Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - SteelyBob

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?
« on: February 27, 2021, 08:51:19 AM »

How are you so confident that the "standard" round earth map is so accurate?

I've seen this baseless and shallow argument pop up countless times in these forums.

How am I so confident? Personally, because I have navigated over large distances, on land, sea and air, using distances and bearings derived from the widely agreed globe earth mapping. Moreover, the shape of the world features in almost aspect of our lives, and on both micro and macro levels I'm not aware of a single example of the dimensions of any country or continent being found to be wrong. Every flight, every long distance truck journey, railway, global shipping operations...they all use this data and don't find it wanting.

So, nobody has ever found a problem with it, and there is not a single FE map that's presented on this website that doesn't have an immediate, obvious problem with it. When these problems are pointed, they get waved away as if the presence of lots of other equally wrong FE maps somehow makes it ok. Falling back on 'we aren't quite sure which map is correct yet' fails to account for the fact that all of the proposed maps and models are wrong - none of them match our observed earth.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?
« on: February 26, 2021, 09:53:08 PM »
I don't think there is a standard RE map. There seem to be several different ones if you look for them. Many of them offer a very euro-centric view of the world with Europe given greater space than is accurate. How can RE maps be assumed "accurate" if they have these inbuilt biases? FE maps should avoid this pitfall I think.
BTW I'm new so go easy on me!

The ‘standard RE map’ is a globe.

Everything else suffers from some sort of error, and which errors you choose to live with depends on what you need the map for and, yes, bias certainly creeps in - witness the fact that we choose to orientate the earth north-up, for example.

However, the fact that it is impossible to accurately represent a globe earth on a flat map is not in any way an argument to support the contention that the earth isn’t a globe.

Flat earth, on the other hand, shouldn’t have any such problem - it should be easy to create a map of the world, with distances and bearings all accurately represented. The fact is that it can’t be done, and there’s a very good reason for that.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel
« on: February 26, 2021, 05:41:31 PM »
I think we can all agree that there's a density gradient in the air - air density reduces with increasing altitude.

I haven't heard specific claims to the contrary, but this would imply that if you go high enough you would reach (almost) empty Space. Space is disputed by some FE advocates, who insist that a dome is required to hold the atmosphere in (because there is no Gravity).

Ah, they don't think gravity exists, but they do (mostly) think the earth is accelerating upwards at 1g, so the density gradient is consistent with that at least. Don't ask about the need for an enormous power source, or the absence of explanation for why and how the planets and stars accelerate at the same rate. Just go with it. 

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel
« on: February 26, 2021, 11:46:13 AM »
I will not attempt to best your ascii art, however I think I can help you understand.

There is a density gradient in our air that causes light to bend (convexly) towards the water as the light travels through it.

The light from the bottom of distant objects is diverted into the water first because of this (primarily/initially)

I think we can all agree that there's a density gradient in the air - air density reduces with increasing altitude.

If I'm, say 10 feet above the sea level, observing an object that's also 10 feet above the sea, then it seems we can all also agree that, contrary to Rowbotham as AATW points out, as I move further away from that object then it will progressively appear to dip lower and lower until such a time as it goes below the horizon.

I would say that's because the earth is curved. You're saying it's because the light from it curves down due to the 'density gradient'. But if I'm 10 feet above the water, and the object is also 10 feet above the water, then the air density in a straight line between us is constant, so why would the light curve?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?
« on: February 25, 2021, 09:12:45 PM »

The map I linked solves for those distance discrepancies with an interactive scale.  Also this is not a reason why the FE community would reject such a map.

That is absolutely a reason to reject a map. If the earth is flat, why does a flat map of it need a variable scale? If it's got a variable scale, that means different countries, continents etc have distorted sizes - that's not much of a map, is it? If the earth is flat, it should be possible to create a flat map of it with a single scale, where bearings and distances are perfectly accurate / to scale.

But it can't be done, and there's a good reason for that.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?
« on: February 25, 2021, 04:37:28 PM »
Which FE maps are you referring to? represents the earth as a FLAT 2d surface with an interactive scale. I've used maps similar to this to navigate many different continents during my travels so I can corroborate, based on my observations, that a model of the earth like this does appear to be correct.

That's not a FE map. That is a flat map of a round earth. It is a projection, with all the errors one would expect from a projection. As with most attempts to display the earth on a flat piece of paper (or screen), the further away from the equator you get, the more exaggerated distances appear. If you zoom out to show as much of the world as you can, the problem becomes apparent very quickly. Yes, when zoomed in they can show you a scale that will work pretty well, but when you zoom out...not so much. Look at Alaska, for example. Looking North-South, Alaska spans roughly 55N to 70N, a distance of around 900nm. Australia, on the other hand, spans from roughly 10S to 40S. But on Bing, as with many other projections, the two appear to be roughly the same distance.

Likewise, the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line on your Bing map - it's a great circle, which would be curved on that projection.

A flat earth would be a wonderful thing from a cartography point of view - so much simpler. Shortest distances would be straight lines. Headings and distances would be easily measurable at any scale...a complete doddle. Problem is, the world stubbornly refuses to be representable on a flat surface, and there's a good reason for that - it's spherical.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?
« on: February 23, 2021, 07:07:50 PM »
Quote from: iamcpc

Because there is no map which is not weakened by measurements and observations the majority of the community has not agreed on a map.

And yet there are no measurements or observations that ‘weaken’ the RE model. Why might that be?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Southern Cross
« on: February 22, 2021, 07:30:20 AM »

This would work in the bipolar model, but would not work (as far as I can see) in the unipolar model. So, let's see what we can find for this one, eh?

It does not even work in a bi-polar model because the stars would have to rotate about two different points and in two different directions.

There are many models, some of which are bi-polar and some of which are not, but none of them can explain how the stars can rotate around two different points.

Hi there. As you'll see from the abrupt ending to this thread last month, this isn't a subject that FET has many answers for. I'm still waiting to hear what the 'many reasons' for my 'patently false' statement about Sigma Octantis were.

Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth
« on: February 21, 2021, 03:21:44 PM »
Why has nobody made an attempt to create a detailed map based on the known country-and city locations alone ? That would be my first step if I believed the world to be flat, to create a working alternative.

They probably have, but I would guess they very quickly ran into a fundamental problem. If you take a large place, like Australia, and try to draw a FE map of it on a flat piece of paper, you might get all the distances working pretty well, but you will very quickly discover that directions stop working. If you want keep places that are far apart and on a north-south relationship, for example, you will find that you can't keep them all north-south and preserve the distances between them. This is because, of course, lines of longitude get closer together as you get further south. So if you want to keep north-south relationships, and retain some kind of lat-long consistency, then you have to distort the shapes of countries to achieve that. And that, I think, is what has happened in most of the FE maps in the wiki - they seem to be trying to keep the RE lat-long system, and in so doing, everything gets distorted.

For most people, you might think, the impossibility of representing the known world on a flat map might be a cue to reconsider your understanding of the shape of it, but that does not seem to bother the FE community.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments
« on: February 19, 2021, 12:04:20 PM »

I can connect a string! The pencils must be pointing at each other.  ::) the incorrect thing to conclude from your thought experiment. As AATW says, spheres can't point. What you have proved, however, is that the pencils are orientated east-west on your gridded plane as illustrated. If you want to get from one to the other, you travel east or west respectively. In the same way, by connecting the moon to the sun with a piece of string you have established the direction from one to the other. And if that direction in consistent with the side of the moon that appears to be illuminated, which it always is - go outside and try it sometime - then you have taken the mystery out of the illusion.

Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth
« on: February 19, 2021, 08:41:03 AM »
So first you claim to have odometer data, and now you don't have that data after all?

No, I didn't say that, did I Tom? I said:

If it wasn't, for example, about 4800km by road from Brisbane to Perth, then we would know about it because lots of people would be pointing out that their odometers bore no resemblance to the distance predicted by google, or waze, or their old-fashioned road atlas.

Now you backtrack on that and instead show a link which says that two young people cycled 4800 km in 30 days. Here is another link which says that an elderly grandfather cycled 11,616 km in 30 days.

I was using that as one example of a journey where people meticulously planned a journey and then lived and breathed every mile of it. If the distances were wrong, they would know about it. And that, as you well know, is merely one example of many if you cared to look. There are countless websites documenting routes, with distances and rough times, and they are all entirely coherent with the distances you get from google, or indeed any road atlas. Here's just one:
Likewise, as mentioned by Duncan, all the other travel methods, such as rail, are also completely coherent.
Doesn't look like you've provided much in the way of solid evidence on this to me.

Well what do you need? What would you accept as proof of the dimensions of Australia, or North America, or anywhere? You presumably don't require first-hand experience of a country to believe that it exists, otherwise you would need to have visited everywhere yourself to verify that each country does in fact exist, so what makes you think that Australia is even vaguely shaped the way it is? All of the FE maps in the wiki have some kind of nod to Australia, with some kind of shape, but what makes you accept them as valid? You must therefore presumably accept some kind of consensus view on the subject, which then raises the question: why would you reject an overwhelming consensus on dimensions?

Also, the shape and size of Australia is different among all of the Flat Earth maps. Which one are you trying to debunk?

All of them. They are all wrong in at least one very obvious way. Take just a handful of useful rules of thumb - Australia is about 4800km across and 3600km north to south from the tip of the 'horn' of Northern Queensland down to Melbourne. Australia is also roughly the same width as mainland USA, at its widest point. So any FE map where Australia doesn't roughly match the width of the USA is obviously wrong, which immediately rules out most of the ones on the wiki. Likewise, any FE map where Australia is taller than it is wide is also obviously wrong, ruling out both of the bi-polar maps.

As an aside, if there was genuine curiosity in the FE community about the size and shape of the world, why is there a complete absence of enquiry regarding which of the competing maps is correct? You all just seem perfectly content to have a set of maps that are completely at odds with each other, despite being equipped with the tools you need to verify simple distances between known places. It's almost as if you'd rather not know...


Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth
« on: February 18, 2021, 09:40:58 PM »
What data did you base your statement on and where can we find it?

You want evidence to support the distance across australia? I got my figure(s) from google maps, but the point is that the data you get from google, or indeed any other app, is backed up by thousands of people making journeys every day. At the extreme end of the scale, you have people like this:

If the distance wasn't what it was said to be, then their planning simply wouldn't work, would it? And nor would countless others. And every long journey in Australia done by car would trigger an odd mismatch between the planned distance and the reality recorded on the vehicle's odo. In road haulage particularly, those differences would get noticed very quickly.

Are you suggesting that it is not, in fact, about 4800km across Australia as I described?

Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth
« on: February 18, 2021, 07:58:12 PM »
There are anomalous winds in the southern hemisphere -

If you are going to try to use travel times to show evidence for a particular model, you need to do better than provide information from an area known to be anomalous.

I used road journeys in my example Tom. The wind doesn't affect them. And I didn't say 'times', I said 'distances'. As in: 'what people measure using their car odometers', for example.

Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth
« on: February 18, 2021, 06:50:24 PM »
If you're moving longitude lines around and changing distances from what they are in reality
If you presume RET from the onset, then there is no point in you debating FET vs RET. In that case, you should probably leave the discussion to those who are interested.

But distances between known points, particularly those over land, don't require a presumption of a particular earth shape as they are verified by countless road journeys that match predictions perfectly. If it wasn't, for example, about 4800km by road from Brisbane to Perth, then we would know about it because lots of people would be pointing out that their odometers bore no resemblance to the distance predicted by google, or waze, or their old-fashioned road atlas. Mainland USA, for example, is roughly the same width at its widest point, just south of the border with Canada, as Australia is - if those two countries on your FE maps aren't the same width, roughly, then something is clearly amiss, and it doesn't require any prior belief about the shape of the earth for that to be true. 

Are we seriously suggesting that distances along major roads between major cities are wrong?

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?
« on: February 18, 2021, 12:44:28 PM »
And, for people like RazaTD (who simply come down here and post a deluge of nonsensical questions they think are "gotchas"), the Wiki would be a good starting point. Sure, it's not perfect, and some branching out to old threads and other FE resources will be necessary, but gosh darn it if I waste any more time on your insincere defence of permanoobs permanoobing.

I think it's more fundamental than that. If its authors wish to be taken seriously, then the wiki needs to be either one of two things. It can either be effectively an 'opinion piece', making a single coherent argument for a particular FE model, or it can be a collection of discourse summarising the various competing arguments. The reason it is getting ripped to shreds so much is that it is trying to be both - you have pages that make a singular argument for a particular thing, such as UA, other pages that make contradictory statements, but yet nowhere that pulls these arguments together. So it's not a case of 'it needs tidying up a bit', but rather a fundamental issue with the entire way it is constructed.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.
« on: February 17, 2021, 03:34:20 PM »
I wonder if the original question about stars will ever be answered?

I very much doubt that it will be. Tom simply referred to the EA section of the wiki, which is just hopelessly short of being a coherent theory. It doesn't explain why the stars appear to move as one body, rotating around the respective celestial poles, for example - if there was some property of light that caused it to be bent in one plane only, as EA requires, then the star 'picture' we see would distort as the rotation occurred. But it doesn't do that - the only distortion we observe is that caused by refraction, which tends to only really be noticeable very close to the horizon. Oddly, despite arguing strongly for the ability of the atmosphere to distort, Action80 is simultaneously arguing that it isn't possible for light to be refracted around a very small angle of the earth's curvature, as well as some very odd comments about shimmer that I don't think anyone has really decoded.

The other obvious problem is the southern celestial pole and its constant southerly bearing regardless of longitude - that makes no sense on the monopole FE map, and the other FE maps designed to cater for that require ridiculous twists of distance that defy even a basic understanding of geography, and indeed history.

We then got sidetracked into lakes and waves, which is where, it seems, a great deal of FE conversations end up. It's utterly mystifying - there is no photo, video or situation I've ever seen that can't be explained by RE geometry and refraction, and many 'FE proof' videos contain footage that clearly would not be possible if the earth was flat, such as any distant object with a lower portion obscured by the horizon. As AllAroundTheWrold rightly points out, unless you are right down amongst the waves, it's impossible for a wave to obscure an object that is taller than the wave itself, so entire ship's hulls, or large portions of tall buildings, for example, aren't just being obscured by waves on a flat earth - there must be something else going on, which of course is the fact that earth's surface is curved.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?
« on: February 17, 2021, 08:42:44 AM »
My point is that you told somebody to 'familiarise themselves with the wiki'
That wasn't quite my request, was it? Can we at the very least agree on the words that I wrote? Surely this isn't asking for much.

True enough - I paraphrased you in a way I thought was representative of the general thrust of your comment:

The variance in gravity is largely attributed to gravitational forces. Please, familiarise yourself with the basics before posting here. We're not to read out the Wiki out loud to you.

Apologies if you think that was unfair. I'd say my broader point still stands - you made an assertion about UA and gravitational forces and then referred him to the wiki. But which bit of the wiki would you 'read out loud' to somebody who wanted to know about UA but was too lazy to read it themselves? Because the UA section doesn't say what you said in that comment, and other sections directly contradict the bit that does.

The sun changes apparent size no matter what model you ascribe to.  Whether that change in size is discernable with our level of precision is the only question.

Wether the size of the sun will change depends on how far away it is, how much it moves away from the observer, and what we are looking through (and wilder stuff, like if the sun itself changes shape/size over the time viewed). 

Although we erronrously/disingenuously teach children that we know the answers to those questions - honestly/critically we do not.

There is no flat earth model to debunk.  You are beating up an inanimate strawman by yourself - alone.

So, if you’re saying the sun changes apparent size, you must presumably have some idea of by how much, and in what way? So what angular size is the sun at different times of the day, or viewed from different parts of the planet?

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?
« on: February 15, 2021, 05:30:41 PM »
Why should determining the shape of the earth require blind faith in anything?  Are you saying we can't know the shape of the earth with certainty without blindly trusting data/sources we can't verify independently?

Good point.  I've driven and flown to enough places on the planet to verify that the distances reported are indeed accurate, by personal observation.  These distances are comparable with a round Earth, but don't fit any of the Flat Earth maps.

This entire statement is objectively false.

Any map you have used is flat.

It is not 'objectively false'. Nobody is saying that you can't have flat maps. Let go of the straw man. He has thrown in the towel. Well done.

What we are saying is that flat maps of a round earth have limitations, depending on the projection used. You might be able to measure headings accurately, for example, or not. You might be able to measure distances accurately, as long as they aren't too large, or not. Or maybe they have lat/long markings on them, in which case you (or a computer) can calculate great circle distances with great precision, and maybe get a list of suitable headings to follow for that great circle (great circle headings aren't usually constant).

The point is that these dimensions and headings work perfectly. They correlate perfectly with celestial observations, with magnetic bearings, and with speed/distance/time calculations. Nobody has ever navigated correctly with a recent round earth map and found a massive error - flights and ships get where they are going just fine. And yet the FE maps shown in the wiki, and elsewhere, all require massive distortions of the known world, which would put even simple car journeys at odds with the observed reality. 

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?
« on: February 15, 2021, 03:24:42 PM »
Before trashing people for not understanding the wiki, it would be helpful if you could collectively agree on a stance to take.
Why would we do that? Multiple competing models exist, and the Wiki's job is to document the past and present of the Flat Earth Theory. If you don't understand the purpose of the resource you're reading, you're going to have a bad time.

Some, like Tom, question the measurability of these effects as a whole. Others, like myself, propose an explanation, without necessarily disagreeing with Tom. If you have measured a variation in gravity, and if UA is true, then it is rather obvious that the variation you have measured did not come from UA, but rather gravitation. It's not a "problem with UA" as RE sycophants will gleefully claim, it's just an additional, external factor. This isn't complicated.

You will also note RonJ's immediate attempt at reframing the discussion - he moved away from "gravitational forces" to "the Sun and Moon", specifically, and others like Raza immediately fell for it. Anything to keep the fantasy going, I guess.

My point is that you told somebody to 'familiarise themselves with the wiki', but yet the part of the wiki you referred to earlier doesn't address the point - it covers UA, but doesn't mention variations in local g measurements. Furthermore, different parts of the wiki contradict each other on this subject - some bits say there are variations, others say there aren't. The reason people ridicule the wiki is because it is ridiculous - if you want to say it's a summary of competing theories and models, then fine - but in that case don't have each page written as if it is the 'truth'. If you want it to be a proposal for a coherent set of arguments, then the internal contradictions need to be removed. 

[edited for a typo]

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8  Next >