The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: SiDawg on May 15, 2018, 05:39:24 AM
-
It's commonly accepted by Flat Earth believers that there's no known map of the flat earth. The "Azimuthal Equidistant Projection" often used is just a conceptual image, it does not reflect reality, just a rough idea of what the flat earth might look like (and by "might" i mean, it's normally accepted that it's something OTHER than that map...)
So how would one go about constructing an accurate map? Obviously navigating coast lines and recording in to journals is a pain staking expensive process. But what I propose is to start with a very very simplified basic map:
Lets construct a Flat Earth map using only 12 points
For those 12 points, let's use these known cities:
- Cape Town
- Kinshasa
- Stockholm
- Beijing
- Jakarta
- Perth (West Australia)
- Anchorage (Alaska)
- Honolulu
- Auckland (New Zealand)
- Montreal
- Panama
- Buenos Aires
So question now is: how can we determine the true distances between these cities? And that's where I'm curious what Flat Earth believers think would be an acceptable method. I know "flight times" have been raised and rubbished (i.e. seen as "skeptical") a number of times, but surely there's a logical/mathematical way to still use that data? For example, theoretically planes could "lie" to us and be travelling very slowly, in order to make distances seem longer than they truly are. Plus planes can use "slipstreams" so they can go much faster than their reported specs.
I'm curious what, if any, aspects of plane data Flat Earth believes will accept? Do you accept published maximum/minimum speeds of planes? Also, do you accept the reported speeds of winds (slipstreams) in the upper atmosphere?
If you accept that data, then that will give us "maximum" and "minimum" distances for each reported flight time between those cities. That should give us a "rough" possible map of the flat earth right?
-
How about if you have people measure the angle and direction to the sun from each of these cities at the same moment?
Given that they're all looking at the same sun, you can then plot the positions of the cities using that data.
Even quicker, you can take the angle/direction information from a site such as suncalc.org, since this has always been verified as accurate.
Note: the data collecting would have to be done at a few different times, for thoroughness.
-
Yeah that's a nice idea. Perhaps it requires a website, to coordinate such world wide effort, and code an easy way for participants to submit their finding.
Was also wondering: could short wave radio be used to measure distances? There'd no doubt be a bit of variance from atmospheric conditions, but I'm thinking the precision would be less than using flight times/plane speeds. Would also require a large amount of coordination, and not many people have short wave radios... might be able to get the SWR community interested though. I wonder if internet calibrated clocks would be accurate enough. Apparently light circles the earth about 7.5 times a second... the cities i've chosen (and can be changed) are roughly 60 degrees apart, so light/EM radiation would take about 22ms to travel 60 degrees (plus a bit more once it goes up, bounces of ionosphere, bounces back again). That's reasonably "slow" in the grand scheme of things but maybe the combination of clock accuracy and atmospheric conditions would make the data essentially useless hmm
Another method i was thinking of: we have access to a huge database of images of land (i.e. google maps). If the "great round earth conspiracy" is ensuring that google map images are stretched or skewed away from flat earth "reality", this can surely be measured using known lengths? We could use cars for example: you could get an average length of a car, and use that to "calibrate" any google map image, or confirm that the image isn't being stretched or distorted. If you've confirmed it hasn't been stretched or contorted, you can also use the same cars to provide an accurate length of distance for each image... Do that enough times from place to place and you have a another method of measuring distance. Again, a lot of margin for error in such a calculation, as most google map images only have a resolution of half a meter or so, plus relies on populated land between each location. In order to prove the globe earth I think the most useful distances will be between Africa, South America, Australia, and pacific islands, so that makes that a bit useless.
Or we could of course just use "known driving times"... You can use google street view to get distances from signs: gather enough data, they can't ALL be wrong...
Or use shipping distances and times: but as we've seen on this site, direct evidence from people on board such ships is tossed aside.
-
Yeah that's a nice idea. Perhaps it requires a website, to coordinate such world wide effort, and code an easy way for participants to submit their finding.
Was also wondering: could short wave radio be used to measure distances? There'd no doubt be a bit of variance from atmospheric conditions, but I'm thinking the precision would be less than using flight times/plane speeds. Would also require a large amount of coordination, and not many people have short wave radios... might be able to get the SWR community interested though. I wonder if internet calibrated clocks would be accurate enough. Apparently light circles the earth about 7.5 times a second... the cities i've chosen (and can be changed) are roughly 60 degrees apart, so light/EM radiation would take about 22ms to travel 60 degrees (plus a bit more once it goes up, bounces of ionosphere, bounces back again). That's reasonably "slow" in the grand scheme of things but maybe the combination of clock accuracy and atmospheric conditions would make the data essentially useless hmm
Or use shipping distances and times: but as we've seen on this site, direct evidence from people on board such ships is tossed aside.
Maybe shipping distances are not tossed aside, just ignored.
I have posted 5 times now to ask If there is any answer to my verification of distances measured vs calculated, and the FEers have studiously ignored the post each and every time.
It’s almost like a conspiracy to avoid the questions or discussions that have difficult answers.....
As for Short wave radio, it would be possible to measure phase difference compared to distance, but you would not be able to measure what phase you were receiving as far as i remember.
Early hyperbolic navigation systems such as decca were able to to a certain extent, but you needed different widely spaced transmission bases to resolve the issue, but it was not perfect, and did not have a great range. Omega was a worldwide system used by the military with very long wavelengths to try to determine positions (mainly for submarines to get a fix before launching their missiles) which needed base stations around the world, with lots of investment and infrastructure.
Satellite based systems made them both obselete, along with Loran which was a time based measurement.......
However I am confident in my ships equipment to measure distances that we have travelled to within 2% accuracy, and this is accurate enough for a map basis. It wont be accepted because the FEers KNOW it will give a result they cannot agree with, ie the only way you can match the distances MEASURED, would be to have a globe earth, hence the rejection/ignoring/disbelief of any sort of system that tells how far apart 2 places on earth are!
-
Is there an authoritative source for shipping routes/distances that can be used? Or is it just a case of using GPS with the equipment on board an individual ship... i mean i guess there's not really a need to post that stuff back on to a database right? GPS is effectively better than such a database (i.e. trusted live data)
-
Is there an authoritative source for shipping routes/distances that can be used? Or is it just a case of using GPS with the equipment on board an individual ship... i mean i guess there's not really a need to post that stuff back on to a database right? GPS is effectively better than such a database (i.e. trusted live data)
There are tables that have been used for years, and in the tanker industry we used “BP distance tables” which showed the distances between port, the only problem being they are sea routes, so for instance the distance from london to Houston goes via the Gulf of Mexico.
However careful choice of the routes such as Perth to Lombok straits (Bali) or Durban to Mumbai, will give a direct route. They have been published and used for decades.
There are a number of on line calculators based on distance tables.
These days i use a computer based version, where in the past it was very quick to look up the distances as it was much quicker than calculating distances via traverse tables, or Mercator sailing, or great circle calculations using logs and log tables.........
-
We haven’t discussed triangulation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_(surveying)). This is the traditional method not supplanted until GPS. Very simple, just measure the angles between three points, then keeping adding triangles, until you cover as much of the country as you want.
The modern systematic use of triangulation networks stems from the work of the Dutch mathematician Willebrord Snell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willebrord_Snellius#), who in 1615 surveyed the distance from Alkmaar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkmaar#) to Breda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breda#), approximately 72 miles (116 kilometres), using a chain of quadrangles containing 33 triangles in all. Snell underestimated the distance by 3.5%. The two towns were separated by one degree on the meridian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meridian_(geography)#), so from his measurement he was able to calculate a value for the circumference of the earth – a feat celebrated in the title of his book Eratosthenes Batavus (The Dutch Eratosthenes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#)), published in 1617. Snell calculated how the planar formulae could be corrected to allow for the curvature of the earth. He also showed how to resection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snellius%E2%80%93Pothenot_problem#), or calculate, the position of a point inside a triangle using the angles cast between the vertices at the unknown point. These could be measured much more accurately than bearings of the vertices, which depended on a compass. This established the key idea of surveying a large-scale primary network of control points first, and then locating secondary subsidiary points later, within that primary network.
I remember when I first came across the British Ordnance Survey maps, where they had to address the problem of curvature. They solved it by pretending the British Isles, which are long and thin, were on a cylinder.
I keep asking about an FE system. Presumably this could includes triangulation and surveying?
[edit] This (https://www.sophiararebooks.com/pages/books/4229/snel-willebrord-snellius-or-snel-van-royen/eratosthenes-batavus-de-terrae-ambitus-vera-quantitate-a-willebrordo-snellio-suscitatus) explains in more detail how Snell worked it all out. Fascinating, never knew any of this. Apparently navigators had been using the wrong number for a long time, until Snell improved the measurement.
The problem now is to create a Flat Earth map which replicates the observed angles. Any ideas?
-
How about if you have people measure the angle and direction to the sun from each of these cities at the same moment?
Given that they're all looking at the same sun, you can then plot the positions of the cities using that data.
Even quicker, you can take the angle/direction information from a site such as suncalc.org, since this has always been verified as accurate.
Note: the data collecting would have to be done at a few different times, for thoroughness.
The reason I posted this is because it very clearly won't work (for a flat Earth; works fine on the globe).
See Sly Sparkane's excellent video for a demo:
https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-debunked-by-measuring-angles-to-the-sun.t9118/
-
How about if you have people measure the angle and direction to the sun from each of these cities at the same moment?
Given that they're all looking at the same sun, you can then plot the positions of the cities using that data.
Even quicker, you can take the angle/direction information from a site such as suncalc.org, since this has always been verified as accurate.
Note: the data collecting would have to be done at a few different times, for thoroughness.
The reason I posted this is because it very clearly won't work (for a flat Earth; works fine on the globe).
See Sly Sparkane's excellent video for a demo:
https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-debunked-by-measuring-angles-to-the-sun.t9118/
That link is assuming certain things about perspective and the infinite nature of perspective lines. "How it should operate on a Flat Earth" -- Hogwash. Those people either have not read Earth Not a Globe, or have issues with reading comprehension. The perspective lines are treated to intersect a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.
Where did the Ancient Greeks ever demonstrate their idea that the perspective lines would recede for an infinite distance? No such thing was demonstrated. It is a hypothesis, and that is exposed in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
-
How about if you have people measure the angle and direction to the sun from each of these cities at the same moment?
Given that they're all looking at the same sun, you can then plot the positions of the cities using that data.
Even quicker, you can take the angle/direction information from a site such as suncalc.org, since this has always been verified as accurate.
Note: the data collecting would have to be done at a few different times, for thoroughness.
The reason I posted this is because it very clearly won't work (for a flat Earth; works fine on the globe).
See Sly Sparkane's excellent video for a demo:
https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-debunked-by-measuring-angles-to-the-sun.t9118/
That link is assuming certain things about perspective and the infinite nature of perspective lines. "How it should operate on a Flat Earth" -- Hogwash. Those people either have not read Earth Not a Globe, or have issues with reading comprehension. The perspective lines are treated to intersect a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.
Where did the Ancient Greeks ever demonstrate their idea that the perspective lines would recede for an infinite distance? No such thing was demonstrated. It is a hypothesis, and that is exposed in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
Read and understand the meaning of perspective.
-
Where did the Ancient Greeks ever demonstrate their idea that the perspective lines would recede for an infinite distance? No such thing was demonstrated. It is a hypothesis, and that is exposed in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
Well, we know that light travels as a wave. Using the wave equation one can derive the rules of optics. By those rules, the vanishing point is infinitely far away.
Please submit proof that overturns the universally accepted theory of optics.
-
How about if you have people measure the angle and direction to the sun from each of these cities at the same moment?
Given that they're all looking at the same sun, you can then plot the positions of the cities using that data.
Even quicker, you can take the angle/direction information from a site such as suncalc.org, since this has always been verified as accurate.
Note: the data collecting would have to be done at a few different times, for thoroughness.
The reason I posted this is because it very clearly won't work (for a flat Earth; works fine on the globe).
See Sly Sparkane's excellent video for a demo:
https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-debunked-by-measuring-angles-to-the-sun.t9118/
That link is assuming certain things about perspective and the infinite nature of perspective lines. "How it should operate on a Flat Earth" -- Hogwash. Those people either have not read Earth Not a Globe, or have issues with reading comprehension. The perspective lines are treated to intersect a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.
That is not how perspective works.
-
How about if you have people measure the angle and direction to the sun from each of these cities at the same moment?
Given that they're all looking at the same sun, you can then plot the positions of the cities using that data.
Even quicker, you can take the angle/direction information from a site such as suncalc.org, since this has always been verified as accurate.
Note: the data collecting would have to be done at a few different times, for thoroughness.
The reason I posted this is because it very clearly won't work (for a flat Earth; works fine on the globe).
See Sly Sparkane's excellent video for a demo:
https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-debunked-by-measuring-angles-to-the-sun.t9118/
That link is assuming certain things about perspective and the infinite nature of perspective lines. "How it should operate on a Flat Earth" -- Hogwash. Those people either have not read Earth Not a Globe, or have issues with reading comprehension. The perspective lines are treated to intersect a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.
Where did the Ancient Greeks ever demonstrate their idea that the perspective lines would recede for an infinite distance? No such thing was demonstrated. It is a hypothesis, and that is exposed in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
That post had nothing to do with perspective. What are you talking about?
-
That link is assuming certain things about perspective and the infinite nature of perspective lines. "How it should operate on a Flat Earth" -- Hogwash. Those people either have not read Earth Not a Globe, or have issues with reading comprehension. The perspective lines are treated to intersect a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.
We don't need to "assume" anything about perspective: we KNOW how perspective works. This is how it works https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9513.0
What element of that are you saying is not true? It shows you EXACTLY what a "perspective line" is and what it represents... yes mathematically they "kind of" intersect, but at an infinite distance... so for all intents and purposes, they never intersect.
-
Where did the Ancient Greeks ever demonstrate their idea that the perspective lines would recede for an infinite distance? No such thing was demonstrated. It is a hypothesis, and that is exposed in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
What experiment could you do to demonstrate that? How do you do experiments over infinite distances?
But you don't need an experiment. All you need to do is understand that light travels in straight lines from an object into your eye - something I believe you accept - and geometry does the rest
(https://image.ibb.co/g2saWm/4.jpg)
If light travels in straight lines from the bottom of the person on the right and the top of the person on the right into the eye of the person on the left then it will do so at different angles because the bottom and top of the person are in different positions - this could be your two rail tracks.
It's a triangle, two of the corners are the bottom and top of the person, the 3rd is your eye.
It's obvious that as the person gets further away the angle at your eye gets smaller. That is why objects get smaller as they move away.
When does that angle become 0? At infinity, clearly. Otherwise it's not a triangle any more and you can see from the above diagram that it has to be one.
Now, obviously in real life that doesn't mean you can see the top and bottom of the person distinctly at any distance, the limits of our vision and sometimes the atmosphere prevent that. But in theory given perfect vision and a perfectly transparent atmosphere you would be able to, that is WHY optical magnification "restores" things. Restore is a misleading word, it implies the object had vanished but it hadn't, it is just a limitation of your vision. If you were with someone who had better vision than you then there would be distance when you could no longer see the object but they could. That proves that perspective lines don't merge at a finite distance - the perspective lines can't have merged for you and not for them.
Rowbotham didn't expose anything, clearly on a flat earth you'd be able to see the sun at all times, you wouldn't get buildings occluded by the curve of the earth and so on so he rationalised and made up a new version of perspective to attempt to explain these things. He started with the presmise of a flat earth and rationalised how things like perspective could be changed to explain observations which clearly can't be explained on a flat earth. But no-one else accepted his ideas because they are wrong, there's a reason he has pretty much been forgotten by history and his ideas have not become mainstream. They just don't reflect reality.
-
Unfortunately, this picture does not represent how they explain/understand perspective. Let's assume the right person is at the horizon, then they would draw the "perspective lines" just the other way round. The horizon would have risen to eye level so that the person on the right appears just as a point at the horizon. From that point one line would go straight into the eye of the person on the left, the other line to his feet. The angle between this two lines is the fixed angle of less than 1°.
For them your sketch is nothing more than an untested assumption, a kind of extrapolation of the situation if both people would be much closer together. No proof or illustration of reality.
Now you can say, light travels in straight lines and this kind of perspective would need kind of light bending. Yes, that is true and there is no indication, no experiment that would give rise to this assumption. But of course no one can exclude (at least on the level the discussion is held here), that physics works in a way, that it only appears to be working in the same way on short and long distances. Of course, it's getting a bit hard to exclude this for distances of a few hundred miles if you accept that people could go to the moon, but if you also neglect this, it's getting difficult to argue.
It is a very different way on the interpretation of experiments and their range of validity. For a physicist an explanation is valid as long as it is based on some experiment and no observation is in contradiction to it. For them something is only valid, if there is an explicit proof. And this proof has to be as direct as possible. In principle it has to be done only using your senses, that's the strongest proof. Therefor, a sentence like "I looked out of the window and I observed that the earth is flat" has a much higher value than any sophisticated experiment.
-
I just posted an image of how the sun's light forms different shapes on the (flat) Earth's surface at different times of the year, and I suddenly stumbled on something awesome - and perhaps the solution to solving the conundrum of creating a flat earth map.
Here's the image:
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/flat-earth-sun-patterns-jpg.29550/)
Now let's see if I can put into words what I realised:
1. On the equinoxes, the area of sunlight forms a perfect straight line across the (flat) Earth's surface
2. This can be tested and measured, and is proven to be true
3. This map is a verified projection of the globe (equal to the Gleason AE Map)
4. Flat Earthers like to tell us it's not really an accurate map, it's just the best we've got, for now. But...
Are they then expecting us to believe that it's just a coincidence that the places that are in daylight happen to form a perfectly straight line across the surface of the Earth?
Every single place on Earth, verified and measured?
I'm not quite able to put it into the words yet - but do you see what I'm saying?
-
Now let's see if I can put into words what I realised:
1. On the equinoxes, the area of sunlight forms a perfect straight line across the (flat) Earth's surface
2. This can be tested and measured, and is proven to be true
Where is a listing of observations from across the world for that?
3. This map is a verified projection of the globe (equal to the Gleason AE Map)
4. Flat Earthers like to tell us it's not really an accurate map, it's just the best we've got, for now. But...
Are they then expecting us to believe that it's just a coincidence that the places that are in daylight happen to form a perfectly straight line across the surface of the Earth?
Every single place on Earth, verified and measured?
I'm not quite able to put it into the words yet - but do you see what I'm saying?
You are posting an assumption that every point on earth was measured rather than calculated or assumed.
-
1. I could tell you, but you probably wouldn't understand
2. You are assuming that I'm posting an assumption. Mistakenly
-
Where did the Ancient Greeks ever demonstrate their idea that the perspective lines would recede for an infinite distance? No such thing was demonstrated. It is a hypothesis, and that is exposed in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
(1) Perspective lines do not exist in reality, as everyone here now agrees. Parallel lines exist, to be sure, but they do not meet, being parallel.
(2) Aristarchus did further experiments to support Eratosthenes assumption about parallel rays of light. Note 'parallel rays of light' NOT perspective lines, as already said above.
-
Who cares for the ancient Greeks? Perspective is a consequence of visual perception. Therefor, go to Amazon and buy a good book about optics. For a start, take this one:
https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Optics-Electromagnetic-Propagation-Interference/dp/0521642221/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1527151310&sr=8-1&keywords=born+wolf+optics
-
Again, i think of the jumping frog example... A frog is trying to cross a river. It can jump half the distance each time. i.e. in it's first jump, it crosses half the river. In it's second jump, it crosses half the remaining distance to the bank.
Obviously the frog will never actually reach the bank, but you can still draw the path he will take... it just looks like a line from one bank to the other yes?
This is what a perspective line is! As objects get "smaller" in the distance, they also get closer to the vanishing point by a smaller amount... i.e. a train track: the gap between the near sleepers looks quite large to you, but as the track goes in to the distance, the gap between the sleepers gets less and less yes?
Objects disappearing in to the distance are just like the frog: they get closer and closer to the "vanshing point", the other side of the river, but they never reach it, because each time they 'jump', it's a fraction of the remaining distance...
So yes, "kind of", perspective lines meet, but you have to surely realise that they meet at an infinite distance: this is very simple geometry.
-
Common people. You are falling for a classic Tom Bishop play. Muddy the waters and divert attention away from the post flat earth tinking can't handle. This thread isn't about perspective.
I think there are enough people on this forum to measure the angles and direction of the sun from different cities. All observations can be posted in a thread created for that purpose. A rough estimation of distances can be taken to see if it matches what we have been "told".
If nothing else, it would show the inability of the flat earth community to produce a map is due to their unwillingness to be proved wrong by their own observations.
-
Common people. You are falling for a classic Tom Bishop play. Muddy the waters and divert attention away from the post flat earth tinking can't handle. This thread isn't about perspective.
I think there are enough people on this forum to measure the angles and direction of the sun from different cities. All observations can be posted in a thread created for that purpose. A rough estimation of distances can be taken to see if it matches what we have been "told".
If nothing else, it would show the inability of the flat earth community to produce a map is due to their unwillingness to be proved wrong by their own observations.
You are so right. Correct. It is all about the accurate measurement of distance between a set of points, and how to project them onto a flat surface.
-
I think there are enough people on this forum to measure the angles and direction of the sun from different cities. All observations can be posted in a thread created for that purpose. A rough estimation of distances can be taken to see if it matches what we have been "told".
This has been done. YouTuber Sly Sparkane posted a video in which 23 participants in 9 separate countries measured the sun's elevation angle at solar noon on the September equinox.
When the results are viewed and compared with the two models of the earth, it should be obvious which one is accurate.
Here is the result for the flat earth:
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/flat-earth-sun-test-jpg.29385/)
Which, as expected, demonstrates a complete lack of cohesion for the model.
Meanwhile, for the globe:
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/globe-earth-sun-test-jpg.29386/)
Showing that the angles measured by the participants correspond with both a distant sun, and the earth being a spheroid with a mean radius of around 3959 miles.
Given that this experiment is repeatable by anyone, requiring no great technical knowledge or equipment, it would seem difficult to dispute.
The full video is here (set to start with the results from 7:04 - the rest before that is preamble, explaining the experiment, introducing the participants, etc).
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno&t=7m04s
-
I think there are enough people on this forum to measure the angles and direction of the sun from different cities. All observations can be posted in a thread created for that purpose. A rough estimation of distances can be taken to see if it matches what we have been "told".
This has been done. YouTuber Sly Sparkane posted a video in which 23 participants in 9 separate countries measured the sun's elevation angle at solar noon on the September equinox.
When the results are viewed and compared with the two models of the earth, it should be obvious which one is accurate.
Here is the result for the flat earth:
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/flat-earth-sun-test-jpg.29385/)
Which, as expected, demonstrates a complete lack of cohesion for the model.
Meanwhile, for the globe:
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/globe-earth-sun-test-jpg.29386/)
Showing that the angles measured by the participants correspond with both a distant sun, and the earth being a spheroid with a mean radius of around 3959 miles.
Given that this experiment is repeatable by anyone, requiring no great technical knowledge or equipment, it would seem difficult to dispute.
The full video is here (set to start with the results from 7:04 - the rest before that is preamble, explaining the experiment, introducing the participants, etc).
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno&t=7m04s
Is that round earth based YouTube? Please provide evidence from a flat earth based youtube.
:)
Yes, it was a joke but this post should be pinned. Hard evidence that does not rely on miles, lat long, GPS, speeds, NASA, etc. Siple science that can be observed.
Checkmate.
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/l3fQf9ByIzJ3iLI5i/giphy.gif)
-
I took a look at the MetaBunk thread on this (https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-debunked-by-measuring-angles-to-the-sun.t9118/) and the end of it looks like they are just hypothesizing on bending light models for a Flat Earth where light curves upwards. We do have models which involve bending light (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9358.msg146422#msg146422). It looks like MetaBunk is just doing our work for us?
There are also a lot of assumptions about the longitude lines being evenly spaced in the Flat Earth model, and how perspective works.
I also don't particularly trust such evidence from a guy who seems to dedicate his life to trying to debunk FET with videos. Thork has shown that some of them willingly use deception. How about data from contemporary sources, rather than from users with screen names such as Spheroid Master and Flat_Earth_Math (names from that video)?
-
I also don't particularly trust such evidence from a guy who seems to dedicate his life to trying to debunk FET with videos. Thork has shown that some of them willingly use deception.
Even if, by some small chance, some of them do, then surely you're now obliged to prove that the video author above has also done this?
You're effectively saying that I'm a murderer because some humans are alleged to be murderers.
-
Totally agree. This has nothing to do with people's names or what some people hypothesise about the flat earth model or whether some round earthers are dishonest sometimes: that's just a diversionary tactic.
The point is this:
1. You and your friends can measure the angle to the sun
2. Knowing how far you are from one another, you can then plot those angles to find out where the sun is
3. You can try it for any shape earth you like, and see what works
4. What works is a sphere; what doesn't work is a plane
There are three ways to dispute this:
1. You can say the angles are wrong - but you're going to have a hard time proving that, being as they are easily verified
2. You can say the distances are wrong - ditto on that: millions of people taking millions of journeys every day would have noticed
3. You can say that geometry doesn't work - I'd like to think nobody's this far gone
Other than that, it's really about coming to terms with what's staring you in the face.
-
We already have that upwards bending light theory that Metabunk is talking about. A supporter of that theory could simply assert that this just supports that idea that light bends upwards.
Otherwise:
- There are too many assumptions. The longitude line being evenly spaced? Who proved that?
- The accuracy of the users
- The honesty of the users (considering that they have names like Spheroid Master and Flat_Earth_Math and the video creator seems to devote much of his time debunking FE videos). A contemporary source for the data would be much better.
- Many of the lines do seem to intersect at spots, suggesting a rough area for a Flat Earth Sun.
- An assumption on how perspective works at large distances.
- The claim that the NOAA calculators are accurate and can support them on this matter. It has been demonstrated that they are not accurate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9puRZH0i6Sc).
-
1, They've been carefully measured and verified. Have you any evidence that says they are not evenly spaced?
2. The angles measured by the users matches very closely to that provided at places like timeanddate.com, suncalc.org, etc. Nobody has ever shown these angles to be in error. Have you any evidence that says otherwise? Why not test it yourself, from your own house, right now?
3. See above.
4. How many flat earth suns? This is just from 23 measurements:
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/flat-earth-suns-jpg.29532/)
And the suns in that diagram would be over 300 miles in diameter, to cover multiple points.
5. How does perspective work over large distances? (E.g., looking at the sun.)
6. Evidence for NOAA inaccuracy?
-
- The honesty of the users (considering that they have names like Spheroid Master and Flat_Earth_Math and the video creator seems to devote much of his time debunking FE videos). A contemporary source for the data would be much better.
Tom, this is highly hypocritical. You posted a video from "Globebusters" in this thread:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9462.msg147849#msg147849
By your own logic, Globebuster videos must also be untrustworthy.
Be consistent.
-
We already have that upwards bending light theory that Metabunk is talking about. A supporter of that theory could simply assert that this just supports that idea that light bends upwards.
Otherwise:
- There are too many assumptions. The longitude lines being evenly spaced? Who proved that?
Ummmmm? Tom you really need to understand your subject before making statements like the one above, it just makes you look silly, and making up stuff just to try to derail threads.
Meridians of longitude evenly spaced??? Really? I thought it was pretty much accepted that there are 360 degrees in a circle. The meridians of longitude are just named after degrees. Do you have a protractor where the graduations are not evenly spaced? Please provide a picture.
Also IT DOES NO MATTER about longitude, as if the observation is taken when the LHA of the sun is 360, (0) then it is at noon, and the elevation will depend on latitude, and declination.
I thought we went through this on another thread, but wait, oh yes you ran away from that one, so it obviously shows you dont really have a grasp of the subject.
-
Ummmmm? Tom you really need to understand your subject before making statements like the one above, it just makes you look silly, and making up stuff just to try to derail threads.
Meridians of longitude evenly spaced??? Really? I thought it was pretty much accepted that there are 360 degrees in a circle. The meridians of longitude are just named after degrees. Do you have a protractor where the graduations are not evenly spaced? Please provide a picture.
Also IT DOES NO MATTER about longitude, as if the observation is taken when the LHA of the sun is 360, (0) then it is at noon, and the elevation will depend on latitude, and declination.
I thought we went through this on another thread, but wait, oh yes you ran away from that one, so it obviously shows you dont really have a grasp of the subject.
Latitude and Longitude are concepts that originate with Astronomy and which assumes that we live on a spherical surface.
The North Star is assumed to descend evenly from the North Pole to the Equator, as if the earth were a globe, and will tell you your Latitude. But what if it doesn't descend evenly from one Latitude to the next? Then that means we have it wrong. Who tested that?
Who tested that the latitude and longitude lines are evenly spaced? Per Longitude we are assuming that the sun is traveling in a circle in the Flat Earth model when it could very well be traveling in an oval.
A lot of assumptions are made when we start analyzing Latitude and Longitude and what they mean. We already know that airplanes just calculate their distances traveled based on Lat and Lon, rather than a direct measurement of the earth's surface. There is no such thing as a speedometer for an airplane.
Things may be somewhat off, and one may attribute discrepancies and imprecision to wind conditions, the use or non-use of jet streams, engine performance, or without any attention at all.
-
"Who tested all that?" is a googleable question.
Just because you don't understand something, or don't have knowledge of a subject, it doesn't mean the whole thing is "assumed".
-
We do have models which involve bending light (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9358.msg146422#msg146422)
[...]
There are also a lot of assumptions about [...] how perspective works.
On a scale from 1 to 10 how would rate the "assumption" level of a) perspective as a result of angles towards a focus point and b) perspective because electromagnetic waves are curved?
Scale 1 = completely unquestionable fact, 5 = some evidence but still some questions, 10 = pure speculation without any evidence
-
We do have models which involve bending light (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9358.msg146422#msg146422)
[...]
There are also a lot of assumptions about [...] how perspective works.
On a scale from 1 to 10 how would rate the "assumption" level of a) perspective as a result of angles towards a focus point and b) perspective because electromagnetic waves are curved?
Scale 1 = completely unquestionable fact, 5 = some evidence but still some questions, 10 = pure speculation without any evidence
Excellent thoughts.
assumptions about perspective as a result of angles towards a focus point = 2
perspective because electromagnetic waves are curved = 10
There is no evidence of curved light I have ever seen. Refraction, reflection, gravity; yes, yes, yes. Universal mono-directional selective bending; no.
-
Ummmmm? Tom you really need to understand your subject before making statements like the one above, it just makes you look silly, and making up stuff just to try to derail threads.
Meridians of longitude evenly spaced??? Really? I thought it was pretty much accepted that there are 360 degrees in a circle. The meridians of longitude are just named after degrees. Do you have a protractor where the graduations are not evenly spaced? Please provide a picture.
Also IT DOES NO MATTER about longitude, as if the observation is taken when the LHA of the sun is 360, (0) then it is at noon, and the elevation will depend on latitude, and declination.
I thought we went through this on another thread, but wait, oh yes you ran away from that one, so it obviously shows you dont really have a grasp of the subject.
Latitude and Longitude are concepts that originate with Astronomy and which assumes that we live on a spherical surface.
The North Star is assumed to descend evenly from the North Pole to the Equator, as if the earth were a globe, and will tell you your Latitude. But what if it doesn't descend evenly from one Latitude to the next? Then that means we have it wrong. Who tested that?
Who tested that the latitude and longitude lines are evenly spaced? Per Longitude we are assuming that the sun is traveling in a circle in the Flat Earth model when it could very well be traveling in an oval.
A lot of assumptions are made when we start analyzing Latitude and Longitude and what they mean. We already know that airplanes just calculate their distances traveled based on Lat and Lon, rather than a direct measurement of the earth's surface. There is no such thing as a speedometer for an airplane.
Things may be somewhat off, and one may attribute discrepancies and imprecision to wind conditions, the use or non-use of jet streams, engine performance, or without any attention at all.
I was responding to your comment about longitude, which i see you pretty much ignored. I never asked anything about Polaris......
Do we need to discuss if there are 360 degrees in a circle? If so the forum become meaningless. EnaG uses the fact that a circle has 360 degrees in it, but hey, it does not matter. You can use whatever you want, the military use Mils.
It does not matter what the longitude of a place is. It will not affect the suns apparent altitude at meridian passage (solar Noon). Why do you think people were able to determine latitude before reliable clocks were invented? The precise time and longitude of a place makes no difference to the apparent altitude of the sun.
I see you have trouble understanding this tom, and cannot really help it that you are being deliberately obtuse.
The diagram plotting the suns altitude against lattitude shows it impossible for the earth to be flat.
What about ships tom? We measure the distance over the surface of the ocean. We do have speedometers, calibrated and verified against the sea bed, irrespective of if the world is flat or round. So why dont we know how far we travel?
I see you dodged this question 6 times already on different threads. Why is that tom? Too embarrassed to answer?
I also see that Rowbotham uses distances travelled by ships in CVhapter XIV as data to “prove” he hypothesis. Is he wrong?
-
To play devil's advocate, i don't think he's saying that a degree isn't a degree, but saying that the land positions that we accept as being a certain distance apart arn't necessarily at that distance. In other words, it's not that the longitudinal distances aren't a certain fixed distance apart, but more that the location of cities on those longitudinal lines isn't known.
What would be interesting is taking all those lines from the initial experiment, and "forcing" them to line up to a certain arbitrary point. That should then give you some supposed distances, or ratios of distances, between different points. That should be suitable to either start to draw a flat earth map, or in itself prove the impossibility of a flat earth map
-
To play devil's advocate, i don't think he's saying that a degree isn't a degree, but saying that the land positions that we accept as being a certain distance apart arn't necessarily at that distance. In other words, it's not that the longitudinal distances aren't a certain fixed distance apart, but more that the location of cities on those longitudinal lines isn't known.
What would be interesting is taking all those lines from the initial experiment, and "forcing" them to line up to a certain arbitrary point. That should then give you some supposed distances, or ratios of distances, between different points. That should be suitable to either start to draw a flat earth map, or in itself prove the impossibility of a flat earth map
But thats the beauty of using the measurement of the suns altitude at Noon. It is completely irrelevant what the longitude is!
Before the days of the marine chronometer to accurately measure time on a moving platform (ship) it was very easy to take lattitude by measuring altitude and using the suns declination to determine the latitude. Now given the latitude, and the suns declination it is easy to determine the altitude.
All completely independent of the knowledge of longitude, how far round the round earth you are, or along which spoke of the wheel you are. The altitude measurement is independent of time and longitude.
Tom does not seem to understand that simple concept.
As for Polaris “descending” towards the horizon as the observer changes latitude, that is correct, (but Polaris just doesn’t move, the observer does) but he has introduced a whole new and unexplained theory in there, namely that the rate of doing so is variable! Where did that one come from?
If the pole star is on a plane above the plain earth, i would love to know how moving along a flat earth away from it, makes perspective “variable” that is unexplained and rather daft.
He might as well say magic pixies move it around for each observer.
He is clutching at straws, and makes himself look a fool.
-
That's why flat earthers won't attempt to answer the question of Polaris's altitude, even though it's far easier than working out the sun's.
As for taking the angles to the sun to figure out the make-up of the diskworld...you can do it, but (if I remember rightly) you end up with a planet about 1.7 million miles in diameter!
Hence why they needed to invent 'bendy light'.
-
Do we need to discuss if there are 360 degrees in a circle? If so the forum become meaningless.
The old 'math sez' argument. Have you tested every circle to make sure there are 360 degrees in it? This is just a meaningless proof on paper, nothing to do with reality, move on.
-
I haven't cut every cake in the world but I know they can all be cut in to eight slices :P
360 degrees is essentially an "arbitrary" mathematical decision to split a circle in to a number of even parts. We know that the number "360" exists, and we know a concept of "equal" so we know can make 360 equal divisions...
If we take three cities which are each on consecutive latitude lines, 30, 45, and 60 degrees: the question is not whether those lines are an equal distance apart, the question is are those cities actually on those points and are those cities an equal distance apart.
So yeah if those distances are in doubt then the way they constructed the graph is in doubt, however i would suspect that if you start with the opposite assumption, and assume that all the lines should intersect, then that would give you a "ratio" of distance between different spots on the earth. I suppose as the OP i have to go away and do that work myself dont I lol argh i can't really be bothered... Anyone else? But I'm assuming it's going to show us things like "the distance between france and london is the same as london to new york".... and us REers will say "that's crazy, we know thats not true, the world is not flat" and the FEers will assumedly say "well we know the world is flat, so that must be the true distance", if we get to THAT point... then we can begin to construct a flat earth based on those distances right? (at which point i'm guessing the FE will just say "how do we know those original measurements were correct"...
It would really help if there was a consensus between flat earthers about an acceptable method to measure distance, and thanks Edby for proposing the triangulation method... That's the sort of thing yall need to agree on, and then go out and do. That would require quite a bit of time though so I'm thinking it will be hard to get off the ground. There's no point RE doing the work as it won't be believed :D
-
I haven't cut every cake in the world but I know they can all be cut in to eight slices :P
360 degrees is essentially an "arbitrary" mathematical decision to split a circle in to a number of even parts. We know that the number "360" exists, and we know a concept of "equal" so we know can make 360 equal divisions...
If we take three cities which are each on consecutive latitude lines, 30, 45, and 60 degrees: the question is not whether those lines are an equal distance apart, the question is are those cities actually on those points and are those cities an equal distance apart.
So yeah if those distances are in doubt then the way they constructed the graph is in doubt, however i would suspect that if you start with the opposite assumption, and assume that all the lines should intersect, then that would give you a "ratio" of distance between different spots on the earth. I suppose as the OP i have to go away and do that work myself dont I lol argh i can't really be bothered... Anyone else? But I'm assuming it's going to show us things like "the distance between france and london is the same as london to new york".... and us REers will say "that's crazy, we know thats not true, the world is not flat" and the FEers will assumedly say "well we know the world is flat, so that must be the true distance", if we get to THAT point... then we can begin to construct a flat earth based on those distances right? (at which point i'm guessing the FE will just say "how do we know those original measurements were correct"...
It would really help if there was a consensus between flat earthers about an acceptable method to measure distance, and thanks Edby for proposing the triangulation method... That's the sort of thing yall need to agree on, and then go out and do. That would require quite a bit of time though so I'm thinking it will be hard to get off the ground. There's no point RE doing the work as it won't be believed :D
Thank you for thanking me. The old picture below shows how it works. You work out the base length of the triangle using a very long extendable ruler ('chain'). Then you work out the two angles between the two points to a 3rd point, and knowing this you can work out the length of the two other sides. Then, knowing the size of this triangle, you can work out the size of a third triangle based on the points of the first. And so on, working all the way down the coast of Spain.
The diagram was from a French experiment to determine the 'arc of the meridian', the length between two different points on the same longitude. This was financed through the French desire to have the meridian pass through Paris (boo) rather than London (hurrah). London won (hurrah).
Tom Bishop has claimed we don't know the distance from London to Paris. Fair enough but we do know the distance from Paris to Majorca!!!
(https://www.obspm.fr/IMG/jpg/0000053_triangulation_arago.jpg)
-
Turns out someone has already done what the OP wanted to do. This video was made by a flat earther. He used airports, published distances between the airports, used flight times to confirm the relative accuracy of the distances between the airports.
I've watched the first two videos so far, it looks like he has several more videos documenting the process. I don't subscribe to the FE model but, I'm always open to listening with an open mind. If his map works, he's got something really solid.
He makes some really high claims about this process:
"[take all the international airports] and we line them up and triangulate the positions between each airport to get the most accurate flat earth map that's ever been created. In fact, probably, this map is going to be the most accurate one ever made. And I think that this could prove, beyond all doubt, that is is a flat earth because once you've triangulated all these relative positions of these airports, the it's, it's, you can't do that on a globe if it fits the flat earth. This will offer possibly the greatest proof of all that we do live on a flat earth when this map is finished."
It will be interesting to see what his results are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3G_04zol1U
-
I followed this series of videos until he got to the part where he found there were two Australias. Then he realised there was some 'empty space' and had to fold the flat surface, inadvertently proving RE.
-
Turns out someone has already done what the OP wanted to do. This video was made by a flat earther. He used airports, published distances between the airports, used flight times to confirm the relative accuracy of the distances between the airports.
I've watched the first two videos so far, it looks like he has several more videos documenting the process. I don't subscribe to the FE model but, I'm always open to listening with an open mind. If his map works, he's got something really solid.
He makes some really high claims about this process:
"[take all the international airports] and we line them up and triangulate the positions between each airport to get the most accurate flat earth map that's ever been created. In fact, probably, this map is going to be the most accurate one ever made. And I think that this could prove, beyond all doubt, that is is a flat earth because once you've triangulated all these relative positions of these airports, the it's, it's, you can't do that on a globe if it fits the flat earth. This will offer possibly the greatest proof of all that we do live on a flat earth when this map is finished."
It will be interesting to see what his results are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3G_04zol1U
It is interesting to note that TigerDan925 is no longer a flat-earther and of course gets castigated by jeranism etc.
Have a look at this series of his videos:
Flat earth could be a big deception? Liars Scared. MAP SCAM exposed!!! TigerDan925 (https://youtu.be/-Z_TEHMnsfE)
Flat Earth Deception Part 2. Exposing Myself & others, TigerDan925 (https://youtu.be/D1YM-UWDccY) etc.
That caused a bit of a stir in the flat earth YouTube community! TigerDan925 is definitely persona non grata there now.
Flat-earthers most certainly should never research the subject too deeply and with an open mind.
Cikljamas (odiupicku on YouTube) is a similar case. He did careful curvature experiments and convinced himself that the earth was a Globe, albeit a stationary one and he's still very anti-NASA and space missions.
He now posts videos like:
ERIC DUMBAY'S 201st PROOF-make it viral or stay dumb, odiupicku (https://youtu.be/HgdQKgaCGps)
Eric Dumbay's 202nd proof-make it viral or stay dumb, odiupicku (https://youtu.be/FhQFYR9FCpc)
and mirrors Wolfie6020's "Flat Earth" videos like:
JUST WATCH THIS in silent awe - part 3, odiupicku (https://youtu.be/ZUzgDkTNGFY)
So flat-earthers, be warned, don't look too deeply into this stuff.
-
That's the first converted flat farther I've heard of :o
So Tom, back to the original question. Why don't you do what this chap did, and use the mountain of available data in the form of flight times, distances, aircraft speeds (Oh yes, the aircraft designers AND the pilots do know what speed a plane flys at) and produce your own flat earth map?
There's a well known equation, speed = distance/time or distance = speed * time. I'm sure you're not going to argue the validity of that equation?
Concerned about the effect of wind? Well, take the east/west flights and the west/east flights and work out the average. That'll give you an answer which is not 100% accurate, but near enough to prove/disprove your flat earth map.
-
That's the first converted flat farther I've heard of :o
So Tom, back to the original question. Why don't you do what this chap did, and use the mountain of available data in the form of flight times, distances, aircraft speeds (Oh yes, the aircraft designers AND the pilots do know what speed a plane flys at) and produce your own flat earth map?
There's a well known equation, speed = distance/time or distance = speed * time. I'm sure you're not going to argue the validity of that equation?
Concerned about the effect of wind? Well, take the east/west flights and the west/east flights and work out the average. That'll give you an answer which is not 100% accurate, but near enough to prove/disprove your flat earth map.
You will note that no-one convinced either TigerDan925 or cikljamas/odiupicku that the earth was not flat. They had to convince themselves.
Cikljamas/odiupicku is certainly a good experimenter and in trying to find better evidence for the flat earth instead found enough to convince himself that the earth could not be flat. Mind you he's still a ;) pain-in-the-neck ;) with his geocentric arguments on https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/.
And you've already seen how TigerDan925 convinced himself while trying to make an accurate flat earth map.
-
That's the first converted flat farther I've heard of :o
Me too. Interesting. And he did so by doing exactly what this thread suggests, trying to create a map and realising it isn't possible.
The only way to cling to flat earth belief is to make crazy assertions that airlines don't know how fast their planes are going so don't really know the distance between places, despite them reliably getting people around the globe every day. Long haul flights have those "time to destination" maps which show you where you are at all times and clearly take real time data because I've been watching them when we've had to circle before landing and the path shows that happening, they're not just representations of where the plane is.
It's telling that the people who are most entrenched on here are the ones who refuse to do any experiments or take any empirical measurements themselves. Any attempt at making a flat earth map would show that the earth cannot be flat.
-
The Flat Earth movement adopted a bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole. You can read about it in Lady Blount's works.
Many people still think that the Monopole model is possible, and have explanations for what is going on with those flights. You can YouTube it.
-
The Flat Earth movement adopted a bi-polar model in 1918 after the discovery of the South Pole. You can read about it in Lady Blount's works.
Many people still think that the Monopole model is possible, and have explanations for what is going on with those flights.
This is not about bipolar or monopolar models. It's about creating a map consistent with the distances.
http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/62/4/355
You can YouTube it.
Why on earth? This stuff has been understood for hundreds of years. Google anything to do with 'triangulation'.
(http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roynotesrec/62/4/355/F4.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1)
-
I'm sorry, but Youtube is no longer acceptable as an argument or reason. They don't have empirical evidence that is peer reviewed behind them.
-
Didn't you guys just literally link us to a YouTube video to try to show something?
-
Didn't you guys just literally link us to a YouTube video to try to show something?
I think YouTube videos are fair game for both sides, BUT then need to be scrutinised, they're not going to carry the weight of peer reviewed scientific publications.
-
Didn't you guys just literally link us to a YouTube video to try to show something?
Sorry, is it only FEers who are allowed differing opinions on things? TFES hasn't set up any sort of "acceptable evidence" for the fora, so people are bound to disagree on what is. I'm personally with AATW, I'm game for anything, but the same level of scrutiny most be applied. No playing favorites, or confirmation bias.
-
The Flat Earth movement adopted a bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole. You can read about it in Lady Blount's works.
Many people still think that the Monopole model is possible, and have explanations for what is going on with those flights. You can YouTube it.
Oddly the people of earth adopted a round earth model after the discovery of around earth.
-
The Flat Earth movement adopted a bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole. You can read about it in Lady Blount's works.
So, this?:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/c/c2/Altmap.png)
(from https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7548.0)
This exercise applies no matter what flat earth map you believe in right? Incidentally: I've flown Melbourne AU to LA USA (and back): I did not fly over the rest of the world to get there.
Also planning on travelling from Melbourne to Hawaii later in the year: that'll be interesting right? Should be 60% of the time/distance according to RE... according to that map it should be FURTHER than LA, about 115% of the distance? I'll let you know: I'll take photos if you like!
-
Didn't you guys just literally link us to a YouTube video to try to show something?
Sorry, is it only FEers who are allowed differing opinions on things? TFES hasn't set up any sort of "acceptable evidence" for the fora, so people are bound to disagree on what is. I'm personally with AATW, I'm game for anything, but the same level of scrutiny most be applied. No playing favorites, or confirmation bias.
Which will never happen, as out of the window goes EnaG straight away, and along with it all of his ridiculous hypotheses
-
The Flat Earth movement adopted a bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole. You can read about it in Lady Blount's works.
So, this?:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/c/c2/Altmap.png)
(from https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7548.0)
This exercise applies no matter what flat earth map you believe in right? Incidentally: I've flown Melbourne AU to LA USA (and back): I did not fly over the rest of the world to get there.
Also planning on travelling from Melbourne to Hawaii later in the year: that'll be interesting right? Should be 60% of the time/distance according to RE... according to that map it should be FURTHER than LA, about 115% of the distance? I'll let you know: I'll take photos if you like!
This bipolar model doesn't fix the flight problems, it just changes them to a different set of impossible-to-explain flights. It also doesn't explain the edge of the earth problem as well as the ice-wall solution. You also get several more problem like the path of the sun/moon, seasons, etc. The Pac-Man solution* goes past assumptions into fantasy.
The bipolar model is much more difficult to explain and can be confidently discarded.
*Pac-Man solution suggest the sun/moon travel across the face of the flat earth then tunnel instantaneously to the other side of the flat earth.
-
Some hypotheses regarding mapping the earth:
1. If the earth is flat it will be possible and easy to create an accurate flat representation map of the world. All distances of a flat earth will correctly line up on a flat representation.
2. If the earth is spherical it will be impossible to create an accurate flat representation map of the world. All distances of a spherical earth will incorrectly line up on a flat representation.
3. If the earth is flat it will be impossible to create an accurate spherical representation map of the world. All distances of a flat earth will incorrectly line up on a spherical representation.
4. If the earth is spherical it will be possible and easy to create an accurate spherical representation map of the world. All distances of a spherical earth will correctly line up on a spherical representation.
Ancillary hypotheses:
1a. Flat earth maps onto a flat representation would not require a projection, it's a simple 1:x ratio with no distortion.
2a. Round earth maps onto a flat representation require an inaccurate projection, there is no consistent 1:x ratio possible, all things are inconsistently distorted.
3a. Flat earth maps onto a globe representation require an inaccurate projection, there is no consistent 1:x ratio possible, all things are inconsistently distorted.
4a. Round earth maps onto a globe would not require a projection, it's a simple 1:x ratio with no distortion.
Some observations:
* All flat earth maps I have seen do not work in regard to distances. Land masses usually get distorted and distances always are incorrect somewhere. This does not match hypothesis #1.
* All round earth projections onto a flat map work generally for short distances and fail for long distances, land masses on the extremes of the map get distorted, for example, Greenland on the Mercator projection. This matches hypothesis #2.
* I have never seen anyone try to take a flat earth map and match it to a globe. This is probably because there is no accepted flat earth map and, understandably, no flat earth proponent would have a reason to attempt to place a flat earth map onto a globe. Nothing I have seen tests hypothesis #3.
* All round earth models I have seen match hypothesis #4. For example: GPS mapping, Google earth, airline flight times regardless of location on the earth, all globes I have seen, country boundary mapping, ancient long distance triangulation measurements, international shipping experiences, drive times across large distances.
My experiences are not exhaustive of course, there may be some observations that match hypothesis #1. Please include any observations that match hypothesis #1.
-
The projections have already been done of course.
The Mercator projection. Bearings are preserved, but distances are distorted. E.g. Greenland looks much bigger than it really is.
The Gnomic projection. Where great circle routes appear as straight lines. E.g. Draw a line from Japan to the UK and it goes over the artic.
There are others, but those 2 are the main ones used.
These maps all work, as I myself have used them navigating on commercial ships. No Youtube, no unproved internet sites, just personal experience. We know how fast the ship goes. We measure the distance off a map, and we arrive at the expected time.
If the earth was truly flat, surely somebody would have mapped it accurately by now, and there would be no need for these various projections. In fact, these projections wouldn't work as they wouldn't be possible. A flat planet can be represented on a flat piece of paper perfectly accurately.
-
It's commonly accepted by Flat Earth believers that there's no known map of the flat earth. The "Azimuthal Equidistant Projection" often used is just a conceptual image, it does not reflect reality, just a rough idea of what the flat earth might look like (and by "might" i mean, it's normally accepted that it's something OTHER than that map...)
So how would one go about constructing an accurate map? Obviously navigating coast lines and recording in to journals is a pain staking expensive process. But what I propose is to start with a very very simplified basic map:
Lets construct a Flat Earth map using only 12 points
For those 12 points, let's use these known cities:
- Cape Town
- Kinshasa
- Stockholm
- Beijing
- Jakarta
- Perth (West Australia)
- Anchorage (Alaska)
- Honolulu
- Auckland (New Zealand)
- Montreal
- Panama
- Buenos Aires
So question now is: how can we determine the true distances between these cities? And that's where I'm curious what Flat Earth believers think would be an acceptable method. I know "flight times" have been raised and rubbished (i.e. seen as "skeptical") a number of times, but surely there's a logical/mathematical way to still use that data? For example, theoretically planes could "lie" to us and be travelling very slowly, in order to make distances seem longer than they truly are. Plus planes can use "slipstreams" so they can go much faster than their reported specs.
I'm curious what, if any, aspects of plane data Flat Earth believes will accept? Do you accept published maximum/minimum speeds of planes? Also, do you accept the reported speeds of winds (slipstreams) in the upper atmosphere?
If you accept that data, then that will give us "maximum" and "minimum" distances for each reported flight time between those cities. That should give us a "rough" possible map of the flat earth right?
It is clear fers have been using the wrong map since whenever. I believe i have a more accurate map. This is a projection from the north pole on the accurate globe. By accounts of journeys to antartica, many seem to have followed others paths as many could not use longitude as reference. It is clear gps is still unreliable in the southern hemisphere. These paths lead me to believe that there is not a circle around fe but more like a four leģged starfish shape as in the 4 corners of the world. This would explain the few routes taken to get to antartica.
I believe you can pinpoint your locations on this map and the distances will be the same as it is the globe from above cant be anymore fairer than that?
-
Yeah that's a nice idea. Perhaps it requires a website, to coordinate such world wide effort, and code an easy way for participants to submit their finding.
Was also wondering: could short wave radio be used to measure distances? There'd no doubt be a bit of variance from atmospheric conditions, but I'm thinking the precision would be less than using flight times/plane speeds. Would also require a large amount of coordination, and not many people have short wave radios... might be able to get the SWR community interested though. I wonder if internet calibrated clocks would be accurate enough. Apparently light circles the earth about 7.5 times a second... the cities i've chosen (and can be changed) are roughly 60 degrees apart, so light/EM radiation would take about 22ms to travel 60 degrees (plus a bit more once it goes up, bounces of ionosphere, bounces back again). That's reasonably "slow" in the grand scheme of things but maybe the combination of clock accuracy and atmospheric conditions would make the data essentially useless hmm
Or use shipping distances and times: but as we've seen on this site, direct evidence from people on board such ships is tossed aside.
Maybe shipping distances are not tossed aside, just ignored.
I have posted 5 times now to ask If there is any answer to my verification of distances measured vs calculated, and the FEers have studiously ignored the post each and every time.
It’s almost like a conspiracy to avoid the questions or discussions that have difficult answers.....
As for Short wave radio, it would be possible to measure phase difference compared to distance, but you would not be able to measure what phase you were receiving as far as i remember.
Early hyperbolic navigation systems such as decca were able to to a certain extent, but you needed different widely spaced transmission bases to resolve the issue, but it was not perfect, and did not have a great range. Omega was a worldwide system used by the military with very long wavelengths to try to determine positions (mainly for submarines to get a fix before launching their missiles) which needed base stations around the world, with lots of investment and infrastructure.
Satellite based systems made them both obselete, along with Loran which was a time based measurement.......
However I am confident in my ships equipment to measure distances that we have travelled to within 2% accuracy, and this is accurate enough for a map basis. It wont be accepted because the FEers KNOW it will give a result they cannot agree with, ie the only way you can match the distances MEASURED, would be to have a globe earth, hence the rejection/ignoring/disbelief of any sort of system that tells how far apart 2 places on earth are!
What about dead reckoning. Still havent ruled that one out. Comms in southern hemisphere still an issue. Gps innacurate in southern hemisphere too.
-
Who says GPS is inaccurate in southern hemisphere? Works fine for me!
-
Who says GPS is inaccurate in southern hemisphere? Works fine for me!
South america apparently. You do know that gps works if you have a preformed map. Otherwise useless. South america dint use waaap.Im in the uk. I went to calafornia in 2010. Had to by an american chip for me garmin/tom tom. It was 3 years out if date. Surely our technology wouldn't need updating with actual geosurveys?
-
Map updates are for new roads. If you're using a gps for navigating sea, bush, desert etc you don't need to update... The map just tells you "what stuff is at that location"... The land map doesn't change. There are no gaps in GPS coverage. Whether or not a particular brand of gps keeps their road/feature maps updated: who knows. This is off topic. If flat earth trusted gps we wouldn't have to present alternate ways of calculating distances.
-
Who says GPS is inaccurate in southern hemisphere? Works fine for me!
South america apparently. You do know that gps works if you have a preformed map. Otherwise useless. South america dint use waaap.Im in the uk. I went to calafornia in 2010. Had to by an american chip for me garmin/tom tom. It was 3 years out if date. Surely our technology wouldn't need updating with actual geosurveys?
Go create a new thread for your GPS claims. This thread is about creating an accurate map of the flat earth.
-
Who says GPS is inaccurate in southern hemisphere? Works fine for me!
South america apparently. You do know that gps works if you have a preformed map. Otherwise useless. South america dint use waaap.Im in the uk. I went to calafornia in 2010. Had to by an american chip for me garmin/tom tom. It was 3 years out if date. Surely our technology wouldn't need updating with actual geosurveys?
Go create a new thread for your GPS claims. This thread is about creating an accurate map of the flat earth.
Go it. Thx