenced from a Mercator map in order to make it to the location - it may form a "J" on the globe, but the navigational angle is preserved! That's literally the entire reason it was commissioned!

Points A and C are near the same point in my example, the South Pole, according the Mercator map. How could two points near each other at the South Pole have such a wide angle originating from Africa in the Round Earth model?

Angles are most assuredly not preserved.

They absolutely are, and there are hard mathematics behind it - the reason the angles are so "wide" but so close is because you are going to the west for point A and to the east for point C. If you shifted the viewpoint of the Mercator map by a few miles either direction, points A and C would be next to each other, meaning you could just travel either East or West to reach the midpoint between the two - preserving the angles.

Put A and C on the left and right hand sides of the equator, on each side of the map, and keep B on the bottom of Africa.

On the globe A and C are now right next to each other, and you are telling us that the angle from Africa is preserved. Ridiculous.

If you need to "shift" the Mercator map to get correct angles, then it is not a universal map what preserves angles.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2017, 03:56:35 PM
Put point A on the North Pole (say the upper left corner), point B on Los Angeles, and point C on the South Pole (say the bottom left corner). The Mercator map is wrong in all stations where Los Angeles is not in alignment with points A and C. The idea that we need to change the orientation of the Mercator map to get the angle we want shows that it does not really represent accurate angles
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 29, 2017, 04:04:53 PM
Put point A on the North Pole (say the upper left corner), point B on Los Angeles, and point C on the South Pole (say the bottom left corner). The Mercator map is wrong in all stations where Los Angeles is not in alignment with points A and C. The idea that we need to change the orientation of the Mercator map to get the angle we want shows that it does not really represent accurate angles
A) The map is not correct outside of the bounds of 82N to 82S, as mentioned in the link I posted.
B) The other angles you are mentioning are definitely still preserved. Just because you don't seem to grasp the fact that one direction is West and the other is East so they'll obviously have different angles, doesn't make them suddenly not work.
C) Yes, you'll need to shift the center point of the map if you want to find, for example, the Westward angle from Cali to Japan. Any non-continuous map will have such issues. I would presume on a ship or somewhere that need it the map would be repeated so you could simply scroll it to the correct spot to find the angle you want.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: zp0okii on August 29, 2017, 04:05:02 PM
Put point A on the North Pole (say the upper left corner), point B on Los Angeles, and point C on the South Pole (say the bottom left corner). The Mercator map is wrong in all stations where Los Angeles is not in alignment with points A and C. The idea that we need to change the orientation of the Mercator map to get the angle we want shows that it does not really represent accurate angles

You are misconstruing my point - What I am saying is that the "direct" angle from any point to another is dependent on not requiring crossing over the "tear" in the projection. If we were to look at the mercator map but have the POV be one where we are looking directly at Asia instead of into the Atlantic, then it will be easier to find the "direct" angle between your original points A and C. I'm not saying the Mercator model needs changed, just that the POV required to find the best angle changes depending on your point of origin and your destination.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: zp0okii on August 29, 2017, 04:05:53 PM
Put point A on the North Pole (say the upper left corner), point B on Los Angeles, and point C on the South Pole (say the bottom left corner). The Mercator map is wrong in all stations where Los Angeles is not in alignment with points A and C. The idea that we need to change the orientation of the Mercator map to get the angle we want shows that it does not really represent accurate angles
A) The map is not correct outside of the bounds of 82N to 82S, as mentioned in the link I posted.
B) The other angles you are mentioning are definitely still preserved. Just because you don't seem to grasp the fact that one direction is West and the other is East so they'll obviously have different angles, doesn't make them suddenly not work.
C) Yes, you'll need to shift the center point of the map if you want to find, for example, the Westward angle from Cali to Japan. Any non-continuous map will have such issues. I would presume on a ship or somewhere that need it the map would be repeated so you could simply scroll it to the correct spot to find the angle you want.

LMAO same points RE: non-continuous maps made here.
Title: Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
Post by: 3DGeek on August 29, 2017, 10:15:03 PM
I think the confusion here may be due to something I mis-spoke.  "HEADINGS" are preserved...not relative angles.   Remember in RET, if you're at the North Pole, every place in the world is South of you.

My apologies if this was confusing.