The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: TrustScience on February 15, 2022, 11:57:35 PM
-
RE here. Has any flat earther ever been convinced that the earth is a sphere as the result of these forum debates? Or has any round earther ever been convinced that the earth is flat?
-
I don't think debates will convince anyone in an audience since they don't generally research it themselves to generate counter arguments, and generally don't know what specific evidence does and does not exist at a glance to make a good conclusion.
But you can convince yourself. I wasn't so sure about it when I first started arguing for FE. Then many debates later after hearing and discussing and researching it all I became certain about it, and even went the extra effort to chronicle the information I found in the Wiki. It is difficult to visualize what evidence and information does not exist, however, which is also a big part of the journey.
-
Thanks for your reply, Tom. You mentioned a little about how you came over to the flat side of the fence. Do you mind telling me a little more about that journey? I’m not here in an attempt to mock you or anyone else, but FET seems laughably unrealistic to me and I’m just curious how someone comes to believe it.
-
No.
No one has converted or changed ideas.
You're either an RE, an FE, or a troll.
Most are trolls.
-
"I grew up believing in the globe model."
^I could use this statement to describe my view of the world we occupy, but is it really an accurate written description? Some will say they know and belief doesn't enter into the discussion at all.
Much of my life has been one of challenging the status quo and institutional conventions.
So, I will choose another way:
"I grew up in a world surrounded by globe earth depictions attempting to inculcate me into a specific world view."
I have converted to the flat earth model as a result of my participation here at this forum.
-
I’m not here in an attempt to mock you or anyone else, but FET seems laughably unrealistic...
^Seems to be a rather clear cut example of a high degree of dissonance resonating in your messaging.
-
I grew up believing in the globe model, but have converted to the flat earth model as a result of my participation here at this forum.
^ See? Troll.
-
Much of my life has been one of challenging the status quo and institutional conventions.
Why? and...
What else do you challenge?
I have converted to the flat earth model as a result of my participation here at this forum.
Do you participate anywhere else? If so, where?
-
Much of my life has been one of challenging the status quo and institutional conventions.
Why? and...
What else do you challenge?
I was indoctrinated in a fine public school, that is why.
Status quo and institutional conventions is fairly encompassing.
An excerpt from my daily hymnal:
"I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half-alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie"
I have converted to the flat earth model as a result of my participation here at this forum.
Do you participate anywhere else? If so, where?
Lodge meetings first Tuesday of every month, 7:00 pm.
-
Thanks for your reply, Tom. You mentioned a little about how you came over to the flat side of the fence. Do you mind telling me a little more about that journey? I’m not here in an attempt to mock you or anyone else, but FET seems laughably unrealistic to me and I’m just curious how someone comes to believe it.
The idea of quantum entanglement can be argued to be an absurdity, or a very logical consequence of reality. The thing that prevents you from making or seeing the opposing argument to your position on that subject would be merely an ignorance on your part. When you argue based on what you feel is "unrealistic" it is an argument from ignorance, dismissing a possible knowledge because you do not know something about it and may seem outside the norm.
Next, after accepting that reality may be outside the norm, you just need to determine if some of the things and topics in FE are in the category of possible, even if you do not yet think it is probable. If it is possible it means that more research is needed. You should be very interested that there are some things that are possible outside of the standard model we were taught is beyond argument.
For me it was originally Rowbotham's book that gave a basis and entry-point, but today the Wiki fulfills the modern requirement for the entry-point needed: Three Body Problem, Moon Tilt Illusion, Michelson-Morley, Sagnac Effect, Equivalence Principle Tests, Time Dilation by Latitude, Water Convexity Tests, and on and on. If you accept that there are some good points in there, each of these topics spells out a letter in a sentence. The sentence for me is "The Earth is Flat" and not "Unknown Coincidence".
T.H. Huxley wrote: “ Sit down before facts like a child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing. ”
People of today are not so different from people of the past, and in the past there are many examples for why blind trust is wrong. Thomas Edison complained that scientists of his day warped things to suit their narrative, and that he had to conduct fundamental research from the ground up to invent his version of the lightbulb. The Wright Brothers said the same thing about the invention of the airplane. They did not make progress until they threw out the science of flight and started from experiment to experience. And those were about things people could actually test, unlike an astronomy.
-
“^Seems to be a rather clear cut example of a high degree of dissonance resonating in your messaging.”
I can see why it looks that way, but allow me to clarify. I do not intend to ever mock a person personally for believing in a flat earth. My issue is with FET itself. I’d like to be able to discuss this topic without personal attacks, is what I meant.
-
“^Seems to be a rather clear cut example of a high degree of dissonance resonating in your messaging.”
I can see why it looks that way, but allow me to clarify. I do not intend to ever mock a person personally for believing in a flat earth. My issue is with FET itself. I’d like to be able to discuss this topic without personal attacks, is what I meant.
I suggest the upper forums. Down here is typically non-FE discussion. Tom there can talk your ear off (or eyes I guess) about the subject.
-
The thing that prevents you from making or seeing the opposing argument to your position on that subject would be merely an ignorance on your part. When you argue based on what you feel is "unrealistic" it is an argument from ignorance, dismissing a possible knowledge because you do not know something about it and may seem outside the norm.
To assume that I don't see the opposing argument (FET) because I'm ignorant/uninformed about it, was, ironically, you doing the same in regards to me. I've done sufficient research to make an informed decision about which team I'm on. But you did not know that. You just assumed I was uninformed on the topic. I find FET "unrealistic" specifically because I have knowledge about both sides of the issue, not because I blindly follow the norm or trust my feelings more than data and fact. So, being ignorant of my background, you assumed I was ignorant and uninformed, and thus ignorantly formed an uninformed opinion of me :) No hard feelings.
But, back to my original question. The reason I asked it was because I have an interest in discussing FET, but I think I may end up not doing so because it feels pointless. Everyone on both sides appears pretty firmly planted. I do love a lively debate, but things feel a little too defensive around here for my taste. This is understandable, since most discussions started by REs are, naturally, intended to disprove FET. I can't say I'd be significantly different, other than understanding I'm not going to actually convert anyone. I'd imagine people who genuinely want to come over to the flat side pop in from time to time and find what they're looking for, but to those of us who do not find FET plausible, these forums may be an exercise in futility. The only topic that might be fun to explore is whether a spherical Earth can be disproved by Flat Earthers. Has that been sufficiently explored already? So much attention is given to attempting to debunk FET that flipping the script sounds more interesting to me.
-
The thing that prevents you from making or seeing the opposing argument to your position on that subject would be merely an ignorance on your part. When you argue based on what you feel is "unrealistic" it is an argument from ignorance, dismissing a possible knowledge because you do not know something about it and may seem outside the norm.
To assume that I don't see the opposing argument (FET) because I'm ignorant/uninformed about it, was, ironically, you doing the same in regards to me.
I was talking about quantum mechanics, which many people agree is weird and wonky:
The idea of quantum entanglement can be argued to be an absurdity, or a very logical consequence of reality. The thing that prevents you from making or seeing the opposing argument to your position on that subject would be merely an ignorance on your part.
You can't dismiss something because you don't understand how it could happen, or dismiss something based on your personal version of what might be logical. Most people agree that we are ignorant of Quantum Mechanics to be able to fully appreciate its reality. There may be a logic to Quantum Mechanics that we don't know about.
If someone applies their personal logic to it and finds it to be absurd, should we just dismiss QM? No. 'Logic' and 'realistic' have no place for discerning reality.
-
The idea of quantum entanglement can be argued to be an absurdity, or a very logical consequence of reality
I don't know what this means. I mean, quantum theory is a bit crazy in the sense that the predictions and consequences of it don't conform to what we experience in our day to day lives. Even Einstein called Quantum Entanglement "spooky action at a distance."
But the results of the experiments are clear and have practical uses. Quantum computing is in its infancy but it has been used to generate real results. That means that it doesn't matter whether you think entanglement is intuitive or nonsense. Reality and truth are determined through observation and experiment, they are objective and independent of your opinions or feelings.
Next, after accepting that reality may be outside the norm, you just need to determine if some of the things and topics in FE are in the category of possible
Right. And a lot of them are, actually. But not all. There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane. It's just not geometrically possible. The FE response is to simply deny that we do know the distance between places. Given that we have GPS, which you acknowledge works, and a global travel/shipping industry that demonstrably gets stuff around, that's quite a stretch. I asked you a few times how you think GPS can accurately tell you your co-ordinates if it doesn't know where those co-ordinates are in relation to other co-ordinates and you repeatedly dodged the question.
There are other things which are possible. UA could be a thing and works quite well as a replacement for gravity. But then we observe variations in gravity. The FE response is either to deny those variations exist or hypothesise a separate mechanism which explains them. And that's what FE seems to be - a combination of denying things when they don't fit your model or hypothesising mechanisms to explain them. You simultaneously claim that you did the Bishop experiment - the results of which you have provided no evidence for. But you also hypothesise EA which render those alleged results impossible.
Rowbotham's book makes all kinds of crazy claims like the moon is self illuminating and translucent. He makes it clear in the book that his motive is religious fundamentalism. There's a reason he has been largely forgotten by history.
A lot of people fall in to FE because of a combination of a conspiracy theory mindset and, frankly, ignorance. If you love a good conspiracy theory AND you are ignorant of science and the globe earth model then that's a dangerous combination. Some of the Wiki articles you mention demonstrate some of that ignorance. The three body problem has no analytic solution but there are numerical solutions which do a perfectly good job. The moon tilt illusion is, as the name suggests, an optical illusion - a line which apparently arcs up and over the sky like a rainbow is in fact straight and it's trivial to satisfy yourself of that fact. These things have been explained to you multiple times.
I can see how people fall in to the FE rabbit hole. The interesting question is how people get out of it. Ranty FE did recently and he did so by doing his own analysis on images and realising they weren't possible on a FE. But for most people who fall into FE it seems impossible to get out of because they don't analyse evidence objectively. Any evidence which shows FE to be impossible is dismissed or simply denied. Any claims which seem to back up FE are accepted unquestioningly. And that is why, to answer the OP, debates don't convert any FE people. Because they have the conspiracy theory mindset and it robs them of the objectivity needed to assess things correctly.
-
I was talking about quantum mechanics
... but the OP was asking you about FE...
-
I've done sufficient research to make an informed decision about which team I'm on.
You have demonstrated otherwise. Understanding the subject will be a prerequisite to you having a meaningful discussion.
-
There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.
And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.
Unbelievable.
-
There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.
And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.
Unbelievable.
That is completely believable, unless your grocer is 7000 miles away.
The distortion in distances and land mass shapes is only noticeable on a macro scale.
This is what I was talking about above when I said ignorance. That isn't meant as an insult, but if you're not trolling then that's what your post betraying.
-
For me it was originally Rowbotham's book .... Water Convexity Tests ... sentence for me is "The Earth is Flat" and not "Unknown Coincidence"."
Direct, personal observation for me directly contradicts Rowbotham's water convexity test, so the sentence for me is "it CANNOT be flat".
Happy to show you, but it's all in my YouTube videos, and last time I posted links to them, I got slapped down for self-promotion... shall I PM them to you?
-
There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.
And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.
Unbelievable.
That is completely believable, unless your grocer is 7000 miles away.
The distortion in distances and land mass shapes is only noticeable on a macro scale.
This is what I was talking about above when I said ignorance. That isn't meant as an insult, but if you're not trolling then that's what your post betraying.
My post is betraying absolutely nothing.
You act as if 7000 mile distances cannot be mapped out on a flat surface either, using the term, "MACRO SCALE," as if it necessary to map it visually for an individual to comprehend to begin with.
Ridiculous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr-zAzxfTVU
Everything is not as it appears.
-
If this is going to turn in to another thread bickering about maps, can it be split and moved either to the uppers or the science & technology forum, please?
-
If this is going to turn in to another thread bickering about maps, can it be split and moved either to the uppers or the science & technology forum, please?
Discussing an aspect of the debates taking place on this forum that may or may not result in a changing of one's worldview is perfectly in line with the OP.
Reported.
-
There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.
And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.
Unbelievable.
That is completely believable, unless your grocer is 7000 miles away.
The distortion in distances and land mass shapes is only noticeable on a macro scale.
This is what I was talking about above when I said ignorance. That isn't meant as an insult, but if you're not trolling then that's what your post betraying.
My post is betraying absolutely nothing.
You act as if 7000 mile distances cannot be mapped out on a flat surface either, using the term, "MACRO SCALE," as if it necessary to map it visually for an individual to comprehend to begin with.
Ridiculous.
You need to understand how scale works. A flat map of a small area of a sphere works because the distortions are tiny. But if you try and map a larger percentage then you will run into problems.
I can claim a basketball is flat by making a flap map of the tiny dot on the i in 'Microfiber' and claiming it works to navigate inside that dot. But try and make a flat map of those three lines going around it or a flat map of the distances between the S, G and 1 and you will quickly find that you can't. Trying to make a flat map of all the words on a basketball will quickly run into problems where you can't make all the distances fit.
You can not accurately map multiple distances 7000 miles apart on the surface of a sphere 8000 miles in diameter. You can map a distance of a few miles because the errors will be too small at human scales to matter.
(https://i.imgur.com/uwAPa0x.jpeg)
Everything is not as it appears.
Exactly. A sphere appears flat if you view a tiny section of if, which means you can't determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the distance to your grocer down the street.
-
There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.
And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.
Unbelievable.
That is completely believable, unless your grocer is 7000 miles away.
The distortion in distances and land mass shapes is only noticeable on a macro scale.
This is what I was talking about above when I said ignorance. That isn't meant as an insult, but if you're not trolling then that's what your post betraying.
My post is betraying absolutely nothing.
You act as if 7000 mile distances cannot be mapped out on a flat surface either, using the term, "MACRO SCALE," as if it necessary to map it visually for an individual to comprehend to begin with.
Ridiculous.
You need to understand how scale works. A flat map of a small area of a sphere works because the distortions are tiny. But if you try and map a larger percentage then you will run into problems.
This is a ridiculous non-sequitur.
The fact anyone is even making a claim there are "distortions because of projections," is made with absolutely no direct personal knowledge of the matter.
Someone told you this, so it must absolutely be true.
Matching numerical entries to solutions can be formulated for any set of desired end parameters. That is exactly how math works.
Somebody came up with some numbers to match how things would appear if this was spherical and this was so far away.
Good for them.
Doesn't make it true.
-
There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.
And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.
Unbelievable.
That is completely believable, unless your grocer is 7000 miles away.
The distortion in distances and land mass shapes is only noticeable on a macro scale.
This is what I was talking about above when I said ignorance. That isn't meant as an insult, but if you're not trolling then that's what your post betraying.
My post is betraying absolutely nothing.
You act as if 7000 mile distances cannot be mapped out on a flat surface either, using the term, "MACRO SCALE," as if it necessary to map it visually for an individual to comprehend to begin with.
Ridiculous.
You need to understand how scale works. A flat map of a small area of a sphere works because the distortions are tiny. But if you try and map a larger percentage then you will run into problems.
This is a ridiculous non-sequitur.
The fact anyone is even making a claim there are "distortions because of projections," is made with absolutely no direct personal knowledge of the matter.
Someone told you this, so it must absolutely be true.
Matching numerical entries to solutions can be formulated for any set of desired end parameters. That is exactly how math works.
Somebody came up with some numbers to match how things we appear if this was spherical and this far away.
Good for them.
Doesn't make it true.
Then do us all a favor and map a basket ball on a piece of paper. Come back to us when you're done.
-
You need to understand how scale works. A flat map of a small area of a sphere works because the distortions are tiny. But if you try and map a larger percentage then you will run into problems.
This is a ridiculous non-sequitur.
The fact anyone is even making a claim there are "distortions because of projections," is made with absolutely no direct personal knowledge of the matter.
Someone told you this, so it must absolutely be true.
Matching numerical entries to solutions can be formulated for any set of desired end parameters. That is exactly how math works.
Somebody came up with some numbers to match how things we appear if this was spherical and this far away.
Good for them.
Doesn't make it true.
It's clear you don't understand much about geometry or topography. Try this experiment. Take a basketball, or any other round object and a sheet of paper. Now try and wrap that paper around the sphere without cutting or folding the paper. You will find that you can't create a 1:1 map between the sphere and the paper without altering it.
This isn't just hard to do, it's impossible. If you want an easy to understand example, on a sphere you can create a triangle with three right angles. This is impossible on a flat piece of paper, so it should be pretty obvious a 1:1 map is impossible. Try drawing a triangle with 3 right angles on a flat piece of paper for yourself if you don't believe me.
I have done all that I just described, so I do have "direct personal knowledge of the matter" as do most people. You likely do too, but we all tend to forget a lot of what we learn in high school.
This debate is a good example of the OPs question. Anyone looking from the outside would see nobody here is convincing anyone.
-
There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.
And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.
Unbelievable.
That is completely believable, unless your grocer is 7000 miles away.
The distortion in distances and land mass shapes is only noticeable on a macro scale.
This is what I was talking about above when I said ignorance. That isn't meant as an insult, but if you're not trolling then that's what your post betraying.
My post is betraying absolutely nothing.
You act as if 7000 mile distances cannot be mapped out on a flat surface either, using the term, "MACRO SCALE," as if it necessary to map it visually for an individual to comprehend to begin with.
Ridiculous.
You need to understand how scale works. A flat map of a small area of a sphere works because the distortions are tiny. But if you try and map a larger percentage then you will run into problems.
This is a ridiculous non-sequitur.
The fact anyone is even making a claim there are "distortions because of projections," is made with absolutely no direct personal knowledge of the matter.
Someone told you this, so it must absolutely be true.
Matching numerical entries to solutions can be formulated for any set of desired end parameters. That is exactly how math works.
Somebody came up with some numbers to match how things we appear if this was spherical and this far away.
Good for them.
Doesn't make it true.
Then do us all a favor and map a basket ball on a piece of paper. Come back to us when you're done.
I am under no pressure to map a spherical object onto a flat surface. It is nonsensical to do so.
-
You need to understand how scale works. A flat map of a small area of a sphere works because the distortions are tiny. But if you try and map a larger percentage then you will run into problems.
This is a ridiculous non-sequitur.
The fact anyone is even making a claim there are "distortions because of projections," is made with absolutely no direct personal knowledge of the matter.
Someone told you this, so it must absolutely be true.
Matching numerical entries to solutions can be formulated for any set of desired end parameters. That is exactly how math works.
Somebody came up with some numbers to match how things we appear if this was spherical and this far away.
Good for them.
Doesn't make it true.
It's clear you don't understand much about geometry or topography. Try this experiment. Take a basketball, or any other round object and a sheet of paper. Now try and wrap that paper around the sphere without cutting or folding the paper. You will find that you can't create a 1:1 map between the sphere and the paper without altering it.
This isn't just hard to do, it's impossible. If you want an easy to understand example, on a sphere you can create a triangle with three right angles. This is impossible on a flat piece of paper, so it should be pretty obvious a 1:1 map is impossible. Try drawing a triangle with 3 right angles on a flat piece of paper for yourself if you don't believe me.
I have done all that I just described, so I do have "direct personal knowledge of the matter" as do most people. You likely do too, but we all tend to forget a lot of what we learn in high school.
This debate is a good example of the OPs question. Anyone looking from the outside would see nobody here is convincing anyone.
On the contrary, it is precisely this type of "debate," built upon a faulty presupposition, and the follow up statements such as, "you're ignorant," and,"you know very little about topography, " that led me to conversion.
Me- Why wrap a piece of paper around a sphere to begin with?
Answer- Because the earth is a globe.
Ridiculous.
-
I am under no pressure to map a spherical object onto a flat surface. It is nonsensical to do so.
Another good example for the subject of this thread showing how debates are very unlikely to change anyone mind, at least for this subject.
You can't have a successful debate with someone who is not willing to learn. Nobody is asking Action80 to accept the world is round, just learn some simple geometry and topography. To try an experiment. There can be little hope of changing ones mind if they are not willing to learn, and learning something new is never a bad thing.
People in general don't like their assumptions and beliefs challenged. One thing this site has been good for, at least for me is doing just that. I haven't changed my mind, but I've done a lot of experiments and discovered that many things I thought I knew well I only had a simple understanding of, and in some cases was flat out wrong. You can't truly know something unless you can fully explain it to another.
-
I am under no pressure to map a spherical object onto a flat surface. It is nonsensical to do so.
Another good example for the subject of this thread showing how debates are very unlikely to change anyone mind, at least for this subject.
You can't have a successful debate with someone who is not willing to learn. Nobody is asking Action80 to accept the world is round, just learn some simple geometry and topography. To try an experiment. There can be little hope of changing ones mind if they are not willing to learn, and learning something new is never a bad thing.
Agreed.
So, do you have anything new to offer?
Because the experiment you offer is old as dirt.
I do not need to perform it as I already know it will not be possible to match flat coordinates with those that are placed on a sphere.
I am also aware that it proves nothing as to the shape of the earth.
-
It's clear you don't understand much about geometry or topography. Try this experiment. Take a basketball, or any other round object and a sheet of paper. Now try and wrap that paper around the sphere without cutting or folding the paper. You will find that you can't create a 1:1 map between the sphere and the paper without altering it.
This isn't just hard to do, it's impossible. If you want an easy to understand example, on a sphere you can create a triangle with three right angles. This is impossible on a flat piece of paper, so it should be pretty obvious a 1:1 map is impossible. Try drawing a triangle with 3 right angles on a flat piece of paper for yourself if you don't believe me.
I have done all that I just described, so I do have "direct personal knowledge of the matter" as do most people. You likely do too, but we all tend to forget a lot of what we learn in high school.
This debate is a good example of the OPs question. Anyone looking from the outside would see nobody here is convincing anyone.
On the contrary, it is precisely this type of "debate," built upon a faulty presupposition, and the follow up statements such as, "you're ignorant," and,"you know very little about topography, " that led me to conversion.
Me- Why wrap a piece of paper around a sphere to begin with?
Answer- Because the earth is a globe.
Ridiculous.
You are making up a response nobody has said. Let me give you a real answer.
"Action80 - Why wrap a piece of paper around a sphere to begin with?"
Because it will demonstrate that a map of a sphere and a map of a plane are incompatible. It shows that even if you can map a tiny spot on a sphere as a flat plane, you can't do that to the entire sphere.
The discussion of the topological incompatibilities between a sphere and a plane began because of this exchange.
There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.
And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.
Unbelievable.
This shows you don't really understand the problems with planes and spheres. It's why the example of wrapping paper around a sphere was given to you, to try and help you understand.
Here is another try. Wrap some paper around a basketball and trace the letters. Then unfold it and try and make a map that keeps the distance between all points. You are going to find that you can't do this. It's a physical demonstration of the fact that you can't transform a sphere into a plane, which means if points and distances fit on a sphere, that surface can not be flat.
-
You are making up a response nobody has said. Let me give you a real answer.
"Action80 - Why wrap a piece of paper around a sphere to begin with?"
Because it will demonstrate that a map of a sphere and a map of a plane are incompatible. It shows that even if you can map a tiny spot on a sphere as a flat plane, you can't do that to the entire sphere.
Which next leads to the follow up,"Why of course! How does this concern the shape of the earth?"
The discussion of the topological incompatibilities between a sphere and a plane began because of this exchange.
There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.
And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.
Unbelievable.
This shows you don't really understand the problems with planes and spheres. It's why the example of wrapping paper around a sphere was given to you, to try and help you understand.
Here is another try. Wrap some paper around a basketball and trace the letters. Then unfold it and try and make a map that keeps the distance between all points. You are going to find that you can't do this. It's a physical demonstration of the fact that you can't transform a sphere into a plane, which means if points and distances fit on a sphere, that surface can not be flat.
You just stated exactly why you demand the wrapping of paper around a sphere.
You presuppose a globe.
I've performed the experiment. Of course it cannot be done.
I know that and I also know it demonstrates nothing in support of a globe earth.
-
You are making up a response nobody has said. Let me give you a real answer.
"Action80 - Why wrap a piece of paper around a sphere to begin with?"
Because it will demonstrate that a map of a sphere and a map of a plane are incompatible. It shows that even if you can map a tiny spot on a sphere as a flat plane, you can't do that to the entire sphere.
Which next leads to the follow up,"Why of course! How does this concern the shape of the earth?"
So because an argument leads somewhere you don't like, you won't follow it? Who is presupposing here?
The discussion of the topological incompatibilities between a sphere and a plane began because of this exchange.
There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.
And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.
Unbelievable.
This shows you don't really understand the problems with planes and spheres. It's why the example of wrapping paper around a sphere was given to you, to try and help you understand.
Here is another try. Wrap some paper around a basketball and trace the letters. Then unfold it and try and make a map that keeps the distance between all points. You are going to find that you can't do this. It's a physical demonstration of the fact that you can't transform a sphere into a plane, which means if points and distances fit on a sphere, that surface can not be flat.
You just stated exactly why you demand the wrapping of paper around a sphere.
You presuppose a globe.
I've performed the experiment. Of course it cannot be done.
I know that and I also know it demonstrates nothing in support of a globe earth.
Your example of "I can make a flat map of my grocery store so the earth is flat" shows that you didn't really grasp this. Saying that it demonstrates nothing in support of the earth being a sphere shows that you still may not fully understand.
Take the known distances between cities and try and fit them onto a flat map, you can't.
Try and fit them on a cube, a torus, a pyramid. They don't work either.
Try it on a sphere and you will find that they fit.
This is what wrapping a sphere demonstrates. That if you can fit a set of points onto a sphere, it's because they represent a sphere. They simply can't have those distances and directions on anything but a sphere. It explains why you have so much trouble making a flat map of the earth that works.
-
I've done sufficient research to make an informed decision about which team I'm on.
You have demonstrated otherwise. Understanding the subject will be a prerequisite to you having a meaningful discussion.
Considering that I have not discussed any specific aspects of what I do or do not know about the shape of the Earth, how precisely have I demonstrated that I lack sufficient knowledge to participate in the discussion that I myself initiated?
It could be argued that you, as a proponent of FET, have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of basic physics. Therefore, by your logic, you don’t meet the prerequisites to participate in a meaningful discussion on this topic. A topic which has comically devolved from simple question about whether these debates ever sway either side, into one largely about wrapping paper around basketballs.
Have you ever thought about how a single explanation—a spherical earth—effortlessly explains literally everything that gets debated on this forum, and a flat earth requires a vast, ever-growing trove of separate explanations for each aspect?
The truth is right under your feet. It’s just a lot less fun than being in this elite club of special enlightened people who think they know more than all the great thinkers mankind has ever produced.
-
Considering that I have not discussed any specific aspects of what I do or do not know about the shape of the Earth, how precisely have I demonstrated that I lack sufficient knowledge to participate in the discussion that I myself initiated?
Here's one example:
The only topic that might be fun to explore is whether a spherical Earth can be disproved by Flat Earthers. Has that been sufficiently explored already?
Oh gee oh my i wonder if anyone has done literally the most common activity in the FE sphere of interest, that would be soooooo interesting.
It's really sad. You've made it crystal clear that you know very little about FET, despite your clear and deliberate effort not to disclose your level of understanding. Work on fixing that. You'll be a happier man at the end of it, regardless of your conclusions.
A topic which has comically devolved from simple question about whether these debates ever sway either side, into one largely about wrapping paper around basketballs.
Yes, RE arguments seldom get more complex than "wow but flat erth is not same as rund erth?????". Sadly, that's a side effect of your poor thread design.
It could be argued that you, as a proponent of FET, have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of basic physics.
Certainly, it could be argued... if only you knew what my position is. And, of course, chances are my conventional credentials in physics surpass your own. But let's not get facts get in the way of your tRuSt iN sCiEnCe.
-
One can't change the mind of someone who doesn't believe what he says anyway.
Or perhaps:
You can't change the mind of a troll. You can only bore them into leaving.
-
You presuppose a globe.
OK.
Why not do some experiments where we presuppose a flat plane, and see how geometry works out with those?
-
You are making up a response nobody has said. Let me give you a real answer.
"Action80 - Why wrap a piece of paper around a sphere to begin with?"
Because it will demonstrate that a map of a sphere and a map of a plane are incompatible. It shows that even if you can map a tiny spot on a sphere as a flat plane, you can't do that to the entire sphere.
Which next leads to the follow up,"Why of course! How does this concern the shape of the earth?"
So because an argument leads somewhere you don't like, you won't follow it? Who is presupposing here?
It's a rather direct question. Can you answer it?
The discussion of the topological incompatibilities between a sphere and a plane began because of this exchange.
There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.
And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.
Unbelievable.
This shows you don't really understand the problems with planes and spheres. It's why the example of wrapping paper around a sphere was given to you, to try and help you understand.
Here is another try. Wrap some paper around a basketball and trace the letters. Then unfold it and try and make a map that keeps the distance between all points. You are going to find that you can't do this. It's a physical demonstration of the fact that you can't transform a sphere into a plane, which means if points and distances fit on a sphere, that surface can not be flat.
You just stated exactly why you demand the wrapping of paper around a sphere.
You presuppose a globe.
I've performed the experiment. Of course it cannot be done.
I know that and I also know it demonstrates nothing in support of a globe earth.
Your example of "I can make a flat map of my grocery store so the earth is flat" shows that you didn't really grasp this. Saying that it demonstrates nothing in support of the earth being a sphere shows that you still may not fully understand.
Take the known distances between cities and try and fit them onto a flat map, you can't.
Nonsense. The distances between cities is well known and are quite well represented in a flat plane presentation.
Try and fit them on a cube, a torus, a pyramid. They don't work either.
Try it on a sphere and you will find that they fit.
This is what wrapping a sphere demonstrates. That if you can fit a set of points onto a sphere, it's because they represent a sphere. They simply can't have those distances and directions on anything but a sphere. It explains why you have so much trouble making a flat map of the earth that works.
Your argument fails. Every map I use to navigate is flat in presentation and works just fine.
-
You presuppose a globe.
OK.
Why not do some experiments where we presuppose a flat plane, and see how geometry works out with those?
Who is we?
-
The distances between cities is well known and are quite well represented in a flat plane presentation.
Amazing. Now all you have to do is show us the map…
-
The distances between cities is well known and are quite well represented in a flat plane presentation.
Amazing. Now all you have to do is show us the map…
Take your pick.
-
The distances between cities is well known and are quite well represented in a flat plane presentation.
Amazing. Now all you have to do is show us the map…
Take your pick.
World map.
Please show us the distance from NY to paris and NY to Moscow.
Then go measure it yourself. You know, to be sure.
-
Which next leads to the follow up,"Why of course! How does this concern the shape of the earth?"
So because an argument leads somewhere you don't like, you won't follow it? Who is presupposing here?
It's a rather direct question. Can you answer it?
I've answered it many times. It shows that if you can plot the distances between cities on a sphere, then the surface can not be a plane because the topological surfaces are incompatible. The same works in reverse, if the Earth is flat then a globe map can't show the distances between all cities correctly.
Your example of "I can make a flat map of my grocery store so the earth is flat" shows that you didn't really grasp this. Saying that it demonstrates nothing in support of the earth being a sphere shows that you still may not fully understand.
Take the known distances between cities and try and fit them onto a flat map, you can't.
Nonsense. The distances between cities is well known and are quite well represented in a flat plane presentation.
Please provide your source for this claim. Which flat map shows the correct distances between cities on all 7 continents? Please link to it.
It's a rather direct question. Can you answer it?
Try it on a sphere and you will find that they fit.
This is what wrapping a sphere demonstrates. That if you can fit a set of points onto a sphere, it's because they represent a sphere. They simply can't have those distances and directions on anything but a sphere. It explains why you have so much trouble making a flat map of the earth that works.
Your argument fails. Every map I use to navigate is flat in presentation and works just fine.
I use a globe map for navigation and it works just fine. It works better than any flat map I have seen because it shows the entire planet to scale with no distortions. There is no flat map of the entire earth where you can measure distances with a ruler anywhere without severe distortions. If there is, please link it.
-
The distances between cities is well known and are quite well represented in a flat plane presentation.
Amazing. Now all you have to do is show us the map…
Take your pick.
World map.
Please show us the distance from NY to paris and NY to Moscow.
Then go measure it yourself. You know, to be sure.
You go measure it.
There is no utility for me to make the trip from NY to Paris or from NY to Moscow.
-
Which next leads to the follow up,"Why of course! How does this concern the shape of the earth?"
So because an argument leads somewhere you don't like, you won't follow it? Who is presupposing here?
It's a rather direct question. Can you answer it?
I've answered it many times. It shows that if you can plot the distances between cities on a sphere, then the surface can not be a plane because the topological surfaces are incompatible. The same works in reverse, if the Earth is flat then a globe map can't show the distances between all cities correctly.
Actually, no you have not until just now.
You presuppose there is such a thing as a GLOBE map.
There isn't.
Thanks for discussing.
Try it on a sphere and you will find that they fit.
This is what wrapping a sphere demonstrates. That if you can fit a set of points onto a sphere, it's because they represent a sphere. They simply can't have those distances and directions on anything but a sphere. It explains why you have so much trouble making a flat map of the earth that works.
Your argument fails. Every map I use to navigate is flat in presentation and works just fine.
I use a globe map for navigation and it works just fine. It works better than any flat map I have seen because it shows the entire planet to scale with no distortions. There is no flat map of the entire earth where you can measure distances with a ruler anywhere without severe distortions. If there is, please link it.
^This is quite funny.
Someone believes that because a funhouse mirror gag can be simulated on smartphone and applied to an app, resulting in a fat picture or a skinny picture, neither of which will be ultimately the view chosen to rely upon (that view chosen would be a flat x-y coordinate based system by the way) it somehow proves a globe.
Truly remarkable!
-
The distances between cities is well known and are quite well represented in a flat plane presentation.
Amazing. Now all you have to do is show us the map…
Take your pick.
World map.
Please show us the distance from NY to paris and NY to Moscow.
Then go measure it yourself. You know, to be sure.
You go measure it.
There is no utility for me to make the trip from NY to Paris or from NY to Moscow.
Then you are making an argument against maps and your only evidence is the distorted maps people have made for you.
-
The distances between cities is well known and are quite well represented in a flat plane presentation.
Amazing. Now all you have to do is show us the map…
Take your pick.
World map.
Please show us the distance from NY to paris and NY to Moscow.
Then go measure it yourself. You know, to be sure.
You go measure it.
There is no utility for me to make the trip from NY to Paris or from NY to Moscow.
Then you are making an argument against maps and your only evidence is the distorted maps people have made for you.
I am not making an argument against maps.
I am making an argument that a world map has no utility and that I would not utilize a map to make the trip from NY to Paris or from NY to Moscow.
Maps are highly useful tools.
But even RE adherents claim the world maps in use now are projections of a spherical surface onto a flat surface and there can be no true rendering of accuracy when performing such a task.
If that is indeed the truth, then there is no utility to be had by placing such an image on a flat surface, unless one finds perpetuating a lie or false representation to be utilitarian.
Which of course, as has been clearly proven, there are entities who do find utility in perpetuating lies and false representations on a daily basis, living amongst us to this day.
Unremarkably, they find their way to work in the highest levels of government to perpetuate their criminal deeds through tried and true methods of lying, telling fantastical stories of ghosts and haunted houses, or even open and outright bald faced lies, in order to continue their murder, raping, and pillaging of the world's life, wealth, and resources.
And their sycophantic fan club exercise their fingers endlessly here on a daily basis.
-
I've answered it many times. It shows that if you can plot the distances between cities on a sphere, then the surface can not be a plane because the topological surfaces are incompatible. The same works in reverse, if the Earth is flat then a globe map can't show the distances between all cities correctly.
Actually, no you have not until just now.
You presuppose there is such a thing as a GLOBE map.
There isn't.
Thanks for discussing.
There is such a thing as a globe map, it's called a globe. It certainly exists, I am looking at one in my room right now.
I use a globe map for navigation and it works just fine. It works better than any flat map I have seen because it shows the entire planet to scale with no distortions. There is no flat map of the entire earth where you can measure distances with a ruler anywhere without severe distortions. If there is, please link it.
^This is quite funny.
Someone believes that because a funhouse mirror gag can be simulated on smartphone and applied to an app, resulting in a fat picture or a skinny picture, neither of which will be ultimately the view chosen to rely upon (that view chosen would be a flat x-y coordinate based system by the way) it somehow proves a globe.
Truly remarkable!
What do funhouses, smartphones or the shape of a screen have to do with using a globe?
I use an actual globe, it's sitting next to my desk right now, not a flat map. An actual physical sphere on a stand. When I use that to examine flights around the world I have taken, distances and directions I have driven across countries, it all matches perfectly. I can measure distances between cities anywhere on the globe and they match the known values, which even you admit we know very well.
-
Your example of "I can make a flat map of my grocery store so the earth is flat" shows that you didn't really grasp this. Saying that it demonstrates nothing in support of the earth being a sphere shows that you still may not fully understand.
Take the known distances between cities and try and fit them onto a flat map, you can't.
Nonsense. The distances between cities is well known and are quite well represented in a flat plane presentation.
Please provide your source for this claim. Which flat map shows the correct distances between cities on all 7 continents? Please link to it.
It's a rather direct question. Can you answer it?
I noticed you completely ignored this question in my previous post. I am very interested in the flat map you claim to have that shows the correct distances between cities.
It should be simple for you to link this map that you claim is quite well represented. If you can't provide it, please explain why?
-
I've answered it many times. It shows that if you can plot the distances between cities on a sphere, then the surface can not be a plane because the topological surfaces are incompatible. The same works in reverse, if the Earth is flat then a globe map can't show the distances between all cities correctly.
Actually, no you have not until just now.
You presuppose there is such a thing as a GLOBE map.
There isn't.
Thanks for discussing.
There is such a thing as a globe map, it's called a globe. It certainly exists, I am looking at one in my room right now.
I use a globe map for navigation and it works just fine. It works better than any flat map I have seen because it shows the entire planet to scale with no distortions. There is no flat map of the entire earth where you can measure distances with a ruler anywhere without severe distortions. If there is, please link it.
^This is quite funny.
Someone believes that because a funhouse mirror gag can be simulated on smartphone and applied to an app, resulting in a fat picture or a skinny picture, neither of which will be ultimately the view chosen to rely upon (that view chosen would be a flat x-y coordinate based system by the way) it somehow proves a globe.
Truly remarkable!
What do funhouses, smartphones or the shape of a screen have to do with using a globe?
I use an actual globe, it's sitting next to my desk right now, not a flat map. An actual physical sphere on a stand. When I use that to examine flights around the world I have taken, distances and directions I have driven across countries, it all matches perfectly. I can measure distances between cities anywhere on the globe and they match the known values, which even you admit we know very well.
So, what you were told matches what you can see in the wee corner of your damp hovel.
At times, you seem blessed to have had the good fortune, as described by you, to exit said abode, TRUSTY GLOBE under one arm, pinned tightly against thy body (you dare not lose it after all, your very life could depend on its life saving, directional powers!), meager lunch sack grasped firmly betwixt thumb and three remaining fingertips of the opposite hand, off to work, navigating your way through the various glens and flowered meadows, double checking the steps using aforementioned TRUSTY GLOBE, and stopped only by the occasional ogre at a stone bridge, demanding the toll.
Again, what does this have to do with the shape of the earth?
Answer - Nothing.
The flight time could be stated as having been x hours.
The true flight speed could be stated as having been y mph.
Resulting in a set outcome, proven by the math!
Therefore, the distance traveled MUST have been such and such!
Yeah, but that doesn't mean the flight took place over a globe.
-
I noticed you completely ignored this question in my previous post. I am very interested in the flat map you claim to have that shows the correct distances between cities.
It should be simple for you to link this map that you claim is quite well represented. If you can't provide it, please explain why?
My flat map shows the distance from St. Louis, MO to Dallas, TX to be 630 miles.
Roughly correct.
-
I noticed you completely ignored this question in my previous post. I am very interested in the flat map you claim to have that shows the correct distances between cities.
It should be simple for you to link this map that you claim is quite well represented. If you can't provide it, please explain why?
My flat map shows the distance from St. Louis, MO to Dallas, TX to be 630 miles.
Roughly correct.
You have been asked half a dozen times to show your flat map, and have deflected or made excuses or flat out ignored each one.
This is another example pertaining to the OPs question. You can't expect to change anyone mind if you claim to have a perfectly functioning map, but repeatedly refuse to show it to anyone.
I'll ask again, can you link to the map of the entire world you just used to measure that distance? Why can't we see it? Is it because it's only "roughly correct" and not actually accurate?
-
I noticed you completely ignored this question in my previous post. I am very interested in the flat map you claim to have that shows the correct distances between cities.
It should be simple for you to link this map that you claim is quite well represented. If you can't provide it, please explain why?
My flat map shows the distance from St. Louis, MO to Dallas, TX to be 630 miles.
Roughly correct.
You have been asked half a dozen times to show your flat map, and have deflected or made excuses or flat out ignored each one.
This is another example pertaining to the OPs question. You can't expect to change anyone mind if you claim to have a perfectly functioning map, but repeatedly refuse to show it to anyone.
I'll ask again, can you link to the map of the entire world you just used to measure that distance? Why can't we see it? Is it because it's only "roughly correct" and not actually accurate?
Why would I utilize a complete world map to show the distance from Dallas to St. Louis.
Especially when you, the RE Adherent claim that such renderings are incapable of accuracy?
You claim they are inaccurate because the earth is a sphere.
That is sheer hilarity!
When are you going to stop playing games and get serious about the topic?
When will l you realize they are inaccurate because they are purposefully rendered that way due to the math involved and not the reality of the shape?
Numbers, matching a desired outcome when given certain parameters of operation, can always be provided.
That doesn't mean they truly exist as such.
-
What do funhouses, smartphones or the shape of a screen have to do with using a globe?
I use an actual globe, it's sitting next to my desk right now, not a flat map. An actual physical sphere on a stand. When I use that to examine flights around the world I have taken, distances and directions I have driven across countries, it all matches perfectly. I can measure distances between cities anywhere on the globe and they match the known values, which even you admit we know very well.
So, what you were told matches what you can see in the wee corner of your damp hovel.
Personal insults are not helpful.
At times, you seem blessed to have had the good fortune, as described by you, to exit said abode, TRUSTY GLOBE under one arm, pinned tightly against thy body (you dare not lose it after all, your very life could depend on its life saving, directional powers!), meager lunch sack grasped firmly betwixt thumb and three remaining fingertips of the opposite hand, off to work, navigating your way through the various glens and flowered meadows, stopped only by the occasional ogre at a stone bridge, demanding the toll.
Also not helpful.
Again, what does this have to do with the shape of the earth?
Answer - Nothing.
The flight time could be stated as having been x hours.
The true flight speed could be stated as having been y mph.
Resulting in a set outcome, proven by the math!
Therefore, the distance traveled MUST have been such and such!
Yeah, but that doesn't mean the flight took place over a globe.
I have driven thousands of miles and my cars odometer matches what my GPS tells me. I have personally verified the width of entire continents by driving them myself.
I have flown to multiple continents, I have measured the airspeed with both a GPS and landmarks.
So yes, the distance I traveled does indeed match such and such.
The distances match what a globe map and math tells me, so that tells me the Earth is actually a globe. If you try and plot just the places I have personally visited and verified the distances of, they will not fit on a flat earth map.
What travels and observations have you made that contradict known distances on a globe map?
-
The distances between cities is well known and are quite well represented in a flat plane presentation.
Amazing. Now all you have to do is show us the map…
Take your pick.
World map.
Please show us the distance from NY to paris and NY to Moscow.
Then go measure it yourself. You know, to be sure.
You go measure it.
There is no utility for me to make the trip from NY to Paris or from NY to Moscow.
Then you are making an argument against maps and your only evidence is the distorted maps people have made for you.
I am not making an argument against maps.
I am making an argument that a world map has no utility and that I would not utilize a map to make the trip from NY to Paris or from NY to Moscow.
Maps are highly useful tools.
But even RE adherents claim the world maps in use now are projections of a spherical surface onto a flat surface and there can be no true rendering of accuracy when performing such a task.
If that is indeed the truth, then there is no utility to be had by placing such an image on a flat surface, unless one finds perpetuating a lie or false representation to be utilitarian.
Which of course, as has been clearly proven, there are entities who do find utility in perpetuating lies and false representations on a daily basis, living amongst us to this day.
Unremarkably, they find their way to work in the highest levels of government to perpetuate their criminal deeds through tried and true methods of lying, telling fantastical stories of ghosts and haunted houses, or even open and outright bald faced lies, in order to continue their murder, raping, and pillaging of the world's life, wealth, and resources.
And their sycophantic fan club exercise their fingers endlessly here on a daily basis.
Its all about scale.
If you used a flat map to fly between New York and Paris... You'll get lost as the distances won't be accurate. Not on a non-distorted map anyway. You'll definitely end up in France but not Paris.
Assuming, of course, that you fly and use the map as a way to angle yourself for flight.
A map of your city will be distorted too. But the distortion will be in the micrometers or less level, so nothing you'd notice.
You can actually prove this by taking a normal world map.
Measure a line between two points horizontally in the upper area.
Then do it again in the lower area.
Then check real distances.
The two lines (which should be the same length on the map) will not be the sam real world length.
-
I noticed you completely ignored this question in my previous post. I am very interested in the flat map you claim to have that shows the correct distances between cities.
It should be simple for you to link this map that you claim is quite well represented. If you can't provide it, please explain why?
My flat map shows the distance from St. Louis, MO to Dallas, TX to be 630 miles.
Roughly correct.
You have been asked half a dozen times to show your flat map, and have deflected or made excuses or flat out ignored each one.
This is another example pertaining to the OPs question. You can't expect to change anyone mind if you claim to have a perfectly functioning map, but repeatedly refuse to show it to anyone.
I'll ask again, can you link to the map of the entire world you just used to measure that distance? Why can't we see it? Is it because it's only "roughly correct" and not actually accurate?
Why would I utilize a complete world map to show the distance from Dallas to St. Louis.
Especially when you, the RE Adherent claim that such renderings are incapable of accuracy?
That is sheer hilarity!
When are you going to stop playing games and get serious about the topic?
You claimed "The distances between cities is well known and are quite well represented in a flat plane presentation."
Do you have a flat map of the world with well represented city distances, or not? It's a simple question.
If you do have a flat map of the Earth, why won't you show anyone?
-
What do funhouses, smartphones or the shape of a screen have to do with using a globe?
I use an actual globe, it's sitting next to my desk right now, not a flat map. An actual physical sphere on a stand. When I use that to examine flights around the world I have taken, distances and directions I have driven across countries, it all matches perfectly. I can measure distances between cities anywhere on the globe and they match the known values, which even you admit we know very well.
So, what you were told matches what you can see in the wee corner of your damp hovel.
Personal insults are not helpful.
I like a damp abode, personally.
So, not an insult.
At times, you seem blessed to have had the good fortune, as described by you, to exit said abode, TRUSTY GLOBE under one arm, pinned tightly against thy body (you dare not lose it after all, your very life could depend on its life saving, directional powers!), meager lunch sack grasped firmly betwixt thumb and three remaining fingertips of the opposite hand, off to work, navigating your way through the various glens and flowered meadows, stopped only by the occasional ogre at a stone bridge, demanding the toll.
Also not helpful.
Wait...
you don't use a globe to navigate?
Again, what does this have to do with the shape of the earth?
Answer - Nothing.
The flight time could be stated as having been x hours.
The true flight speed could be stated as having been y mph.
Resulting in a set outcome, proven by the math!
Therefore, the distance traveled MUST have been such and such!
Yeah, but that doesn't mean the flight took place over a globe.
I have driven thousands of miles and my cars odometer matches what my GPS tells me. I have personally verified the width of entire continents by driving them myself.
I have flown to multiple continents, I have measured the airspeed with both a GPS and landmarks.
So yes, the distance I traveled does indeed match such and such.
The distances match what a globe map and math tells me, so that tells me the Earth is actually a globe. If you try and plot just the places I have personally visited and verified the distances of, they will not fit on a flat earth map.
What travels and observations have you made that contradict known distances on a globe map?
Blah, blah, blah...
I have answered this question over and over and over again.
It is here in writing for anyone to see.
"I have personally done this or personally done that! Why... How dare you!"
I don't care if you were behind the wheel, I don't care if you were behind the joystick, I don't care if you were manning the conn...
The only thing that traveling a certain speed in a certain time renders is distance.
Distances have nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
Get that through your head.
I'm done with you.
Who's next?
-
A reminder to all involved that you're not currently in AR.
-
I noticed you completely ignored this question in my previous post. I am very interested in the flat map you claim to have that shows the correct distances between cities.
It should be simple for you to link this map that you claim is quite well represented. If you can't provide it, please explain why?
My flat map shows the distance from St. Louis, MO to Dallas, TX to be 630 miles.
Roughly correct.
You have been asked half a dozen times to show your flat map, and have deflected or made excuses or flat out ignored each one.
This is another example pertaining to the OPs question. You can't expect to change anyone mind if you claim to have a perfectly functioning map, but repeatedly refuse to show it to anyone.
I'll ask again, can you link to the map of the entire world you just used to measure that distance? Why can't we see it? Is it because it's only "roughly correct" and not actually accurate?
Why would I utilize a complete world map to show the distance from Dallas to St. Louis.
Especially when you, the RE Adherent claim that such renderings are incapable of accuracy?
That is sheer hilarity!
When are you going to stop playing games and get serious about the topic?
You claimed "The distances between cities is well known and are quite well represented in a flat plane presentation."
Do you have a flat map of the world with well represented city distances, or not? It's a simple question.
If you do have a flat map of the Earth, why won't you show anyone?
Nobody, not even RE adherents can present a flat map of the earth existing as they claim.
What you fail to realize is the following: Making the claim that the world is a sphere of such and such a size and that is why there are distortions appearing on the map of the world, is not a statement of truth relating to the matter of WHY a map (or now even maps) of the world exists.
It is a factual statement to be sure, and mathematically a true statement, but at its essence, does not strike at the core as to why these cartoonish renditions exist.
-
I don't care if you were behind the wheel, I don't care if you were behind the joystick, I don't care if you were manning the conn...
The only thing that traveling a certain speed at a certain time renders is distance.
Distances have nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
Get that through your head.
Distances have everything to do with determining the shape of an object. Measuring an object is how you determine it's shape.
If you have a set of points where you have measured the distance between them, you can find how they can be arranged, which will tell you the shape of the surface they are on. If you have enough points you can eliminate some shapes and topographies entirely because they won't fit.
This is why knowing the distance between cities is useful for learning about the shape of the world they exist on.
-
Continuing what I started in my last post:
Flat world maps only exist as they do because they serve to perpetuate fundamental ruling class views and intentions toward the world population.
WORLD MAPS ARE NOT utilized for navigational purposes and NEVER HAVE BEEN .
And cannot be an accurate rendition of a sphere the purported shape and size of the earth on a flat surface.
So, what is the utility for providing them?
Primarily to provide easily accepted, subconciously absorbed messaging concerning how certain populations and areas of the world should be viewed.
More easy to justify murdering, raping, pillaging, and subjugation, when these images are so easily absorbed by the populace.
-
I don't care if you were behind the wheel, I don't care if you were behind the joystick, I don't care if you were manning the conn...
The only thing that traveling a certain speed at a certain time renders is distance.
Distances have nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
Get that through your head.
Distances have everything to do with determining the shape of an object. Measuring an object is how you determine it's shape.
Oh really? The sole and only way to do so is by distance...
Tell me, how do you know you are looking at a rhombus and not a square or a diamond?
If you have a set of points where you have measured the distance between them, you can find how they can be arranged, which will tell you the shape of the surface they are on. If you have enough points you can eliminate some shapes and topographies entirely because they won't fit.
This is why knowing the distance between cities is useful for learning about the shape of the world they exist on.
One more time.
Just because I travel a certain speed in a certain amount of time, deriving a certain distance traveled, does not tell me the shape of the trip I took.
Trips that humanity engage in are such that regardless of the distance used:
* mythical spherical; or,
* REALITY BASED flat measures:
The alleged differences between the two are laughingly negligible.
-
WORLD MAPS ARE NOT utilized for navigational purposes and NEVER HAVE BEEN .
How do you navigate across the world without using a map of the world? If I want to travel from one side to the other (flat or round) how can I do this if I do not have a map showing me where to go?
If I want to travel from one town to another, I need a map showing those two locations.
If I want to plan a trip from one side of the Earth to the other, I need a map showing those two points and what is between them. How else would I know where to go?
World maps are exactly what one uses to plot plane and shipping routes.
-
I, uh, I'll try again one more time. You are currently not in AR, and this is not a thread for you to sperg about distances.
-
I, uh, I'll try again one more time. You are currently not in AR, and this is not a thread for you to sperg about distances.
Yes! Enough of these spergifications.
This particular thread is about the impact of debate on changing people's minds.
I can listen to a debate with an open mind. I want to learn something new, I want to find out the truth.
If someone has good evidence of Flat Earth I want to see it. I don't believe in the globe model because of some emotional attachment or childhood indoctrination. I believe in the globe model because it tells me exactly the size and shape the Australian continent, where it's located and what time it is there. When I talk to people in Australia, they confirm everything the globe model reports. If you have some map or model that does a better job, I want to see it.
But typically in a debate when someone has no evidence, they collapse into name calling and angry shouting.