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 - inquisitive

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 48  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 18, 2019, 07:57:51 PM »
That's not true. By definition, they are projections of the Earth. You (and possibly the authors of some maps, notably excluding the "azimuthal equidistant projection") assume that the original shape of the Earth is your favourite shape.

Saying that the Earth is round because it is round is not gonna help us here.

I agree and this is the same point that i'm making. Even in the RE model there are like multiple shapes the earth could be such as a sphere, spheroid, oblate spheroid, globe etc.


People constantly look at something, such as a 2d map which is widely accepted as a map of the earth, and proudly proclaim EARTH IS A SPHERE! What about a spheroid? What about an oblate spheroid? What about some other shape?



Fixed it for you:

If you project a Sphere Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the Sphere Earth on a flat plane.
If you project a globe Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the globe Earth on a flat plane.
If you project a spheroid Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the spheroid Earth on a flat plane.
If you project an oblate spheroid Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the oblate spheroid Earth on a flat plane.


You didn't fix anything. I had basically said the exact same thing here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15083.msg196532#msg196532

The shape of the earth is still moot.

If you project the earth (of any shape) onto a flat plane map then the flat plane map represents the earth (of any shape).
Do you consider the WGS-84 model to be incorrect?

2
They ask "Can the genie ever be put back into the bottle?"

Yes. By producing independent, repeatable, and conclusive evidence that the earth is a globe.
Surely that exists with the WGS-84 model?

Are you talking about the system with the small flat maps? https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

I don't see what that has to do with the video in the thread.
Tom, you asked 'producing independent, repeatable, and conclusive evidence that the earth is a globe.'

Your link is written in a very strange style, eg. 'Latitude and Longitude is described as unreliable'.  Where?  And 'When assessing this claim it is found...'  And 'We read that...'

Strange that my printed maps may be flat, but have lat/long lines on them.  You would agree that measurements of lat/long are accurate and repeatable?

Anyway, off topic!  Sorry.

3
They ask "Can the genie ever be put back into the bottle?"

Yes. By producing independent, repeatable, and conclusive evidence that the earth is a globe.
Surely that exists with the WGS-84 model?

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 12, 2019, 09:14:35 AM »
Many paper maps have lat/long lines drawn on them showing how the projection works.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 09, 2019, 07:17:05 PM »
Those are not the only problems with your preferred map from an FE perspective: Your preferred map is a globe projection meaning all distances and continental/country layout are based upon a spherical earth.

1. That's not true. Tom has said many times that the map I prefer is not a globe projection.
2. By that logic any map that is presented can be claimed to be a globe projection. Why even bother talking about a FE map?
3. I've presented that map and gotten feedback from the FE community and not one single person said that they have a problem with my preferred map because it is a globe, sphere, or oblate spheroid projection.
4. It does not matter if people believe a globe projection, sphere projection, oblate spheroid projection, Cube projection, egg projection, flat disk projection, or any other projection. It depicts the earth as a flat 2d plane.
But what do measured distances give us for the shape of the earth?  Which are used to produce maps.

6
Your theory was not created on the basis of experimentation in an artificial way to determine true causes of phenomena, as demanded by the scientific method? Only observation and interpretation like Astrology? I see.

So the Bishop “Experiment” is also astrology? I see.

It matched the FE model. So it must be flat.

Not an experiment is it?

Tumeni says that observations are experiments. This experiment proved the earth to be flat.
Where is the map for this?

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« on: May 24, 2019, 07:33:33 AM »
Quote
I'm sure they have. Just-above-the-water shots are notoriously unreliable.

And you proceed to link us to just-above-the-water shots. The fact that the effect is inconsistent and often shows that the earth is flat disproves Aristotile's proof that the earth must be a globe because of the sinking ship effect. A two-thousand year old proof is debunked. Inconsistent observations are not proof for a globe.

The sinking ship effect is explained here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

Time-lapses will show the truth of the matter, of which is the real version and which version refraction is causing.
Please provide your proposals for measuring the shape and size of the earth.

8
Your geometry does not work. You have the moon eclipsing the sun, and outrunning it (above image) The moon is slower than the sun in the sky and falls behind it.

This is why the moon passes in front of the sun from the East to the West rather than from the West to the East that you are suggesting.

Your "the earth is rotating" suggestion does not explain why the Moon crosses in front of the sun from East to West. If the Moon is on the top of the image rather than the bottom and falls behind the Sun to travel from East to West then its shadow will start on the East side of the Earth to the West, which is incorrect and does not explain the path of the eclipse.
You are playing a game, you can easily refer to documentation printed and online.  'Testing' random people on a forum is not going to get you anywhere.

9
I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion not matter how ridiculous it sounds. There is no actual proof the the world is flat, round, or square. We will never really know until one of us goes into space to truly see weather or not the earth is any of the things I listed. Opinions are personal to anyone and I don't believe in judging unless there is concrete evidence stating otherwise.
Maps, path of the sun, satellite operation, WGS84 model, measured distances all seem to prove the shape of the earth. Who is 'us'?

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« on: May 01, 2019, 07:15:23 AM »
I addressed how that is explained on that map earlier in this thread when it was brought up. I don't even use that map as my main go-to flat earth map, anyway. I typically use the one where Antarctica is a continent.
How do you know that map is correct?

11
Details provided of a calibrated device 2 pages back, what's the problem with that?

12
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Map
« on: April 25, 2019, 02:23:36 PM »
Please provide details of errors in the WGS84 model used by cartographers across the world.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Elon musk
« on: April 20, 2019, 05:22:03 PM »
Almost every industry is subject to some sort of government regulation.  That doesn't preclude the idea of private industry.

Regulation means that the government controls it. The government controls space. Your idea of private space industry is just that, an idea. An idea that the government controls.

Hence your argument loops back around to an appeal to the integrity of the government. When you say "private space companies" we must add "who are instructed by government" to that sentence.
Which government?

14
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Map
« on: April 08, 2019, 09:32:49 PM »

All of which are based upon Globe projections. So it doesn't get someone out of the jam of not using Google maps just because it has a globe view and these layouts don't.

What they are (or are not) based on is a moot point. If they are based on a giant pyramid, egg, sphere, or oblate spheroid does not change the accuracy of the following statement:

There are accurate maps of the earth used and accepted by tens or hundreds of millions of of people every single day in which the map of the earth is represented as a FLAT plane.
Represented on a flat surface with a grid that identifies the shape of a round earth using latitude and longitude.

15
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Map
« on: April 04, 2019, 04:07:29 PM »
This will help make a map.

https://aireon.com/services/

16


In the case of the above device, it is questionable whether the front container is even level. There is a lip of lightness at the top, like we are looking down at it. In the case of the colored water, the upper surface might be entirely black, missing cues like this.

The thick meniscus in these devices cause the same issues as the colored water does. Questionable calibration and alignment. Steps to ensure accuracy are desired.
You have ignored details of a device with specified accuuracy and calibation that I provided.  Why?

17
Samuel Birley Rowbotham studied that very topic in his work Earth Not a Globe. Take a look at his eye level and horizon experiments in Chapter 2, as well as his theodolite experiments.
Interesting that you choose to ignore details of professional surveying equipment.

18
A second set of experiments in a "hidden box" may be helpful, in the case that the experiment always gives random results. But what if they always give the same wrong or high results?

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

Quote
"A scientific control is an experiment or observation designed to minimize the effects of variables other than the independent variable."

It seems difficult doubt that the third container in the three container version of this experiment serves the purpose of the above -- to minimize the effects of variables which may affect the device and act as testament to the underlying hypothesis.

Maybe the curved meniscus always makes the level seem too high. Perhaps the water isn't really level in such devices. It could be that the refraction from going between air and water always affects the results.

In any case, the experiment should be calibrated and controlled for validity.
You could use something like a Leica NA332 which has 1.8mm standard deviation over 1km and comes with a calibration certificate.
Tom, use this.

19
Doesn't look lined up to me.



It appears to be another piece of evidence that these devices are unable to be calibrated.
The accuracy is well within that needed to show the horizon is below the level of the instrument.  Do you have an alternative design?

20
A second set of experiments in a "hidden box" may be helpful, in the case that the experiment always gives random results. But what if they always give the same wrong or high results?

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

Quote
"A scientific control is an experiment or observation designed to minimize the effects of variables other than the independent variable."

It seems difficult doubt that the third container in the three container version of this experiment serves the purpose of the above -- to minimize the effects of variables which may affect the device and act as testament to the underlying hypothesis.

Maybe the curved meniscus always makes the level seem too high. Perhaps the water isn't really level in such devices. It could be that the refraction from going between air and water always affects the results.

In any case, the experiment should be calibrated and controlled for validity.
You could use something like a Leica NA332 which has 1.8mm standard deviation over 1km and comes with a calibration certificate.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 48  Next >