The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: 3DGeek on August 24, 2017, 06:41:50 AM

Title: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 24, 2017, 06:41:50 AM
We've basically seen two efforts at flat earth maps here.

1) The one in the Wiki has the "North Pole" in the center with straight lines of longitude radiating away from it until they reach the "ice wall" surrounding the habitable parts of the Earth...and concentric circles for the lines of latitude.

2) The one that Tom occasionally posts that has both the north pole and Antarctica present, with wavy lines for latitude and longitude.

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/flat-earth-map-flatmap-flat-earth-theory.jpg)

Now we know that Tom currently denies the first map (the one on the left, above) because he knows that the continent of Antarctica actually exists.   He also says that he doesn't know the "true" FET map of the Earth...which I suppose is fair enough.

However, there is a problem with the map on the right.

The star "Polaris" is always in the North...vertically above the North Pole.  This is a fact that has been relied upon for celestial navigation for hundreds (probably thousands) of years.

But if the map on the right is correct, then Polaris would NOT reliably point "North" in as much as the lines of longitude are curved and waving about all over the place.

Tom tells us that he believes that light travels in straight lines - so ANY FE map that has curved longitudinal lines is demonstrably wrong.

This severely restricts the range of possible maps that can be considered.   Any FET map that allows common celestial navigation has to have straight lines of longitude in any region where Polaris is visible (ie the entire region North of the Equator...PERIOD.

FINDING #1:  Lines of longitude in the Northern hemi-plane must be STRAIGHT.

Unfortunately, there is no similar star close to the South pole...but sailors have still managed to navigate there using the "Southern Cross" method.   This involves a grouping of stars which allow you to infer the location of the South pole from the intersection of imaginary lines:

(https://maas.museum/app/uploads/sites/6/2013/01/finding-south.png)

So although we don't have a convenient "anti-polaris" to work with - we can still use the stars to indicate a position that must be vertically above the South Pole.

(UPDATE: With a moderately good telescope, you can use the star "Sigma Octantis" as a "southern-pole-star because it is sufficiently close to being vertically above the South Pole)

OK - so using the same argument as with Polaris - to keep the Southern Cross (and Sigma Octantis) directly in the South - the lines of longitude must be straight there too - and that's a big problem for FET.

If you subscribe to the map on the left - the Southern cross would have to be above every point on the Ice Wall at once.   All of those places are "south" when viewed from somewhere.   Someone living in South Africa would see the Southern cross in their southern sky - and so would someone in Australia....and that's impossible.

So the map on the left is busted too.

FINDING #2: Lines of longitude in the Southern hemi-plane must be STRAIGHT.

What FET needs is a map where all of the lines of longitude run straight from the equator to the North Pole and also straight from the equator to...wherever the heck the South Pole is.

But now...unavoidably...all of the lines of longitude must have a 'kink' in them at the equator...which is truly batshit crazy...ships and aircraft would have to make sharp turns as they crossed the equator in order to keep on a southerly course.

What would happen to compasses?   How could they possibly agree with celestial navigation?

It's actually even worse than that...unless the equator is a dead straight line, there would be no way to avoid some lines of longitude from crossing each other!  But if the equator is a straight line, then circumnavigation becomes impossible (note this is a problem for the map on the right).

There is no possible Flat Earth mechanism to keep both Polaris and the Southern Cross in the right places for both celestial navigation and compass navigation.

FINDING #3:  There is no possible "flat" map that can explain both celestial and compass navigation...and since this has been in use for many hundreds of years (perhaps thousands) - we know that the Earth must be round.

QED.

(I'm betting Tom will be ignoring this one!)
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: Tau on August 24, 2017, 07:50:45 AM
Polaris is simply very far away. Moving around on the plane of the Earth and expecting to see significant movement in Polaris is like driving to the other side of town and expecting the Sun to go down.
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 24, 2017, 08:54:17 AM
Polaris is simply very far away. Moving around on the plane of the Earth and expecting to see significant movement in Polaris is like driving to the other side of town and expecting the Sun to go down.

That can't be (and it doesn't help).   Polaris is vertically overhead at the North Pole...a well established fact.  In FET, it can't be *much* higher than the Sun because it has to set over the horizon at the equator (you can't see it south of the equator).

So we can deduce that Polaris is vertically above the pole and a little more than 3000 miles above the earth.

But it actually doesn't matter where you claim it to be.   If light travels in straight lines then the lines of longitude must be straight.

Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 24, 2017, 12:29:17 PM
Your map images do not appear. You might want to reupload them. I believe I know what you are talking about, but you should fix your images first so that there is no miscommunication.
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 24, 2017, 12:46:06 PM
Your map images do not appear. You might want to reupload them. I believe I know what you are talking about, but you should fix your images first so that there is no miscommunication.
Must be an issue on your end. I see them just fine, and I would hope Tausami would have mentioned something if he was having issues. Try this link (https://lionsground-3qrhoeurtkhzvv.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/flat-earth-map-flatmap-flat-earth-theory.jpg) if need be.
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 24, 2017, 12:47:06 PM
When I click on that link:

Quote
Error 1011 Ray ID: 39366a7298ed11a1 • 2017-08-24 12:46:41 UTC
Access denied
What happened?
The owner of this website (lionsground.com) does not allow hotlinking to that resource (/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/flat-earth-map-flatmap-flat-earth-theory.jpg).
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: junker on August 24, 2017, 12:57:33 PM
When I click on that link:

Quote
Error 1011 Ray ID: 39366a7298ed11a1 • 2017-08-24 12:46:41 UTC
Access denied
What happened?
The owner of this website (lionsground.com) does not allow hotlinking to that resource (/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/flat-earth-map-flatmap-flat-earth-theory.jpg).

Same for me. I'd also suggest  re-uploading.
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 24, 2017, 01:03:50 PM
How odd. How about an imgur (http://imgur.com/VkLOH2a) 'mirror' for it?

EDIT: 3DGeek you should be able to use a direct link on that image for the same purposes in your original post.
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 24, 2017, 01:09:40 PM
Thank you.

To whomever: In the model on the right why would Polaris not be pointing North to people in the Northern Hemiplane, as stated by the OP?
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 24, 2017, 01:12:52 PM
Thank you.

To whomever: In the model on the right why would Polaris not be pointing North to people in the Northern Hemiplane, as stated by the OP?
Pick a point in NA roughly on one of the longitude lines. Draw a line straight to where that longitude line says North would be for where you are. You will not be looking at the North star unless light bends.
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 24, 2017, 01:52:45 PM
Thank you.

To whomever: In the model on the right why would Polaris not be pointing North to people in the Northern Hemiplane, as stated by the OP?
Pick a point in NA roughly on one of the longitude lines. Draw a line straight to where that longitude line says North would be for where you are. You will not be looking at the North star unless light bends.

At any point in the Northern Hemiplane you only know your own coordinates. You do not know how the longitude lines curve or orient themselves around the North Pole at great distances where you are not currently situated.
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 24, 2017, 02:05:56 PM
Thank you.

To whomever: In the model on the right why would Polaris not be pointing North to people in the Northern Hemiplane, as stated by the OP?
Pick a point in NA roughly on one of the longitude lines. Draw a line straight to where that longitude line says North would be for where you are. You will not be looking at the North star unless light bends.

At any point in the Northern Hemiplane you only know your own coordinates. You do not know how the longitude lines curve or orient themselves around the North Pole at great distances where you are not currently situated.
But, your map shows them to you. They're right there, curving. As they would need to in order to follow the magnetic lines that exist going from the N end of a bar magnet, to the S end of a bar magnet other than for someone standing ON the bar magnet.
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: junker on August 24, 2017, 02:06:53 PM
Pick a point in NA roughly on one of the longitude lines. Draw a line straight to where that longitude line says North would be for where you are. You will not be looking at the North star unless light bends.

Many UA/EA proponents support the theory that light bends. One such member on the old forum took the time to dive into the maths of it, although that was years ago. The thread on it is an interesting read, with the highlight being the following quote:


Quote from: Euclid
Success!  I have derived an equation for the path of light from the north star in the north south direction that exhibits the above assumptions.

y(x) = h - x Cot[r/h] - (x^2 (3 h - 2 r Cot[r/h] - r Tan[Pi/2 (1 - r/R)]))/r^2 - (x^3 (-2 h + r Cot[r/h] + r Tan[Pi/2 (1 - r/R)]))/r^3

y is the height of the light beam as a function of x, the distance from the north pole.  h is the height of the Sun.  r is distance of a ground observer of the light beam from the north pole.  R is the distance from the equator to the north pole.

This is a cubic equation.  Further degrees of polynomials could be used up to an infinite Taylor series, but they would require more unknown parameters.  Perhaps a theory for cause of bendy light could provide values for these unknown parameters.  Quadratic and lower polynomials are unable to satisfy the assumptions.

EDIT - There were illustrations, but it seems they are no longer available (or expired on the image host).
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 24, 2017, 02:13:25 PM
Pick a point in NA roughly on one of the longitude lines. Draw a line straight to where that longitude line says North would be for where you are. You will not be looking at the North star unless light bends.

Many UA/EA proponents support the theory that light bends. One such member on the old forum took the time to dive into the maths of it, although that was years ago. The thread on it is an interesting read, with the highlight being the following quote:


Quote from: Euclid
Success!  I have derived an equation for the path of light from the north star in the north south direction that exhibits the above assumptions.

y(x) = h - x Cot[r/h] - (x^2 (3 h - 2 r Cot[r/h] - r Tan[Pi/2 (1 - r/R)]))/r^2 - (x^3 (-2 h + r Cot[r/h] + r Tan[Pi/2 (1 - r/R)]))/r^3

y is the height of the light beam as a function of x, the distance from the north pole.  h is the height of the Sun.  r is distance of a ground observer of the light beam from the north pole.  R is the distance from the equator to the north pole.

This is a cubic equation.  Further degrees of polynomials could be used up to an infinite Taylor series, but they would require more unknown parameters.  Perhaps a theory for cause of bendy light could provide values for these unknown parameters.  Quadratic and lower polynomials are unable to satisfy the assumptions.
Yes, but Tom has said quite recently he no longer supports that hypothesis, and indeed in another thread has recently stated he agrees light does not bend. Again though you're showing why debating on here is like playing whack-a-mole with all the different ideas people have on how the FE functions.

Any chance you could make that into a link to the actual thread, or at least the profile of the speaker to make it a bit easier to take a look at? I'll admit the math looks a touch out of my league, but I might be able to find a professor at my work in the coming weeks who could help me make heads or tails of it, as well as if anything supporting it has ever been observed in a lab (which after all is the most important thing right? Tom sure seems to think so at any rate, not sure about anyone else.)
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 24, 2017, 02:23:02 PM
When I click on that link:

Quote
Error 1011 Ray ID: 39366a7298ed11a1 • 2017-08-24 12:46:41 UTC
Access denied
What happened?
The owner of this website (lionsground.com) does not allow hotlinking to that resource (/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/flat-earth-map-flatmap-flat-earth-theory.jpg).

Same for me. I'd also suggest  re-uploading.

Same here, no images
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: junker on August 24, 2017, 02:25:52 PM
Yes, but Tom has said quite recently he no longer supports that hypothesis, and indeed in another thread has recently stated he agrees light does not bend. Again though you're showing why debating on here is like playing whack-a-mole with all the different ideas people have on how the FE functions.
Tom is able to form his own opinions. I don't agree with your take in this instance, as I wasn't even trying to debate, but simply add additional perspective. In general, yes, a lack of a unified FE theory causes confusion.


Any chance you could make that into a link to the actual thread, or at least the profile of the speaker to make it a bit easier to take a look at? I'll admit the math looks a touch out of my league, but I might be able to find a professor at my work in the coming weeks who could help me make heads or tails of it, as well as if anything supporting it has ever been observed in a lab (which after all is the most important thing right? Tom sure seems to think so at any rate, not sure about anyone else.)
Sure thing, the thread on the old site can be found here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27958.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27958.0)


Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 24, 2017, 02:34:00 PM
Yes, but Tom has said quite recently he no longer supports that hypothesis, and indeed in another thread has recently stated he agrees light does not bend. Again though you're showing why debating on here is like playing whack-a-mole with all the different ideas people have on how the FE functions.
Tom is able to form his own opinions. I don't agree with your take in this instance, as I wasn't even trying to debate, but simply add additional perspective. In general, yes, a lack of a unified FE theory causes confusion.


Any chance you could make that into a link to the actual thread, or at least the profile of the speaker to make it a bit easier to take a look at? I'll admit the math looks a touch out of my league, but I might be able to find a professor at my work in the coming weeks who could help me make heads or tails of it, as well as if anything supporting it has ever been observed in a lab (which after all is the most important thing right? Tom sure seems to think so at any rate, not sure about anyone else.)
Sure thing, the thread on the old site can be found here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27958.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27958.0)
I was replying to Tom, hence why I was referring to his expressed viewpoint. I'm well aware of the other FE ideas on this particular topic, and would love to see lab experiments showing light bending as needed/described if they ever come up. But that's admittedly neither here nor there.

Thank you very much, look forward to perusing that later.

When I click on that link:

Quote
Error 1011 Ray ID: 39366a7298ed11a1 • 2017-08-24 12:46:41 UTC
Access denied
What happened?
The owner of this website (lionsground.com) does not allow hotlinking to that resource (/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/flat-earth-map-flatmap-flat-earth-theory.jpg).

Same for me. I'd also suggest  re-uploading.

Same here, no images

TominAustin, I uploaded the image to imgur for people. Now I'm wondering why I'm the only one who sees it though. Must have something to do with being on a college network. Hopefully 3DGeek returns sometime soon and can update the OP with a working image link.

How odd. How about an imgur (http://imgur.com/VkLOH2a) 'mirror' for it?

EDIT: 3DGeek you should be able to use a direct link on that image for the same purposes in your original post.
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: StinkyOne on August 24, 2017, 02:48:31 PM
Yes, but Tom has said quite recently he no longer supports that hypothesis, and indeed in another thread has recently stated he agrees light does not bend. Again though you're showing why debating on here is like playing whack-a-mole with all the different ideas people have on how the FE functions.
Tom is able to form his own opinions. I don't agree with your take in this instance, as I wasn't even trying to debate, but simply add additional perspective. In general, yes, a lack of a unified FE theory causes confusion.


Any chance you could make that into a link to the actual thread, or at least the profile of the speaker to make it a bit easier to take a look at? I'll admit the math looks a touch out of my league, but I might be able to find a professor at my work in the coming weeks who could help me make heads or tails of it, as well as if anything supporting it has ever been observed in a lab (which after all is the most important thing right? Tom sure seems to think so at any rate, not sure about anyone else.)
Sure thing, the thread on the old site can be found here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27958.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27958.0)

I ran this equation through WolframAlpha https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=y(x)+%3D+25000+-+x+Cot%5B1000%2F25000%5D+-+(x%5E2+(3+25000+-+2+1000+Cot%5B1000%2F25000%5D+-+1000+Tan%5BPi%2F2+(1+-+1000%2F10000)%5D))%2F1000%5E2+-+(x%5E3+(-2+25000+%2B+1000+Cot%5B1000%2F25000%5D+%2B+1000+Tan%5BPi%2F2+(1+-+1000%2F10000)%5D))%2F1000%5E3 (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=y(x)+%3D+25000+-+x+Cot%5B1000%2F25000%5D+-+(x%5E2+(3+25000+-+2+1000+Cot%5B1000%2F25000%5D+-+1000+Tan%5BPi%2F2+(1+-+1000%2F10000)%5D))%2F1000%5E2+-+(x%5E3+(-2+25000+%2B+1000+Cot%5B1000%2F25000%5D+%2B+1000+Tan%5BPi%2F2+(1+-+1000%2F10000)%5D))%2F1000%5E3) using the OPs numbers from the original post and the resultant graph would not explain anything concerning the position of the north pole other than to lower it for some views to ground level. (and everything else in the sky for that matter) Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: Tau on August 24, 2017, 10:39:34 PM
Polaris is simply very far away. Moving around on the plane of the Earth and expecting to see significant movement in Polaris is like driving to the other side of town and expecting the Sun to go down.

That can't be (and it doesn't help).   Polaris is vertically overhead at the North Pole...a well established fact.  In FET, it can't be *much* higher than the Sun because it has to set over the horizon at the equator (you can't see it south of the equator).

So we can deduce that Polaris is vertically above the pole and a little more than 3000 miles above the earth.

But it actually doesn't matter where you claim it to be.   If light travels in straight lines then the lines of longitude must be straight.

Sunset (and by extension, starset) is a fairly complicated phenomenon, at least in AW theory (of which I am a proponent). It's not necessarily appropriate to assume that it will work intuitively.
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: geckothegeek on August 24, 2017, 11:35:58 PM
Your map images do not appear. You might want to reupload them. I believe I know what you are talking about, but you should fix your images first so that there is no miscommunication.

I see them just fine.
But they are just the common (1)Unipolar (the map on the left) and(2) Bipolar (the map on the right) Projections (of the globe) with all the distortions of sizes, shapes and distances.
The Bipolar seems to have more problems than the Unipolar.
Not true for accurate "flat earth maps", which do not exist.
What is needed is an original "flat earth map" with all the continents in their proper shapes and sizes, with all the distances between them correct.
All of the continents, including Antarctica and Australia, have been surveyed and mapped.
Their shapes and sizes are known and accurate.
Only the globe can show these correctly......Because the earth is a globe and is not a flat disc.
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: J-Man on August 25, 2017, 12:09:13 AM
Can't see any maps.

This thread needs the round file for sure.
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: TomInAustin on August 25, 2017, 05:21:39 PM
Your map images do not appear. You might want to reupload them. I believe I know what you are talking about, but you should fix your images first so that there is no miscommunication.

I see them just fine.
But they are just the common (1)Unipolar (the map on the left) and(2) Bipolar (the map on the right) Projections (of the globe) with all the distortions of sizes, shapes and distances.
The Bipolar seems to have more problems than the Unipolar.
Not true for accurate "flat earth maps", which do not exist.
What is needed is an original "flat earth map" with all the continents in their proper shapes and sizes, with all the distances between them correct.
All of the continents, including Antarctica and Australia, have been surveyed and mapped.
Their shapes and sizes are known and accurate.
Only the globe can show these correctly......Because the earth is a globe and is not a flat disc.


It's funny that we tried to do just that.     Using know distances it is pretty simple to create a map.  If it was possible to lay out the continents on a flat map that is.
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 26, 2017, 12:38:16 PM
Sorry about the mis-posted image file...I've fixed my original post - this is the correct image:

(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/flat-earth-map-flatmap-flat-earth-theory.jpg)

The point here is to compare compass directions with the pole star.

We know that sailors (not just Toms "untrustworthy murderers") have used both celestial and compass navigation.   The two methods agree fairly well (although not perfectly because the "true" north pole and the "magnetic" north pole aren't perfectly aligned).

But the differences are small.

If that's true - then any map with curved lines of longitude cannot be correct...period.

That means that the map on the right CANNOT be correct.

The map on the left works in the northern hemisphere - but fails HORRIBLY in the south.

The only possible FE map that could resolve both celestial (pole star/southern cross) and compass readings would have lines of longitude with an abrupt kink in them at the equator...and that brings up all sorts of ungodly new problems for FET.

Busted...as usual!

 
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 26, 2017, 01:16:38 PM
If that's true - then any map with curved lines of longitude cannot be correct...period.

That means that the map on the right CANNOT be correct.

How do you know whether the longitude line you are currently at is pointing North?
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 26, 2017, 02:06:32 PM
The two methods agree fairly well (although not perfectly because the "true" north pole and the "magnetic" north pole aren't perfectly aligned).
On 3DGeeks impossible magical ball, 500 kilometers is a small, almost insignificant distance.

Hilarious.
Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: 3DGeek on August 26, 2017, 06:15:14 PM
If that's true - then any map with curved lines of longitude cannot be correct...period.

That means that the map on the right CANNOT be correct.

How do you know whether the longitude line you are currently at is pointing North?

Obviously, lines of latitude and longitude are imaginary map-makers's things.   We normally define them by reference to true north, east and west...relating to the axis of rotation of the Earth.  A degree of latitude or longitude is measured relative to the center of the Earth.

So in FET, the concept is pretty meaningless.   However, what we're talking about here is where the compass points relative to where the pole star (or southern cross method) shows us the poles.

In RET, the magnetic poles wander around a bit over time - but there is (at any given time) a definite position towards which all compasses everywhere in the world point.   The motion of the magnetic poles has been known (and tracked) since around the 1600's - and navigational charts for airplanes and ships are always careful to explain this.

In FET, using the map on the right of the image above is that EITHER the light from Polaris and the Southern Cross stars has to curve (Tom says light doesn't do that) OR the compass has to point toward different places depending on where you are on the surface.  That doesn't match what sailors (and subsequently airmen) have known for hundreds of years.

In FET using the map on the left, produces the expected results in the Northern Hemisphere - but do something crazy in the South.   Beyond the equator - in the southern hemiplane - a compass still points North - but the Southern cross would have to be simultaneously in wildly different places for different viewers in order for it to match what real sailors and airmen see.

If FET is true then the compass needle would have to 'flip' from pointing with "North" towards the Northern (magnetic) Pole to pointing with "South" towards the southern magnetic pole as you crossed the equator.  That doesn't happen - but it must if the compass heading is to be consistent with the direction from celestial navigation.

Neither map works...they are both equally "broken".

Tom may yet tell us that there is some other (as yet unknown) map that will resolve this - but it can't.  You can't simultaneously have the needle point to the magnetic north and toward the magnetic south as it does in reality...and ALSO have it point (with an appropriate error) toward Polaris and the Southern Cross.



Title: Re: Alternative maps problems.
Post by: CriticalThinker on August 26, 2017, 06:23:34 PM
The two methods agree fairly well (although not perfectly because the "true" north pole and the "magnetic" north pole aren't perfectly aligned).
On 3DGeeks impossible magical ball, 500 kilometers is a small, almost insignificant distance.

Hilarious.

Please explain how it's impossible for the earth to be a ball.  I will accept all forms of peer reviewed scientific literature produced in the last 30 years as evidence of your claim.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker