One might equally ask, why not one standard view of the round earth?
(http://i65.tinypic.com/i4kbvc.png)
At least we aren't being dishonest about not being sure. We aren't just making photoshop earths and passing them off as photographs.
The earth is flat. We're just here to help if anyone wants to find that out for themselves.
By data I mean simple observations like me being able to watch a ship seem to rise above the horizon as it approaches into my view. Why is that. In the RE model we have an answer the curvature of the Earth. Is it a mirage, something weird with how my eyes work that has not been discovered yet?https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect
Why can a see stuff from further away when I am at a higher elevation? In a flat earth model this should not be true. What phenonomon is happening that causes this if the Earth is flat?It's a combination of a simple perspective effect and the fact that the atmoplane is not perfectly transparent.
Why can you not produce a theoretical map that matches up with known distances?We can, and we did.
Seems the maps that are based on a round earth have been getting people to where thy are going for a rather long time now. If the earth is flat then the maps based on a round earth would not work.That's completely untrue. Most navigators use the Robinson or Mercator projections, neither of which has anything to do with actually representing the Earth's real shape.
How if I am on a flat earth I can not see the sun all the time? Should be something rather easy to answer with data.Yeah, read the FAQ (https://faq.tfes.org).
Lets consider Eratosthenes for example. He was able to determine the circumference of the Earth. He was able do this using simple observation and math. I can shine a light on a globe, take two pins and stick them in it, measure the shadows and distance between them, and get an accurate measurement of the circumference. I can do this time and time again. I can use different size globes, pins, move the light around and be able to get the circumference. Somehow we can at least with the VERIFIABLE DATA support that he was right. The math he used would not have returned to correct results if the Earth was flat.ok: https://wiki.tfes.org/Erathostenes_on_Diameter
How about explain to me how his method was flawed. Prove him wrong. Prove how the math would work both on a flat and round Earth. Explain how on a flat earth shadows would also be different lengths.
What causes the phases of the moon? The answers I have seen it is hollow with light inside, it is a projection or hologram. Proof? Well if it was not then it does not support the Earth is flat.https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon
Why can I not see the sun all the time? What we know about how far light can travel is wrong.What the fuck are you talking about? This has nothing to do with "how far light can travel". Again, off to the FAQ (https://faq.tfes.org) you go.
Part of the scientific process not only involves looking for things that make your theory right, but also at those things that make it wrong. There is a whole lot of DATA proving the Earth is not flat.Would you like to present some of that DATA, or do you just like to talk about how it totally exists?
IMO certain fields are sacrosanct. The science field is one of those.Okay, enjoy your religion. We'll continue focusing on things which are actually verifiable, and not suppress healthy scepticism by calling what you were taught in school "sacrosanct (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sacrosanct)".
Seriously just publish one thing that supports a FE model that would also not be true for a RE model.ok: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
There is a standard map, the one that I have brought to the FES years ago, the global Piri Reis map:Your map would be a lot easier to follow if some latitude-longitude lines along with the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn and the Arctic and Antarctic circles. After that is how navigation is done, and with GPS is how we define a point on earth. Without these showing it seems that a flight from say Singapore to Los Angeles over the Pacific would take a weird route as would a flight from Sydney to Santiago. These might be clarified if lat-long and some distance scale were provided. | (https://web.archive.org/web/20090831201231im_/http://geocities.com/levelwater/africabrazil.gif) |
By data I mean simple observations like me being able to watch a ship seem to rise above the horizon as it approaches into my view. Why is that. In the RE model we have an answer the curvature of the Earth. Is it a mirage, something weird with how my eyes work that has not been discovered yet?https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect
Also again we have no data. Here is what I am talking about:
Ignoring the effect of atmospheric refraction, distance to the horizon from an observer close to the Earth's surface is about
d \approx 3.57\sqrt{h} \,,
where d is in kilometres and h is height above ground level in metres.
Examples:
For an observer standing on the ground with h = 1.70 metres (5 ft 7 in) (average eye-level height), the horizon is at a distance of 4.7 kilometres (2.9 mi).
For an observer standing on the ground with h = 2 metres (6 ft 7 in), the horizon is at a distance of 5 kilometres (3.1 mi).
For an observer standing on a hill or tower of 100 metres (330 ft) in height, the horizon is at a distance of 36 kilometres (22 mi).
For an observer standing at the top of the Burj Khalifa (828 metres (2,717 ft) in height), the horizon is at a distance of 103 kilometres (64 mi).
For an observer atop Mount Everest (8,848 metres (29,029 ft) in altitude), the horizon is at a distance of 336 kilometres (209 mi).
So what you linked are observations with no known distances, height of the observer, height of objects being viewed, conditions nothing reproducible. That information is needed to validate the claims.
While with on the side of the round Earth model it took me less then 5 seconds to find information that I can use to go out and validate it.Why can a see stuff from further away when I am at a higher elevation? In a flat earth model this should not be true. What phenonomon is happening that causes this if the Earth is flat?It's a combination of a simple perspective effect and the fact that the atmoplane is not perfectly transparent.Why can you not produce a theoretical map that matches up with known distances?We can, and we did.
Can you link it? Can I use your map to travel from place to place reliably using dead reckoning? Has the distances been measured and verified?Seems the maps that are based on a round earth have been getting people to where thy are going for a rather long time now. If the earth is flat then the maps based on a round earth would not work.That's completely untrue. Most navigators use the Robinson or Mercator projections, neither of which has anything to do with actually representing the Earth's real shape.
Maps based on a round Earth that need to use those projections because you can not just flatten a globe to make a usable map. If the globe was flat projections would not be needed.
Out of curiosity, though, which of the globes posted above by Thork would you use to get your distances from? Which one is the totally real one, and which ones are fake?
(http://i65.tinypic.com/i4kbvc.png)How if I am on a flat earth I can not see the sun all the time? Should be something rather easy to answer with data.Yeah, read the FAQ (https://faq.tfes.org).Lets consider Eratosthenes for example. He was able to determine the circumference of the Earth. He was able do this using simple observation and math. I can shine a light on a globe, take two pins and stick them in it, measure the shadows and distance between them, and get an accurate measurement of the circumference. I can do this time and time again. I can use different size globes, pins, move the light around and be able to get the circumference. Somehow we can at least with the VERIFIABLE DATA support that he was right. The math he used would not have returned to correct results if the Earth was flat.ok: https://wiki.tfes.org/Erathostenes_on_Diameter
How about explain to me how his method was flawed. Prove him wrong. Prove how the math would work both on a flat and round Earth. Explain how on a flat earth shadows would also be different lengths.
Why were the shadows different lengths? He did not get the circumference by measuring the distance between two places and noting where the sun was. He measured the shadows and the distance between the two sticks.
Please explain the formula used. Why is 25*500*2?
Why does is the sun only capable of illuminating a circle with a 25,000 NM diameter?What causes the phases of the moon? The answers I have seen it is hollow with light inside, it is a projection or hologram. Proof? Well if it was not then it does not support the Earth is flat.https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon
Take this information you linked and then explain why I can not see the sun all the time. If the sun can illuminate the moon in your model then it stands to reason I should be able to see the sun at night. Even if it does not illuminate where I am. Similar to when you see a car's headlights approach. They may not illuminating the area I am at but I can see them as the car approaches. In your model the sun illuminates the moon but I can not see it.
No idea who told you that the moon is hollow, or that it's a hologram. Perhaps you should read a bit about FET before going on a massive rant?
I will admit I do not know all the FE theories, but that is the answers I have been guided to so far said.Why can I not see the sun all the time? What we know about how far light can travel is wrong.What the fuck are you talking about? This has nothing to do with "how far light can travel". Again, off to the FAQ (https://faq.tfes.org) you go.
Of course the distance of how far light can travel and be observed needs to be determined. In a FE model there has to be a limit it can travel or everyone would experience day and night at the same time. If the earth is flat and it is light on one part of the world and dark in another light needs to behave differently then it does in the RE model and what is generally accepted. Am I missing something? There are several theories on different models is there a model where the sun is not about 3,000 miles above the Earth? Is there a model where it would can be hidden by things like mountains or obstructed in any other way?Part of the scientific process not only involves looking for things that make your theory right, but also at those things that make it wrong. There is a whole lot of DATA proving the Earth is not flat.Would you like to present some of that DATA, or do you just like to talk about how it totally exists?
Sure:
1. Can see varying constellations form different parts of the Earth
2. Gravity
4. Sunsets and Rises. They do not happen in a FE model. No it is not explained because the Sun moves away it only appears to go below the horizon. If that were true it would also appear to shrink in size or in your model the sun changes size.
5. Lunar and solar eclipses. Why not use one of your models and predict when the next one will be and where on the the planet it can be observed?
6. Observations of other planets and their moons. Why would Earth be different?
7. I witnessed the sun set today and only the bottom of the clouds were illuminated. Should not happen on a flat earth.
8. I use and have used celestial navigation successfully to determine my location as have sailors though out history. It uses math based on on the earth being round if the Earth was flat it would not work.
9. The higher I am the further away I can see things as well as other people. That is why sailing ships had crows nest to spot land and other things further away then people on deck could.
10. Shadows getting longer and shorter at different times of the year. In the FE models I am aware of this should not happen unless the sun in one of those models changes altitude.
11. Seasons. I see the explanation for the FE model but no data again. Nothing supporting it except it would have to be something like this for Earth to be flat with seasons.
12. It is dark where I am right now and light somewhere else in the world. Have you witnessed someone use a flashlight? You can see it regardless if it is illuminating the area you are in or not. Which suggest that I should be able to see some hint of the sun right now if I look out my window. Why can I not? Is what we are told about how far light is visible wrong?
13. I can use maps based on the RE model to reliably get distance and direction. I can get estimated trip times and have that estimate be correct time and time again. Where is a FE map that I can use?
14. Space Flight I have observed the ISS and Satellites through a telescope. You can do the same thing. In your model these things would either need to holograms/projections or friction and what ever force you have that is like gravity would degrade their altitude. Actullay what is the theory that explains what is keeping the sun and mun from hitting the Earth in a FE model? Is there one?
15. Observing weather patterns. The FAQ has some of the things that effect weather listed but leaves out things that have a rather important affect on it. Again ignoring things that do not fit the model of a FE.
16. Tides
17. Volcanoes. Where is the data? It exist for evidence the Earth is round with a molten core.
18. Seismic activity. http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/earth_int.htm See how DATA is given in this summary? Why are there not more things like this for FE theory that show DATA and not speculation?
IMO certain fields are sacrosanct. The science field is one of those.Okay, enjoy your religion. We'll continue focusing on things which are actually verifiable, and not suppress healthy scepticism by calling what you were taught in school "sacrosanct (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sacrosanct)".
OK then verify with DATA, EVIDENCE, RESEARCH showing how you came to conclusions and your theories,REPRODUCIBLE EXPERIMENTS, offer evidence that NASA is part of a conspiracy. Nothing you have linked me to is verifiable. All it is we think the Earth is flat anything that does not support or theory is wrong. Similar to the Bedford experiment and the wager with Wallace who correctly guessed why Rowbothan was getting the results he was. Wallace being an experienced surveyor realized Rowobothan did not take density gradients of the air into consideration. Wallace won the bet and lost a court case to get his winnings since wagers were not considered a legally binding contract.
Surveyors today still need to account for this and have very reliable tables to use. You can go and do it yourself anyone can go out and give compelling evidence that the Earth is flat or round. Why have there not been extensive research done by the FE society? This would be a really easy and relatively inexpensive endeavor. Go out side, do it, publish the results explaining your methods so it can be reproduced. Viola you have evidence backed by real data that can be scrutinized and either supported or flaws pointed out with your method. That is how you get a theory to be recognized and looked further into by others. Just saying you are right, ignoring evidence to the contrary does not advance your theory. It actually holds you back from discovery.Seriously just publish one thing that supports a FE model that would also not be true for a RE model.ok: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
What I put faith in is God and data.
...............................................................The answer to the OP is simply that we have very limited time and resources, and can't be sending out expeditions to properly measure the continents and so on. It would be great if we could, but for now, the best we can offer are our rough hypothetical maps.
One might equally ask, why not one standard view of the round earth?I am no photo expert, but just why do any have to be fake. They are purported to be photos of a Globe Earth. In a single photo the area of a globe shown depends entirely in the distance away the camera was at the time (Perspective 101). Without knowing the focal length of the lens (or cropping done) there is no easy way of knowing. The images below show North America taken from simulated distances of 4,500 and 21,500 miles, showing quite different coverage. Then the orientation and continents shown will obviously depend on what part of the globe photographed and camera orientation. | (http://i65.tinypic.com/i4kbvc.png) |
| (http://i.imgur.com/65GaynI.jpg) North America - 4500 miles | (http://i.imgur.com/Y97fGkT.jpg) North America - 21500 miles |
Before 1900 most of the earth's coastlines were accurately mapped, ie the lat-long of enough locations was determined to enable accurate maps to be drawn of the continents. In addition to this surveyors accurately mapped the interiors of many countries.
Oh, come I am hardly suggesting you use 300 year old maps. It is now 2016 and the world has progressed since Rowbotham!Before 1900 most of the earth's coastlines were accurately mapped, ie the lat-long of enough locations was determined to enable accurate maps to be drawn of the continents. In addition to this surveyors accurately mapped the interiors of many countries.
You put too much faith in map mapers and explorers. It is conveniently forgotten that for over 300 years RE maps depicted California as an island off the coast of the United States, despite being one of the most important frontiers and discoveries in the world at that time.
Oh, come I am hardly suggesting you use 300 year old maps. It is now 2016 and the world has progressed since Rowbotham!
Of course you would pick up-to-date data - pre NASA if you must, but even by 1900 maps at least had good shapes for the continents.
Mind you, maps of Australia of 150 years ago are far closer to the shape of Australia I know than ANY FE map I have seen yet!I fail to see how a movement that many (maybe not you, yourself) seem to think will "sweep the world" in the near future can be taken seriously with no accurate flat earth map for navigators, etc, to use.
Well, somehow or other by the 1940's, we managed to get atlases with pretty accurate continental shapes, even if country boundaries have changed.Oh, come I am hardly suggesting you use 300 year old maps. It is now 2016 and the world has progressed since Rowbotham!
Of course you would pick up-to-date data - pre NASA if you must, but even by 1900 maps at least had good shapes for the continents.
Mind you, maps of Australia of 150 years ago are far closer to the shape of Australia I know than ANY FE map I have seen yet!I fail to see how a movement that many (maybe not you, yourself) seem to think will "sweep the world" in the near future can be taken seriously with no accurate flat earth map for navigators, etc, to use.
See this link: http://www.wired.com/2014/04/maps-california-island/
For over 300 years, from the early 1500's to the mid 1800's, cartographers depicted California as an island off the coast of the United States in various maps of many countries.
What makes you think that between the mid 1800's and 1900 everyone in the world decided to stop plagiarizing and actually conduct an accurate exploration of the earth?
Before 1900 most of the earth's coastlines were accurately mapped, ie the lat-long of enough locations was determined to enable accurate maps to be drawn of the continents. In addition to this surveyors accurately mapped the interiors of many countries.
You put too much faith in map mapers and explorers. It is conveniently forgotten that for over 300 years RE maps depicted California as an island off the coast of the United States, despite being one of the most important frontiers and discoveries in the world at that time.
More importantly, FE supporters conveniently ignore the fact that RE supporters improve and update their maps as more information and knowledge becomes available.Oh, sweetheart, we don't ignore it. We laugh in your faces because of it.
As I have stated elsewhere, I don't know? But, they are all quite feasible.More importantly, FE supporters conveniently ignore the fact that RE supporters improve and update their maps as more information and knowledge becomes available.Oh, sweetheart, we don't ignore it. We laugh in your faces because of it.
(http://i.imgur.com/wgI2xic.png)
Also, I fail to see any problem with having RE supporters improve and update their maps as more information and knowledge becomes available. Of course you update maps if better data becomes available, only an idiot would not do that.Well, yeah, except Round Earthers claim that they've already surveyed the entirety of the Earth and they can see it from space and all that stuff. Seems like there's no reasons for America's size to change as much as 50% over just a few years.
But, those photos you show are not maps and would contain no extra data useful for that!Ah, so globes are not maps now. Wowie, I sure can't keep up with how quickly you guys change your mind!
I did not sayAlso, I fail to see any problem with having RE supporters improve and update their maps as more information and knowledge becomes available. Of course you update maps if better data becomes available, only an idiot would not do that.Well, yeah, except Round Earthers claim that they've already surveyed the entirety of the Earth and they can see it from space and all that stuff. Seems like there's no reasons for America's size to change as much as 50% over just a few years.But, those photos you show are not maps and would contain no extra data useful for that!Ah, so globes are not maps now. Wowie, I sure can't keep up with how quickly you guys change your mind!
The earth is flat. We're just here to help if anyone wants to find that out for themselves.
The earth is round. We're just here to help if anyone wants to find that out for themselves.
More importantly, FE supporters conveniently ignore the fact that RE supporters improve and update their maps as more information and knowledge becomes available.Oh, sweetheart, we don't ignore it. We laugh in your faces because of it.