Post by: Thork on February 16, 2014, 03:38:14 PM
Anyway, I wondered if a flat earth tool set might be a fun project for everyone. And it really would need everyone.
Essentially to provide tools on this site to make flat earth calculations. Maybe a model at the top of each page, and then a bunch of calculators below?
Example. The finite polar azimuthal disk model or Wilmore's dipole model. Put a map at the top of the page and then add various drop downs and input boxes to generate results. Examples, you put in two GPS co-ordinates and the calculator then tells you the distance between those points on both a flat earth and a round earth. It can then generate aircraft travel times or speed of light times from those numbers as well.
Maybe a calculator for FE astronomical distances calculating sun speed during different seasons. An interesting fact is that the sun has to travel faster during the NH winter than in Summer on a flat earth. A date would let you calculate its speed right now or on any day you choose to put in.
I see this as a project that can involve absolutely everyone.
Even the most ardent RErs can help with the mathematics (we have after all just added mathjax to the site), FErs would need to contribute with theories and how and why these things differ and the site administration would have what I think would be a fun task creating the various code to allow the calculators to function.
I think it would be a nice service for the site and provide a flat earth toolset that is so far completely lacking on the internet. It would also help to flesh out and modernise many of the theories by allowing computer aided calculations to help provoke discussions.
Its a 3 stage process.
1) Identify what things would make good FE calculations. What differs and why.
2) Actually perform the maths (make formulas) and write in such a way as a computer can interpret it.
3) Implement the code and host the tools on the site.
It was just a passing thought as I was swimming yesterday and wondered if it might give some bored and talented people something of a little project.
Any interest?
Post by: spoon on February 16, 2014, 03:53:29 PM
Post by: Thork on February 16, 2014, 04:01:19 PM
Example the sun speed calculator. First you need to set out the solstice latitudes. Then extrapolate the actual latitude for 365.25 days to find the latitude on that date. Then work out the circumference of a its orbit at that latitude. Then work out its speed given one revolution in 24 hours. Its quite a sophisticated calculation.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v82/digital_nomad/Flat-Earth.png)
But nothing compared with the example of working out FE distances from GPS points.
People come here to talk about FE theories. Well this would be very in depth and rather than a discussion that puts people at odds with each other (we say this, you say that) these would be debates where people work together to converge on a common goal. you will still get disagreement along the way, but should end up with a definitive conclusion to that thread.
Like I say, not easy, but certainly interesting along the way.
Post by: Tintagel on February 16, 2014, 05:14:28 PM
Post by: Tau on February 17, 2014, 02:07:46 AM
Also, let's add this to the to do list
Post by: Lord Dave on February 18, 2014, 10:13:09 AM
Post by: Rama Set on February 18, 2014, 01:39:29 PM
I made some equations a while back for calculating distances and great circles on a flat earth. When I get home I'll dig around and see if I can find them. Although they shouldn't be that hard to recreate.
Also, let's add this to the to do list
Isn't a FE generally a Euclidean plane? Under what circumstances would a great circle be used?
Post by: Tau on February 18, 2014, 07:22:40 PM
I made some equations a while back for calculating distances and great circles on a flat earth. When I get home I'll dig around and see if I can find them. Although they shouldn't be that hard to recreate.
Also, let's add this to the to do list
Isn't a FE generally a Euclidean plane? Under what circumstances would a great circle be used?
Well, really I meant lines of latitude. Terminology mixup. I was tired.
Don't we need certain things for this to be possible? Like a map?
We can make tools for all sorts of possible maps, really. I'd be interested in seeing what we can do with the bi-polar map, for example.
Post by: Thork on February 19, 2014, 06:16:18 PM
Don't we need certain things for this to be possible? Like a map?Read the OP. Then read the FAQ.
Post by: Lord Dave on February 19, 2014, 11:40:44 PM
You basically said "write math to determine distances without accurate distances to base it on".Don't we need certain things for this to be possible? Like a map?Read the OP. Then read the FAQ.
You just can't pick two points on a picture, draw a line, and call that accurate.
Post by: Thork on February 22, 2014, 01:12:33 AM
The FAQ states the distances. Please take some time to read it.You basically said "write math to determine distances without accurate distances to base it on".Don't we need certain things for this to be possible? Like a map?Read the OP. Then read the FAQ.
You just can't pick two points on a picture, draw a line, and call that accurate.
Post by: Lord Dave on February 22, 2014, 04:41:23 AM
The FAQ states the distances of every point to every point?The FAQ states the distances. Please take some time to read it.You basically said "write math to determine distances without accurate distances to base it on".Don't we need certain things for this to be possible? Like a map?Read the OP. Then read the FAQ.
You just can't pick two points on a picture, draw a line, and call that accurate.
Post by: Thork on March 08, 2014, 07:30:28 PM
A tool such as the one suggested would allow you to perform such calculations.The FAQ states the distances of every point to every point?The FAQ states the distances. Please take some time to read it.You basically said "write math to determine distances without accurate distances to base it on".Don't we need certain things for this to be possible? Like a map?Read the OP. Then read the FAQ.
You just can't pick two points on a picture, draw a line, and call that accurate.
There seems to be limited enthusiasm for this idea. Oh well.
Post by: Tintagel on March 08, 2014, 07:56:04 PM
I have enthusiasm, but I'm not a programmer.A tool such as the one suggested would allow you to perform such calculations.The FAQ states the distances of every point to every point?The FAQ states the distances. Please take some time to read it.You basically said "write math to determine distances without accurate distances to base it on".Don't we need certain things for this to be possible? Like a map?Read the OP. Then read the FAQ.
You just can't pick two points on a picture, draw a line, and call that accurate.
There seems to be limited enthusiasm for this idea. Oh well.
Post by: inquisitive on March 08, 2014, 09:47:58 PM
I can't think why. So there would be two distances between two points, one verified...A tool such as the one suggested would allow you to perform such calculations.The FAQ states the distances of every point to every point?The FAQ states the distances. Please take some time to read it.You basically said "write math to determine distances without accurate distances to base it on".Don't we need certain things for this to be possible? Like a map?Read the OP. Then read the FAQ.
You just can't pick two points on a picture, draw a line, and call that accurate.
There seems to be limited enthusiasm for this idea. Oh well.
Post by: Tau on March 09, 2014, 03:45:22 AM
I have enthusiasm, but I'm not a programmer.A tool such as the one suggested would allow you to perform such calculations.The FAQ states the distances of every point to every point?The FAQ states the distances. Please take some time to read it.You basically said "write math to determine distances without accurate distances to base it on".Don't we need certain things for this to be possible? Like a map?Read the OP. Then read the FAQ.
You just can't pick two points on a picture, draw a line, and call that accurate.
There seems to be limited enthusiasm for this idea. Oh well.
Same. Presumably Pizza or Parsifal will post in here eventually
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 09, 2014, 07:52:57 AM
But yes, I'll happily implement some tools, provided there actually is anything to implement.
Post by: Lord Dave on March 09, 2014, 01:11:46 PM
A tool such as the one suggested would allow you to perform such calculations.The FAQ states the distances of every point to every point?The FAQ states the distances. Please take some time to read it.You basically said "write math to determine distances without accurate distances to base it on".Don't we need certain things for this to be possible? Like a map?Read the OP. Then read the FAQ.
You just can't pick two points on a picture, draw a line, and call that accurate.
There seems to be limited enthusiasm for this idea. Oh well.
Ok. Right here type in the math to calculate the distance between London and Sydney.
Post by: Thork on March 09, 2014, 01:34:30 PM
London is 0 degrees West/East. It is 51 degrees north.
Sydney is 151 degrees East and 33 degrees south.
Each degree is 60 nautical miles. Make a triangle.
angle 151 degrees. sides are (90-51) x 60) and ((90 x 60) +(33 x 60))
Bit of trig later
(http://i59.tinypic.com/n325w1.png)
9,495 nautical miles. There is a fair bit of rounding on my part not using minutes etc but you see how its done. The round earth value is 9,174 nautical miles.
Hardly impossible to make a calculator, is it?
However, I don't want to generate all the answers. I'd rather the community got together and debated the calcs and the mathematics. This isn't Thork's flat earth society.
If a formula is arrived at, I'm sure me or Pizzaplanet can convert this to javascript or whatever their preference is.
Post by: markjo on March 09, 2014, 02:51:04 PM
Its simple trigonometry, Dave.No, it's not quite as simple as you think, because...
Each degree is 60 nautical miles.That's true only for degrees of latitude. Degrees of longitude have no consistent value in RET or FET.
For the more common mono-pole FE map, you would be better off using polar geometry for your calculator. For the bi-polar FE map, I have no idea of what kind of geometry would work.
Post by: Thork on March 09, 2014, 03:07:49 PM
I think you will find I only used degrees of latitude distances to make the calculation. It is because longitude is the differentiator between a flat and globular earth that there is a distance discrepancy. You are excused. You won't be able to help. Your maths isn't up to it.Its simple trigonometry, Dave.No, it's not quite as simple as you think, because...Each degree is 60 nautical miles.That's true only for degrees of latitude. Degrees of longitude have no consistent value in RET or FET.
For the more common mono-pole FE map, you would be better off using polar geometry for your calculator.I did.
For the bi-polar FE map, I have no idea of what kind of geometry would work.No, I don't suppose you do.
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2014, 06:32:36 PM
Post by: Thork on March 09, 2014, 06:34:57 PM
Just so I clear, the vertex of the 151 degree angle is at the North Pole?You can calculate it anyway you like sweet-cheeks. That's just the way I did it in about 5 mins.
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2014, 06:37:18 PM
Just so I clear, the vertex of the 151 degree angle is at the North Pole?You can calculate it anyway you like sweet-cheeks. That's just the way I did it in about 5 mins.
So the answer to my question is yes.
Is your value of 60 nautical miles/degree based on observation of Polaris?
Post by: Thork on March 09, 2014, 06:37:43 PM
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2014, 06:40:02 PM
Post by: Thork on March 09, 2014, 06:41:01 PM
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2014, 06:46:21 PM
Post by: Thork on March 09, 2014, 07:11:38 PM
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2014, 07:28:15 PM
Post by: Thork on March 09, 2014, 07:37:28 PM
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2014, 08:01:20 PM
Post by: Thork on March 09, 2014, 08:04:14 PM
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2014, 09:04:45 PM
Post by: Thork on March 09, 2014, 09:36:24 PM
This thread is for a flat earth tool set to give you handy calculations like that. If you want to moan about the theory, go make a separate thread and try to find someone who is willing to do that debate all over again.
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2014, 09:49:43 PM
Post by: Thork on March 09, 2014, 10:03:30 PM
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2014, 10:08:23 PM
Post by: Tau on March 09, 2014, 10:51:04 PM
Where x is the latitude
Well it should be. Tausami must have not added it to the FAQ when the new wiki was built. That boy needs to be flogged.
I believe it was removed because there was some contention about what, exactly, it was. The diameter and circumference listed in the old FAQ didn't add up, and no one could decide which number was correct. I'm personally not actually sure where they came from.
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2014, 10:53:41 PM
Post by: Tau on March 09, 2014, 10:57:23 PM
What is x in this case and what are the units?
The post has been edited. I published it in pieces because I wasn't sure I was using the [tex] correctly and accidentally pressed post instead of preview.
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2014, 11:00:07 PM
Post by: Tau on March 09, 2014, 11:03:12 PM
The formula for the length of lines of longitude (in kilometers, because this is science) on the FE monopolar map is:
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2014, 11:04:14 PM
Post by: Tau on March 09, 2014, 11:09:15 PM
Bah! Sorry about that.
S'all good
I'm going through old threads looking for more math. I forgot how awful CT was.
Post by: inquisitive on March 09, 2014, 11:59:55 PM
Post by: Tau on March 10, 2014, 12:07:30 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/d/3/1/d319c515248a99776895d29ce4d70550.png)
On the old forum as a distance formula, where d is the distance, r is latitude, theta is longitude, and subscripts denote the different places. I'm not sure if it's actually correct, though.
Sydney to Santiago is 13 hours with Quantas.
How is that relevant? This isn't a debate thread. Go bother us somewhere else.
Post by: Tintagel on March 10, 2014, 02:42:21 AM
Okay, someone posted this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/d/3/1/d319c515248a99776895d29ce4d70550.png)
On the old forum as a distance formula, where d is the distance, r is latitude, theta is longitude, and subscripts denote the different places. I'm not sure if it's actually correct, though.
Looks like just an application of the Law of Cosines, which would make sense on the monopole map. It's a good place to start at least. Nice find, Tausami.
Post by: Tau on March 10, 2014, 03:06:45 AM
Post by: Lord Dave on March 10, 2014, 06:00:10 PM
Its simple trigonometry, Dave.Wouldn't the latitude and longitude lines be different on a flat earth due to the different positioning and elongation/shrinking of continents?
London is 0 degrees West/East. It is 51 degrees north.
Sydney is 151 degrees East and 33 degrees south.
Each degree is 60 nautical miles. Make a triangle.
angle 151 degrees. sides are (90-51) x 60) and ((90 x 60) +(33 x 60))
Bit of trig later
(http://i59.tinypic.com/n325w1.png)
9,495 nautical miles. There is a fair bit of rounding on my part not using minutes etc but you see how its done. The round earth value is 9,174 nautical miles.
Hardly impossible to make a calculator, is it?
However, I don't want to generate all the answers. I'd rather the community got together and debated the calcs and the mathematics. This isn't Thork's flat earth society.
If a formula is arrived at, I'm sure me or Pizzaplanet can convert this to javascript or whatever their preference is.
Post by: Tau on March 10, 2014, 06:12:34 PM
Its simple trigonometry, Dave.Wouldn't the latitude and longitude lines be different on a flat earth due to the different positioning and elongation/shrinking of continents?
London is 0 degrees West/East. It is 51 degrees north.
Sydney is 151 degrees East and 33 degrees south.
Each degree is 60 nautical miles. Make a triangle.
angle 151 degrees. sides are (90-51) x 60) and ((90 x 60) +(33 x 60))
Bit of trig later
(http://i59.tinypic.com/n325w1.png)
9,495 nautical miles. There is a fair bit of rounding on my part not using minutes etc but you see how its done. The round earth value is 9,174 nautical miles.
Hardly impossible to make a calculator, is it?
However, I don't want to generate all the answers. I'd rather the community got together and debated the calcs and the mathematics. This isn't Thork's flat earth society.
If a formula is arrived at, I'm sure me or Pizzaplanet can convert this to javascript or whatever their preference is.
Coordinates have nothing to do with topography, so no.
Post by: Lord Dave on March 10, 2014, 07:17:16 PM
It does when you try to fit the topography of a round earth onto a flat plane. See map projections.Its simple trigonometry, Dave.Wouldn't the latitude and longitude lines be different on a flat earth due to the different positioning and elongation/shrinking of continents?
London is 0 degrees West/East. It is 51 degrees north.
Sydney is 151 degrees East and 33 degrees south.
Each degree is 60 nautical miles. Make a triangle.
angle 151 degrees. sides are (90-51) x 60) and ((90 x 60) +(33 x 60))
Bit of trig later
(http://i59.tinypic.com/n325w1.png)
9,495 nautical miles. There is a fair bit of rounding on my part not using minutes etc but you see how its done. The round earth value is 9,174 nautical miles.
Hardly impossible to make a calculator, is it?
However, I don't want to generate all the answers. I'd rather the community got together and debated the calcs and the mathematics. This isn't Thork's flat earth society.
If a formula is arrived at, I'm sure me or Pizzaplanet can convert this to javascript or whatever their preference is.
Coordinates have nothing to do with topography, so no.
Post by: Rama Set on March 10, 2014, 07:20:00 PM
Its simple trigonometry, Dave.Wouldn't the latitude and longitude lines be different on a flat earth due to the different positioning and elongation/shrinking of continents?
London is 0 degrees West/East. It is 51 degrees north.
Sydney is 151 degrees East and 33 degrees south.
Each degree is 60 nautical miles. Make a triangle.
angle 151 degrees. sides are (90-51) x 60) and ((90 x 60) +(33 x 60))
Bit of trig later
(http://i59.tinypic.com/n325w1.png)
9,495 nautical miles. There is a fair bit of rounding on my part not using minutes etc but you see how its done. The round earth value is 9,174 nautical miles.
Hardly impossible to make a calculator, is it?
However, I don't want to generate all the answers. I'd rather the community got together and debated the calcs and the mathematics. This isn't Thork's flat earth society.
If a formula is arrived at, I'm sure me or Pizzaplanet can convert this to javascript or whatever their preference is.
Provided the Earth is a circle then they would only vary based on the diameter of the Earth since the system is defined by having 360 degrees of latitude and longitude.
Post by: inquisitive on March 10, 2014, 08:35:19 PM
Flat earth distances must be different to round earth ones.Its simple trigonometry, Dave.Wouldn't the latitude and longitude lines be different on a flat earth due to the different positioning and elongation/shrinking of continents?
London is 0 degrees West/East. It is 51 degrees north.
Sydney is 151 degrees East and 33 degrees south.
Each degree is 60 nautical miles. Make a triangle.
angle 151 degrees. sides are (90-51) x 60) and ((90 x 60) +(33 x 60))
Bit of trig later
(http://i59.tinypic.com/n325w1.png)
9,495 nautical miles. There is a fair bit of rounding on my part not using minutes etc but you see how its done. The round earth value is 9,174 nautical miles.
Hardly impossible to make a calculator, is it?
However, I don't want to generate all the answers. I'd rather the community got together and debated the calcs and the mathematics. This isn't Thork's flat earth society.
If a formula is arrived at, I'm sure me or Pizzaplanet can convert this to javascript or whatever their preference is.
Provided the Earth is a circle then they would only vary based on the diameter of the Earth since the system is defined by having 360 degrees of latitude and longitude.
Post by: Rama Set on March 10, 2014, 08:41:08 PM
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 10, 2014, 10:27:52 PM
Flat earth distances must be different to round earth ones.Nope.
Post by: inquisitive on March 10, 2014, 10:42:52 PM
Please explain why distances must be the same on different shaped surfaces.Flat earth distances must be different to round earth ones.Nope.
Post by: markjo on March 10, 2014, 11:17:16 PM
Provided the Earth is a circle then they would only vary based on the diameter of the Earth since the system is defined by having 360 degrees of latitude and longitude.Minor nit to pick: there are only 180 degrees of latitude.
Post by: Rama Set on March 10, 2014, 11:29:15 PM
Provided the Earth is a circle then they would only vary based on the diameter of the Earth since the system is defined by having 360 degrees of latitude and longitude.Minor nit to pick: there are only 180 degrees of latitude.
So it is. But you do have to count each latitude twice to make a circumference effectively making 360 degrees to count.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 11, 2014, 12:07:06 AM
Please explain why distances must be the same on different shaped surfaces.Why would I try explaining something I didn't say or claim? That'd be a silly thing for me to do, and it's a very silly thing for you to request.
Post by: markjo on March 11, 2014, 12:57:42 AM
Do you mean "diameter" instead of "circumference"?Provided the Earth is a circle then they would only vary based on the diameter of the Earth since the system is defined by having 360 degrees of latitude and longitude.Minor nit to pick: there are only 180 degrees of latitude.
So it is. But you do have to count each latitude twice to make a circumference effectively making 360 degrees to count.
Post by: Lord Dave on March 11, 2014, 01:28:33 AM
Its simple trigonometry, Dave.Wouldn't the latitude and longitude lines be different on a flat earth due to the different positioning and elongation/shrinking of continents?
London is 0 degrees West/East. It is 51 degrees north.
Sydney is 151 degrees East and 33 degrees south.
Each degree is 60 nautical miles. Make a triangle.
angle 151 degrees. sides are (90-51) x 60) and ((90 x 60) +(33 x 60))
Bit of trig later
(http://i59.tinypic.com/n325w1.png)
9,495 nautical miles. There is a fair bit of rounding on my part not using minutes etc but you see how its done. The round earth value is 9,174 nautical miles.
Hardly impossible to make a calculator, is it?
However, I don't want to generate all the answers. I'd rather the community got together and debated the calcs and the mathematics. This isn't Thork's flat earth society.
If a formula is arrived at, I'm sure me or Pizzaplanet can convert this to javascript or whatever their preference is.
Provided the Earth is a circle then they would only vary based on the diameter of the Earth since the system is defined by having 360 degrees of latitude and longitude.
And how large should we make the flat earth?
That would mean revamping their associated coordinates, not the coordinate system itself.Then the distance can't be calculated with the coordinate system.
Post by: Rama Set on March 11, 2014, 01:54:55 AM
Do you mean "diameter" instead of "circumference"?Provided the Earth is a circle then they would only vary based on the diameter of the Earth since the system is defined by having 360 degrees of latitude and longitude.Minor nit to pick: there are only 180 degrees of latitude.
So it is. But you do have to count each latitude twice to make a circumference effectively making 360 degrees to count.
Yes. I instinctually used a RE paradigm.
Post by: Rama Set on March 11, 2014, 01:57:18 AM
Its simple trigonometry, Dave.Wouldn't the latitude and longitude lines be different on a flat earth due to the different positioning and elongation/shrinking of continents?
London is 0 degrees West/East. It is 51 degrees north.
Sydney is 151 degrees East and 33 degrees south.
Each degree is 60 nautical miles. Make a triangle.
angle 151 degrees. sides are (90-51) x 60) and ((90 x 60) +(33 x 60))
Bit of trig later
(http://i59.tinypic.com/n325w1.png)
9,495 nautical miles. There is a fair bit of rounding on my part not using minutes etc but you see how its done. The round earth value is 9,174 nautical miles.
Hardly impossible to make a calculator, is it?
However, I don't want to generate all the answers. I'd rather the community got together and debated the calcs and the mathematics. This isn't Thork's flat earth society.
If a formula is arrived at, I'm sure me or Pizzaplanet can convert this to javascript or whatever their preference is.
Provided the Earth is a circle then they would only vary based on the diameter of the Earth since the system is defined by having 360 degrees of latitude and longitude.
And how large should we make the flat earth?
Uhhh... You can do that? The a singularity. Conversely, kickstart a FE cartography mission and get an accurate answer.
That would mean revamping their associated coordinates, not the coordinate system itself.Then the distance can't be calculated with the coordinate system.
[/quote]
Once you have the proper coordinates on a FE you sure can!
Post by: inquisitive on March 11, 2014, 11:41:20 PM
You said they would not be different, so must be the same.Please explain why distances must be the same on different shaped surfaces.Why would I try explaining something I didn't say or claim? That'd be a silly thing for me to do, and it's a very silly thing for you to request.
Post by: Rama Set on March 12, 2014, 01:47:35 AM
You said they would not be different, so must be the same.Please explain why distances must be the same on different shaped surfaces.Why would I try explaining something I didn't say or claim? That'd be a silly thing for me to do, and it's a very silly thing for you to request.
You are implying necessity of difference or sameness when some might be the same and some might be different.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 12, 2014, 07:55:04 AM
You said they would not be different, so must be the same.I did not say that. I said that your statement of "they must be different" is false.
Post by: inquisitive on March 12, 2014, 08:56:16 AM
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 12, 2014, 09:03:27 AM
Basic maths tells us that it would not be possible to put 10 capital cities of the world on a flat scale map and maintain the actual distances between each one.You're more than welcome to demonstrate that. So far, all you've contributed to this forum is a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and straw man attacks. Don't expect people to take you seriously.
Post by: inquisitive on March 12, 2014, 09:12:52 AM
It is not an attack, how can all the distances between 5 places remain the same on a flat surface and a spherical one?Basic maths tells us that it would not be possible to put 10 capital cities of the world on a flat scale map and maintain the actual distances between each one.You're more than welcome to demonstrate that. So far, all you've contributed to this forum is a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and straw man attacks. Don't expect people to take you seriously.
Post by: markjo on March 12, 2014, 12:25:32 PM
Perhaps if you were to reply with meaningful responses, rather than with vague, one word answers, then there might not be so much confusion and the discussion could proceed in a productive manner. Or is that too much to hope for from the management? ::)You said they would not be different, so must be the same.I did not say that. I said that your statement of "they must be different" is false.
Post by: Rama Set on March 12, 2014, 12:26:44 PM
It is not an attack, how can all the distances between 5 places remain the same on a flat surface and a spherical one?Basic maths tells us that it would not be possible to put 10 capital cities of the world on a flat scale map and maintain the actual distances between each one.You're more than welcome to demonstrate that. So far, all you've contributed to this forum is a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and straw man attacks. Don't expect people to take you seriously.
Depending on the size of the sphere and the distances between, it is eminently possible. PizaaPlanet is right, you need to substantiate this claim.
Post by: inquisitive on March 12, 2014, 01:05:52 PM
Place those 4 corners on a sphere, still 10 units apart. The centre point will be raised and hence more than 7.07 units.
Post by: Rama Set on March 12, 2014, 01:11:39 PM
Post by: inquisitive on March 12, 2014, 01:17:14 PM
Sorry mate, but this is still just a claim. Can you do the transformation you are talking about?What's not to understand? What 'transformation'?
Please provide a link to a flat earth map.
Post by: Rama Set on March 12, 2014, 01:42:46 PM
Sorry mate, but this is still just a claim. Can you do the transformation you are talking about?What's not to understand?
The point is that you are responsible for making people understand your claims.
Quote
What 'transformation'?
You are talking about transforming a set of coordinates from a flat space to a curved space.
Quote
Please provide a link to a flat earth map.
Huh? Aside from being a REer and understanding that they have never claimed to have an accurate map, why would I do that?
Post by: inquisitive on March 12, 2014, 02:02:56 PM
If there was a flat earth map then distances could be measured and compared with verified ones on a spherical earth. Obviously they would be different.Sorry mate, but this is still just a claim. Can you do the transformation you are talking about?What's not to understand?
The point is that you are responsible for making people understand your claims.QuoteWhat 'transformation'?
You are talking about transforming a set of coordinates from a flat space to a curved space.QuotePlease provide a link to a flat earth map.
Huh? Aside from being a REer and understanding that they have never claimed to have an accurate map, why would I do that?
Post by: Rama Set on March 12, 2014, 02:09:42 PM
Post by: Tintagel on March 12, 2014, 02:42:45 PM
If there was a flat earth map then distances could be measured and compared with verified ones on a spherical earth. Obviously they would be different.Sorry mate, but this is still just a claim. Can you do the transformation you are talking about?What's not to understand?
The point is that you are responsible for making people understand your claims.QuoteWhat 'transformation'?
You are talking about transforming a set of coordinates from a flat space to a curved space.QuotePlease provide a link to a flat earth map.
Huh? Aside from being a REer and understanding that they have never claimed to have an accurate map, why would I do that?
You are assuming that a planar earth is flat like a sheet of paper is flat, when it may not be. I don't think anyone here disputes that spherical geometry and Euclidean geometry exist.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 12, 2014, 06:45:32 PM
Or is that too much to hope for from the management? ::)You may have missed that (although I'd be surprised, given that you were involved in the discussion), but forum staff are held to the same standards as any other poster, not higher (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=967.0).
Perhaps if you were to reply with meaningful responses, rather than with vague, one word answers, then there might not be so much confusion and the discussion could proceed in a productive manner.I'm very sorry that you feel that way. My post was pretty clear, and if you don't know what "nope" means, well, that's your problem, not mine.
Post by: markjo on March 12, 2014, 07:04:22 PM
How does a one word reply like "nope" not qualify as low content posting?Or is that too much to hope for from the management? ::)You may have missed that (although I'd be surprised, given that you were involved in the discussion), but forum staff are held to the same standards as any other poster, not higher (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=967.0).
As an administrator, you are free to meet whatever standard you feel is best for this site. It just saddens me that you choose one that is so low.
That is just the sort of response that I would expect from someone who has no interest in participating in a productive discussion.Perhaps if you were to reply with meaningful responses, rather than with vague, one word answers, then there might not be so much confusion and the discussion could proceed in a productive manner.I'm very sorry that you feel that way. My post was pretty clear, and if you don't know what "nope" means, well, that's your problem, not mine.
Yes, I understand what the word "nope" means. What I don't understand is how it clarifies your position or adds any value to the discussion.
Post by: Thork on March 12, 2014, 07:10:33 PM
This isn't S&C. Get out of my Tool thread. >:(How does a one word reply like "nope" not qualify as low content posting?Or is that too much to hope for from the management? ::)You may have missed that (although I'd be surprised, given that you were involved in the discussion), but forum staff are held to the same standards as any other poster, not higher (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=967.0).
As an administrator, you are free to meet whatever standard you feel is best for this site. It just saddens me that you choose one that is so low.That is just the sort of response that I would expect from someone who has no interest in participating in a productive discussion.Perhaps if you were to reply with meaningful responses, rather than with vague, one word answers, then there might not be so much confusion and the discussion could proceed in a productive manner.I'm very sorry that you feel that way. My post was pretty clear, and if you don't know what "nope" means, well, that's your problem, not mine.
Yes, I understand what the word "nope" means. What I don't understand is how it clarifies your position or adds any value to the discussion.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 13, 2014, 12:17:05 AM
How does a one word reply like "nope" not qualify as low content posting?Irrelevant. (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=977.0)
This isn't S&C. Get out of my Tool thread. >:(Yes, markjo, please stop derailing threads.