8321

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.

« on: September 27, 2016, 02:45:42 PM »

No, that is not true that a 3000x6000 mile right triangle always has the same angle as a 30x60 meter right triangle. It also depends how you are looking at it.

The angles change depending on your perspective and how you look at them. You showed this change of angle yourself with the illustration you provided in the OP where the angle changed:



A 40 degree angle turned into a completely different angle.

Oh goodie, back to angles 101. That picture represents an angle between 3 objects seen from an outside perspective. The physical angle doesn't change. The angle as we see it can change depending on where we are relative to the triangle.

We don't live in a two dimensional world. We might be looking at the angle on the far right, but you want us to measure it like we're looking at it like the angle on the far left. That makes no sense at all. You need to do the math from its appearance in reality, not from a hypothetical side view universe. The hypothetical side view is missing a dimension and certain aspects of perspective.

Your position that all angles are absolute and do not ever change is ridiculous. In fact, the idea that all angles should be measured from a specific side in a universe with higher dimensions is entirely arbitrary and bias. The illustration shows it very clearly. The angle goes from 40 degrees, to 51 degrees, to 73 degrees, as well as changes its height, depending on where we look!

8322

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.

« on: September 26, 2016, 11:37:12 PM »

You could simply apply this idea to the case of viruses. Someone looking under magnification has a different perspective and has nothing to do with invisible viruses I don't see.

The person looking at the virus under magnification has a different perspective, and will see different things. It's not that the virus doesn't exist at other scales, it's that we are not in a perspective to see it.

I disagree with this. The math scales up quite nicely. There is no reason to think it doesn't. His entire argument rests on "maybe the math suddenly stops working at long distances for no apparent reason".

The simple fact is that congruent triangles have the same angles. A 3000x6000 mile right triangle has the same angle as a 30x60 meter right triangle and a 3x6 mm right triangle. This is the fact that Tom is desperately trying not to admit. (Edit: The ratio of the sides is what matters, not the absolute length of the sides.)

No, that is not true that a 3000x6000 mile right triangle always has the same angle as a 30x60 meter right triangle. It also depends how you are looking at it.

The angles change depending on your perspective and how you look at them. You showed this change of angle yourself with the illustration you provided in the OP where the angle changed:



A 40 degree angle turned into a completely different angle.

8323

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.

« on: September 26, 2016, 04:42:54 PM »

Empirically they touch?  Wow. That's like saying, "empirically viruses don't exist because that's what I observe with the naked eye.

That was true, until someone found empirical evidence for viruses.

Tom, simple experiment to falsify your claim: find a point where two rails appear to converge. Have a friend stay there. You walk alongside the rails with radio contact with your friend until he sees you converge with the rails as well. Check to see if the rails have converged in reality.

The friend has a different perspective than I do. Things will be differently for him. His experience of being 5 feet away from the tracks has nothing to do with the touching perspective lines I see.

8324

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.

« on: September 26, 2016, 03:56:50 PM »

You should probably address Tom's assertion, in reply 79, that since we do not see perspective lines crossover in reality, it is illogical to assume they should. Otherwise he will just behave as if he has the higher ground.

Since there is a decent chance he will miss the point, I will clarify:

"Two lines angled towards each other must touch" is no more logical than "two lines angled towards each other must cross". I think both are illogical. Therefore, he is only left with the argument "the lines are seen to touch, therefore they touch", which assumes his eyes are perfect. Which is just silly.

Assuming the existence of a hidden pocket of infinite distance in the railroad tracks, undetectable to man and machine, is even sillier.

We have more evidence that they touch than they do not. Empirically, they touch. It is only by an interpretation of ancient mathematics, that they do not.

8325

Flat Earth Community / Re: Merely mistaken

« on: September 26, 2016, 02:08:59 AM »

You give no mention where we can get details of the bi-polar model to find answers to these and other questions.

I believe I mentioned a book.

As for not knowing the shapes and sizes of continents, that is simple untrue. The knowledge of the detail has gradually  improved. Even things like California being thought an island does not affect the overall layout or dimensions of North America.

It is not until detailed geodetic surveys are done that many of these details are resolved, but the general shape and size of major regions have been known for centuries.

And what is very significant is these maps, some from as far back as the late 1700's (eg India, France and the UK) and most from the latter part of the nineteenth century are almost identical to modern maps based on satellite imagery, aerial photos and laser measurement.

Take for example the 1855 Australian map and the 1887/88 US maps I used. They are in complete agreement with modern maps to within the accuracy of the methods of the time.

Cartography is not a licensed profession. I don't understand the credulity. Anyone can make a map.

When it comes to Antarctica, it may not have been explored, but it was circumnavigated by James Cook during his 1772-1775 voyage, and the whole voyage lasted about three years.

The route of Cook's second voyage

You can read the details in A Voyage Round the World in His Majesty's Sloop, Resolution, commanded by Capt. James Cook, during the Years 1772, 3, 4, 5, Georg Forster

So the bounds of Antarctica were known well before even Rowbotham's time, and was known that circumnavigation was nowhere near that required of Antarctica for Rowbotham's "map", so even had no excuse to propose such an unrealistic continental layout.

Then, well before 1918 the shapes and relative locations of all major regions was well known. So I see not the slightest justification for anything like the continental shapes on your bipolar map.

By the way, why is there virtually no mention of the "Bipolar Flat Earth Model" in "the Wiki", especially since it is espoused by such a prominent member as yourself?

I find it unbelievable that 131 years after the publication of ENAG, that the layout of the Flat Earth is not yet decided. The information is all there, it agrees with experience everywhere I have been and measuring it again won't change it.

It also took Ross over THREE YEARS to make that journey. Rowbotham talks about him a lot in Earth Not a Globe.

8326

Flat Earth Community / Re: Merely mistaken

« on: September 25, 2016, 05:23:32 PM »

Please give examples of incorrect mapping today.]Please give examples of incorrect mapping today.

It is well admitted that map making is a casual science, filled with lots of error and inaccuracy. No cartographer is going around saying that their maps are accurate.

See the book How to Lie with Maps by Mark Monmonier

Originally published to wide acclaim, this lively, cleverly illustrated essay on the use and abuse of maps teaches us how to evaluate maps critically and promotes a healthy skepticism about these easy-to-manipulate models of reality. Monmonier shows that, despite their immense value, maps lie. In fact, they must.

The second edition is updated with the addition of two new chapters, 10 color plates, and a new foreword by renowned geographer H. J. de Blij. One new chapter examines the role of national interest and cultural values in national mapping organizations, including the United States Geological Survey, while the other explores the new breed of multimedia, computer-based maps.

To show how maps distort, Monmonier introduces basic principles of mapmaking, gives entertaining examples of the misuse of maps in situations from zoning disputes to census reports, and covers all the typical kinds of distortions from deliberate oversimplifications to the misleading use of color.

"Professor Monmonier himself knows how to gain our attention; it is not in fact the lies in maps but their truth, if always approximate and incomplete, that he wants us to admire and use, even to draw for ourselves on the facile screen. His is an artful and funny book, which like any good map, packs plenty in little space."—Scientific American

"A useful guide to a subject most people probably take too much for granted. It shows how map makers translate abstract data into eye-catching cartograms, as they are called. It combats cartographic illiteracy. It fights cartophobia. It may even teach you to find your way. For that alone, it seems worthwhile."—Christopher Lehmann-Haupt, The New York Times

". . . witty examination of how and why maps lie. [The book] conveys an important message about how statistics of any kind can be manipulated. But it also communicates much of the challenge, aesthetic appeal, and sheer fun of maps. Even those who hated geography in grammar school might well find a new enthusiasm for the subject after reading Monmonier's lively and surprising book."—Wilson Library Bulletin

"A reading of this book will leave you much better defended against cheap atlases, shoddy journalism, unscrupulous advertisers, predatory special-interest groups, and others who may use or abuse maps at your expense."—John Van Pelt, Christian Science Monitor

"Monmonier meets his goal admirably. . . . [His] book should be put on every map user's 'must read' list. It is informative and readable . . . a big step forward in helping us to understand how maps can mislead their readers."—Jeffrey S. Murray, Canadian Geographic

8327

Flat Earth Community / Re: Merely mistaken

« on: September 25, 2016, 05:15:31 PM »

300 years from when to when?

From the 1500's to the 1800's California was depicted as an island in all maps of the world:

18 Maps From When the World Thought California Was an Island

GLEN MCLAUGHLIN WANDERED into a London map shop in 1971 and discovered something strange. On a map from 1663 he noticed something he’d never seen before: California was floating like a big green carrot, untethered to the west coast of North America.

He bought the map and hung it in his entryway, where it quickly became a conversation piece. It soon grew into an obsession. McLaughlin began to collect other maps showing California as an island.

“At first we stored them under the bed, but then we were concerned that the cat would pee on them,” he said. Ultimately he bought two cases like the ones architects use to store blueprints, and over the next 40 years filled them up with more than 700 maps, mostly from the 17th and 18th centuries. In 2011, he partly sold and partly donated his collection to Stanford University, which has digitized the maps and created an online exhibition.

The old maps represent an epic cartographic blunder, but they also contain a kernel of truth, the writer Rebecca Solnit argued in a recent essay. “An island is anything surrounded by difference,” she wrote. And California has always been different — isolated by high mountains in the east and north, desert in the south, and the ocean to the west, it has a unique climate and ecology. It’s often seemed like a place apart in other ways too, from the Gold Rush, to the hippies, to the tech booms of modern times.

The idea of California as an island existed in myth even before the region had been explored and mapped. “Around the year 1500 California made its appearance as a fictional island, blessed with an abundance of gold and populated by black, Amazon-like women, whose trained griffins dined on surplus males,” Philip Hoehn, then-map librarian at UC Berkley wrote in the foreword to a catalog of the maps that McLaughlin wrote.

Maps in the 1500s depicted California as a peninsula, which is closer to the truth (the Baja peninsula extends roughly a 1,000 miles south from the present-day Golden State). Spanish expeditions in the early 1600s concluded, however, that California was cut off from the mainland. Maps in those days were carefully guarded state secrets, McLaughlin says. “The story is, the Dutch raided a Spanish ship and found a secret Spanish map and brought it back to Amsterdam and circulated it from there,” he said.

In 1622, the British mathematician Henry Briggs published an influential article accompanied by a map that clearly showed California as an island. Briggs’ map was widely copied by European cartographers for more than a century.

The beginning of the end of California’s island phase came when a Jesuit priest, Eusebio Kino, led an overland expedition across the top of the Sea of Cortez. He wrote a report accompanied by a map in 1705 that cast serious doubt on the idea of California as an island. It took more exploration, but by 1747 King Ferdinand VI of Spain was convinced. He issued a decree stating that California was — once and for all — not an island. It took another century for cartographers to completely abandon the notion.

McLaughlin, who’s now 80, spent most of his career as a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley. He says the maps dominated his home decor for much of the past four decades. But no more. “I do miss them, but it’s time to let them go,” he said. “I’ve had a good long run with them.”

8328

Flat Earth Community / Re: Merely mistaken

« on: September 25, 2016, 05:05:10 PM »

Mapping the earth has been happening for centuries, where has it been done incorrectly?

Who is this 'we' you write about?

It is conveniently forgotten that for over 300 years California was depicted in maps as an island off the coast of the United States. All the map mapers and cartographers blindly copied each other. Entire generations of educated people lived and died thinking that they were living on an island. You will have to excuse us if we don't think highly of their superior mapping ability.

8329

Flat Earth Community / Re: Merely mistaken

« on: September 25, 2016, 04:58:52 PM »

Rabinoz, I support the Bi-Polar model, so I don't know what you are trying to prove to me there. So the various Flat Earth Societies still can't agree on the shape of the flat earth, how interesting? And, Rowbotham was completely wrong on this! But if Rowbotham was so much in error on the very layout of the continents on the flat earth, how are we to know when his other explanations are valid and when they are not? But really, the bipolar map has more ridiculous shapes of continents than the "Ice-Wall" map. Another alternative model descripting Antarctica as a distinct continent. There is still an "ice wall" in this model, but it not Antarctica. Beyond the rays of the sun the waters will naturally freeze. Australia, USA and Canada are certainly not that shape.

That map raises many more questions than it answers, such as why would QANTAS fly across the Pacific from Sydney to Santiago, when it would be far closer to fly across Antarctica to South Africa?
How did Magellan sail across the Pacific to the Philipines?

I think it best if you refer to some written material on this quite different Flat Earth model, otherwise you will be wasting your time answering numerous questions.
Obvious questions that need answering include:

What is the path and height of the sun in this model? Especially before, at and after an equinox.

How is the latitude and longitude determined from the sun path? We know that they can be determined once we have an accurate time.

What is the diameter of this Flat Earth?

How does one determine directions (North, South, East and West) in a way that fits with the known locations of the Magnetic Poles?

Undoubtedly many more questions will arise,
so if you point me to a good write-up, I'll keep out of your way (on this topic) for a while.

The South Pole was not yet discovered when Rowbotham wrote Earth Not a Globe. It is understandable why he might depict the earth without it.

The Bi-Polar model is first advocated in the book The Sea-Earth Globe and and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions, (Zetetes, 1918). However, the layout of the continents is left ambiguous due to lack of data. The layout and dimensions of the continents in our picture may be different as well. Someone apparently just found a map projection of a globe that looked similar for illustrative purposes.

8330

Flat Earth Community / Re: Merely mistaken

« on: September 25, 2016, 09:39:37 AM »

Rabinoz, I support the Bi-Polar model, so I don't know what you are trying to prove to me there.

8331

Flat Earth Community / Re: Merely mistaken

« on: September 25, 2016, 06:26:20 AM »

Of course they are preplanned, but the routes are usually close to Great Circle routes on the Globe, and these are completely different from the shortest flat earth distances, and usually nothing like a straight line on a Mercator Projection, as many flat earthers seem to think.

In the Southern Hemisphere the direct (non-stop) flights between Sydney (Australia) to/from Santiago (Chile) and Johannesburg (South Africa) would not be possible with the shortest Flat Earth routes, but those routes are flown regularly by QANTAS.

I'll have plenty to add on your "pre-planned routes" later!

The chapter on Great Circles here in Earth Not a Globe: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za47.htm

8332

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.

« on: September 25, 2016, 06:06:20 AM »

Your argument was that they are angled towards each other, therefore they must touch. By that logic, they are angled towards each other, therefore they must cross. It's bad logic.

Two lines angled towards each other must touch, that is logically sound, and the lines are seen to touch, which places the concept in reality as well.

Your cross-over idea does not have a component in reality, and is a mere theoretical concept like the bad mathematics which you have presented in the OP.

Your other argument was that "they appear to touch, therefore they touch, therefore the math is wrong". However, the math predicts that as they move away from you, they will appear to get closer together. Close enough that there is no way to visually distinguish whether they are touching or not. The math predicts that they can become so close that they will appear to touch. So why on earth are you using "they appear to touch" as an argument that the math is wrong? More bad logic.

If they appear to touch, they touch, okay? The human eye can see a single photon in a dark room. That is very good resolution. If the tracks are appearing to merge at a point then it means that black photons are arriving side by side without any gap. There is no "almost" touching. The gap is gone.

What? No, that's not what I was asking at all. Good grief, do I have to spell out everything 12 times?

If the math is wrong, as you claim, what is the correct way to determine the angle between the sun and the horizon? Or any 2 objects for that matter? In other words, if I told you the location of several objects relative to you, how would you calculate the apparent angle between them?

The correct way to determine the angle of the sun is to make our determinations based on reality, not theoretical mathematics which lack a dimension. Take a protractor. When the sun is overhead at noontime the sun is at 90 degrees and at sunset the sun is at 0 degrees. There are your angles for the sun. It's quite simple.

8333

Flat Earth Community / Re: Merely mistaken

« on: September 25, 2016, 05:37:45 AM »

Pilots fly on preplanned routes to their location and do not require the earth to be any shape. There is not enough data from airline flights to fully map the earth by analyzing aircraft logs, as no one really goes the "long way" around the earth, for obvious reasons, and a Flat Earth map can take many configurations to explain the limited results.

Let me get this straight... you think pilots fly all over the world on preplanned routes (who planned the routes??), that they just blindly follow? You think they don't notice that their routes make zero sense according to all maps? You think they don't notice that their flight times make zero sense according to all maps?

How inconceivably blind and stupid do you think pilots are? As completely implausible as it is that every single airline company is a part of some global conspiracy, it is waaaay more implausible that they are successfully operating an international airline company without accurate maps.

International flights all follow pre-planned routes, yes. These routes are limited, and can often require several hops to reach a destination. They travel the same routes over and over again. They do not simply decide "hey passengers, lets travel over Antarctica this time!" That is ridiculous and needs no further explanation for why that is not the case.

8334

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The South Celestial Pole

« on: September 25, 2016, 05:33:47 AM »

If the second... honestly I don't know what else to tell you. Believing that the celestial poles don't line up is almost as bad as other flat earthers claiming that Polaris can be seen from Australia, or that the South Celestial Pole doesn't exist, or some other head-stuck-in-sand nonsense.

Is there a universal law that all phenomena must be how you imagine it to be or something?

You have clearly been brainwashed with globularist dogma and media hype, to the extent that you create facts on demand, are disinterested in truth, and deny any necessity for evidence. Scary.

8335

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.

« on: September 25, 2016, 05:19:53 AM »

Another brilliant deduction! That was my point. I was using your logic to come to that conclusion. Remember saying this?

My logic is that we must take our queues for how things are from reality. We don't see the effect you claim exists, therefore it does not exist.

Yes, the lines cross on the projection. Therefore they cross in visual reality.

Both use the same logic. Both are just as wrong.

I don't see any perspective lines crossing over each other in reality. I just see that they meet and end where they meet. Not sure where you got your cross-over ideas from.

You think I should "calculate based on what I see", but not on what is theorized, but you don't have an equation for me? Perhaps you can do an example for me, to show me how it is done? I have a strong suspicion that you have no earthly idea what you are talking about.

Why should I do any equations? Do you really need an equation to know that two lines which are angled towards each other will eventually meet?

8336

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.

« on: September 25, 2016, 05:14:15 AM »

yo tom: do you think this photo is of a woman who is taller than the leaning tower of pisa?  why or why not?

According to our perspective the woman is taller.

this is oddly evasive.  do you agree that the woman in this photo is, physically, probably not taller than the tower of pisa?

If you change the perspective you might get a different result. But from this perspective she is taller.

cool.  do you agree that the woman in this photo is, physically, probably not taller than the tower of pisa?

Maybe not. But we would need to change the perspective to see that.

lol maybe not?  so you think maybe this woman is taller than the tower of pisa?

You seem to have some difficulty here. I obviously agreed with you.

8337

Flat Earth Community / Re: Merely mistaken

« on: September 25, 2016, 04:28:21 AM »

this is not correct.  virtually all of modern astronomy is founded on spectral analysis, and blackbody spectra most certainly can be studied under laboratory conditions.  this is a good example of what i was saying recently about demonstrating at least some command of the subject you're criticizing. 

Spectral analysis of celestial bodies is also merely observing and interpreting. There is no controlled experimentation. Unless, you are claiming that astronomers have recreated a star of a known composition and have studied its light from a distance to compare readings with. They obviously have not done that.

Laboratories cannot recreate stellar conditions. Stellar Fusion in itself is a complete hypothesis. There is no control in those experiments.

if you don't understand the actual evidence and reasoning that astronomers use to justify their claims, then how can you ever be sure that your criticism is valid?

I actually understand the evidence and reasoning very well.

8338

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.

« on: September 25, 2016, 04:06:51 AM »

yo tom: do you think this photo is of a woman who is taller than the leaning tower of pisa?  why or why not?

According to our perspective the woman is taller.

this is oddly evasive.  do you agree that the woman in this photo is, physically, probably not taller than the tower of pisa?

If you change the perspective you might get a different result. But from this perspective she is taller.

cool.  do you agree that the woman in this photo is, physically, probably not taller than the tower of pisa?

Maybe not. But we would need to change the perspective to see that.

8339

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.

« on: September 25, 2016, 03:58:10 AM »

Ugh, should've stuck with middle school math rather than high school math. Whatever. The answer is never. Bob will never reach A at that rate, even though he is following a line going towards A.

The key here is that there is a difference between the lines meeting and objects following the lines meeting. Obviously, the lines themselves meet on the projection. In fact, the lines cross each other and then spread apart. Are you implying that at some point, two objects following parallel paths will not only meet, but cross each other and then appear to separate? Because that is the logical conclusion of your reasoning.

Yes, the lines meet on the projection. Therefore they meet in visual reality. The railroad tracks appear to meet in the distance, and if you were to shine a laser pointer at that point where they meet, a second observer would see that the dot would spread out to cover the entire railroad and a good chunk of the land around it, not merely one track at a time. The point where the tracks merge is very real for all visual purposes.

As per your claim that the perspective lines meet and then separate in opposite directions, I don't believe anything has been observe to that effect and therefore your interpretation must be wrong.

8340

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.

« on: September 25, 2016, 03:50:47 AM »

yo tom: do you think this photo is of a woman who is taller than the leaning tower of pisa?  why or why not?

According to our perspective the woman is taller.

this is oddly evasive.  do you agree that the woman in this photo is, physically, probably not taller than the tower of pisa?

If you change the perspective you might get a different result. But from this perspective she is taller.