21

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Peirce Quincuncial Projection

« on: June 07, 2018, 05:15:27 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.

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

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

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

22

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Peirce Quincuncial Projection

« on: June 07, 2018, 01:05:15 AM »

Thanks. I'll take a look at this and try to develop my 2D model. I'll try to get all of this data into a relational SQL database and try to visualize it in an application called Gephi. There must be a way of making all of this work.

keep in mind that the longest direct flight, per the article listed below, is 17.5 "round earth" hours.
https://www.hopper.com/articles/1049/the-worlds-20-longest-non-stop-flights


It has been suggested that our current time system was specifically designed to support a globe earth.
It has been suggested that our current distance system was specifically designed to support a globe earth.
It has been suggested that our measurement system was specifically designed to support a globe earth.


Without the ability to measure "flat earth" distances creating any sort of map is impossible as measuring distance is the foundation of cartography.



In the dome flat earth model it has been suggested that something flying through the dome would instantly teleport to the corresponding opposite side of the dome.

But we can measure flat earth distance. If the world is flat that is.......

Our logs on ships are calibrated to the sea bed using Doppler, so if the world is flat, then the distances given are “flat earth” distances.
If the world is a globe, then the distances are Globe Earth distances.

Therefore using the fact we can show our logs are within 2% of the calculated distances, we can show that the calculated distances are in fact correct if the world is either global or flat.

Just take the distances and try to put them on a model.............
And keep an open mind about the results...........

23

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Peirce Quincuncial Projection

« on: June 06, 2018, 10:51:45 PM »

So with all of these international flights in the southern hemisphere that are impossible in my flat earth map, what does a map of the flat earth look like?

Does anyone have a flat earth model that works or is everyone experiencing connotative dissonance like me?

Welcome to why we have the 'gem' of "We don't know the distance between New York and Paris" from the FE side. The known/published distances will only work on a sphere. Which means, in order for the Earth to be flat, at the very least the distances across the waters of the world must be inaccurate/unknown. There's no way around that. Which opens up a whole host of worms, the largest being that no vehicle that travels across the waters for long distances, can accurately know it's speed. Or at least something to that effect. It's a bit of a problem really.

To be fair i have not seen the claim that ships speed is inaccurate, airplanes yes, (although incorrect) but not specifically ships, and i have s=described why and how we calibrate ships logs to be accurate to within about 2% of a distance, irrespective of it being flat earth or globe earth.

Distance tables are available for shipping distances, however it is important to be aware that for a distance from New York to say San Francisco, the distance given will be via Panama Canal avoiding land. Therefore it is necessary to chose ocean ports to ocean port, say Durban to Perth, which have no intervening land mass,

The real Beauty of knowing that the ships measured distance is accurate is that it verifies distances that are calculated on the globe earth, and the method of calculating shipping distances is the same as that used for airline distances, and therefore verifies the airline distances, which in main are shortest distances.

24

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Peirce Quincuncial Projection

« on: June 06, 2018, 02:36:12 PM »

Nice: I hadn't heard of the Luanda-Sao Paolo flight before. I shall add it to my list of direct southern hemisphere flights (74+ per week last time I checked).

How about Perth to london, Non stop. (Quantas) just started this year.

17 hours 20 minutes from Perth, and the return leg is 16 hours 30 minutes, it does not get any longer.

Emirates do a similar, but slightly shorter Dubai, to Auckland flight, and return. Non stop, nearly 16 hours.

San Francisco to Singapore is also a Non stop service, singapore airlines and united do them, about 16 hours 30 mins. I have travelled that route.

Johannesburg to Perth is 9 hours non stop. Again i have been on that flight.

The flight times on the South Africa to Perth are comparable to the the London too Luanda, but the map shows the distance to be far greater

25

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Mods on this forum are biased and rubbish

« on: June 06, 2018, 12:05:06 PM »

How about this one for which i was warned; yet i was posting a link to a previous comment, which was completely relevant.  Read back the three posts before it, and my only “crime” was to open a new post instead of modifying the post before it.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9653.msg150826#msg150826

And yet read this one......

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9358.msg154952#msg154952

See the similarities?

26

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Peirce Quincuncial Projection

« on: June 06, 2018, 11:17:38 AM »

How long is the flight from the Congo to Brazil?

Flight from Luanda (Angola) to São Paulo, (Brazil) is a direct flight of 8 hours 30 mins. No places to stop encountering, so direct flight.

Luanda to London is 8 hours 50 mins, so a comparable time really. (I have been on that flight, and it is non stop)

The distance on the map Angola to Brazil, is about 60-75% longer than Angola to UK, even though the flight time is actually shorter...

27

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Peirce Quincuncial Projection

« on: June 06, 2018, 01:53:28 AM »

You've raised some good points. So I will look into the sun paths and distances between countries.

Your lines (squares) of lattitude contain right angles, requiring a traveller to turn 90 degrees to maintain an east or west heading at certain points on the globe, that does not happen.

This map does show the equator as a square with right angles. However, you only have to travel slightly away from the corner positions for the lines of latitude to curve again. So with only four very small points on the map causing the line of lattitude to turn exactly 90 degrees, in the middle of the sea, this could be covered up.

Covered up by Who?

I sail those oceans and can promise you we dont need to turn 90 degrees in the ocean to keep sailing east or west.

Last year I went from northern Angola to North East Brazil, in a straight line that did not involve bumping into Liberia

New Zealand is also pretty close to Australia, but unfortunately not so on your map.

28

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Peirce Quincuncial Projection

« on: June 05, 2018, 10:31:41 PM »

Interesting map, but there are still many many questions unanswered.

for example;
Meridians of longitude are places on the earth where the sun is at its highest each day, your meridians dont work with any sun model proposed so far.
Parallels of lattitude are places where the sun has the same apparent altitude for a given declination. Your map does not work with the suns path.

Your distances between major continents must be way out from what is actually measured by ships tracks.

Your lines (squares) of lattitude contain right angles, requiring a traveller to turn 90 degrees to maintain an east or west heading at certain points on the globe, that does not happen. Neither does the model you propose work with any of the known measurements of the magnetic field lines of the earth.

The above are just some, there are many more things need explaining.

However i do congratulate you for actually doing something, and attempting to create a model.

29

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

« on: June 05, 2018, 03:18:21 PM »

...I stumbled across a live webcam at Pacific Beach.

I can use this to see how clear the horizon is before trekking out with my gear. Plus, it pans past a palm tree that has a little identifiable indent right that we can use as a crude index to see how much the horizon rises or falls with visibility, all from the comfort of a keyboard...

It doesn't really help with the "eye level" question, but it can help with confidence what the "true horizon" is.

A few days worth of horizon checks:

I would say the horizon is pretty steady. It does not appear to move up or down, just sharpens somewhat.

Good luck within the observations

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Southern Sky. Need explanations

« on: June 05, 2018, 04:21:39 AM »

The Round Earth Theory has had thousands of years of development with millions of dollars of public funding. The Flat Earth Theory is a relatively new theory that receives zero funding, with hundreds of people like you complaining and refusing to participate. What are you expecting to see?

No one likes a complainer.

But didnt the bible say the earth was flat? Or scriptures? Etc etc? In which case the FE hypotheses has been around for a lot longer than the RE, and still there is not a coherent idea of what is happening with the sky and stars.

I also have not seen REers asking for money and refusing to do experiments, *claiming they are not interested or dont have the time) there has been one on going to prove the horizon is not at eye level, and others trying to get a consensus on making distances fit a plane surface, and apart from the Bishop experiment, and links to some You tube videos, and references to EnaG, I dont see a lot of FE observations, or willingness to do very much other than complain there is not enough time or money to do any experiments.

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: June 04, 2018, 06:10:14 PM »

Niether of the above 2 points are correct.

I am a navigator, and we do not have any secret charts that we use. We use Mercator projection charts published by National hydrographic offices, and are available to anyone who wants to buy them.

We also don’t solely rely upon Navigatioin instruments. We can navigate by celestial observations (which we need to calculate, and not necessarily with a computer) using spherical navigation methods and trigonometry, as well as the almanacs of the sun and stars.
We do use GPS as well, but this just gives us a lat/long.

When we are close to land we use visual navigation methods and radar for fixing our positions.

We can navigate from any position on the earth to any other poisition, and dont have to follow courses or tracks we have done before, for example we can plot a course and distance from say South Georgia to luanda, Cape Town, Lisbon, Cape Verde, Santos, Falklands, Recife, New York, etc without having done that voyage previously, so we are not following old routes.

32

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: June 04, 2018, 02:42:33 PM »

Consider the following: If on either model you stand on top of a scale, it will tell you your mass. If I now approach you from behind, give you a good ol' cuddle and start lifting you up (not quite strongly enough to actually lift you off the ground, mind you, I'm rather weak and frail), you will notice that your measured mass will reduce. Does that mean that the Earth's gravitation became weaker? No. There's an additional force in the mix that you have to consider.

Do you really mean Mass?

Lifting someone up will not alter their mass. The mass of a person on earth or somewhere else with a difference force acting upon them will be the same.
The mass of someone at sea level and then on top of Everest is the same. Their weight is not.

You are referring to weight surely?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

33

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Mods on this forum are biased and rubbish

« on: June 04, 2018, 08:03:36 AM »

The post i was referred to and received a message about was this one referring to our dear Mr Bishop

He is clutching at straws, and makes himself look a fool.

And the post I referred to from junker is;

This will help prevent you from looking as foolish as you do here. Best of luck, friend!

Hmmm, not a lot of difference I recon.

There is a lot of personal bias in the way the “rules” are appl,ied, and it seems like I am not the only one who thinks so.

I have not lied, but i guess if Pete is being over sensitive and upset because i didnt do as he wants (toe the line etc) then i can not help that.
Also look at the post I made in AR, and the response from a MOD, who pretty much told me to post the OP in this section.

Anyway good luck with the Biased Modding, it does not do this site any justice at all.

34

Suggestions & Concerns / Mods on this forum are biased and rubbish

« on: June 04, 2018, 02:57:03 AM »

So i have had a run in with the Mods, Again.

A few days back, Pete sent me a PM saying i should not call anyone an Idiot, (I think Tom had thrown his toys out of the pram, (buggy/stroller) but no names were mentioned. In fact i think I only suggested Tom was an idiot, and cannot recall doing it to anyone else)

Anyway Junker was obviously having a bout of PMT, so called someone an idiot yesterday, so instead of calling him out in the forum, I reported the post.

Queue another message from Pete saying that Junker might not have been right, but I was still wrong............

I thought mods set the tone of these debates, and when you get told not to do something, which is then directly done by a Mod, it is rather galling.

So ranting here I am, and fully expect to get another nice PM, telling me I cant criticise Mods................

It’s like debating with one hand tied behind your back. FEers can post low content shit posts (think Baby Thork) pretty much with impunity, whilst if I comment on low content posts of a Mod, I get warned. Also warned for replying to a thread because I copied something Tom had written?? (Still cant my head round that one)

Of course I understand that people who ask difficult questions need to be put in their place, after all what audacity we have for questioning the FE Hypotheses of others, but to unfairly use the Mods authority to allow one side free range over dissent is not doing this site any favours.

35

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA influence in Australian Air Traffic Control

« on: June 03, 2018, 11:48:01 PM »

It’s only an issue if you believe Nasa has somnethiong to hide (i dont) or is involved in the conspiracy (i dont) or are concerned with the collaboration between the 2 companies (i am not).

When I fly in Australia, I am happy in the knowledge that the pilots know where they are going using satellites, and charts based on the GE, I look out of the window, and see the coastline, and shape of the earth as mapped on a RE, and can follow why the plane is by the in flight tracker, (provided by GPS) and look at my watch, and can see we are on time, and are scheduled to land on time. I am not paranoid about business connections, and what it may be hiding.

Even if you did have an issue with Nasa for reasons of your own, then EVERY company that did subcontracting work, or any R&D or business whatsoever would be tainted in your mind.

I am pretty sure the list would include many thousands of such companies, and you would end up mistrusting most of the companies you deal with in your everyday life.

A rather sorry way to live I would suggest, and putting such fear into others is not doing anyone a public service.

36

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

« on: June 03, 2018, 03:35:02 PM »

That’s interesting, h1 is the amount that is effectively “hidden” but quoting the drop figure is much more impressive if you are trying to say the round earth is impossible!

Maybe a common convention for naming these things would help remove confusiuon.

Having just re read the “bishop experiment” i have a problem with it.

If it is a clear and chilly day, i wonder why people are sunbathing and paddling in the water? Not normal activities when it is “chilly”.

Also how can the observer be sure they saw the waterline? They may have seen the horizon with the actual waterline obscured, and people walking towards the water seen to appear to be walking into it, their lower legs would be seen to disappear into the water, but would have been in fact obscured by the horizon, making them appear to be walking in the water.

The splashing may have been wavelets on the horizon, which the observer mistook for waves on the shore.

The clear and chilly days are also conditions where you would expect to see refraction.

Photographs and videos are needed to back the claims up.

37

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Using shipping to verify the Earth's shape

« on: June 03, 2018, 01:42:42 PM »

Why are you leaving it to us to deal with round earth coordinate system assumptions, flight delays, jet streams, lack of a good source for direct (not computed) logs, the fact that planes and ships don't take direct paths for legal and territorial reasons?

For shipping the above statement is not really accurate.

UNCLOS allows for the right of innocent passage, which pretty much allows most ships as close as 3 miles to a countries coast, and certainly as close as 12 miles.

The reasons ships dont take direct routes always, is for avoidance of navigational hazards.

However i have shown that the calculated distances between 2 points on the globe earth are verified and measured by ships, therefore the distances provided in published tables (using the same calculation methods as the airline industry) are accurate to within 2%.

Therefore i am confident of the published tables being accurate to that level, and we can use the distances.

Trying to use those distances results in a failure to be able to plot them on a plane earth.

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My biggest question on all this

« on: June 03, 2018, 12:49:49 PM »

So I'll preface this with, I'm not a troll, not trying to be an asshole. However I can't understand how people do believe the earth is flat. So my biggest question is why do YOU believe the earth is flat? And to those who believe the earth is round, why do YOU believe as such?
Please feel free to add any evidence you have to add to your beliefs.

I'll add I personally believe in a round earth, due to what I can see and feel, along with things such as physics, which in my personal experience all lead to such a belief.

I'm not trying to start fights, and if you wish to namecall or 'sling mud' at one side or the other I personally will not dignify you with a response, and I urge anyone else who wishes to post upon this thread to do the same and ignore such trolls. (Even if you're not one using such tactics will result in you being seen as such by me)

Thank you to anyone who wants to debate/discuss here.

And P.S. Using comic Sans because I like it 

I do have a question if the moon were indeed in so called space as they call it why is is it at night when the moon is out you can clearly see clouds behind the moon and the full of the moon is in front of the clouds? mmmm...

Really? Can you provide any evidence of that?
Even if the moon is where FEers say it is, then it is many hundreds of miles above the highest clouds......... interested to see the evidence....

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Southern Sky. Need explanations

« on: June 02, 2018, 09:06:13 AM »

Who are you guys talking to? You pretty much joined the the Flat Earth Society when you registered on the forum. You are the "FE enthusiasts." Do you see me making a ton of threads obsessed with the subject? You clearly seem way more interested in some of these topics than I am.

My advice is to research what the YouTube community has to say about the Southern Stars, and what Lady Blount's Bi-Polar model says.

It sounds good to me, but.....
I have a sneaky suspicion if the observations show results that are not in line with FE thinking they will be discounted, but we can certainly give it a go, we now need a couple of people in southern latitudes who can help make the observations.
Western Australia and New Zealand are good vantage points, as are Western Australia and South Africa.
All we need is some volunteers and we will be set to go.

I do however draw the line at relying upon You tube for research...............

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do constellations remain the same shape?

« on: June 02, 2018, 04:39:22 AM »

I have a free, easy way of checking if there is any change of the shape of constellations or event if there is a change between the relative distances of different constellations.

Measure the arc angle between the stars in the evening and morning.

Simple.

You can use a sextant, although anyone who knows how to use one will likely be a navigator, and therefore by definition a REer, OR;

Construct your own device for measuring angles. A cross Staff, there are many references to it on google, and it is easy to make at no cost to most people.

Take a long ruler or straight stick, broom handle, etc, and tape/tie/secure a smaller stick/piece of cardboard, etc at right angles to the longer stick. If this piece can move under a bit of pressure, thats OK.

Now place the longer stick end on your cheek, with the smaller piece at the far end, and sight along the stick to 2 stars in the eastern sky an hour or 2 after sunset, (best to use 2 stars that are about the same altitude, so are separated along the horizontal) and either choose 2 stars that are already at the correct angular distance apart or move the cross piece so that each one is at the end of the smaller stick.

You can later take the same observations as the stars get higher in the sky, and as they pass the zenith, then as they lower to the western horizon.

The angular distance apart will NOT VARY during the course of the night or any other night, or season.

Very low on the horizon the stars may be subject to refraction in the vertical, Which is why it is best to use stars with a horizontal displacement

This will be a perfect example to show that there is no divergence or change of shape of constellations.
Do it as many times as you like with different stars and seasons.

I challenge any FEer who wishes to be Zetetic, and actually do an experiment for free, to do this and say that there is divergence in REAL LIFE. Not camera shots, or CGI, or graphically enhanced shots. You can prove it to yourself......