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 - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 262  Next >
1
Flat Earth Community / Re: FE Conference Denver
« on: Today at 12:30:08 AM »
I would like to return to the creation and the expanse:

https://www.biblica.com/bible/nasb/genesis/1/

Quote
The Creation

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.

Day 1: God creates the heavens and the earth. The earth is water and devoid of land.

Day 2: God divides the waters vertically and creates the expanse.

Day 3: God says "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"

Reading this literally, from the most literal version of the bible, God created the expanse below the earth that we are on, not above it.

In the FE vs Geocentrism debate that Stack had posted, at one point, Robert Sungenis quotes a scholar who says (paraphrased) “God created something on the Second Day. We just don’t know what it is.”

2
Light is curving. We can see the inferior mirage on the surface as the drone descends.

3
Flat Earth Community / Re: FE Conference Denver
« on: December 16, 2018, 06:35:38 PM »
"Go the way of all earth" is a Hebrew idiom meaning "to die."

You are right. The phrase is found elsewhere in the bible of another good and righteous figure who was going to die. King David also says it in 1 Kings 2:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings+2&version=NASB

Quote
David’s Charge to Solomon

As David’s time to die drew near, he charged Solomon his son, saying, “I am going the way of all the earth. Be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man. Keep the charge of the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to what is written in the Law of Moses, that you may succeed in all that you do and wherever you turn, so that the Lord may carry out His promise which He spoke concerning me, saying, ‘If your sons are careful of their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.’

I do find it interesting that a group of people who believed that they were going to heaven when they died, and who wrote the bible through God, would say that they were "going the way of all of the earth" when they died. The bible says that language is a gift to man by God (Tower of Babel), which was a gift given to a period closer to Joshua than to today.

And I am asking why you are doing that.
What makes you think that Scripture is intended to or trying to teach us scientific truths?

The ancients who wrote the bible did hold that they were transcribing scientific truth. Why would they write a bunch of things which suggest that the earth is flat if they believed that the earth was round? Why would God tell us lies or false things? The truth is that they didn't believe that.

Our previous knowledge of the world is important for a number of reasons. Some hold, as Rowbotham did, that this previous science was never legitimately replaced. This matter is not even an argument of whether the spiritual nature is true or not. What does our previous science say about the earth? What did we believe before? That should be of interest to all people, religious or not.

Quote
You can interpret certain verses in different ways and your confirmation bias is making you interpret them in ways which fit your world view.

Whose interpretation am I supposed to give if not my own? I had read the bible, long before I ever thought of a Flat Earth, and the motionless earth never really jumped out at me. Is it possible that I am entirely wrong? Sure.

If passages show that there are a bunch of things that say or suggest that the earth can move, or is moving, then that evidence just needs to be collected and compiled for further assessment and consideration. We have only been looking at this for a little while and already it's a good start.

Other biblical scholars (non-geocentric RE'ers) do believe that the bible allows for movement. It is not as if I am alone in that matter.

4
Flat Earth Community / Re: FE Conference Denver
« on: December 16, 2018, 01:53:05 AM »
We are discussing literal interpretation of the bible. What does the bible say and describe? Is the earth in motion? It seems to me that the earth is rising upwards in the bible.

Let us read Joshua's Farewell Address from the NASB:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua+23&version=NASB

Quote
Joshua’s Farewell Address

Now it came about after many days, when the Lord had given rest to Israel from all their enemies on every side, and Joshua was old, advanced in years, that Joshua called for all Israel, for their elders and their heads and their judges and their officers, and said to them, “I am old, advanced in years. And you have seen all that the Lord your God has done to all these nations because of you, for the Lord your God is He who has been fighting for you. See, I have apportioned to you these nations which remain as an inheritance for your tribes, with all the nations which I have cut off, from the Jordan even to the Great Sea toward the setting of the sun..."

"Now behold, today I am going the way of all the earth, and you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one word of all the good words which the Lord your God spoke concerning you has failed; all have been fulfilled for you, not one of them has failed."

Joshua is a major figure in the book of Exodus, and an associate of Moses. Joshua was appointed by God to succeed Moses as leader of the Israelites, and has a book in scripture. The Book of Joshua is a book of the Bible. In this passage Joshua is very old and is giving his farewell address. Joshua tells us that today he will be going the way of all the earth. For Joshua, presumably that way is up, not down, and definitely not around the sun. A statement which, when taken literally, tells us that the earth is going the way of somewhere; that the earth is rising upwards.

5
Flat Earth Community / Re: FE Conference Denver
« on: December 15, 2018, 11:41:34 AM »
Interestingly, despite the fame and the insistance, the words "motionless," "stationary," and "immovable," appear nowhere in the bible in regards to the earth.

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com searches across over 30 different versions/translations of the bible.

Motionless - 4 instances, unrelated to earth

Stationary - 1 instance, unrelated to earth

Immovable - 7 instances, unrelated to earth

...

The New American Standard Bible

The NASB is touted by scholarship as the most literal. From the NASB Wikipedia page: "The New American Standard Bible is considered by some sources as the most literally translated of major 20th-century English Bible translations."

0 NASB references for "stationary"

1 unrelated NASB reference for "motionless"

The relevant "immovable" quotes from the New American Standard Bible:

Quote
Psalm 93:1 NASB

The Lord reigns, He is clothed with majesty;
The Lord has clothed and girded Himself with strength;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.

Psalm 96:10 NASB

Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved;
He will judge the peoples with equity.”

1 Chronicles 16:30 NASB

Tremble before Him, all the earth;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved

Psalm 104:5 NASB

He established the earth upon its foundations,
So that it will not totter forever and ever.

All four of these quotes seem to be saying the same thing about its establishment, the last one the most specific. This is all that I could find when cross-correlating from the standard "the earth is immovable" scripture lists of passages that speak of immobility. All are talking about its establishment, with one being more specific about the matter of movement than others.

The NASB does not use the word "immovable" for the earth anywhere in its pages. There are three unrelated references for "immovable" in the NASB. Nor could any other related references be found for "not moved" or "not moving" or "still".

The ancients certainly knew the words for "motionless" and "immovable," as they use them in other areas of the bible, but it is not used for the earth.

The earth being established so that it will not totter, does not equal motionless, stationary or immovable. Those were words attributed and popularized by a geocentrist somewhere. The earth being fixed in establishment so that it will not move from it (which seems to be clarified as totter) also does not directly equal 'is not moving' or 'can not move'. Especially when we look up what the foundation is.

When assessing these passages one sees that it does not appear to literally say that at all. We also see that the ancients certainly could have specifically said motionless if they wanted to. There was language available to specifically declare the earth as motionless or still. Those words appear in other areas, of other things. In the case of "still," a great many times. They could have said it, but did not.

And, even if we ignore all else, which we shouldn't, and focus on four words, "will not be moved," with no other context at all, as the geocentrists have us selectively interpret; Will not be moved to what and to whom? Whatever that answer, it is certainly not something which would apply as a limit to God and His will for the world. For God is the Almighty, and also, there are numerous instances of God moving the earth.

I am collecting items to submit and will be curious to see whether this interpretation is possible at all.

6
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: One degree of longitude
« on: December 15, 2018, 11:07:21 AM »
Edby,

NAD doesn't use a Longitude or Latitude coordinate system.

The coordinates on the plane survey maps are simple integers.

Latitude and Longitude is a system for a globe in these models, and is not native to the planar maps. It is a spherical coordinate system.

If you are figuring out what the globe's Latitude and Longitude would be for the State Plane Coordinates you are interpreting a plane onto a globe, for the location of that plane on the globe model.

Here we see the State Plane Coordinates (SPC) and the associated Lat and Lon for the location on a sphere.

wvgis.wvu.edu/conference/2014/Wed_Track3/Iskic_NorthAmerican_Datums.pptx



The SPC coordinates look much different than the Latitude and Longitude's spherical coordinates.

This ad-hoc system they have is part sphere and part plane. You are arguing on basis of the spherical coordinate piece of it to justify your spherical earth.

I don't even hold that the longitude lines would widen, myself, as I have always been a proponent of the Bi-Polar model. I just see that the analysis on this matter appears to be flawed.

Rowbotham is actually referring to manual ways to find longitude, as was done in his time... The spherical geographical model that is associated with these planar maps is literally a sphere.

7
Flat Earth Community / Re: FE Conference Denver
« on: December 15, 2018, 02:20:33 AM »
Who knows? Perhaps these interpretations have not been fully considered.

What is the foundation? God or the hand of God. What are pillars? Things in the Bible that often move vertically and are non-solid.

Some of the ancient holy books even make extensive use of invisible pillars that move the celestial bodies up and down. I'll collect a few more examples of these things and send it out to some of them.

My interest is not to debate them at all, only to bring it to attention and ask them whether this is possible.

8
Flat Earth Community / Re: FE Conference Denver
« on: December 15, 2018, 12:12:19 AM »
Although Job tells us that the earth is over a void, other passages state that the earth is on a foundation. This appears to conflict.
This is one of the reasons why I personally don't like using the Bible as evidence for the shape of the earth either way.  As a book of faith, such contradictions don't really matter.  However, such contradictions are not desirable in a book of science.

The passages I quoted shows that it is not a contradiction. The Corinthians passages comes from a section called "Christ Our Foundation." The foundation is God, or the hand of God. The foundation is not some plane or object that the earth rests on. The earth exists over a void, just as stated in Job.

I have looked for other descriptions of the foundation, and that is all that could be found. An eternal plane or cosmic body is not described.

If we want to talk about a literal interpretation of the bible, we should take it all literally, not some. Long ago the Round Earth geocentrists chose their own selected quotes, which the wider Flat Earth community has accepted. However, those RE geocentrists don't like passages of the earth shaking, passages of the earth falling, the earth rising, being hung, or God dividing the waters vertically to make the expanse. Not only do they put the earth into motion, they suggest that the earth is flat. So they were ignored. They were ignored, just as all of the other Flat Earth passages, not discussed here, which suggest a Flat Earth were ignored. When the bible is looked at as a whole, we see that those immovable quotes do not add up.

One would practically have to argue that the earth is immovable to God Himself as to make such an absolutist declaration. And it is difficult to see how this is maintainable.

The Flat Earth community should see that there was a lot of bias in the selection of those quotes. Unlike the geocentrists, who basically ignore half of the bible to get their immobile Round Earth, not once have I ignored a quote I that came across in researching this matter. And that should not be too much to ask of the Flat Earth community, or any student of the bible.

9
Flat Earth Community / Re: FE Conference Denver
« on: December 14, 2018, 10:16:00 PM »
The foundations of the earth, which we had read were fixtures that keep the earth from wobbling, are shaken by God in His judgment of man's rebellion, completely destroying the earth.
I could be wrong, but I would think that the earth having a foundation would preclude it from accelerating upwards.

Although Job tells us that the earth is over a void, other passages state that the earth is on a foundation. This appears to conflict. What is the foundation? How can the earth both be over a void and on a foundation? The most explicit description of the foundation is found in Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 3:11: "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

It says directly above that the foundation is Jesus Christ.

Isaiah 48:13 tells us: "Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together."

Isaiah tells us that God founded the earth with His left hand, and the heavens are spread with His right hand, and that when He calls to them (presumably His hands), they stand together. This reads as verification of what the foundation is.

10
Flat Earth Community / Re: FE Conference Denver
« on: December 14, 2018, 06:54:47 PM »
There may not necessarily be any debate to be had. The information can simply be provided as catalyst with a question mark, and the community can decide on what is meant by these things. I am more interested in asking them if it is possible. And if so, and if there is enough scriptural support on the matter, then the rising earth can be their own idea.

We find an extract from God's Impending Judgement of the Earth:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+24&version=HCSB

Quote
For the windows are opened from heaven,
and the foundations of the earth are shaken.
The earth is completely devastated;
the earth is split open;
the earth is violently shaken.
The earth staggers like a drunkard
and sways like a hut.
Earth’s rebellion weighs it down,
and it falls, never to rise again.

The foundations of the earth, which we had read were fixtures that keep the earth from wobbling, are shaken by God in His judgment of man's rebellion, completely destroying the earth.

Earth's rebellion weighs it down. The earth will fall, never to rise again. Again? Again appears to say that the earth is normally rising, or at least that it has risen before. That sentence could have been written without the "again," but it was not. Falling, rising, both contradict the supposed absolute rule for the immovability of the earth. All other versions of this passage, selectable through the top drop-down menu on that page, have the same "never to rise again" statement.

Will those who champion literal interpretation of scripture accuse me of taking the scripture too literally? Or, could it be that this information is new, and was discarded in importance by geocentric Round Earth interpretation long ago?

11
Flat Earth Community / Re: FE Conference Denver
« on: December 14, 2018, 01:26:18 AM »
Quote from: Bobby
But would those who adhere to the prescription that the earth is flat because the bible says so be open to a less literal interpretation of the immovability of the earth?

I would ask, what is the definition of immovable? According to Google Dictionary the main definition of immovable is "not able to be moved."

If something is immovable, it means that you can't move it. God, however, is not man, and can and does move the earth in scripture. There are several passages in scripture where God moves the earth.

Psalm 99 says "The Lord reigns, let the nations tremble; he sits enthroned between the cherubim, let the earth shake."

Isaiah 24-19: "The earth is broken up, the earth is split asunder, the earth is violently shaken."

From the above passage the earth can move, if God chooses it to do so. It can be shaken. It can be split asunder. It can be broken up. Reading the bible very literally, we can conclude that God can move the earth if God wishes to do so. It is man who cannot move the earth. Nor can the earth move to other causes. Further, we saw quotes that clarify that immovable may be in the context that it cannot wobble.

Would you agree that a heavy and powerful train is (generally) immovable from its track? Would you also agree that such a heavy and powerful train would be entirely immovable to an infant? Man is that infant.

If God is saying that something is immovable, we can see that it is clear that the implication is that it is immovable to man or the elements, not God. If God were moving the earth or the universe as a whole, He would still tell you that you cannot move it. The literal definition of immovable is true (to you).

If it is asserted that the Bible says that the earth is immovable, the question becomes: "Immovable to what and to whom?" Certainly not to God. And if it does not apply to God, then the Bible therefore tells us that the earth is movable -- through God.

12
Flat Earth Community / Re: FE Conference Denver
« on: December 13, 2018, 07:17:25 PM »
I think we can be honest here. The main reason the wider Flat Earth community rejects FES and UA is because scripture says that the earth is fixed and immovable.

In my opinion this is not what scripture states, however.

Chronicles 16:30 says: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

Usually this is interpreted to mean that the earth is not moving.

Other sections clarify what that means:

Psalm 104:5 clarifies: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."

Another translation of Psalm 104:5 states "He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever."

I read the above as the purpose and function of the foundation being for bringing stability to the earth. It is immovable and fixed in the sense that it can't wobble or totter. In Job, in fact, we read that the earth isn't actually resting on a foundational plane or entity.

Job 26:7 ESV: "He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing."

The earth is over a void. Further, the earth is being hung. What do you do when you hang things? You lift them up. The above word "hangs" is a verb, an action word, something that is happening. If you hang something on nothing you will have to continue to hang it on nothing. Hanging also implies being pulled in the opposite direction from "gravity".

Scripture also says that the earth rests upon pillars:

Samuel 2:8 says, "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s and he had set the world upon them."

Usually this is interpreted to mean solid and unmovable pillars.

Yet, in other areas of scripture, we see that pillars tend to move up and down:

Exodus 33:9 says "And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the LORD talked with Moses."

Numbers 12:5 relates "And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth"

We see that pillars can move vertically in scripture, and are not necessarily solid in nature.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the bible on this subject is how the earth's creation is portrayed. The following is the account of Genesis from the New American Standard Bible, which I have read is a more direct translation than others:

https://www.biblica.com/bible/nasb/genesis/1/

Quote
The Creation

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.

On the second day of creation God created the expanse. What is "the expanse"? Usually it has been interpreted, under the Round Earth mindset, to mean the firmament and the expanse of the heavens (as they believe in a large universe). But this does not make sense. On the first day of creation the heavens were already created. On day one of creation God created the heavens, and then on day two of creation God created the heavens again?

I am not alone in this confusion:

https://ichthys.com/mail-Waters-Above-Firmament-Genesis-Gap.htm

Quote
understanding Genesis 1:6-8 as being an ex nihilo creation of space which was not there before does not jibe with the overall context of the seven days (the heavens are now created on day two while the earth existed before day one), makes no logical sense (for it requires light and the earth to exist outside of space), and, much more importantly, is completely inconsistent with Genesis 1:1 which tells us that God had already previously created the heavens (mentioned first) and the earth instantaneously:

    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
    Genesis 1:1 NIV

How can this verse be consistent with earth existing before day one but with the heavens not created until day two?

Even creationscience.com says that there are multiple interpretations for this section of Genesis on what is meant by "the expanse," and what is meant by heaven and heavens.

The definition of an expanse is the distance to which something can grow or expand, or a vast open surface.

We read a definition at https://www.thefreedictionary.com/expanse

Quote
ex·panse  (ĭk-spăns′)
n.
1. A wide and open extent, as of surface, land, or sky.
2.
a. Expansion.
b. The distance or amount of expansion.

expanse (ɪkˈspæns)
n
1. an uninterrupted surface of something that spreads or extends, esp over a wide area; stretch: an expanse of water.
2. expansion or extension

Day Two of creation depicts the Creator as dividing something vertically to create the expanse. Could the Universal Accelerator have been created on the Second Day?

It would be interesting if a biblical scholar looked at these interpretations under the Flat Earth mindset. The concepts of inertia and acceleration may have not been in use at the time of writing, or were known differently than today.

Would the wider Flat Earth community be interested in any of this? I have previously written on how the Universal Accelerator makes sense in other ways.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Transparent Moon... really?
« on: December 13, 2018, 07:17:42 AM »
Here are some more interesting planes. Runtime 1m30s:


14
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: One degree of longitude
« on: December 13, 2018, 06:46:09 AM »
Look up what a datum is. It says that the "The UTM NAD83 projection uses the GRS80 ellipsoid and a center-of-the-earth anchor point as its datum," likely to connect to the spherical earth models such as WebMercator, not that it's a spherical earth map. It's a flat map.

Not "likely to connect to a spherical earth." It's not a conspiracy or a trick. It's specifically and for the sole purpose of establishing reference coordinates to an ellipsoid shape. The GRS80 geodetic reference is based on an ellipsoid. NAD83 is thus based on an ellipsoid. It's not a flat map in any way other than it is projected onto a 2-D surface for presentation. 

You can't weasel-word your way around that fact by interjection your own bias with unfounded speculation on the reason by GRS80 ellipsoid is used as a reference. "Like to connect to the spherical earth."  Please! 

It is used to connect to the spherical earth model. Lets read about it together:

https://gis.utah.gov/nad83-and-webmercator-projections/

First it talks about the spherical model:

Quote
Geographic coordinates use latitude and longitude values to define positions on the 3D surface of the earth, which is of course, best modeled as an ellipsoid, not a sphere. The ellipsoid and its accompanying anchor point that ties it in to the real world, are known collectively as the WGS84 datum.

Note "real world."

Then it talks about the flat model:

Quote
UTM NAD83 is a projected coordinate system that represents physical locations abstracted to a flat, cartesian coordinate system. The UTM NAD83 projection uses the GRS80 ellipsoid and a center-of-the-earth anchor point as its datum

It is talking about an anchor point to connect the two types of systems together.

The accompanying image is the flat map with anchor point:


15
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: One degree of longitude
« on: December 13, 2018, 02:01:13 AM »
We read the following: https://www-group.slac.stanford.edu/met/Align/GPS/CCS83.pdf

Quote
        The State Plane Coordinate System was established to provide a means for transferring the
        geodetic positions of monumented points to plane coordinates that would permit the use of
        these monuments in plane surveying over relatively large areas without introducing
        significant error.

        A plane-rectangular coordinate system is by definition a flat surface. Geodetic positions on
        the curved surface of the earth must be “projected” to their corresponding plane coordinate
        positions.
Projecting the curved surface onto a plane requires some form of deformation.
        Imagine the stretching and tearing necessary to flatten a piece of orange peel. In California
        the Lambert Conformal map projection is used to transform the geodetic positions of
        latitude and longitude into the y (Northing) and x (Easting) coordinates of the CCS83.

The spherical coordinates are projected to the plane coordinates. Not the other way around.

http://wvgis.wvu.edu/data/otherdocs/standardsandpubs/wv_coordinate_systems_jan02.html

Quote
Geographic Coordinate System (GCS): An unprojected coordinate system that uses latitude and longitude to define the locations of points on a sphere or spheroid. The use of longitude and latitude is encouraged for general reference and distribution of national framework data because it provides a seamless coordinate system for most of the United States. Geographic coordinates can be readily projected onto a planar coordinate system to display data properly or measure distances accurately. The Geographic Coordinate System is the recommended coordinate system for unprojected GIS data sets that cover the entire geographic extent of West Virginia.

We read that it is to measure distances accurately.

How can spherical coordinates projected onto a planar coordinate system display data and distances accurately if the earth is a globe? Why should these systems require that? Maps with spherical coordinates are not possible?

If the earth is a globe, the opposite should be true. Projecting spherical coordinates onto a plane should make data and distances more inaccurate. Not accurate.

What you are proposing is happening here does not make any sense at all. They have a spherical earth model and they are projecting its coordinates onto an XY plane which you think is somehow a spherical earth in disguise? Achieved through the process of regular plane surveying? And that these flat earth maps are more accurate than spherical earth maps? That does not make sense.

Again, I refer you to the title of the article: "The Earth is Not Round!"

16
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: One degree of longitude
« on: December 13, 2018, 01:24:07 AM »
They are not more accurate than a "spherical earth map" because all of these maps are spherical earth maps. Seemingly no matter how many references to the explicit nature that these maps are based upon a spherical model, you're still not getting it. The XY coordinate system is a grid laid on top of a spherically derived map. Simple as that.

You have no sources. XY coordinates = Flat Map. Show where it is a "grid laid on top of a spherically derived map"

"Simple as that" is not evidence. The article above clearly says that traditional plane surveying is used in the State Plane maps. Yet you claim without evidence that the flat map is really depicting a sphere? Show your sources.

How do you make a flat map more accurate than a spherical map, exactly?

Already have, but here it is again, among others:

https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/SPCS/index.shtml

Sorry, I don't see where your claim is substantiated at all.

Quote
"As a reminder, a map projection is a systematic transformation of the latitudes and longitudes of locations on the surface of a sphere or ellipsoid representing the Earth to grid coordinates (x, y or easting, northing values) on a plane."

This substantiates what you are trying to communicate? A definition of a map projection?

The maps are flat. The data is flat. The data comes from simple plane surveying. How do you make a flat earth map more accurate than a spherical earth map if the earth is round?

Refer to the title of the previous article: "The Earth is Not Round!"

17
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: One degree of longitude
« on: December 13, 2018, 01:18:19 AM »
They are not more accurate than a "spherical earth map" because all of these maps are spherical earth maps. Seemingly no matter how many references to the explicit nature that these maps are based upon a spherical model, you're still not getting it. The XY coordinate system is a grid laid on top of a spherically derived map. Simple as that.

You have no sources. XY coordinates = Flat Map. Show where it is a "grid laid on top of a spherically derived map"

"Simple as that" is not evidence. The article above clearly says that traditional plane surveying is used in the State Plane maps. Spherical coordinates are NOT used. Yet you claim without evidence that the flat map is really depicting a sphere? Show your sources.

How do you make a flat map more accurate than a spherical map, exactly?

18
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: One degree of longitude
« on: December 13, 2018, 01:10:43 AM »
Look up what a datum is. It says that "The UTM NAD83 projection uses the GRS80 ellipsoid and a center-of-the-earth anchor point as its datum," likely to connect to the spherical earth models such as WebMercator, not that it's a spherical earth map. It's a flat map.

https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/united-states-stateplane-zones-nad83

Quote
    United States Stateplane Zones - NAD83
    Metadata Updated: August 11, 2016

    U.S. State Plane Zones (NAD 1983) represents the State Plane Coordinate System (SPCS) Zones for the 1983 North American Datum within United States.

then

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Plane_Coordinate_System

Quote
The State Plane Coordinate System (SPS or SPCS) is a set of 124 geographic zones or coordinate systems designed for specific regions of the United States. Each state contains one or more state plane zones, the boundaries of which usually follow county lines. There are 110 zones in the contiguous US, with 10 more in Alaska, 5 in Hawaii, and one for Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands. The system is widely used for geographic data by state and local governments. Its popularity is due to at least two factors. First, it uses a simple Cartesian coordinate system to specify locations rather than a more complex spherical coordinate system (the geographic coordinate system of latitude and longitude). By using the Cartesian coordinate system's simple XY coordinates, "plane surveying" methods can be used, speeding up and simplifying calculations.

XY coordinates. Flat map. Plane surveying.

You are not demonstrating anything "for the millionth time." You are merely stating things rather than demonstrating.

These maps are "based on a globe," in your opinion, but they are flat planar maps with an XY coordinate system, and apparently are more accurate than a possible spherical earth map? This appears to be a pretty absurd claim.

19
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: One degree of longitude
« on: December 13, 2018, 12:48:20 AM »
Longitude and Latitude isn't used by Google Maps/WebMercator to measure distances.

Have a read: The Earth is Not Round! Utah, NAD83 and WebMercator Projections

Quote
Latitude and Longitude are useless for measuring distance and area because the unit of length, degrees, is not held constant for longitude, except along parallels -- individual perfectly east-west lines.

...

Web Mercator's significant weakness is that measurements of distance and area in its native coordinates are completely unusable. Where accurate distance and area calculations are needed, web-mercator GIS data must be temporarily reprojected to a more suitable coordinate system (UTM NAD83).

It is admitted that the latitude and longitude coordinates of the spherical earth model is completely unusable, and that the data must be reprojected onto a local state plane coordinate system for accuracy.

You are trying to compare lat/long coordinates which are said to be "completely unusable."

20
Ummm, pretty much all maps are flat for ease of use/transport. And, as we've gone over this before, as to X-Y coordinate system:

"By using the Cartesian coordinate system's simple XY coordinates, "plane surveying" methods can be used, speeding up and simplifying calculations. Second, the system is highly accurate within each zone (error less than 1:10,000). Outside a specific state plane zone accuracy rapidly declines, thus the system is not useful for regional or national mapping."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Plane_Coordinate_System

Is that statement based on theory or experiment?

Quote
And the reason why their accuracy rapidly declines when made larger is that they are "projections", as from a Globe, which introduces distortion.

You keep trying to use State Plane maps as some sort of evidence for "flat earth maps" when, as stated above and before, many times, they are, in fact, derived from a Globe.

I don't see how it is possible to argue that the maps are flat, but they are based on a globe.

Among other reasons, "Most state plane zones are based on either a transverse Mercator projection or a Lambert conformal conic projection."

The operative word is "projection".



That flat map looks something like the maps we are proposing with the northern or southern centers.

You are saying that the state plane maps are illustrated on a small part of that flat map, or alternatively another type of flat map? And that the whole map is called a "projection" because we live on a globe? I truly do not see how this trivia helps the meat of your argument in any way.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 262  Next >