stack

• 1250
Re: Flat Earth Map
« Reply #80 on: April 19, 2019, 10:35:22 PM »
Back to Flat Earth Maps. In another thread, I took issue with a specific wiki entry titled “World Geodetic System 1984"

https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

But it’s all probably more relevant here.

In it I find some very specific quote mining and misleading sentiments. Here’s is the recent exchange:

Quote from: stack
If I'm to understand this, FECORE's one 'experiment' funded by membership so far (No other experiments have seemingly taken place) found that, for instance, the 10's of km's in distance measurements show the WGS84 to be off by 6 inches at the shortest distance and less than 2 feet at the longest? Am I mistaken in interpretation?

https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

Nothing in the wiki article addresses the fact that FECORE basically validated WGS84. And we all know that the WGS84 is based upon the ellipsoid. Even the Utah article you always cite with the catchy Title, "The Earth is Not Round!", is actually referring the fact that it isn't round, it's an ellipsoid. From the article:

"NAD83 became the statewide datum standard beginning in 1997...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, both of which are slightly different than the WGS datum."

You really should clean up that wiki entry, it's wildly misleading verging on being outright disingenuous.

Tom’s response:

The article goes over what the anchor points and datums are. "The Earth is Not Round!" sounds pretty clear to me. If the article was about WGS84 distributing round earth measurements the title of the article would be "The Earth is Round!"

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.

...

Latitude and Longitude are useless for measuring distance and area

...

Web Mercator's significant weakness is that measurements of distance and area in its native coordinates are completely unusable.

It says that RE is based on longitude and latitude. The article then says that latitude and longitude are not used.

I would recommend taking it to another thread, as it is off-topic to the subject of gyroscopes and is distracting. Please start a new thread and tell us how this system works if latitude and longitude measurements are not used. I am sure that several others in the community would like to know.

Seemingly the argument is that the ellipsoid based earth model/datum is inaccurate when it comes to flat maps. I guess, therefore flat maps are the real representation of the shape of the earth, flat? I’m guessing b/c I’m not really sure exactly what the wiki entry is arguing for. But I guess if my guess is correct, then it might be easy to create a flat earth map by simply pasting all these State Plane type maps together and boom! Flat Earth map.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

iamcpc

• 654
Re: Flat Earth Map
« Reply #81 on: April 19, 2019, 10:43:30 PM »

Seemingly the argument is that the ellipsoid based earth model/datum is inaccurate when it comes to flat maps. I guess, therefore flat maps are the real representation of the shape of the earth, flat? I’m guessing b/c I’m not really sure exactly what the wiki entry is arguing for. But I guess if my guess is correct, then it might be easy to create a flat earth map by simply pasting all these State Plane type maps together and boom! Flat Earth map.

How anyone can claim that an accurate map which depicts the earth as a flat plane does not exist when literally when literally BILLIONS of people every year, myself included, navigating the earth using a map which depicts the earth as a flat plane. I've linked dozens of them in this thread. It all goes back to the core there is no TRUTH.

stack

• 1250
Re: Flat Earth Map
« Reply #82 on: April 19, 2019, 11:02:42 PM »

Seemingly the argument is that the ellipsoid based earth model/datum is inaccurate when it comes to flat maps. I guess, therefore flat maps are the real representation of the shape of the earth, flat? I’m guessing b/c I’m not really sure exactly what the wiki entry is arguing for. But I guess if my guess is correct, then it might be easy to create a flat earth map by simply pasting all these State Plane type maps together and boom! Flat Earth map.

How anyone can claim that an accurate map which depicts the earth as a flat plane does not exist when literally when literally BILLIONS of people every year, myself included, navigating the earth using a map which depicts the earth as a flat plane. I've linked dozens of them in this thread. It all goes back to the core there is no TRUTH.

I may have not phrased it correctly. Mostly b/c I'm not entirely clear what the wiki is specifically arguing or trying to assert. Flat maps are plenty accurate. The gist is, how are most recognized navigational maps derived? The wiki seems to allude to these State Plane maps (sans longitude & latitude) as perhaps more accurate and not based on spherical/ellipsoid maps, but somehow based solely on a flat earth. Hence, if that is the case, why not paste them all together and you've got yourself a highly accurate flat earth map? Additionally, is the wiki entry even remotely accurate in its depictions/assertions?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

AllAroundTheWorld

• 2412
Re: Flat Earth Map
« Reply #83 on: April 20, 2019, 05:58:14 AM »
You can't say that TRUTH is absolute when no one has been able to present one thing which is TRUE. People presented things that very likely could be TRUE. They also have a very small likely hood of being FALSE.
Again, truth is independent of your or my ability to discern what the truth is.
Person A believes the lion is outside, Person B does not - despite being able to see the lion through the window, he believes it’s a mirage or a model lion or whatever.
If Person A and B both go outside then their fate is the same because the truth is independent of their beliefs.

Dragging this back to FE, the shape of the earth is what it is. The truth of that is independent of your beliefs about that, or mine.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

QED

• 863
• As mad as a hatter.
Re: Flat Earth Map
« Reply #84 on: April 20, 2019, 01:53:45 PM »
You can't say that TRUTH is absolute when no one has been able to present one thing which is TRUE. People presented things that very likely could be TRUE. They also have a very small likely hood of being FALSE.
Again, truth is independent of your or my ability to discern what the truth is.
Person A believes the lion is outside, Person B does not - despite being able to see the lion through the window, he believes it’s a mirage or a model lion or whatever.
If Person A and B both go outside then their fate is the same because the truth is independent of their beliefs.

Dragging this back to FE, the shape of the earth is what it is. The truth of that is independent of your beliefs about that, or mine.

I do understand what you are saying. Look here though: you do not KNOW that it is a requirement for things to have a definite truth value. You DONT know this, you’re assuming it is the case. You assume the logical absolutes are true. You have to - they are unfalsifiable.

It is not possible to verify the absolutes are correct, because absolute knowledge is elusive.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

jimmycrack

• 11
• The earth is NOT flat, and I can prove it.
Re: Flat Earth Map
« Reply #85 on: April 23, 2019, 05:15:57 AM »
Here is one for ya.

Johannesburg to Sydney - 11.75 hour flight
Los Angeles to Shanghai - 13.5 hour flight

Which one of these looks further?

The earth is NOT flat, and I can prove it.

iamcpc

• 654
Re: Flat Earth Map
« Reply #86 on: April 23, 2019, 04:41:17 PM »
Here is one for ya.

Johannesburg to Sydney - 11.75 hour flight
Los Angeles to Shanghai - 13.5 hour flight

Which one of these looks further?

This topic has been discussed hundreds of times. The flat disk model is considerably weakened by known flight times/distances, known travel times/distances, known shipping times/distances. This is why I presented an alternate model in which the earth is represented as a flat plane and is much less weakened by these things

For supporters of the models that are severely weakened by this evidence and these observations I got all the rebuttals from a flight time superthread. (Pick any one of your rebuttals from the list below) Here's a link:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0

-Because the angles of a triangle drawn between three flight paths = 180 degrees the earth is flat.
-Because the angles of a triangle drawn between three flight paths = 179.99984 degrees the earth is slightly concave.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg121615#msg121615

-Distances between two cities which are far apart is unknown
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg121996#msg121996

-Flight GPS systems are inaccurate
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122030#msg122030
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122441#msg122441

-GPS systems are based on a round earth therefore will give measurements/distances which support a round earth.
-Aircraft are using instruments which assume round earth coordinates which will support a round earth.
-There is no flat earth map.
-The difference in flight time is based off of flight speed which has yet to be proven.
-The airplane speed and range is based off round systems therefore will give speeds and ranges which support a round earth
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122359#msg122359

-plane speed measurements are unreliable
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122364#msg122364

-there are no flat earth flight programs, systems, GPS etc because the flat earth aircraft navigation fund is nonexistent.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122369#msg122369

-Triangulation as a measurement of distance can be inaccurate because the "known" locations used for triangulation are based on a round earth system
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122410#msg122410

-there are almost an infinite number of continental configurations (If a flight disproves flat earth continental configuration 23985729387592873 you then need to test continental configuration 23985729387592874).
-Groundspeed measurement instruments use a round earth coordinate system therefore will give results which support a round earth
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122411#msg122411

-proof is needed that mile measurements on a highway are accurate
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122423#msg122423

-Google maps is based on a round earth coordinate system
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122433#msg122433

-any navigation system based on longitude and latitude is a round earth navigation system (which is most likely used in all navigation systems)
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122655#msg122655

-any map, navigation, or measurement system which uses Latitude and Longitude in any way is inaccurate
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122664#msg122664

-That's not the map of the earth (a variant of there is no map of the earth)
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122672#msg122672
« Last Edit: April 23, 2019, 06:38:48 PM by iamcpc »

inquisitive

• 1011
Re: Flat Earth Map
« Reply #87 on: April 25, 2019, 02:23:36 PM »
Please provide details of errors in the WGS84 model used by cartographers across the world.

TomInAustin

• 817
• Round Duh
Re: Flat Earth Map
« Reply #88 on: May 03, 2019, 04:57:06 PM »
As there is no flat earth map I thought I'd have a go at making one
I had a look on Google Maps and used that as my source for distances between places.
Obviously if you don't accept those distances as accurate then that's going to be a problem from the start but given that Google Maps is used by millions of people to get around you'd think we'd know about it if their maps were wrong.

I took some US Cities - I used mainland US partly because it's continental so we get away from complexities about measuring distances across oceans. I picked them fairly arbitrarily but I wanted them far apart as this is where we should see most difference between a flat earth and a globe.

I started with Seattle. Final image is at the bottom of this post.

The distance between Seattle to New York is 2405 Miles
So I drew a black circle diameter 2405 pixels. Seattle is the centre. New York must be somewhere on that circle.

New York to Dallas is 1368 miles. I picked an arbitrary point on the circle surrounding Seattle - to the right of the circle as New York is due East of Seattle. I called that point New York and drew a red circle 1368 pixels around that point.
So Dallas must be somewhere on that red circle.

Seattle to Dallas is 1684 miles so I drew another blue circle around Seattle of diameter 1684 pixels. Dallas must be somewhere on that blue circle

So, Dallas must be on the intersection between the red and blue circles.
There are 2 possibilities as the circles intersect in 2 places. Dallas is south of both New York and Seattle though so I've picked the lower one and called that Dallas.

So now we know where Seattle, New York and Dallas are in relation to one another.
I've marked the cities with rough X's and labelled them.
Now what happens if we add a 4th city?

I picked Minneapolis as it is fairly central to the above 3 cities.
The distance from Minneapolis to
New York is 1020 miles
Seattle is 1384 miles
Dallas is 1389 miles.

So I've drawn green circles with the corresponding number of pixels around those 3 cities.
Minneapolis must be somewhere on each of those green circles so it must be at the intersection of them.

The problem is the three green circles don't all intersect at any point. So either:
1) The distances on Google Maps are wrong
2) I have made an error somewhere in my reasoning or method
3) The earth isn't flat.

Are there any other possibilities?

I did this exercise using Google Sketch-up and published mileage from the airlines.  The results were as expected.  North of the equator it worked reasonably well but it collapsed when southern cities were attempted.
I don't have to go to the gym, I get all my exercise jumping to conclusions.-sandokhan

Gazza711

• 52
Re: Flat Earth Map
« Reply #89 on: May 03, 2019, 09:51:26 PM »
I repeated the above for a few cities in the UK - I even repeated the error, I used the distances as the diameter, not the radius.
I'm not going to post all the details, you can check the distances for yourself.
Interestingly, here we do get a point where the green circles meet which must be where Oxford is.

My conclusion from this is
1) The method I am using is valid
2) The distances as given by Google Maps are likely to be accurate.
3) The difference between a flat earth and a globe earth in terms of accurate mapping is less noticeable over smaller distances, which is as you'd expect.
I would say google maps is more a mercator map for flight purposes used on a public platform. Hope that helps.
I was thinking of a better idea. See if ships follow the great curve for shorter distances across large amounts of water. Aviation uses this rule. If water travel doesnt then we need to research ship travel. Like chile curving down to antarctica and up to new zealand. Thats a typical airline route debated alot about.

0192773

• 4
Re: Flat Earth Map
« Reply #90 on: May 04, 2019, 12:17:51 AM »
I am confused as to why you used google maps. Google Maps is clearly based on a Round Earth Theory. If you zoom out far enough, Google Maps is shown as an image of a round earth. Additionally, it is possible to navigate back to your starting point (even on the most zoomed in level) if you have the patience to scroll enough.

Bikini Polaris

• 93
Re: Flat Earth Map
« Reply #91 on: May 04, 2019, 12:27:18 AM »
I did this exercise using Google Sketch-up and published mileage from the airlines.  The results were as expected.  North of the equator it worked reasonably well but it collapsed when southern cities were attempted.

Since 90% of humans live in the Northern Hemisphere, flat earth maps must be convincing only above the equator. Obviously an Australian would be offended to see his island warped as it is in Rowbotham's map.
Quote from: Pete Svarrior
these waves of smug RE'ers are temporary. Every now and then they flood us for a year or two in response to some media attention, and eventually they peter out. In my view, it's a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

spherical

• 214
Re: Flat Earth Map
« Reply #92 on: May 10, 2019, 07:58:21 PM »
Agreed, southern hemisphere FE map fails tremendously.  The inventors of FE thought people from southern hemisphere are native dumb people that can not read or write, and would never contest such very wrong map and statements.  They just forget the 11% world population down there are not monkeys, there are plenty of universities, very large cities, heavy industry, research centers, scientists.  Antarctica is packed with research groups from all over the world.  Everything related to the Southern Hemisphere, South Pole and Antarctica literally kills any FE statements.  They also count with people from North Hemisphere never traveled overseas, never stepped inside an airplane, can't use a calculator, can't do trigonometry, never studied physics (never studied anything), never gazed the universe through a telescope.  The FE southern hemisphere map is a literal attack to human intelligence.

Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6475
• Flat Earth Believer
Re: Flat Earth Map
« Reply #93 on: May 11, 2019, 04:08:02 AM »
I did this exercise using Google Sketch-up and published mileage from the airlines.  The results were as expected.  North of the equator it worked reasonably well but it collapsed when southern cities were attempted.

Since 90% of humans live in the Northern Hemisphere, flat earth maps must be convincing only above the equator. Obviously an Australian would be offended to see his island warped as it is in Rowbotham's map.

Pull up Rowbotham's map. Australia is its normal size there. The map you usually see online is a globe projection.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2019, 10:30:22 AM by Tom Bishop »

ChrisTP

• 416
Re: Flat Earth Map
« Reply #94 on: May 11, 2019, 10:29:24 AM »
I did this exercise using Google Sketch-up and published mileage from the airlines.  The results were as expected.  North of the equator it worked reasonably well but it collapsed when southern cities were attempted.

Since 90% of humans live in the Northern Hemisphere, flat earth maps must be convincing only above the equator. Obviously an Australian would be offended to see his island warped as it is in Rowbotham's map.

Pull up Rowbotham's map. Australia is it's normal size there. The map you usually see online is a globe projection.
Australia isn't the only place in the southern hemisphere and the map you're refering to also destroys Argentina's shape and size considerably.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Macarios

Re: Flat Earth Map
« Reply #95 on: May 11, 2019, 03:05:59 PM »
Pull up Rowbotham's map. Australia is its normal size there. The map you usually see online is a globe projection.

Which one? The Wiki shows only two.
Australia doesn't look like Australia at all, Africa doesn't look like Africa, South America doesn't look like South America:

Rowbotham's map from 1841

Rowbotham's map from 1873

In reality the same method used to correctly map the British Isles, North America and Europe was used to map Australia and South America.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2019, 03:09:00 PM by Macarios »

Why Not

Re: Flat Earth Map
« Reply #96 on: May 11, 2019, 03:18:47 PM »
And while us Australians might be disappointed to see our country so distorted. The New Zealanders will be happy to know that they're actually living one island that is almost the size of Australia and not the two tiny islands they have been lead to believe they are on.

spherical

• 214
Re: Flat Earth Map
« Reply #97 on: May 11, 2019, 03:48:55 PM »
Pull up Rowbotham's map. Australia is its normal size there. The map you usually see online is a globe projection.

Tom, can you please be dear and post here two easy things, according to FE map:

1) The direct physical distance from Perth to Sidney in Australia
2) The direct physical distance from Perth (AU) to Cape Town in Africa

The numbers don't need to be very precise, any 10 km error is acceptable.

iamcpc

• 654
Re: Flat Earth Map
« Reply #98 on: May 13, 2019, 06:45:43 PM »
Pull up Rowbotham's map. Australia is its normal size there. The map you usually see online is a globe projection.

Tom, can you please be dear and post here two easy things, according to FE map:

1) The direct physical distance from Perth to Sidney in Australia
2) The direct physical distance from Perth (AU) to Cape Town in Africa

The numbers don't need to be very precise, any 10 km error is acceptable.

Spherical,

A problem here is that, based on my research and observations, that a vast majority of the community here believes something along the lines of:

1.  There is no FE map.
2. What you are calling a FE map is just an idea or concept that has not been tested or investigated.
3. If you ask 10 different people it's comment to get 10 different ideas about the flat earth so, among those 10 people, there are 5-6 different maps and then 4-5 models which can't be mapped.

That's the entire point of this thread. There are visual representations of different flat earth models and ideas but no one official flat earth map. There is not even a group of FE maps that a majority of the community can agree on.