Astronomers observe the heavens and interpret, just as the Astrologer does. There is no real proof for their theories. The universe is not put under controlled conditions to come the the truth of a matter. The necessity of controlled experimentation is denied entirely.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The world is merely mistaken that the earth is a globe. This mistake took root in Ancient Greece when it was decided that the earth was a globe based on three casual observations -- the sinking ship effect, the observation that the shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse is round, and the observation that Polaris descends as you travel southward (All addressed as fallacy in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham). These beliefs took hold and were passed down from generation to generation, brainwashed into children from the cradle. Scientific interpretations about the world are skewed unter the dogma of a round earth, and elaborate phenomena and explanations are invented whenever an observation contradicts the status quo.This post is no more than "Tom Bishop" in his infinite wisdom says.
Geodesy
Geodesists are said to study the shape of the earth, but if one looks at their journals they will find that they do nothing but look at certain subjects and declare how it works on a Round Earth. The levels of g are slightly different at different locations, so the Geodesist declares that the earth is not perfectly round. Not really the level of inquiry we are looking for here.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/yqh9iqdddv88soa/Map%20of%20Australia%201855%20-%20768x640.jpg?dl=1) Map of Australia 1855 | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/p5m45gm7gojagmu/1888_Topographic_Survey_Map_of_the_United_States_-_Geographicus_-_USA-topographcialsurvey-1888%20-%201200%20pix.jpg?dl=1) USA Topographcial Survey-1887 | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/n5zcz36y51usqzf/south-america.png?dl=1) South America Times Atlas |
Latitude | km/deg @ Lat | Map Circum@Lat | Ideal Globe Circum@lat | Flat Earth Map Circum@lat | Source of "map data" | |||||
51.0° | 70.3 km/deg | 25,300 km | 25,200 km | 27,400 km | US 1887 map | |||||
43.0° | 81.7 km/deg | 29,400 km | 29,300 km | 33,000 km | US 1887 map | |||||
35.0° | 91.4 km/deg | 32,900 km | 32,800 km | 38,600 km | US 1887 map | |||||
0.0° | 109.7 km/deg | 39,500 km | 40,100 km | 63,200 km | Times Atlas map | |||||
-20.0° | 102.1 km/deg | 36,700 km | 37,700 km | 77,200 km | Times Atlas map | |||||
-34.0° | 92.0 km/deg | 33,200 km | 33,200 km | 87,100 km | 1855 Australian map | |||||
-45.0° | 79.2 km/deg | 28,300 km | 28,300 km | 94,800 km | Times Atlas map | |||||
-55.0° | 65.5 km/deg | 23,600 km | 23,000 km | 101,800 km | Times Atlas map |
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.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. 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.
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!
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
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. (http://wiki.tfes.org/images/c/c2/Altmap.png) 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. | (http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig54.jpg) |
So the various Flat Earth Societies still can't agree on the shape of the flat earth, how interesting?
But really, the bipolar map has more ridiculous shapes of continents than the "Ice-Wall" map.
...
Australia, USA and Canada are certainly not that shape.
So if this FE map is based on a projection of a supposed RE, which measurements are correct and which are not? What is the scale of the map?So the various Flat Earth Societies still can't agree on the shape of the flat earth, how interesting?
We support the free expression of ideas. Suppressing this in favor of simply putting forward a unified front is contrary to the principles of zeteticism.QuoteBut really, the bipolar map has more ridiculous shapes of continents than the "Ice-Wall" map.
...
Australia, USA and Canada are certainly not that shape.
Yes, that's because the map is based on a projection of a supposed RE, and obviously that's going to be distorted when you turn that into a flat map. Nobody is claiming that it's perfect. It's just a rough representation of what the earth looks like.
The world is merely mistaken that the earth is a globe. This mistake took root in Ancient Greece when it was decided that the earth was a globe based on three casual observations -- the sinking ship effect, the observation that the shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse is round, and the observation that Polaris descends as you travel southward (All addressed as fallacy in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham). These beliefs took hold and were passed down from generation to generation, brainwashed into children from the cradle. Scientific interpretations about the world are skewed unter the dogma of a round earth, and elaborate phenomena and explanations are invented whenever an observation contradicts the status quo.This post is no more than "Tom Bishop" in his infinite wisdom says.
I can't tackle all of on just a tablet, so I'll just look at one aspect.Quote from: Tom BishopGeodesy
Geodesists are said to study the shape of the earth, but if one looks at their journals they will find that they do nothing but look at certain subjects and declare how it works on a Round Earth. The levels of g are slightly different at different locations, so the Geodesist declares that the earth is not perfectly round. Not really the level of inquiry we are looking for here.
How Geodetic Surveyors Prove that the Earth is not Flat
One of the main tasks of geodetic surveyors is to map out large areas of land, whole countries.
This is where I claim geodetic surveyors prove that the earth is not flat. Nothing fancy or esoteric, just measuring the dimensions of countries along with the latitude and longitude of the accurately positioned survey points. Results of these measurements are summarised in various survey maps.
I have good copies of an Australian map published in 1855, and a USA Topographcial Survey of 1887. These gave quite a lot of information regarding the width of one degree of longitude at various latitudes, but to fill in gaps in the Southern Hemisphere I used a scan of a Times Atlas. I would not expect the same accuracy of a derived map, covering such a large North-South range, such as this, but the agreement is still quite good.
Details of this are found in this post Re: Latitudinal lines south of equator « Reply #4 on: August 04, 2016, 04:58:07 AM » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1299.msg101967#msg101967)
These were the maps used:
Map of Australia 1855
USA Topographcial Survey-1887
South America Times Atlas
And the results can be summarised as:
The following table gives the width of one degree (under the heading "km/deg") at various latitudes in both the northern and southern hemispheres, the circumference of the earth (the distance for 360°) from the map reading at each latitude, the circumference at that latitude based on a spherical earth (yes, I know it's not a perfect sphere!) and the circumference at that latitude based on a Flat Earth Ice Wall Map.
The "Flat Earth Circumference @ Latitude" is based on the 24,900 mile overall diameter of the "known earth" as in the Wiki, The Ice Wall (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Ice+Wall&highlight=diameter). The circumferences are then simple "pro-rated" as the meridians on the "FE Ice Wall map" are simply radial lines.The 1887 US survey map and the 1855 Australian map are very high resolution accurate maps, but the Times Atlas is not such a large scale and not as accurate. Also the figures are scaled (quite accurately) from scanned paper maps, so very high accuracy is not expected. Nevertheless most of the circumferences are within 1% of the expected value for the globe (The "Times Atlas" is a bit out at high southern latitudes - not unexpected for a flat map).
Latitude
km/deg @ Lat
Circum@Lat
Circum@lat
Circum@lat
Source of "map data"US 1887 map US 1887 map US 1887 map Times Atlas map Times Atlas map 1855 Australian map Times Atlas map Times Atlas map
I would claim that the measurements shown on these maps are quite consistent with a Globe, but bear no relation the expected measurements for a flat earth.
I have enough personal experience driving around Australia to be quite confident of the accuracy there. Possibly US or other readers might like to give some comments about their own country. No great accuracy is needed, as the differences are quite large even in the Northern Hemsphere, becoming quite massive from the equator south.This is where geodetic surveyors prove that the earth is a globe, not so much in any curvature measurement's - though they do that too, but that's another story.
Rabinoz, I support the Bi-Polar model, so I don't know what you are trying to prove to me there.
Supporting free expression is great, but here's the thing: the earth has ONLY ONE true shape. You don't see a bunch of personal RE models, but everybody on the FE side seems to be developing a new model, slightly or vastly different from each other. Why do you suppose that is? Each new FE model attempts to accomodate one observed flaw in the Gleason flat earth, but the problem is that each attempt introduces more problems than it solves. The bipolar map has so many points of disagreement with observation that I can't remember what it was trying to solve.So the various Flat Earth Societies still can't agree on the shape of the flat earth, how interesting?We support the free expression of ideas. Suppressing this in favor of simply putting forward a unified front is contrary to the principles of zeteticism.
Wrong, wrong! If the earth is actually flat, and paper is actually flat, you should be able to PERFECTLY represent the actual shapes of the flat continents on a flat paper! The fact that it cannot be done should be enough, all by itself, to make people question the flat earth model(s)QuoteBut really, the bipolar map has more ridiculous shapes of continents than the "Ice-Wall" map.
...
Australia, USA and Canada are certainly not that shape.
Yes, that's because the map is based on a projection of a supposed RE, and obviously that's going to be distorted when you turn that into a flat map. Nobody is claiming that it's perfect. It's just a rough representation of what the earth looks like.
Supporting free expression is great, but here's the thing: the earth has ONLY ONE true shape. You don't see a bunch of personal RE models, but everybody on the FE side seems to be developing a new model, slightly or vastly different from each other. Why do you suppose that is? Each new FE model attempts to accomodate one observed flaw in the Gleason flat earth, but the problem is that each attempt introduces more problems than it solves. The bipolar map has so many points of disagreement with observation that I can't remember what it was trying to solve.
Wrong, wrong! If the earth is actually flat, and paper is actually flat, you should be able to PERFECTLY represent the actual shapes of the flat continents on a flat paper! The fact that it cannot be done should be enough, all by itself, to make people question the flat earth model(s)
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.
I actually understand the evidence and reasoning very well.
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.(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/c/c2/Altmap.png)
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.
Mapping the earth has been happening for centuries, where has it been done incorrectly?Supporting free expression is great, but here's the thing: the earth has ONLY ONE true shape. You don't see a bunch of personal RE models, but everybody on the FE side seems to be developing a new model, slightly or vastly different from each other. Why do you suppose that is? Each new FE model attempts to accomodate one observed flaw in the Gleason flat earth, but the problem is that each attempt introduces more problems than it solves. The bipolar map has so many points of disagreement with observation that I can't remember what it was trying to solve.
FET is still in its infancy. Perhaps in time, most of us will agree that the science supports one model.QuoteWrong, wrong! If the earth is actually flat, and paper is actually flat, you should be able to PERFECTLY represent the actual shapes of the flat continents on a flat paper! The fact that it cannot be done should be enough, all by itself, to make people question the flat earth model(s)
I didn't say we couldn't. We just haven't at this point in time.
Mapping the earth has been happening for centuries, where has it been done incorrectly?
Who is this 'we' you write about?
300 years from when to when?Mapping the earth has been happening for centuries, where has it been done incorrectly?
Who is this 'we' you write about?
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.
300 years from when to when?
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.”
All very interesting, but 'you' have not shown any errors in mapping/cartography today.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 (https://www.wired.com/2014/04/maps-california-island/)QuoteGLEN 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.”
Please give examples of incorrect mapping today.]Please give examples of incorrect mapping today.
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
The world is merely mistaken that the earth is a globe.Man does not have an incentive to publish the truth about the true layout of the world around himself.
Please give examples of men rich enough to finance the mapping of the world around themselves only to provide an accurate map to the everybody around themselves for free.Just start with distance from Sydney to Cape Town.
Message to sane true earthers:
You do not have to jump through every single rabbit-hole dug by the shills.
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.
You give no mention where we can get details of the bi-polar model to find answers to these and other questions.
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.
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.(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e8/Cook%27sSecondVoyage53.png/600px-Cook%27sSecondVoyage53.png)
The route of Cook's second voyageYou 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 (http://pacific.obdurodon.org/ForsterGeorgComplete.html)
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.
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.QuoteAs 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.
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/258307/CNN-MAP.jpg)
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/243033/FOXNEWS-EGYPT.jpg)QuoteWhen 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.ù(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e8/Cook%27sSecondVoyage53.png/600px-Cook%27sSecondVoyage53.png)
The route of Cook's second voyageYou 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 (http://pacific.obdurodon.org/ForsterGeorgComplete.html)
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.
here's a pretty decent primer (https://www.nhn.ou.edu/~johnson/Education/Juniorlab/Balmer/SciAm-HydrogenSpectrum.pdf) on the experimental basis behind spectroscopy.
A 1918 book!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.
Yes, country borders are fluid, but the shapes of continents are not changed.QuoteAs 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.(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/258307/CNN-MAP.jpg)(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/243033/FOXNEWS-EGYPT.jpg)
QuoteWhen 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.(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e8/Cook%27sSecondVoyage53.png/600px-Cook%27sSecondVoyage53.png)
The route of Cook's second voyageYou 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 (http://pacific.obdurodon.org/ForsterGeorgComplete.html)
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.
These beliefs took hold and were passed down from generation to generation, brainwashed into children from the cradle. Scientific interpretations about the world are skewed under the dogma of a round earth, and elaborate
phenomena and explanations are invented whenever an observation contradicts the status quo.
Astronomy
Astronomers observe the heavens and interpret, just as the Astrologer does. There is no real proof for their theories. The universe is not put under controlled conditions to come the the truth of a matter. The necessity of controlled experimentation is denied entirely. A Chemist is expected to create controlled tests to determine a truth. But Stephen Hawking gets away with building theory upon theory, a house of cards model of the universe which "stands on the shoulders of giants". Hawking performs zero experimentation on the universe before coming up with a theory like the metric expansion of space.
Historic parallax observations which compute the sun to be millions of miles distant on a Round Earth also say that it is thousands of miles distant under the interpretation of a flat one. The theory of gravity doesn't seem to work at large distances in space, causing the necessity for elaborate Dark Matter and Dark Energy theories which comprise 98% of the universe. The lunar eclipse and other celestial events are predicted by the analyzing patterns of past observations -- the same way the Ancient Babylonians, a Flat Earth society, predicted them.
Satellite Communication Companies
Satellite communication companies aren't in the business of putting satellites into orbit. Do you think Direct TV has launch capabilities and access to restricted orbital rocket technologies which are 98% similar to an ICBM? They rely on the government putting up communication satellites for them and giving them a way to feed in their signal.
The motivation is simple. NASA must exist for reasons of national security. Having the ability to launch rockets into orbit also means the ability to put weapons into orbit and obliterate any country at the push of a button.
Following WWII the race to space lasted for 12 years, with one infamous failure and rocket disaster after another.
Don't you think it's a coincidence that within three months of the USSR claiming to have launched Sputnik into orbit, the US claimed to put a satellite into orbit as well?
I'd like to see your evidence that flat Earth theories were actively and maliciously suppressed.The fact that there is no evidence...IS THE EVIDENCE!!! Wake up, sheeple!
I'd like to see your evidence that flat Earth theories were actively and maliciously suppressed.The fact that there is no evidence...IS THE EVIDENCE!!! Wake up, sheeple!
BTW. Question for Tom Bishop.
The horizon.
When was the last time you were at sea or on a shore looking out to sea ?
What did you see ?
The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.
Spotting scope vs telescope.
Spotting scope vs telescope.
Personally I think if you really did see what you claimed you made a mistake and you were not looking at the beach at Light House Park 23 miles away, but somewhere between Fort Ord Dunes and Monterey Beach Parks about 4 miles away. It would also explain how you were able to place the telescope only 20" above the water. Since on that side of Lover's Point there is a small beach. Unlike the side that would give you a view of the Light House Park which has a steep rocky drop off of at least 4 feet.
* chirp *
Still waiting for that telescope that you used Tom...
* chirp *
Still waiting for that telescope that you used Tom...
I think he is going to abandon this thread and pretend it did not happen.
I could be wrong and he will surprise us, but in my experience he will not respond.
Please consult the original thread on that topic, it was discussed there.
Here is a link to Tom's original report of the infamous "Bishop Experiment".
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16172.msg268864#msg268864
No mention of a telescope type other than it need be "good". Tom's obsession with precision was evident even as a young boy.
From my vantage point the entire beach is visible. Even with the unaided naked eye (http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=6bmicgg&s=1) one can see the beaches along the opposite coast.
Ok, this is getting awkward, so I am going to help Tom out here a bit. Tom, you have 3 options:
1. Defend your position. (If you still think your experiment was done correctly, and I am totally off my rocker)
2. Ignore it and pretend nothing is wrong. (If you want to lose what little credibility you have left)
3. Admit the mistake and do what you can to fix it. This includes notifying whoever has edit access to the wiki to get it taken down. Optionally, redo the experiment correctly and report the results, whatever they may be. (I recommend this option if you want to retain some credibility)
Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions. —Tom Bishop
[quote author=Nostra link=topic=5366.msg104831#msg104831 date=147556173
- Very good atmospheric condition are extremelly rare, particularly when doing "horizontal" observation. This is why any astronomer will prefer to observe object not to close to the horizon, because of the atmospheric turbulence. This leads to a real bad degradation of the image quality (http://www.damianpeach.com/images/articles/seeing1/turbulence01.jpg)
- Very good atmospheric condition are extremelly rare, particularly when doing "horizontal" observation. This is why any astronomer will prefer to observe object not to close to the horizon, because of the atmospheric turbulence. This leads to a real bad degradation of the image quality (http://www.damianpeach.com/images/articles/seeing1/turbulence01.jpg)
Which is why they build the space observatories in remote spots away from air and light pollution, often on top of mountains. But then again, every single image of space taken, all the millions of them, have also been produced by NASA and other agents of evil to support the globe theory!
If Tom has such a fine telescopic lens, can he take some non-NASA pictures of the sky for us please!
So many people would be interested in how Tom achieved what he did. He should release his method and telescope specs. Both amateurs and professionals would be very interested in learning how to achieve the results he did.
It would be much cheaper than having to do something like build an observatory in a remote location or put a telescope in orbit.
. . . . . . . . . . .
For example, re earth's curvature, go further beyond 200 miles away from a seashore using high powered telescope mutually agreed upon and proper calculations, and be brave and humble enough to accept the real truth, GE, FE or something else.
. . . . . . . . . . .
Hello, people! ...who don't even have the courage to let their true identities or names be known... and yet trying to prove and convince people here of something truthful. At the start, there's already inconsistency. Anyway, for the fun of it, seeing how people here one-sidedly and narrow-mindedly defend their sides of the what's really the truth out there, I tried to get new line of reasoning and evidences/facts, but it's very disappointing as everything discussed and presented here has been already presented and arguably discussed somewhere here and in other fora. Nothing new! Everybody still went around the circle trying to catch each other's behind. :) .... Hey, wake up! Each of you people has a point! Tom and his colleagues have a point. And rabinoz, et.al. also have a point.. You all have points, but can't you ever see that all your (repeated) arguments and evidences/observations are valid based on which frame of mind or mindset you have, GE or FE? Why can't both sides or parties cooperate and join together to prove once and for all what the earth really is? And be a real truth seeker, not a debater or arguer all your life. For example, re earth's curvature, go further beyond 200 miles away from a seashore using high powered telescope mutually agreed upon and proper calculations, and be brave and humble enough to accept the real truth, GE, FE or something else. Tom in this forum has a point in presenting his views on how things about GE had transpired or came to be. Rabinoz, in trying to prove his globe-based reasoning and facts, has also a point just like other FEs here in their posts.Proofs of the truth (globe earth) exists in myriads.
Pls elevate the discussion to the next level to find the truth, and nothing but the truth...an irrefutable and indubitable truth out there... maybe the level of analytical, intellectual and/or imaginative faculty among people here just does not have that capacity.... one way of knowing, try answering my question below.... :)
Hello, people! ...who don't even have the courage to let their true identities or names be known......says the person with no personal identifying information on their profile. You want courage? Then inspire us by showing some yourself, "cel", or whatever your name really is!
Each of you people has a point! Tom and his colleagues have a point. And rabinoz, et.al. also have a point.. You all have points, but can't you ever see that all your (repeated) arguments and evidences/observations are valid based on which frame of mind or mindset you have, GE or FE?This isn't one of those things, where both sides are partly right. The earth either IS FLAT, or it IS NOT. There is no middle position. This isn't Schrodinger's cat, both alive and dead until we open the box and look. This is the earth. The box is open, we've been looking for thousands of years, the probability wave has collapsed and the earth has one true shape.
maybe the level of analytical, intellectual and/or imaginative faculty among people here just does not have that capacity....I don't know, the FE side is nothing if not imaginative in their efforts to force real world observations to fit onto their flat earth, nearby and tiny sun model...
one way of knowing, try answering my question below.... :)Answering a grade school puzzle is hardly a test of anything. ;)
None of us truly knows. Anyone on this forum who claims they know the absolute truth is a damn dirty liar and delusional as well. Unless you are God you personally will never with 100% certainty know.
No one can argue that because literally Zero people here have seen the full earth with their own eyes. This entire thread is a moot point and also just bait for people to be trolled.
None of us truly knows. Anyone on this forum who claims they know the absolute truth is a damn dirty liar and delusional as well. Unless you are God you personally will never with 100% certainty know.
No one can argue that because literally Zero people here have seen the full earth with their own eyes. This entire thread is a moot point and also just bait for people to be trolled.
I don't know about the 100% certainty, but I believe anyone with a reasonable knowledge of geography plus a reasonable amount of some experience knows that the earth is a globe to a reasonable amount of certainty.
And I believe that anyone knows that earth is not some flat disc to a reasonable amount of certainty.
I also believe that most people believe that this website is just another "spoof website" to a reasonable amount of certainty.
Here is another question for The Flat Earth Society.
On the flat earth, how is the distance to the horizon calculated ?
I have never seen the Eiffel Tower with my own eyes. But I have seen it in pictures in movies and photographs. Does that mean that I don't know it exists to a 100% certainty ?
I was just making a pointless point.How sharp is the point on a pointless point?
I hope this is not a pointless point, but it is not the Flat Earthers on this or TheFlatEarth site that are a threat in any way. They mainly keep to themselves, with not a lot of publicity other than occasionally appearing on TV etc.I was just making a pointless point.How sharp is the point on a pointless point?
I hope this is not a pointless point, but it is not the Flat Earthers on this or TheFlatEarth site that are a threat in any way. They mainly keep to themselves, with not a lot of publicity other than occasionally appearing on TV etc.I was just making a pointless point.How sharp is the point on a pointless point?
The real rot is in the Flat Earth YouTube videos. Most demonstrate a complete ignorance of the Globe and of basic Physics.
We get silly videos about "Aircraft gyroscopes prove a Flat Earth" and about toy gyroscopes "proving the Flat Earth".
Then someone finds a spot where his car seems to roll uphill and claims it "debunks gravity", well if it did it would debunk UA as well!
There have been some trying to use "crepuscular rays" to prove a nearby sun, but if what they claim was true, the in one case at least the sun would be about 2 km high over a lake (sorry laddie, loch) in Scotland
Scientific interpretations about the world are skewed under the dogma of a round earth, and elaborate phenomena and explanations are invented whenever an observation contradicts the status quo.
I was just making a pointless point.How sharp is the point on a pointless point?
Hello, people! ...who don't even have the courage to let their true identities or names be known... and yet trying to prove and convince people here of something truthful. At the start, there's already inconsistency. Anyway, for the fun of it, seeing how people here one-sidedly and narrow-mindedly defend their sides of the what's really the truth out there, I tried to get new line of reasoning and evidences/facts, but it's very disappointing as everything discussed and presented here has been already presented and arguably discussed somewhere here and in other fora. Nothing new! Everybody still went around the circle trying to catch each other's behind. :) .... Hey, wake up! Each of you people has a point! Tom and his colleagues have a point. And rabinoz, et.al. also have a point.. You all have points, but can't you ever see that all your (repeated) arguments and evidences/observations are valid based on which frame of mind or mindset you have, GE or FE? Why can't both sides or parties cooperate and join together to prove once and for all what the earth really is? And be a real truth seeker, not a debater or arguer all your life. For example, re earth's curvature, go further beyond 200 miles away from a seashore using high powered telescope mutually agreed upon and proper calculations, and be brave and humble enough to accept the real truth, GE, FE or something else. Tom in this forum has a point in presenting his views on how things about GE had transpired or came to be. Rabinoz, in trying to prove his globe-based reasoning and facts, has also a point just like other FEs here in their posts.
Pls elevate the discussion to the next level to find the truth, and nothing but the truth...an irrefutable and indubitable truth out there... maybe the level of analytical, intellectual and/or imaginative faculty among people here just does not have that capacity.... one way of knowing, try answering my question below.... :)