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 - iamcpc

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« on: February 25, 2020, 07:32:12 PM »
the world isn't just a globe because the bing map is a projection... the Bing map is a projection because the world is a globe. the difference is clear. if it's a globe earth map, it's not a flat earth map. In other news a pyramid can't be a cylinder either without stretching and distorting it.


I've already conceded that you can look at any map of the earth ever created and say that it's a globe map. Literally every FE model that has ever been presented someone just claims that it's not a FE model it's a RE model because it's based on a globe projection.




You can claim this is a globe map because the earth is a globe an it's based on a globe projection




Here's another one. This is another globe map because the earth is a globe and it's based on a globe projection



I could do this all day long and you can sit there and say the earth is a globe, that map is based on a globe projection ad infinitum.

I would rather not point out that you can do this 29837592837592837598237592837 times just to have you do it again.
I would rather not concede defeat on this point 29837592837592837598237592837 times just to have you do it again.



2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« on: February 25, 2020, 04:57:31 PM »
OK, you agree that distances on Bing maps match real life. In that case, let me try another approach. Let's for the sake of argument say that Bing maps is based on a flat earth. So basic rules of euclidean flat plane geometry apply.


You can't compare a stagnant image with one scale to a moving interactive system with multiple scales. Of course they are different. They are different in every way.


I'm not sure where to go with this. And I'm not sure where you are coming from. Yes, Microsoft is a large company. Yes, HTML markup/content is easy to change. Is it your claim that the person(s) responsible for the content regarding Bing Maps for developers using Bing Maps is writing erroneous information? Would you prefer a PDF?

My point is that I would rather think for myself. Anyone can put anything into writing.  This entire forum is an exercise in free thinking. In addition I could present you any map of the earth and you could say something to the effect of "that does not count as a FE map because that map is based on a sphere map" and then give me a link to a website with text confirming your theory.

I've already conceded that you can do that with any map of the earth i present. We can just both agree that you will reject any FE map presented and move on.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is agreed upon?
« on: February 25, 2020, 04:54:51 PM »
For RE, there is usually general agreement 8n all aspects. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, gravity exists, etc. I've noticed that in FE, there are so many different models and theories. Ice wall, no ice wall, but an infinite plane, earth sits on the back of a giant turtle, Maturin(the giant turtle) stands on the back of four elephants, gravity does exists, gravity does not exist it's upward acceleration, etc. I guess what I'm wondering, is there anything - other than the earth being flat - that all flat earthers agree on?
There is a general agreement among flat earthers that the earth is not a globe.

Other than that, I am not sure.


In addition there is a general idea that there are most likely flaws in the RE system of us flying through space while spinning super fast orbiting the sun while a moon orbits us.

Other than that there are so many different models. It really discredits the entire movement and it's one of my biggest pet peeves.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« on: February 24, 2020, 11:03:02 PM »
I think you're missing the point. It's not just "someone" who put text on the web stating that it's a globe projection using globe coordinates and distances, in the case of Bing, it's Microsoft who is the "someone". You know, the developers/owners of Bing Maps. I've cited the Microsoft Bing Maps developers site that states everything I've relayed. Why you still think the information is coming from some random person, idk. If you have a problem with the fact that Bing Maps uses a globe projection, globe coordinates, and distances you'd actually have to take that up directly with Microsoft.

Actually as someone who works with development I can assure you this is not the case. Microsoft is a company of about 148,000 people. How many of those 148,000 were involved on the text on the website you referenced? I will be very generous here and say it is maybe 20.  Now, of those 20 people, how many of them actually changed the text to what it is? Most likely one web developer.

As a matter of fact web development like this is so easy a layman could learn to do it with a few hours of youtube videos. I was able to change the HTML text on the website in about 15 seconds.

The difference here is that i'm not going to make my decisions based on the text on an HTML document.

Notice the text on the HTML document listed below has been changed. I really don't work for Microsoft and these kinds of changes are super easy.







The case is not because the map has an interactive scale, the earth is round. The case is that, as robinofloxley demonstrated, even though using the interactive scale, zooming in in this case, the distances are based upon a globe. That doesn't defacto mean the earth is a globe, it just means that Microsoft is using a globe model for their map even when using the interactive scaling tool. Make sense?

Here is where we disagree. Because the distances on Bing maps match the distances that we have measured in real life, and it also has an interactive scale, does not mean the earth is round.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« on: February 24, 2020, 05:59:36 PM »

You do realize that Bing Maps is derived from a globe projection (Mercator) whether zoomed in or out? Yes?

Again, you're using an RE map as an FE model (that is clearly derived from a Globe) and not coming up with an FE model that could be made into an FE map.

You can stand there and say that about every single FE model presented to you. This website says it's based on a globe projection. Congratulations. I admit you're able to find something on the internet that says the ______________ FE model is based on a glob projection.  I concede defeat in this matter. You are able to do this with literally every FE model I've ever seen.

I would just use the Bing map API to build my own map and then make an "about" section and say it's based on a FE projection. Just because someone puts text on an HTML document and puts it on a URL does not make it any more or less true.



Just because a map has an interactive scale does not mean that it's a map of the globe. If you zoom all the way it the planet is very clearly not depicted as a globe.

I had a further think about what you said and wondered if it might be possible to demonstrate that Bing is in fact a map of the globe rather than just some map with (for some reason) an interactive scale.

How about this: type in -75,-80 into Bing maps and you're placing a pin at a precise lat/long 75S,80W. Repeat this process to add 3 more pins at -75,+80, 0,-80 and 0,+80. You now have 4 pins on the map making up the corners of a rectangle, the top of the rectangle is a line along the equator and the bottom is a line of the same apparent length cutting across Antarctica. Now use the measuring tool to measure the lengths of these two lines as accurately as you can. I got 17811km and 3288km respectively. Now calculate the great circle distances you would expect to find on a spherical Earth and compare the results. If the distances match up then Bing maps is giving you the same answers as a spherical earth.

I used an online calculator https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html for the great circle distances and got 17790km and 3284km, so that's 21km and 4km difference respectively between Bing and the calculated values, or 0.1%.

I'd call that conclusive.


Again you are making the claim that, because this map has an interactive scale, the earth is round. I still disagree. There are flat states, countries, areas etc on every map yet the interactive scale still applies to these small areas. By your logic, the flattest state in the united states, Florida, is a sphere because it has an interactive scale.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« on: February 24, 2020, 05:53:53 PM »

How come you don't see Mount Everest from the left most corner of Indonesia, but you can see the sun and moon set?

Can anyone answer?

This has been answered many many times. The most popular answer has to do with how many miles of dense low altitude atmosphere that light is able to pass through.

Light that is coming from outer space only has to pass through 10-20 miles of this low altitude more dense layer of the atmosphere.

Light traveling from the surface level of mount Everest to someone standing on the surface of Indonesia the light must pass through over 2,000 miles of dense low altitude air. over 100 times the distance.

By this logic someone 200 meters underwater can see the sunlight and someone  10,000 meters of water can't see the sunlight. Therefore the earth is round. This limited ability to see the sunlight happens regardless of what shape the earth is.





7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« on: February 21, 2020, 10:01:24 PM »

Bing: Greenland is massive! Bigger than Africa. It is not in reality.
I've already demonstrated that, because of an interactive scale which changes based on how the user interacts with the map you are able to see Greenland is smaller than Africa.

i'm looking at Greenland right now on Bing and I can CLEARLY see that it's about 700 miles north to south according to the scale.


Please see the image shown below:





Then, using bing maps, as i interact with the interactive map the interactive map scales and I can see that, the very northernmost countries in Africa are over 700 miles north to south. CLEARLY showing that Greenland is smaller than Africa.




I got about 6.5 million square miles. Now reset the measuring tool and draw another rectangle of the same approximate size over Antarctica. I got around 225 thousand square miles. In other words, one rectangle is 30x times larger than the other, yet they are visually identical.


Just because a map has an interactive scale does not mean that it's a map of the globe. If you zoom all the way it the planet is very clearly not depicted as a globe.


8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« on: February 20, 2020, 04:21:13 PM »
....all hung up on 'ONE' single solitary 'claim' in my 20 posts in this thread, which, I will add, has only been refuted by repeated images of horizons that are PERFECTLY FLAT for many miles.
Again, referring to 'ONE' claim, from ONE out of TWENTY posts.

And, somehow, you've magically made me irrelevant.

.....That's GOOD!

First off I have not make you irrelevant.  I just want the community to come together and agree on some aspect of these models. Is there a dome? Is there a firmament? etc. etc.

When the FE community finally starts to come together and say the horizon drops with altitude and it's because of refraction and not the shape of the earth and here's why and here's evidence supporting our theories someone comes along saying the horizon rises to eye level. Discounting all progress that was made.

The thing that weakens the FE movement more than anything else is that there is no consistency.

In addition you have made posts that I agreed with. You posted an image with light going through the clouds which did make it appear the sun is very close to the earth.

Actually, no, Bing Maps are based upon a spherical earth.

From the Microsoft developers website regarding Bing Maps:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/bingmaps/articles/bing-maps-tile-system



That's funny because when you zoom all the way out on bing maps it very very clearly represents the earth as a flat plane for one.

For two your FE model is based on a globe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection

So you have your flat disk FE model and I have my rectangular FE model. According to the internet they are both based on a globe. Just because the internet claims they are based on a globe does not mean that they can't be used as FE models when they represent the earth as a flat plane.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« on: February 20, 2020, 04:06:20 PM »

Does Bing maps use different scales, all at the same time?

Bing maps different different scales all at the same time. It has an algorithm which determines which scale, out of the the many different scales, is the most applicable based on what part of the map you are looking at and how far zoomed in you are.



Because you were bringing it up and you're most certainly wrong.

by your logic there is no such a thing as an accurate map. It's funny because i'm able to use maps like those to accurately navigate thousands and thousands of square miles of this earth is multiple different continents.


if you could take a photo of the earth in its entirety from space, if it were flat, from a long distance with a decent telescope of some kind so there isn't much perspective, what would it look like?

I don't know. I don't have an advanced degree in optics. Let alone a deep understanding of how our visual cortex makes images in micro or zero gravity when the light from the image has went from a vacuum through layers and layers of an atmosphere, bounced off the surface of a planet, went back through layers and layers of an atmosphere, and refracted through some sort of viewing portal or camera lense.   It could look like a sphere. It could look like a dinner plate. It could look like


if the answer you're going to give is the bing map then you're simply wrong.

I would hate to live in a world where, after thousands and thousands of years, we were still unable to make an accurate map of the world. This is where our views differ.

On the bing map ... if you stand at the poles your body stretches across the entire width of the world...

no it does not. Did you not see my previous post. You saying that is the same as saying that walking down a hallway shrinks you.




10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« on: February 19, 2020, 08:48:25 PM »
So, to all of you FLAT EARTH SOCIETY 'FRAUDS', who are actually Round Earthers in the wrong place, here is the question that begs a response:

Claims that you have made (such as the horizon always rises to eye level) have been discredited by people who think there is a 100% chance the earth is flat.
Claims that you have made (such as the horizon always rises to eye level) have been discredited by people who think there is a 50-99% chance the earth is flat
Claims that you have made (such as the horizon always rises to eye level) have been discredited by people who think there is a 1-49% chance the earth is flat
Claims that you have made (such as the horizon always rises to eye level) have been discredited by people who think there is a 0% chance the earth is flat

How sure you are the earth is flat is moot for many of the claims you have made.


Do you believe that we all live on 'THIS'.......

This is the FE model which most closely matches reality based on my investigations

https://www.bing.com/maps

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration
« on: February 19, 2020, 05:52:46 PM »
Universal acceleration theory of gravity posits that the earth is moving upwards at an acceleration of 9.8m/s/s. However, this acceleration is not the same everywhere on earth i.e. higher altitudes show a diminished acceleration. Globe earth theory explains this using the universal law of gravity which is an inverse square law (the further two objects are from one another, the less the attractive force is between them).

How does flat earth theory explain these verifiable differences on earth?

It could have something to do w/ the distance you are from the accelerating force?
It could have something to do w/ atmospheric density both in the RE and FE measurements.
The RE measurements could be off.
In the FE from a higher altitude you could be affected by the sun/moon gravity slightly pulling up on you.


FET wiki has some serious flaws.

You have to understand that this is a working theory that is growing and evolving. It has less flaws now than it did several months ago and it will have less flaws in the future than it does now

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« on: February 19, 2020, 05:39:11 PM »
Don't really want to revisit this discussion

If you don't want to revist this discussion then why did you revisit this discussion?

because zooming in and out

You can change the scale without zooming in and out.

on a picture of a map doesn't change the fact that it's massively distorted 'flat earth' map.

Bing maps is the least distorted maps. Have you ever used bing maps to navigate?




lets just say that I want to make a 2d representation of a 3d place. One scale is not sufficient.


I'm going to make a 2d "map" of a hallway with three children. Each child is three feet tall. here is the "map":



By your logic this "map" is massively distorted because the child in the back, who is three feet tall, is much smaller than the child who is in the front. they should all be the exact same size.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« on: February 19, 2020, 01:49:52 AM »
Got a flat earth version of that math?

unfortunately no because on the FE models there is no accepted map of the earth and a dozen different models.

I didn’t say I believed the flood really happened. In fact, I don’t because I’m still struggling with how there’s kangaroos on only one continent. I’m just trying to play in your field but you seem to be playing a different sport, are you even a flat earther, iamcpc?

Do I believe 100% that the earth is not a sphere/oblate spheroid/spheroid? NO.
Do I believe 100% that the earth is a sphere/oblate spheroid/spheroid? NO.

Do i believe that there is evidence which supports the idea that the earth is  not a sphere/oblate spheroid/spheroid? YES.
Do I believe that there is evidence which debunks claims that observations/measurements mean the earth is a sphere/oblate spheroid/spheroid? YES
Do I believe that there are convincing logical arguments which explain why the earth can be flat and we can have the observations/measurements made? YES


I think there are far too many unanswered questions in the various FE models for me to be 100% convinced that the earth is not a sphere/oblate spheroid/spheroid.  There are way too many models with too little consistency within the community which significantly weakens the movement.




I’ve still yet to see a map that works. The bing map has discrepancies. The only time you wouldn’t have a discrepancy is if you picked two cities on the equator with the bing map. The bing map will tell you the actual distance, but if you use the provided scale, the two distances are different.
Bing maps does not have discrepancies because it has an interactive scale

We could look at the map with the two poles if you’d like iamcpc.

Bing maps has two poles.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the moon face
« on: February 18, 2020, 09:15:31 PM »

Tom,

In the flat disk models i always really struggled with the lunar cycles. Now reading this it really is starting to make a lot more sense! If the light is behaving in the way described then it does seem possible to have the lunar cycles that we observe.

Yes, it all does seem to come together with EA. In a PM I mentioned something to Sandokan related to this that you might be interested in, since you enjoy discussing the FE biblical models.

As you probably know, during the seven days of creation in Genesis one of God's first acts is to separate light from the darkness, creating the day and night, so that it is not daytime all over the Earth. Then in Job 38:24 he seems to ask Job a riddle: "Where is the way that the light is divided?" or "What way is light parted?" depending on the translation.

It seems to suggest to me that God is talking about something he did to light. Perhaps the answer is that it was bent upwards.

There are only three things I really struggle with in the flat disk models.

1. The flight time/path issue where observed flight times/distances/paths don't mach predicted flight times/distances/paths on the flat disk model.
2. The sunrise/sunset positioning.  The flat disk models have varying predictions that sometimes the sunrise should further north/south than observed and sometimes the sunset should be further north/south than observed
3. There is no south pole. I believe the earth does have a fixed area known as the south pole.


It's because of these I'm more easily able to imagine the earth represented as a flat plane in the traditional map model. These models are used to document things like the sunrise/sunset, modern flight path tracking, and it has a fixed area known as the south pole. The predictions for 1 and 2 listed above exactly match what we observe as best i can tell.


The major downside is that there is so much more work and research put into the flat disk models to explain things like the lunar cycle and seasons that no one really put any effort into on the other FE models. I really wish the wiki had at least some information about a few of the other models.
         

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« on: February 18, 2020, 05:40:21 PM »
All I’m saying is we have a good handle on how things work in reality because of experimentation, but we dont know for sure why it works the way it does. Also, just because the Bible says the earth is flat doesn’t mean it is. It’s just another theory that we need to test.

I agree. And Just because the Bible said that it's God's holy ruling that a person should be murdered for doing chores on Saturday does mean it is.
Just because the Bible said that all of the laws of physics were broken does not mean that it really happened.
etc.
etc.



All the testing in the world tells us the sun and moon, since the arrival of humans, have not stopped moving across the sky.
All the testing in the world tells us that there was no great flood which covered mount Everest:



The volume of a sphere is easy to calculate: V = 4/3πr³
The earth has a radius of 3959 miles. Now we need to know the radius of the flood. That’s the earth radius, plus the height of Everest, plus 15 cubits (22ft). So 3959 miles + 29,028 ft +22 feet = 3959 miles + 29050 feet = 3959 miles + 5.5018939 miles = 3964.5018939 miles
If we plug those two radii in to our volume formula, we get the volumes:
259,923,241,564 miles³ for the volume of the earth.
261,008,408,332 miles³ for the volume of the earth at flood.
So, if we subtract the earth volume from the flood volume, we’ll get the volume of water required to fill that space. That’s how much it would need to rain. That turns out to be 1,085,166,768 miles³of rain.
Now, let’s cut that by 25% because land, mountains, etc. occupy some of that volume. All that space would not be filled with water. The 25% figure is generous since oceans, which by definition sit at sea level, cover 70% of the earth and the rest of the earth isn’t nearly as high as Everest. But let’s grant the creationist this small charity.
That means that there had to be 813,875,076 miles³ of rain for the biblical flood. To put that in perspective, the oceans have about 321,000,000 miles³ of water. All the water on earth only adds up to about 332,500,000 miles³.
So for the biblical flood to have happened, the water on earth had to miraculously multiply by about 250%.



16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: God
« on: February 18, 2020, 12:38:00 AM »
Oh but you can’t use those photos because google is a known liar. Zoom out far enough on google maps and the earth is round.

The zoomed out version is moot. I've driven many of the roads and done my own personal testing and verified, based on my testing, that 100% of the time the surface level images are pretty accurate.

In addition it was only recently that google maps starting showing the earth as a sphere.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: God
« on: February 17, 2020, 05:56:22 PM »
Many times I've been unsure whether a train I was on was moving or not. In the dark but inside a brightly lit carriage on a smooth track with no outside references, when the train slows right down I can't always tell the difference between creeping along very slowly and stopped. The aircon is on, the engines are still running, people are talking phones etc. so I can't pick out from noise and vibration alone what's going on. Similarly with no outside references, vision is no use. Smell - no clues there. Nothing to touch or taste to give me a clue either.

Well I've never experienced this. I have always been able to tell when the train is moving.


I went to the top of a small hill and looked over the ocean and the horizon was maybe 10 miles away in every direction. Should I assume the Earth is a 10 mile radius plate with me at the centre because it looks exactly like that.

I would say you would be safe to make that hypothesis. Then promptly test it by driving 10 miles. If you drove 10 miles then saw the edge of the earth that would be evidence which supported your original hypothesis. If you drove 10 miles and saw 10 more miles of road then you would be evidence against your hypothesis.

Lucky for you google maps has photographic evidence of a huge chunk of the world's roads. You could just take a stroll down the road on google maps.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« on: February 17, 2020, 05:45:35 PM »
There’s a lot of wiggle room in the science world as far as different theories, etc. but some things are not up for debate. Some examples include things that are practiced everyday: Kirchhoffs’ laws, Newtonian physics, etc.

If you believe in literal interpretations of literally dozens and dozens of verses in the bible Newtonian physics are definitely up for debate. As a matter of fact the world we live in went against almost all of Newtonian physics on, what appears to be, a fairly regular basis.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm a RE'r and have some questions!
« on: February 16, 2020, 02:30:02 AM »
I'm more reffering to mass extinction events, like the flood, and I'll modify what I said to, that sort of event wont happen from the flood and on, rather than from the beginning of man. I don't see the evidence for the flood though. Why are there not kangaroos everywhere else except Australia? I'm not saying one way or the other since I'm not well read in that subject, just throwing sticks at it.

What you've said is similar so the things I would say, which is why I'm confused why you're a flat earther. Is the evidence really that insurmountable to you?

This is assuming that the flood really happened. The flood is one of those things I had previously discussed. The idea that the entire surface of the earth was covered in water up to the peaks of the tallest mountain is definetly one of the more outlandish stories outright defying everything that you have learned about physical reality and the mathematical and physical LAWS of how our universe operates 100% of the time. In addition it paints the horrible picture that you are worshiping a God who knowingly MURDERED hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of babies. Helpless, innocent, babies.


https://ncse.ngo/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark




I think in the more biblical models nothing revolves around the earth. I think everything is above the earth.

I don't really understand what the firmament is but basically the entire universe is above the earth.

I respectfully disagree. A downward movement of the Sun, as described in great length in the Bible, implies that the Sun sets below the Earth, not above.

I would see your view point if there were not a good half dozen verses explaining that the earth can't move or the earth does not move or the earth will never move

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the moon face
« on: February 16, 2020, 02:26:01 AM »
The nearside of the Moon always seen is accounted for in the FE celestial model of Electromagnetic Acceleration:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

I think it is interesting that the same model which explains the sunsets also predicts as a matter of geometry that we must always see the nearside of celestial bodies, and that is what we see of the Moon. To explain it in RE they had to bring in other external theories about tidal locking.

Tom,


In the flat disk models i always really struggled with the lunar cycles. Now reading this it really is starting to make a lot more sense! If the light is behaving in the way described then it does seem possible to have the lunar cycles that we observe.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35  Next >