41

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Peirce Quincuncial Projection

« on: June 07, 2018, 07:25:37 AM »

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.

42

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Peirce Quincuncial Projection

« on: June 07, 2018, 06:48:27 AM »

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.

43

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Peirce Quincuncial Projection

« on: June 07, 2018, 02:58:59 AM »

Thanks for posting your video here, I thought I'd go through it to discuss the various points made.

1:42 - Why are the continents different sizes in different earth pictures?

Pictures taken of an object from different distances will necessarily have different parts of that object take up different areas of the photo. Consider, for example, a photo like this:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/97493871@N06/9292183111
Yes, that's a fisheye lens, but the same principle applies - if you are closer to the earth you will be able to see less of the surface, so North America or whatever you're looking at will be filling a bigger proportion of the image than if you were farther away.

1:52 -  Space photos are all composites.

No, they aren't. Many of them are, but many of them aren't. They also aren't all NASA photos - you can see non-composite images from:
Russian satellites:
https://gizmodo.com/5909215/this-is-the-definitive-photograph-of-planet-earth  (false color)


GOES weather satellites:
- OK sure, this is NASA.


Japan: https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

3:00 - Problems with projections of the Earth.
That is the main focus of this thread. I do want to call out one thing - you mention that the southern land masses look "contrived". There are millions of people living in southern Africa, South America, and Australia, so the land masses are really that shape.  I agree with you it's interesting how there is so much ocean to the south, and so much land to the north, but it doesn't seem suspicious to me, just random.

4:00 - Centrifugal force at the equator.
See my above link/graph, this is measurable.
The thing to remember about rotational motion is that it's not the linear velocity that is felt, it's the rotational velocity. A children's merry-go-round that is rotating only at 1 rotation per day would not even be noticeable to most people. If you do the math, you'll find it's a tiny fraction of gravity, and that's what that graph shows.

See also the Eotvos effect - objects travelling east are lighter than objects travelling west.

4:28 - Space is a vacuum, why doesn't it suck up all the air?
As you go higher and higher in the atmosphere, the pressure decreases. Why doesn't the lower pressure area on top of the mountains suck up all the air from near the oceans? If the pressure decreases as we've observed, what happens if you keep going higher? Does the pressure ever go to zero?

4:34 - Bedford Level experiment
This experiment can be repeated, even by you, in modern times. People who have repeated it have found it wanting.
Here's one version. You can watch the whole thing, or just the part starting at 6:34 where a helicopter is viewed through a telescope and flies below the horizon.
For one interesting version of the Bedford level, look at the power poles on lake Pontchartrain
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8220.0
Some people argue that the pictures are fake, but you can go there yourself (with suitable equipment) and see for yourself.
Arguing that the pictures are fake is no better than arguing that Rowbotham fabricated the Bedford Level experiment. The entire point of experiments is you can repeat them.

4:55 Shining Rock wilderness
I don't have a lot of context to know what is level in that sense. For a good experiment on such a topic, see Bobby Shafto's work here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9492.0
He built some equipment to detect where eye level is, and measures heights of various mountains.
See also other pictures of mountain ranges like this:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9751.0
Especailly this one:


That's all I've got time for now, I'll keep watching later when I get the chance.

44

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Peirce Quincuncial Projection

« on: June 07, 2018, 01:30:16 AM »

When you are able to measure distances, as between two places on the same continent by e.g. driving, you find that 1 degree latitude straight north or south corresponds to 60 nautical miles, and that 1 degree longitude straight east or west corresponds to 60 nautical miles * cosine(latitude). This also works in the southern hemisphere.

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.

45

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Peirce Quincuncial Projection

« on: June 06, 2018, 04:00:34 AM »

Regarding the centripetal acceleration at the equator, this exists and has been measured. This is an important effect when weighing very small quantities such as in the pharmaceutical industry.

These people aren't trying to sell a globe earth conspiracy, they're just trying to make pharmaceuticals.
https://www.pharmamanufacturing.com/articles/2016/mass-measurement-precision-small-objects-pharmaceutical-production/

46

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)

« on: June 05, 2018, 02:01:22 AM »

New proposed verbiage:

...there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches over the first statute mile. Over two miles the fall will be 32 inches; by the end of the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in this chart. Correcting for the height of the observer of about 20 inches, when looking at the opposite beach over 23 miles away there should be a bulge of water obscuring objects up to 300 feet above the far beach. There isn't. Even accounting for refraction, the amount hidden should be around 260 feet - seeing down to the shoreline should be impossible.

47

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)

« on: June 04, 2018, 10:49:52 PM »

Current verbiage:

...there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in this chart. Ergo; looking at the opposite beach over 23 miles away there should be a bulge of water over 350 feet tall blocking my view. There isn't.

Proposed verbiage:

...there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches over the first statute mile. Over two miles the fall will be 32 inches; by the end of the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in this chart. Ergo; looking at the opposite beach over 23 miles away there should be a bulge of water obscuring objects up to 350 feet above the far beach. There isn't.

Two problems corrected here:
- The fall isn't 32 inches over the second mile and 72 inches over the third mile - it's a total fall of 32 inches after 2 miles, and a total fall of 72 inches after 3 miles.
- The bulge of water isn't 350 feet high, but the height of objects it obscures is 350 feet.

I haven't confirmed the 350 foot figure, but the wording makes more sense to me.

48

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)

« on: June 03, 2018, 04:43:52 PM »

I don't know that it's helpful to re-litigate the waves vs. Bishop argument here - maybe we can just focus on getting the math straightened out? I haven't dug into it enough to have an informed opinion about the outcome, but if we just discuss the drop vs. bulge vs. hidden area here it would likely be more productive.

49

Flat Earth Media / Re: Sun Spot Issues Debunk Heliocentricity

« on: May 27, 2018, 06:38:25 PM »

I wasn't able to capture an image that looks good, but you cant watch the Karen B video, starting at 13:27, for about 1 minute. The animation shows the earth rotating back and forth and the perspective from an observer on earth, BUT the camera angle is locked to the ecliptic. An equatorial mount does almost that exact thing (locks the camera angle in space).

In attempting to deny the utility of the equatorial mount, she demonstrates its necessity.

If you imagine yourself standing on the surface of that ball earth in the video, "up" changes dramatically from sunrise to sunset.

50

Flat Earth Media / Re: Sun Spot Issues Debunk Heliocentricity

« on: May 27, 2018, 05:53:07 PM »

When you go outside to look at or photograph the moon, you don't face East and then crane your neck straight up until you see the moon. You face whatever direction to see the moon most easily.

When the moon first rises you will be facing East, and when it is about to set, you'll be facing West. Half way between, in the northern hemisphere you'll be facing South.

One quarter of the way through the moon's path, you'll be facing Southeast. You are turning to face the moon, and the Earth's rotation is tilting you.

In the Karen B video, when attempting to claim that equatorial mounts don't work, she shows an animation of why the sun should not rotate, but the animation shows incorrectly the camera perspective is locked to the North Pole, it doesn't rotate with the Earth as it would in real life. I'll try to make you an image to look at.

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: May 27, 2018, 05:42:26 PM »

That person can't prevent you from taking pictures. You may not want to deal with it, but that person needs to review the rights of photographers.

52

Flat Earth Media / Re: Sun Spot Issues Debunk Heliocentricity

« on: May 27, 2018, 05:44:10 AM »

what is the mechanism for this rolling

Because it's a globe, and the viewing angle from different latitudes change as that globe rotates.

Model 29 meant that the Earth is a spinning globe. I suspect that you interpreted the pronoun as referring to the moon.

53

Flat Earth Media / Re: Sun Spot Issues Debunk Heliocentricity

« on: May 27, 2018, 05:17:25 AM »

If the Earth were a globe, and you were standing on it, and the Earth were rotating, what do you think that would look like?

It turns out, it would result in things like equatorial mounts being useful.

Pictures you have seen of the moon where it is not rotating were almost certainly generated by people using equatorial mounts.

54

Flat Earth Media / Re: Sun Spot Issues Debunk Heliocentricity

« on: May 27, 2018, 01:54:30 AM »

You said "the moon never rolls on the sky". It looks to me like it rolls about 60 degrees in 4 hours.

I know nothing about Karen B's setup other than that she doesn't understand how equatorial mounts work or why they would be useful, so the extra 45 degrees on her video could come from all sorts of bad setup.

For an example of a useful experiment, see Bobby's horizon rig, where he shares pictures of it to receive feedback on how to make it better.

Why didn't Karen do that?

Why would an equatorial mount not be useful?

55

Flat Earth Media / Re: Sun Spot Issues in Heliocentricity

« on: May 27, 2018, 01:36:12 AM »

Maybe I misunderstood your previous post:

If one were to follow the sun through the day passing over you from one horizon to one behind them the camera would be making a vertical 180 degree flip in that scenario as it follows the sun traveling across overhead.

I agree with this statement. It is necessary to flip your camera roughly 180 degrees gradually over 12 hours. That is exactly what an equatorial mount does.

If you do not flip your camera, the object you are photographing will flip instead.

Is that not what you meant? If you think there is some obvious conclusion to draw from your statement please state it explicitly.

56

Flat Earth Media / Re: Sun Spot Issues in Heliocentricity

« on: May 27, 2018, 01:17:54 AM »

Is that what her setup looks like? I saw no pictures of how she set her camera.

If what you are saying is correct, if her camera was upright in the morning it would be to be inverted in the evening. I've never seen anybody with a camera mounted upside down on a tripod, what would that look like?

The pictures of the investigators span over a few hours, not all throughout the day. Watch the video.

I did watch the video. 180 degrees in a roughly 12 hour day means about 15 degrees per hour you'd have to compensate for if you don't know how to track the sun.

In my second post I reposted the rotation of the earth argument that she would have to continuously roll her camera every hour, which is clearly false.

Just saying something is clearly false isn't helpful. It isn't clear at all to me that it is false. What is your evidence or your reasoning?

On the video she dismisses the equatorial mount by asserting that two axes of rotation are required, but she doesn't say why. If you think equatorial mounts aren't sufficient for tracking objects we should figure out why.

The moon does't roll and rotate like that in the sky. That concept that is totally unprecedented.

Of course the moon rotates like that if you don't know how to aim your camera and don't use an equatorial mount.

Here's someone tracking the Moon and seeing apparent rotation.

57

Flat Earth Media / Re: Sun Spot Issues in Heliocentricity

« on: May 27, 2018, 12:16:42 AM »

Is that what her setup looks like? I saw no pictures of how she set her camera.

If what you are saying is correct, if her camera was upright in the morning it would be to be inverted in the evening. I've never seen anybody with a camera mounted upside down on a tripod, what would that look like?

On the video she dismisses the equatorial mount by asserting that two axes of rotation are required, but she doesn't say why. If you think equatorial mounts aren't sufficient for tracking objects we should figure out why.

58

Flat Earth Community / Re: So everyone, I mean everyone – family and friends think I'm going insane

« on: May 25, 2018, 11:10:38 PM »

Talk to Jon Johanson, who flew over the South Pole without permission.

From what I read about it suggests that he managed to make it to a base in Antarctica, perhaps after doing his research on other flight paths that have been claimed to it, and then when he landed they refused to give or sell him fuel to further his journey or return home. After being held hostage for a while he was offered a flight to New Zealand.

Not particularly conclusive. In fact, we see that the scientists there aren't so nice and welcoming as commonly believed.

Are you saying that if the government doesn't go somewhere and establish a gas station for you to come visit, that they are prohibiting you from going there?

59

Flat Earth Community / Re: So everyone, I mean everyone – family and friends think I'm going insane

« on: May 25, 2018, 11:07:23 PM »

Even of he had a compass or a gyroscopic compass, if you are at what you think to be the South Pole on a Round Earth, you know that have to go North to go back to the coast.

We see from the diagrams of these explorers that they didn't continue in a straight line after reaching the pole. They turned in an angle. Show me an expedition where they continued in a straight line.

If your goal is to cross Austrailia, why would you change your angle mid journey?

If your goal is to cross Australia, hitting a known landmark in the middle (e.g. Ayers Rock), and starting and ending at established points (e.g. cities like Perth and Sydney, how could you NOT change your angle mid journey? You need to decide:
- Do you want to make the 'longest crossing'?
- Do you want to make a straight line crossing?
- Do you want to cross the pole?
- Do you want to fight your way along mountains, or just kite-ski on the flats?

Weighing these options will almost always result in an angle change.

In the airplanes, exiting the pole towards a continent is preferable to exiting the pole towards a vast trackless ocean.

60

Flat Earth Community / Re: So everyone, I mean everyone – family and friends think I'm going insane

« on: May 25, 2018, 06:21:00 AM »

And here's why you need to use a logistics company to help you:
https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/science/cold-science/life-work/crevasse-rescue-93.htm

These folks didn't know how to navigate a crevasse field, got one of themselves killed and induced a joint US-NZ rescue team to put themselves at great risk rescuing them.