1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence

« on: March 21, 2018, 07:16:00 PM »

Continental US, I suppose? Will look it up.

EDIT: Well, obviously that's the way. Why should they go over china? That makes absolutely no sense on a globe, so on which flat earth model would it?

The point is that it would make no sense for the planes to fly the "long way" around the earth between those two southern points. We only have data for that route.

I don't quite see what you're getting at. Please elaborate.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence

« on: March 21, 2018, 07:08:44 PM »

Continental US, I suppose? Will look it up.

EDIT: Well, obviously that's the way. Why should they go over china? That makes absolutely no sense on a globe, so on which flat earth model would it?

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence

« on: March 21, 2018, 07:07:43 PM »

Except people that are. Quantas nonstop Sydney to Santiago de Chile, Boeing 747, 12:35 hours.

So there's a pretty conclusive argument against the monopole map since that 747's not going supersonic.

And what is the flight time going the "long" way around the earth?

What do you mean by "going the 'long' way around the earth"?
That would be around the earth on that flat monopole model, but on a globe that's the direct way.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence

« on: March 21, 2018, 07:00:53 PM »

Yet you can.

Any evidence of that? Have you measured the distances between all points on earth?

You don't need to do it personally when there is enough corroborating information. Comparisons of any published intercontinental flight times adhere the distances shown on the globe, weather patterns and forecasts relative to different locations, recorded relative position of the sun in the sky throughout the day from any location, predictable location of the stars at any point in time, fuel calculations used by airlines, navigation of international shipping, journey times for people who go on cruises across the Atlantic or Pacific. All these things perfectly align with the relative distances of locations on the globe. None of them align with any possible FE projections or visualization or whatever excuse for a map is being used. For all the enthusiasm you have for the dimensions of the Earth you show a surprising lack of interest in the geography of it.

Planes don't take all possible flight routes. Who is traveling between Australia and South America going the "long" way around the earth? No one is.

While I do not subscribe to the Monopole model, using flights as an argument is not conclusive.

Except people that are. Quantas nonstop Sydney to Santiago de Chile, Boeing 747, 12:35 hours.

So there's a pretty conclusive argument against the monopole map since that 747's not going supersonic.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence

« on: March 21, 2018, 03:24:58 PM »

To quote the post you were answering to:

Have you stood in both Chile and Sydney at the same time and checked that you looked in the same direction when looking south?

It is offensive to suggest that people living south of the equator are confused about the directions they go when they think they are heading south.  Two roads heading south get closer together the farther south you go, just like the need for correction lines in the north.  As I mentioned many times, the FE model works great if you ignore the fact that there are other people in other countries that matter a little bit.  You can distort the map of the southern hemisphere and believe it, so long as you ignore that people live in the areas that are wildly distorted and they do not have to travel great distances to get to their neighbors.  They are not all bumbling idiots.

If earth was flat, it would be easy to just make a flat map of it. Without any distortion. Yet it isn't.

The other way round, if earth wasn't spheroid, you could not make a globe that represents all distances, angles and areas accurately without distortion. Yet you can.

Now guess why.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence

« on: March 21, 2018, 03:16:44 PM »

And that's why no flat earth map works out.

Because people are not distorted? That seems very strange evidence.

Their surroundings, obviously. On a globe, there's no distortion anywhere.
On any flat map, there is. You can't project a spherical surface onto a 2D map without significant distortion.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence

« on: March 21, 2018, 03:06:42 PM »

Have you stood in both Chile and Sydney at the same time and checked that you looked in the same direction when looking south?

It is offensive to suggest that people living south of the equator are confused about the directions they go when they think they are heading south.  Two roads heading south get closer together the farther south you go, just like the need for correction lines in the north.  As I mentioned many times, the FE model works great if you ignore the fact that there are other people in other countries that matter a little bit.  You can distort the map of the southern hemisphere and believe it, so long as you ignore that people live in the areas that are wildly distorted and they do not have to travel great distances to get to their neighbors.  They are not all bumbling idiots.

Don't put words in my mouth!  I have never in my life called anyone a bumbling idiot, and I resent the implication. Besides we have members all over the world and since they and I are not distorted, clearly the other hemispheres are also not distorted.

And that's why no flat earth map works out.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no flat earth map?

« on: March 19, 2018, 03:02:57 PM »

Gleasons flat earth map from 1892.  But here is something very strange.  If you look at the flat earth map then look at the UN emblem.....you will notice there sits the flat earth map.....in plain site. Right on their emblem

That is simply an azimuthal projection of the globe, the equidistant polar one to be exact.

Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_United_Nations#Design

All 2-dimensional maps are (have to be) projections of a globe, because earth is a spheroid.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FET and Global Positioning System

« on: March 17, 2018, 02:19:58 PM »

I've just checked my phone, I am where it says I am.

That would not be thanks to GPS, not unless you're in the middle of the Australian outback or the Sahara desert. Both big players on the mobile phone OS market rely on non-GPS data to get your location. Wi-Fi access points are currently the most useful data points for urban areas, and mobile phone networks are a common source for less densely populated zones (possibly because Wi-Fi access points and mobile phone towers are not allegedly zooming through space).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_positioning_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_positioning_system

And, shockingly enough, if you check your phone somewhere that doesn't rely on WPS or mobile network towers, your location data becomes quite inaccurate.

So either:
There's another global conspiracy by people who pretended they launched GPS satellites and other people pretending that GPS works by satellites, all to keep this very important secret that the earth is actually flat safe, because obviously it's very important that this truth is kept from the general public.
Or...GPS works exactly how it's stated it works, because we live on a globe.

Third option: You're not as tech-literate as you think you are and you fallaciously assume that GPS data is the only dataset used in mobile phone location tracking. You're attributing the efficacy of big data and very recent developments in fingerprinting to a rather simple system that's been conceived of 40 years ago. Round or flat, that ain't how it works.

You are confused between the mobile phone companies establishing where a mobile is and the user of a phone establishing their location.

Please give details of phones that use anything other than GPS to show the user their location.

He's right on that mobile phones utilize not only GPS for estimating the location they show to the user, this is generally referred to as "Assisted GPS" as far as I know.

However that fact doesn't matter at all and is a pure strawmannery on Pete's part.

There are plenty of devices that rely solely on GPS and don't even have cellular or WiFi connectivity built in to do otherwise.

And no, Pete, a gyroscope, accelerometer and magnetometer can't be used to determine one's initial position. Those sensors can only help determine a change of position, as someone already pointed out.
And no, those devices don't prompt you to enter coordinates every time you turn them on.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FET and Global Positioning System

« on: March 16, 2018, 10:35:20 PM »

Nice rationalization there, but those explanations have not been demonstrated to be true. All we know is that GPS is wrong when attempting to determine distance.

Your proof of that statement is - Where?

See the link I provided. People attempted to determine their distance and they could not.

Several people including myself have conclusively explained to you why the phenomena described in that article you linked are irrelevant to this topic.

What I conclude from your refusal to accept that is, you're just messing with us and don't actually believe what you say.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FET and Global Positioning System

« on: March 16, 2018, 03:41:56 PM »

Could we now please proceed to the essential part of my question?
My intention was not to spark a debate about the accuracy of GPS, and I deliberately left open whether those systems rely on satellites (which obviously I and most fellow round-earthers have no reason to doubt) or something else like ground-based radio beacons like some flat-earthers claim.

What I was getting at was why flat-earthers think it reasonable to claim that NASA and other space agencies are not aware of the shape of earth.

FES Consensus seems to be that NASA and other space agencies fake space travel out of greed, but aren't actually aware that the earth is flat.

However, to develop and operate GPS and similar systems, whether using satellites in space or radio beacons on earth, somebody obviously needs to be pretty aware of earth's actual shape.

GPS is operated by US Air Force. Does this mean the USAF knows earth is flat but didn't tell NASA?

GLONASS is operated by Roskosmos, Russia's space agency itself and Galileo is operated by ESA (European Space Agency). How is that possible without them knowing the earth is flat?

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FET and Global Positioning System

« on: March 15, 2018, 11:43:31 PM »

We can all agree, flat-earther and round-earther alike, that GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and similar systems work pretty well.

I don't agree with that. There are numerous complaints online that GPS gives inaccurate distances. Look at this link: https://pmags.com/gps-mileage-discrepancies

Multiple examples are given, including the following quote:

And in the racing world, professionally surveyed half-marathon routes of 13.1 miles are called too short by people wearing GPS enabled devices.  Some people less politely and less friendly, but still firmly, write the race directors and complain that the race course is 13.9 miles or even 14.2 miles. Some racers even are LESS polite. :O  Why? Because their GPS enabled devices report higher mileage than what is on the race course.

USATF Certified tracks are measured with wheeled devices, and this distance differs when compared to GPS.

This author claims that GPS devices are inaccurate for finding distance, and that this inaccuracy grows with greater distance traveled (which is curious under the Round Earth model since GPS is just finding your coordinate and computing the distance to another coordinate).

Another quote from that link:

Your GPS-enabled watch, a GPS unit such as one bought at outdoor stores or an increasingly frequently used mobile devices are all Recreational Grade GPS units. They are good for knowing, more or less,  where you are in a general location.  You will not get pinpoint accuracy for location or distance.  The effects of this inaccuracy is more noticeable the longer or more varied a jaunt.

See the bolded. If the Round Earth model is true, this is confusing, since GPS devices are just based on finding your coordinate and mapping how far away coordinate B should be. It should not matter how far away you map coordinate B. It should not increase in error the further away you map. The coordinates and the distance between them on a Round Earth should be known.

A comment at the bottom of that article showing that this is illogical:

It surprises me how much inaccuracy there seems to be. If my GPS knows my position within fifteen feet, there shouldn’t be a half mile discrepancy over fifteen miles.

The author of the article further asserts that "professional GPS equipment" is necessary, but does not suggest that he has ever used it, or show information that it is any more accurate for distances. Such equipment may be more accurate for showing current coordinate with higher resolution, beyond the accuracy of consumer GPS (which measures in 3 to 7 meters, not on the range of miles), but it does not follow that such professional devices are more accurate for "measuring distances". The distance between coordinate points on a Round Earth should be known in all systems.

That article you linked doesn't really fit the topic. It discusses shortcomings of recreational GPS devices in accuracy of the distance travelled.

It's not about discrepancies in absolute A to B distances. Those obviously don't increase with distance.

What the article deals with is discrepancies in the distance covered on hiking trips or similar, and those trackers obviously don't measure the absolute distance between starting and ending position, but rather record the route and calculate it's length. Thus, obviously discrepancies add up with the length of the route. Main issue here is the refresh interval, I've added a graphic to illustrate that, the green line from A to B being the actual route, the red dots being the positions measured by the GPS device and the red line being the route tracked by the device. In most cases, the GPS-tracked route will be significantly shorter than the actual route, this getting worse with larger refresh intervals.

Anyway, we're splitting hairs here, I said GPS "works pretty well" not it "works perfectly".

Back to the other 6 paragraphs of my OP that you didn't address.

13

Flat Earth Theory / FET and Global Positioning System

« on: March 15, 2018, 08:20:45 PM »

We can all agree, flat-earther and round-earther alike, that GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and similar systems work pretty well.

Supposedly those positioning systems rely on time signals from satellites orbiting earth, which in a flat earth model obviously wouldn't possible. I've read several times from flat-earthers that those systems have to somehow work differently, perhaps with ground-based beacons instead of satellites.

FES Consensus seems to be that NASA and other space agencies fake space travel out of greed, but aren't actually aware that the earth is flat.

However, to develop and operate GPS and similar systems, whether using satellites in space or radio beacons on earth, somebody obviously needs to be pretty aware of earth's actual shape.

GPS is operated by US Air Force. Does this mean the USAF knows earth is flat but didn't tell NASA?

GLONASS is operated by Roskosmos, Russia's space agency itself and Galileo is operated by ESA (European Space Agency). How is that possible without them knowing the earth is flat?

I'd like to know what your take is on that, flat-earthers.
This is a genuine question so junker, please refrain from moving it to CN.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no flat earth map?

« on: March 15, 2018, 05:11:51 PM »

Thanks junker!  Lots to do in the realm of proper Earth shape identification.

Such as put an accurate representation of its surface features to paper? That would certainly be welcomed by all, I'm sure.

The problem here is that even the most die-hard FE believer knows it isn't necessary as what we have already clearly works.

The computers/tablets/phones they browse these forums on and do their "research" on aren't built locally, nor were their parts all sourced from the same place. Yet somehow everything has managed to get where it needs to go, reliably and efficiently, while using maps based off of a globe.

I wonder how that can be?

By your own logic, ships and planes can get to places using "maps of a globe" despite the distances on those maps being warped.

That's because they're traversing the globe those maps are projections of.

The simple fact that it is possible for a spherical model to perfectly match reality whereas it isn't for a two-dimensional map just proves that the earth we live on is a sphere and not a disk. Besides centuries of other evidence obviously.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun over a flat Earth

« on: March 12, 2018, 05:58:43 PM »

Bipolar Model?
Their wiki says:

Another alternative model descripting Antarctica as a distinct continent. There is still an "ice wall" in this model, but it not Antarctica. Beyond the rays of the sun the waters will naturally freeze.

This even crazier. This requires an ice wall in The Pacific ocean!

And the position of New Zealand is, let's say, interesting.

I'd also like to see how the sun a.k.a. flying spotlight works in that model, given that the equator is just a finite straight line across the map (not that it it made any sense in the "regular" FE map a.k.a. equidistant azimuthal projection of RE to begin with) 🤷‍♂️

Basically, the bipolar map a.k.a. equal-area azimuthal projection of RE doesn't solve any of FET's issues, it just shifts them. Which is of little surprise, since both maps are projections of the round earth. 🌍

16

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Complete Nonsense and Angry Ranting

« on: March 11, 2018, 02:59:12 PM »

Are you sure you didn't just collapse that category with the arrow-shaped button on the right?

You are probably right. I stand corrected.

In my defense, the arrow-shaped button doesn't look any different when the category is collapsed, it always faces down.

17

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Complete Nonsense and Angry Ranting

« on: March 11, 2018, 01:22:33 AM »

What do you mean? They're right there on the overview. How else did you find them?

They are now visible in the overview again. They weren't, at least to me, for the last few hours.

I could still access them via the posts I made there, using Profile Info -> Show Posts, but they did not appear in the overview.

18

Suggestions & Concerns / Complete Nonsense and Angry Ranting

« on: March 10, 2018, 10:33:22 PM »

It seems the "Boards of Antichtone", namely Complete Nonsense and Angry Ranting have been hidden from the forum overview.

However if you want people to adhere to the rules and refrain from ranting or posting "nonsense" in the upper fora, it really doesn't make sense to hide the fora dedicated to those things.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The FE concept

« on: March 10, 2018, 08:11:49 PM »

To make the decision to support the flat earth hypothesis obviously one has to make a conscious decision to abandon what could be described as conventional theory (the majority view). It obviously takes courage and conviction to do this. I would be interested to know the key reasons of the individuals who espouse to this concept. The key facts that each considers to be the most important to them and instrumental in their decision.

I'd be genuinely interested in that as well.

...assuming there are actually people on here who truly believe in FET and the whole FES is not just a joke (Before junker warns me, I'm aware the FAQ states it's not... Doesn't mean I have to believe the FAQ though 😁)

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is beyond the Ice Wall?

« on: March 10, 2018, 07:09:26 PM »

Before the beginning of earth? Sure, why not.

Which means before the beginning of everything. It says "the heavens and the earth", which when those parts of the bible were written people thought of as the whole world.
There had not been an understanding of the universe we live in or the existence of other planets, solar systems let alone galaxies, people back then figured there just was the earth of indefinite two-dimensional extent, the heavens above and whatever underworld below. Which apparently doesn't differ too much from what somehow flat-earthers still believe today. 🤷‍♂️

And if you are the beginning and the end, you are finite. God never claims to be perpetual.

I'd argue that being the beginning AND the end (of everything) in itself pretty much suggests being infinite. I'm not sure though how much thought whoever wrote that bible passage really put into it. 🤨