2041

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.

« on: July 18, 2019, 11:59:32 PM »

Great on the English lesson. But the problem is without me doing that you still don’t get it. I’m afraid you never will.

Oh no. I understand you. I just disagree. This is where we are different.  You don't understand the point that both Pete and I have made.

I could be wrong, but I don't think you and Pete are actually saying the same thing. Feel free to correct my thinking.

Half of me thinks you’re just playing a game. And that’s fine. Carry on.

All of me thinks that you are playing a game. You have done things like demanding arbitrary lines be drawn on static images, looking at an image or map and saying the earth is round based on assumptions, repeated "DOES NOT COUNT" claims,  refusing to answer a simple yes or no question, and making erroneous grammar corrections.

No one has demanded anything from you. Unless you possess a distinct absence of free will and self control, it's entirely up to you how you would like to engage and participate.

A yes or no answer sometimes requires that the terms and intent of the question are understood by both parties. For instance:

Have you stopped beating your wife? A simple yes or no is required.

2042

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.

« on: July 18, 2019, 10:21:25 PM »

by literal definition they aren't 'flat earth' maps.

That's not true. By definition, they are projections of the Earth. You (and possibly the authors of some maps, notably excluding the "azimuthal equidistant projection") assume that the original shape of the Earth is your favourite shape.

Saying that the Earth is round because it is round is not gonna help us here.

I’m not sure I’m following. Are you saying that google, for example, is assuming that earth is a globe and therefore they use a globe projection for their maps?

If so, which is actually a fair statement, I think that is different than what iam has been trying to convey.

2043

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.

« on: July 18, 2019, 08:43:35 PM »

Maybe this is a semantics thing, idk. But the sentence to me should read:
If you project the earth (of a specific shape) onto a flat plane map then the flat plane map represents the earth (of that specific shape).

I had my friend's sister who is an English major look at this sentence:


If you project a Globe Earth onto a flat map then that flat map represents the Globe earth as a flat map


She said that saying globe and flat multiple times is repetitive and should not be done.

If you project a Globe Earth onto a flat map then that map represents the earth.

Great on the English lesson. But the problem is without me doing that you still don’t get it. I’m afraid you never will. Half of me thinks you’re just playing a game. And that’s fine. Carry on.

2044

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.

« on: July 18, 2019, 08:02:31 PM »

That's not true. By definition, they are projections of the Earth. You (and possibly the authors of some maps, notably excluding the "azimuthal equidistant projection") assume that the original shape of the Earth is your favourite shape.

Saying that the Earth is round because it is round is not gonna help us here.

I agree and this is the same point that i'm making. Even in the RE model there are like multiple shapes the earth could be such as a sphere, spheroid, oblate spheroid, globe etc.


People constantly look at something, such as a 2d map which is widely accepted as a map of the earth, and proudly proclaim EARTH IS A SPHERE! What about a spheroid? What about an oblate spheroid? What about some other shape?

Fixed it for you:

If you project a Sphere Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the Sphere Earth on a flat plane.
If you project a globe Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the globe Earth on a flat plane.
If you project a spheroid Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the spheroid Earth on a flat plane.
If you project an oblate spheroid Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the oblate spheroid Earth on a flat plane.

You didn't fix anything. I had basically said the exact same thing here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15083.msg196532#msg196532

The shape of the earth is still moot.

If you project the earth (of any shape) onto a flat plane map then the flat plane map represents the earth (of any shape).

Maybe this is a semantics thing, idk. But the sentence to me should read:

If you project the earth (of a specific shape) onto a flat plane map then the flat plane map represents the earth (of that specific shape).

2045

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth Stands Fast

« on: July 18, 2019, 07:20:01 AM »

Why should anything need to keep the fixed stars spinning? If there is microgravity in space then the system or 'firmament' can be kept rotating for the same reason that a fidget spinner would spin essentially forever in space.

Seems reasonable. However, does FET have knowledge of any microgravity in space? And if so how?

2046

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.

« on: July 17, 2019, 10:21:58 PM »

If you project a Globe Earth onto a flat plane map then that flat plane map represents the earth as a flat plane. Isn't that the whole point?

Yes you can represent a sphere on a plane using different techniques, but the fact that an object is represented on a plane, doesn't make it a representation of a plane.

The map is a plane, that much is clear. But the map can't be representing a plane and a sphere at the same time. I think you are confusing two things: what the map IS geometrically (a plane) and what the map REPRESENTS (a sphere).

Let's go step by step:
1. IF you project a Globe Earth onto a flat plane map THEN the Flat plane map is  projection of a globe. Correct?
2. IF a flat plane map is a projection of a globe, THEN the flat plane map represents a globe in a plane. Correct?
3. IF the flat plane map represents a globe THEN the flat plane map does not represent a plane. Correct?

If you project the Earth of any shape onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the Earth (regardless of it's shape) as a flat plane. It's shape agnostic.

Incorrect and you are entirely, after all this time, completely missing the core of what a cartographic 'projection' is. Gerardus Mercator is spinning in his grave right now.

Let me give you some examples:

If you project a Sphere Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the Earth as a flat plane.
If you project a globe Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the Earth as a flat plane.
If you project a spheroid Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the Earth as a flat plane.
If you project an oblate spheroid Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the Earth as a flat plane.

Fixed it for you:

If you project a Sphere Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the Sphere Earth on a flat plane.
If you project a globe Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the globe Earth on a flat plane.
If you project a spheroid Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the spheroid Earth on a flat plane.
If you project an oblate spheroid Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the oblate spheroid Earth on a flat plane.

2047

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.

« on: July 17, 2019, 08:01:46 PM »

I want to be crystal clear here.
When you use 'FE', do you mean the royal FE? As in The Flat Earth, the belief that the earth is actually flat and not spherical?

Ex., Yes = Bing maps DO NOT COUNT as FE maps as they do not represent The Flat Earth, aka 'FE', which is defined as the earth being actually flat and not spherical.

I'm so sorry. I'm not trying to be rude here. I'm just trying to figure out if you answer is a yes or a no?

I can't answer your question without you answering my question first.

Bing maps does NOT represent the earth as a flat plane.  It represents a globe that is projected onto a flat plane.  Do you see and understand the difference?

And, as stack said. In one word.  Yes.

If you project a Globe Earth onto a flat plane map then that flat plane map represents the earth as a flat plane. Isn't that the whole point?

You're still shaving around the edges. The correct phrasing of the statement should be:

"If you project a Globe Earth onto a flat map then that flat map represents the Globe earth as a flat map, maintaining a Globe Earth coordinate system and Globe Earth measurements/distances. It is not a map of The Flat Earth, the earth shape where some believe the physical shape of the Earth is flat, not spherical. It is a map of the Globe/Spherical earth that has been projected on to a flattened surface for ease of use and transport."

2048

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.

« on: July 17, 2019, 05:23:55 AM »

How very adult of you.

About as adult as ignoring a simple yes or no question.

It's not a yes or no question.

This is, very clearly, a yes or no question:

Do the Bing maps, which represent the earth as a flat plane, not count as FE maps because the map website says they are based on a globe projection?

Yes =Bing maps DO NOT COUNT as FE maps
No = Bing maps do count as FE maps

I want to be crystal clear here.
When you use 'FE', do you mean the royal FE? As in The Flat Earth, the belief that the earth is actually flat and not spherical?

Ex., Yes = Bing maps DO NOT COUNT as FE maps as they do not represent The Flat Earth, aka 'FE', which is defined as the earth being actually flat and not spherical.

2049

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.

« on: July 17, 2019, 01:45:21 AM »

I'm not following. It's lame for Microsoft to state that their Bing Map system is based upon a spherical Earth; with a spherical Earth coordinate system and spherical Earth measurements/distances?

Stack,

you refused to answer a simple yes or no question. so I will refuse to answer your question.

How very adult of you.

It's not a yes or no question. Here's a dialogue I made up as an example:

Question, it appears that according to many in the FE community there isn't an accurate, usable FE map. How should we go about actually making one?

Flat Earther: There is an FE map. It's called Bing Map. It's flat and I can zoom in and out of it.

Globe Earther: Actually, according to Microsoft and their documentation their Bing Map system is based upon a spherical Earth; with a spherical Earth coordinate system and spherical Earth measurements/distances.

Flat Earther: What are you saying, that the Bing Map DOES NOT COUNT as an FE map?!?!

Globe Earther: I'm just saying that it would be weird and ironic for an FEr to say that Bing is an FE map when clearly Microsoft says it is not. I mean it is a 'flat' Earth map, as opposed to the 3D Globe it represents in 2D, but it's not a map of The Flat Earth. You know, that thing where people believe the earth is actually flat and not spherical...

Flat Earther: Well that's lame, you could say DOES NOT COUNT about anything!

Globe Earther: Well I suppose you could, but I'm not saying it, Microsoft is, about their own map system. And the entire purpose of the question, "How should we go about actually making one? (an FE Map)" is because apparently there is no Flat Earth map that anyone seems to know of that is either not at all accurate with reality or is not based upon a Globe Earth. If you know of a map that is both accurate with reality and is not based upon a Globe Earth, lay it on us. Job done.

2050

Flat Earth Theory / Re: When rockets launch....

« on: July 16, 2019, 11:31:26 PM »

You seem confused - the scientific definition of the equinox , which I quoted , is taken from the timeanddate website . The two instances when the earth tilt is not angled toward or away from the sun , six months apart .
And this should give ,as near as possible , equal day and night . All in any scientific dictionary and a consequence of earth orbiting the sun with a tilt of 66.6 degrees .

The fact is these days of equal day/night are increasingly farther apart for corresponding N-S latitudes  . Now refraction , scientific term form for abracadabra, is given as an attempt to explain this . But where is this magic effect at solstice . No refraction at solstice  !!  No waffle required .
       So solstice days fit the heliocentric model nicely , however you can't fit equinoxes within the heliocentric model without waffle .
The reason I use time and date is that those sunrise/set times are not theory , they are direct observation , or reality .

Wikipedia is another site with a well known aversion to reality so I tend to ignore that .

No confusion on my part. Your definition of an equinox in terms of earth tilt I entirely agree with. But you then follow up with "And this should give ,as near as possible , equal day and night". No, no, no. You are just making this assertion, this hasn't come from any scientific description of equinox. You seem quite fond of time & date as a source for accurate and reliable information, so let me quote from them:

Even if the name suggests it and it is widely accepted, it is not entirely true that day and night are exactly equal on the equinox.

And I've already given you a link to a full explanation as to why this is the case and as markjo has pointed out you are confusing equliux with equinox.

I make no assertion. What you refer to as my assertion is in the scientific dictionary description of equinox .
https://www.britannica.com/science/equinox-astronomy
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/equinox

You can find more if you wish . 

This is equinox according to heliocentrism - do you not know the model you defend ?

Equinox is a prediction of the heliocentric model which fails in reality hence the waffle required

Can you perhaps be more clear exactly what you are arguing here? Because it seems like we are all saying the same thing. From your equinox definition link:

the time when the sun crosses the plane of the earth's equator, making night and day of approximately equal length all over the earth and occurring about March 21 (vernal equinox or spring equinox) and September 22 (autumnal equinox).

Seems like a reasonable definition.

2051

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.

« on: July 16, 2019, 08:59:15 PM »

does not count

This is what i'm saying is lame. It's lame for someone to say a map does not count just like it's lame for someone to say a southern hemisphere flight does not count.

I'm not following. It's lame for Microsoft to state that their Bing Map system is based upon a spherical Earth; with a spherical Earth coordinate system and spherical Earth measurements/distances?

2052

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.

« on: July 16, 2019, 08:12:19 AM »

That does not answer my question. A simple yes or no would suffice. Do the Bing maps, which represent the earth as a flat plane, not count as FE maps because you believe they are based on a globe projection?

Yes =Bing maps DO NOT COUNT as FE maps
No = Bing maps do count as FE maps

You seem to be the only one who can answer their own questions. So ask yourself why this topic exists.

Was that a yes or a no?


I'll ask again because i'm not sure what the answer is.

Do the Bing maps, which represent the earth as a flat plane, not count as FE maps because you believe they are based on a globe projection?


Yes =Bing maps DO NOT COUNT as FE maps
No = Bing maps do count as FE maps

My beliefs have never played a role in this discussion.

2053

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.

« on: July 16, 2019, 01:44:45 AM »

The same logic doesn't apply because we are talking about 3D versus 2D.

A quick glance around shows that i'm in a 3D room in a 3D state in a 3D country on a 3D planet so the same logic does apply.

Ask yourself what the question is that's being asked in the OP and why.

That does not answer my question. A simple yes or no would suffice. Do the Bing maps, which represent the earth as a flat plane, not count as FE maps because you believe they are based on a globe projection?

Yes =Bing maps DO NOT COUNT as FE maps
No = Bing maps do count as FE maps

You seem to be the only one who can answer their own questions. So ask yourself why this topic exists.

2054

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.

« on: July 16, 2019, 12:38:25 AM »

Yes, you have explained and documented this before. And from that thread, your explanation and documentation mystified everyone else. But maybe we're just all daft. But essentially the same conceptual problems you have with the common FE AE map/model are the same problems you should have with an 'FE' Bing style map/model.

FE AE map/model: Distances are all out of whack especially in the southern hemisphere. Would it make a difference if it were 'interactive'? No
'FE' Bing style map/model: Distances are all out of whack especially when traveling east or west off the map. Would it make a difference if it were 'interactive'? No

You can't travel off of the bing map. I've sent screenshots to demonstrate how you can travel east and wind up where you started as well as travel west and wind up where you started without traveling off of the edge of anything.  The map is interactive.

Hmmm, maybe I am just incapable of conveying what I think I am trying to convey. Entirely possible.

If you look at a map of Texas and drive outside of the Texas border does the edge of the map represent the end of all existence? no it does not.

We are not talking about a map of Texas, we are talking about a map of the world.

The same logic applies to a RE model. You can't take a flat 2d static image of a globe and demonstrate these kinds of flights. You can do it with a globe because the globe is interactive and can spin.

Refusing to accept an interactive map and FORCING the use of a static not interactive image to represent a planet which is not static is the same as me doing this to you:

Draw a line on this static image of the round earth model which demonstrates a flight from San Francisco to Tokyo:

One line in the unedited image below. If you can't draw such a line the earth can't possibly be a globe!!!

The same logic doesn't apply because we are talking about 3D versus 2D.

these interactive maps you've referenced are globe

Ok. I got it. You believe they are globe maps. I've known that for some time now.

I never uttered the words, "does not count".

 So you are saying that, even though you believe they are globe maps, they do count as FE maps?

Because if you are saying that these maps "DO NOT COUNT" as FE maps because you believe they are globe maps then my original statement stands

Ask yourself what the question is that's being asked in the OP and why.

2055

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.

« on: July 15, 2019, 11:22:23 PM »

A static non interactive image has a definitive edge. I am of the belief that the earth does not have an edge. If you travel in a straight line in any direction you will arrive roughly back at the same place you started without teleporting. Kind of like if you were walking on an omnidirectional treadmill

This video outlines the problems with the flat disk model as well as the problems with a static non interactive non moving Bing/mapquest model (at about the 1:39 mark).

A couple problems with this.

- Omni-directional Treadmill: If you and I are both to meet in Tokyo, both departing from San Francisco at the same time, you flying East, me flying West - your omnidirectional treadmill would be moving one way, mine would be moving the opposite way. How does that work?

I've already explained this and documented it in the thread linked. before. I'll link it again here:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14046.msg187564#msg187564

Yes, you have explained and documented this before. And from that thread, your explanation and documentation mystified everyone else. But maybe we're just all daft. But essentially the same conceptual problems you have with the common FE AE map/model are the same problems you should have with an 'FE' Bing style map/model.

FE AE map/model: Distances are all out of whack especially in the southern hemisphere. Would it make a difference if it were 'interactive'? No
'FE' Bing style map/model: Distances are all out of whack especially when traveling east or west off the map. Would it make a difference if it were 'interactive'? No

- Interactive Bing/Mapquest Model: Doing some more digging, interactivity does not solve any problems. According to Microsoft documentation regarding the scaling (interactivity) of their Bing map, even when zoomed in the map is still based upon WGS84 datum as defined: The WGS 84 datum surface is an oblate spheroid with equatorial radius a = 6378137 m at the equator and flattening f = 1/298.257223563.

From Microsoft:
"The latitude and longitude are assumed to be on the WGS 84 datum. Even though Bing Maps uses a spherical projection, it’s important to convert all geographic coordinates into a common datum, and WGS 84 was chosen to be that datum."

Same for Mapquest as it is powered by OpenStreetMaps, which is based upon WGS84 as well.

Then you can stand up and proudly say "DOES NOT COUNT" to them as flat earth models. I don't share your view. Your "DOES NOT COUNT" quite frankly "DOES NOT COUNT" to me.

Why don't you find an interactive map, with an interactive scale, which you think does count.

I never uttered the words, "does not count". I'm just merely pointing out that "interactivity" or not doesn't matter because these interactive maps you've referenced are globe based regardless of whether you're zoomed in or not. If you don't like that fact, take it up with Microsoft.

2056

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.

« on: July 15, 2019, 10:15:12 PM »

What difference should that make? unless you think land distorts in real life the further away you are a static flat earth map is just as accurate.

A static non interactive image has a definitive edge. I am of the belief that the earth does not have an edge. If you travel in a straight line in any direction you will arrive roughly back at the same place you started without teleporting. Kind of like if you were walking on an omnidirectional treadmill

This video outlines the problems with the flat disk model as well as the problems with a static non interactive non moving Bing/mapquest model (at about the 1:39 mark).

A couple problems with this.

- Omni-directional Treadmill: If you and I are both to meet in Tokyo, both departing from San Francisco at the same time, you flying East, me flying West - your omnidirectional treadmill would be moving one way, mine would be moving the opposite way. How does that work?

- Interactive Bing/Mapquest Model: Doing some more digging, interactivity does not solve any problems. According to Microsoft documentation regarding the scaling (interactivity) of their Bing map, even when zoomed in the map is still based upon WGS84 datum as defined: The WGS 84 datum surface is an oblate spheroid with equatorial radius a = 6378137 m at the equator and flattening f = 1/298.257223563.

From Microsoft:
"The latitude and longitude are assumed to be on the WGS 84 datum. Even though Bing Maps uses a spherical projection, it’s important to convert all geographic coordinates into a common datum, and WGS 84 was chosen to be that datum."

Same for Mapquest as it is powered by OpenStreetMaps, which is based upon WGS84 as well.

2057

Flat Earth Theory / Re: When rockets launch....

« on: July 15, 2019, 09:45:33 PM »

It is glaringly  obvious what the word equinox means - read the blurb on the website which states "the equinoxes mark the exact moment twice a year when the earths axis is not tilted away from or towards the sun. "  But that fact is hidden by a load of waffle . Night/day should be equal - hence the "equinox".

 Have a look at the solstices day/night lengths - by the same waffle these should fall on different days . But they coincide at northern and southern latitudes - the longest day on northern solstice equates to the shortest southern day . Where is the waffle effect ?

Globe theory is smoke and mirrors .

Equinox definition from Merriam-Webster:

equinox noun
equi·​nox | ˈē-kwə-ˌnäks

1 : either of the two points on the celestial sphere where the celestial equator intersects the ecliptic
2 : either of the two times each year (as about March 21 and September 23) when the sun crosses the equator and day and night are everywhere on earth of approximately equal length

Operative word, 'approximately', not 'exactly'.

2058

Flat Earth Theory / Re: When rockets launch....

« on: July 15, 2019, 06:56:28 PM »

It is glaringly  obvious what the word equinox means - read the blurb on the website which states "the equinoxes mark the exact moment twice a year when the earths axis is not tilted away from or towards the sun. "  But that fact is hidden by a load of waffle . Night/day should be equal - hence the "equinox".

 Have a look at the solstices day/night lengths - by the same waffle these should fall on different days . But they coincide at northern and southern latitudes - the longest day on northern solstice equates to the shortest southern day . Where is the waffle effect ?

Globe theory is smoke and mirrors .

FWIW, you might want to start using a new source for your data. From timeanddate.com:



https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth-help.html

2059

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.

« on: July 13, 2019, 02:07:38 AM »

At least it doesn't pac man like is shown in your model.

That is not my FE model. The depiction of the Earth which most closely resembles my FE model is bing maps which you have rejected. You demanded that I draw lines on a non interactive static image which I believe is much less accurate to what the world really looks like because that map does not even have a scale on it. Unfortunately any map that I found that had a scale, or was interactive, which was closer to my FE model you proudly said "DOES NOT COUNT"

My model does not pac man.

I'm not sure where we're missing the mark. Usually, if I'm explaining something to someone, 9 times out of 10, if they are not picking up what I'm putting down it's because I'm not explaining it well enough. Let's stick to the notion that we're still in the 90% realm.

- You like the bing map. So do I.
- You like that it's interactive, you can zoom in or zoom out. So do I.
- You think that the continental layout of the bing map is way more correct than this north pole centered business we see in the common FE map/model. Cool, so do I.
- So, for an FE Continental layout, let's go with the bing model. We both like it.

So here's the flat earth world Bing map we hang on the classroom wall:



I'm going with calling it a flat earth world map hanging on the classroom wall because it is meant to represent the flat earth as we know it to be on a flat piece of paper attached to our flat classroom wall.

I'll stop here to see if we're on the same page. Are we on the same page?

EDIT:

I'm stumbled upon this which may be a better explainer than I am providing of the problem space. Have look. Right up front it references a lot of the issues we've already been talking about here.

2060

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.

« on: July 13, 2019, 12:59:36 AM »

I simply raised a problem with this type of flat earth model/map. It's called the "Pac-man" effect. I'm sure you've read about it here. In this model, my plane is magically "pac-manning" off the left side of the map and magically appearing on the right side. How did it sneak from the left side to the right unnoticed?

Unfortunately for me you rejected every interactive map i found so I was limited to one that was not interactive.

I drew this line many times in many different ways using many different maps. I guess all of those "DO NOT COUNT"
Apparently you also rejected my explanation.


You don't teleport from one end to the other. Let me describe the flight in words again:

The plane departs from California, heads East over the Pacific Ocean, passes Hawaii, lands in Japan.

It's very clear.

You see, it's not. Not clear at all. For this exercise we are taking the continental layout from the timeanddate map which we can't prove is derived from a globe projection. Much like when an AE Monopole FEr uses their model (projection or no projection, doesn't matter) and maps out a flight path they show it on the whole map, as is, one world view.

So my flight on that model would look like this:



Regardless of whether anyone thinks that is the real flight path or not is not the issue at the moment. At least it doesn't pac man like is shown in your model. You need a one world view model where you show flight paths at the same time not dropping off any sides and needing to teleport.

Here is an image. Are you able to prove that this image is from a map which is based on a globe, sphere, or oblate spheroid projection? I believe you can and will just say "DOES NOT COUNT"

I have no idea if it's based on a globe projection or not. But there is a lot of the world missing from the image.