2941

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Requirements elements for a FE map

« on: September 29, 2018, 01:08:26 AM »

Furthermore, there does not seem to be a version of Astronomical Algorithms published in the last few years when the JPL tool was adopted. The copyright on the Astronomical Algorithms book you linked is from 1991.

I can't believe I really have to spell this out, but they use the algorithms with current data.

2942

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Requirements elements for a FE map

« on: September 29, 2018, 12:07:23 AM »

DE102, for instance, was fit to 48,479 observations

Observations of what and from where?

Also, you ae wrong, the NOAA Solar Calculator is not based on DE102.

"The calculations in the NOAA Sunrise/Sunset and Solar Position Calculators are based on equations from Astronomical Algorithms, by Jean Meeus."
—NOAA Solar Calculator Website

Actually, you are, in part, wrong, more misinformed than anything else. And yes, DE102 was an example of the magnitude of 'observation' that goes into the development of a DE - DE430 is what is used today.

What values feed the Meeus algorithims? Well, as referenced in his book you cited, he pulls from many values/data sources, of which include the ‘Astronomical Almanac’ and its supplements.

http://edukacja.3bird.pl/download/fizyka/astronomia-jean-meeus-astronomical-algorithms.pdf

Within which, as late as 2015, the Astronomical Almanac has continued to assimilate JPL’s DE ephemerides:

"2015   Jet Propulsion Laboratory's DE430/LE430 planetary ephemerides was adopted. The IAU 2012 resolution on the re-definition of the astronomical unit of length was implemented. Predicting magnitude and surface brightness of planets was updated to account for the geometry of oblate planets.”

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/publications/docs/asa_history.php

If you're looking for worldwide observations, they are part of what comes out of all these tools.

2943

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Requirements elements for a FE map

« on: September 28, 2018, 11:29:23 PM »

Shadow disappears when the sun is overhead. No disagreement here.

What is your evidence for this?

2944

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Requirements elements for a FE map

« on: September 28, 2018, 08:39:38 PM »

Just link us to the documents for the world-wide sun observation project which the calculators are (hopefully) based on. What is so flipping difficult about that?

Tom, those sun and moon calculators are not based on observations.  They are based on a mathematical models of the earth/moon/sun system and are validated against real world observations made by anyone who uses them to find out where and when the sun or moon will rise or set. 

Instead of demanding existing documentation (which, for all you know, could have been faked), why don't you organize your fellow FE'ers to test the predictions of these calculators yourselves.  There are even open source calculators that you can download to verify the maths.

You have to dig deep, but markjo is correct. They are constantly updated using real world observations as well as patterns and computational aid.

NOAA’s calculators (and most calcs/almanacs) currently utilize ephemerides derived by JPL’s ‘Horizon’ system. The main being DE430. Part of the ephemerides derived solar object positioning is through observation:

"The observational data in the fits has been an evolving set, including: ranges (distances) to planets measured by radio signals from spacecraft,[7] direct radar-ranging of planets, two-dimensional position fixes (on the plane of the sky) by VLBI of spacecraft, transit and CCD telescopic observations of planets and small bodies, and laser-ranging of retroreflectors on the Moon, among others. DE102, for instance, was fit to 48,479 observations.”

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory_Development_Ephemeris.html

It’s pretty much what astronomers do, among other things: They use calcs/almanacs to find out when and where to point their device to observe/study the celestial object(s) of interest. Observed variances from the calcs/almanacs are recorded into databases. Then when a new DE ephemeride is being developed, observations are “fitted” with the existing data in order to enhance accuracy.

There’s a bunch of documentation out there, just not super easy to find. I can post more, but we’re veering once again away from the intent of the OP.

2945

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Requirements elements for a FE map

« on: September 27, 2018, 11:01:15 PM »

Great. Now how does this event in Manhatten support a Round Earth and no other model of the earth?

In case you've forgotten, this thread is about constructing an FE map, not a debate as to whether various suncalcs are earth shape agnostic or not.

2946

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Requirements elements for a FE map

« on: September 27, 2018, 05:13:58 PM »

I’m sure the irony is not lost on you that all of the FE maps are actually globe maps.

I'm not sure how you can say that, given that the concept behind the monopole model long predates the popularisation of RET. The fact is that all maps are maps of the Earth. I could similarly assert that all of your maps are maps of the Flat Earth, and it would be an equally genuine argument.

Concept, yes, in reality, no.

2947

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Requirements elements for a FE map

« on: September 27, 2018, 06:15:23 AM »

Kind of not helpful. I’m sure the irony is not lost on you that all of the FE maps are actually globe maps. This effort is to try and construct a working, meets observable reality, FE map.

More constructive would be:
A) How might you demonstrate the premise?
B) Lay out what about the premise you disagree with and why.

Take for example, does FET agree or disagree with "on the equinox the sun traces a straight line across the sky for every location on the equator.”? If so, cool, 4 to go. If not, why not and where does the sun path on the equinox for FET?

And so on.

2948

Flat Earth Community / Re: Finding Flat Earthers to debate

« on: September 26, 2018, 11:39:04 PM »

Then why your original post? Why the necessity to berate? If you had no interest in their question b/c of where it was coming from, why engage at all? It's not like the question was addressed to you specifically.

The post had been unanswered for several hours. As one of two people here likely to do this

a) flat earther
b) lives in England
c) has done flat earth talks and uni work before

I have given my reasons as to why I'm not interested. I'm really not interested in these weird leftist groups. I might have gone to talk about earth's shape with the Fortnite and Marujana club. That means there is only one other person who might do this. So now the OP knows where he/she stands (it's a he, we all know it is a he ... it might not identify as a he, but it's a he) ... and short of the other person volunteering, they should probably start looking for an alternative format (like Tom's suggestion) or topic.

I see, so your original post was more of a courtesy; a 'decline' RSVP with a full explanation as to why.

2949

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Requirements elements for a FE map

« on: September 26, 2018, 11:04:47 PM »

On this map all of the following conditions hold true.

It's not straight, but arc'd, at least how I'm interpreting it:

2950

Flat Earth Community / Re: Finding Flat Earthers to debate

« on: September 26, 2018, 10:48:59 PM »

At the expense of the OP simply asking if someone from FES might be willing to debate their society and they are met with a treatise/rant as to how their entire state of being is worthless and destructive. But I suspect given the opportunity to espouse your truth was deemed worthy b/c it improved your life.

You asked me ...

Rather than asking how they might debate, why not debate them and find out?

I then told you why I didn't fancy it. ie they really aren't my kind of people. Now you are saying I just wanted to espouse my truth? I gave you a comprehensive answer why their ideology is so far from mine, and why I don't care that they don't think what I think enough to do anything about that ... and you are still complaining.

If you don't want to debate them, then don't.

I won't. I wouldn't enjoy it. Reasons why stated above.

Then why your original post? Why the necessity to berate? If you had no interest in their question b/c of where it was coming from, why engage at all? It's not like the question was addressed to you specifically.

2951

Flat Earth Community / Re: Finding Flat Earthers to debate

« on: September 26, 2018, 10:16:27 PM »

...and always make sure that those conclusions improve my life.

At the expense of others who may have a differing truth than yours?

Expense? What price do they pay that my opinions are different?

At the expense of the OP simply asking if someone from FES might be willing to debate their society and they are met with a treatise/rant as to how their entire state of being is worthless and destructive. But I suspect given the opportunity to espouse your truth was deemed worthy b/c it improved your life.

2952

Flat Earth Community / Re: Finding Flat Earthers to debate

« on: September 26, 2018, 10:03:00 PM »

...and always make sure that those conclusions improve my life.

At the expense of others who may have a differing truth than yours?

2953

Flat Earth Community / Re: Finding Flat Earthers to debate

« on: September 26, 2018, 09:48:29 PM »

These people are too busy focusing on the truth.

Pretty much every sentence you wrote is a claim of you being right and they are wrong. In other words, your claims are the truth.

2954

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is beyond the ice wall?

« on: September 26, 2018, 08:03:47 PM »

Is there a map style you prefer for the explored portion of the world?  AE or bi-polar?  Something else?

One like this kinda:

http://earth3dmap.com/

Because of it's ability to kind of show my idea of an infinite repeating plane.

Google maps was the best at this but they switched from a flat plane 2d view to a globe view.

This view still introduces a host of issues. Repeating continents means that I am standing on an infinite number of North Americas at the same time? Are there an infinite number of moons and suns? If I fly west to Australia and you fly east to Australia are we on the same Australia? If so, what are the mechanics that make this work?

2955

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Requirements elements for a FE map

« on: September 26, 2018, 07:56:06 PM »

The observation of the sun across the sky does involve people making an observation with our limited perceptive ability under very chaotic atmospheric conditions has been debated with no headway. Just because you observe a sun to be in a certain position at a certain time does not mean that it's really there.

Sun observations mean nothing when they get lost in a logic loop of refraction, mirage effects, and photon travel path. These are real measurable observable scientific/optical phenomenon that both flat earth and round earth people agree have a significant impact on observations made. In addition any claims to fake/fabricated evidence claims can also be made about sun observations.

Fair point. However, I would argue that the sun, moon and stars have been successfully used for navigation purposes for 100's if not 1000's of years. So, in essence, the heavenly bodies are just as important to a map as are port-to-port distances.

2956

Flat Earth Community / Re: Finding Flat Earthers to debate

« on: September 26, 2018, 07:41:00 PM »

And how will you debate a flat earth Zetetic, when their approach is to reject dogma and you aren't able to accomplish that?

Rather than asking how they might debate, why not debate them and find out?

As well, I think it's pretty clear that Zetetics are not much for rejecting dogma, actually quite rooted in it, you know, holy scriptures and such:

"The founding meeting of the Universal Zetetic Society was apparently held on Wednesday, September 21, 1892, at John Williams’s Southwark home. [ref. 4.2]  It’s not clear who besides Williams attended, though probably most of those selected to the UZS Committee were there.  The founders decided on a name, a motto, an object, and a set of rules as follows:

OUR MOTTO

For God and His truth, as found in Nature and taught in His Word.

OUR OBJECT

The propagation of knowledge relating to Natural Cosmogony in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures, based upon practical investigation."

2957

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)

« on: September 26, 2018, 01:49:10 AM »

As to the J Tolan aspect of this examination, I claim that it stands as debunked. The tower in the video was referenced as being 130 ft tall. In actuality, that tower is 199.1 ft tall and 335 ft above the Salton Sea level. Therefore, what was depicted meets observable reality as to a curved earth, not a flat one.

Look at the examination and decide for yourselves, but based upon all evidence presented this is the ultimate outcome.

2958

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Requirements elements for a FE map

« on: September 25, 2018, 08:35:25 PM »

None of these maps can possibly be correct because they all show the distance between LA and Sydney is one half of the distance between Santiago and Sydney which is blatantly incorrect.

Herein lies the rub as to why an FE map is so difficult. If one attempts to get distances correct, it breaks the sun. If one tries to get the sun right, it breaks distances.  I've been looking at other efforts and no one has been able to crack the code of this paradox, at least that I have found. Not to say it can't be done, but thus far I haven't been able to find a single instance where an FE map has even come close to matching observable reality. 

But you have to start somewhere so I'll go with 'yes' to MCToon's requirements/constraints.

2959

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Requirements elements for a FE map

« on: September 24, 2018, 07:36:06 PM »

Timely. I was writing this up a few days ago, but never got around to posting it:

"How about a working map of the Flat Earth?

FE Society resources are slim, so why not take a leap and try and figure out how a planar earth may actually look and work. I’d like to try and do that.

Problem from the outset:

Models - Which one to choose? You’ve got the mono-pole (I call ‘classic’), the bi-polar (unfortunate name, but so be it), I’ve read about the ‘dual earth’ (I call the ‘Oreo’, no disrespect, but it’s kind of cookie shaped; top, bottom, something in the middle) and the infinite plane. The latter could actually be any of the former, just with ‘more’, infinitely more, as it were. And I’m sure there are others, these are just the ones I’ve read about.

Disclaimer: I’m not trying to start a debate. I will elsewhere, but not for this effort.

So, which model to embark on is the question."

My intent was the same as yours; try to make an FE map. But, as evidenced above, I got hung up on which model. I think it's important to pick one and then start applying your (and others) observations/requirements to it.

2960

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Discussing The Sun

« on: September 24, 2018, 06:33:55 PM »

This video is quite silly.

I think what the video actually conveys is that an earth sized paperweight would crush us all.

A better question I would ask is how the map of the earth on that sun/moon cycle can possibly be accurate with know travel times/distances.

Yes, one has to consider two things:

1) This mono-pole map is actually a globe projection centered on the north pole
2) If taken to be a true flat earth map, travel time/distances, especially south of the equator, do not fit with observable reality.