Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 868
    • View Profile
Pre-satellite measurements of position
« on: December 05, 2018, 02:41:58 PM »
This is the first post to investigate (1) whether pre-satellite or early methods of measuring position are any good, (2) whether they agree with modern satellite based methods hence (3) whether this throws any light on the question of whether ‘official’ distances can be trusted or not.

First investigation takes Emmanuel Bowen’s 1847 map of ‘Negroland’, actually the Gulf of Guinea and Ivory Coast. I list below three places together with the Google latitude and longitude coordinates first, then Bowen’s coordinates.

Akassa 4.27N 6.1E ---------------- 4.23N 6E
Lagos 6.5N 3.4E ---------------- 6.9N 3.5E
Bijago Isles 11.3N 16W ---------------- 11N 16W

Note that Bowen was probably writing just before more accurate measurements of longitude were introduced by John Harrison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison.



Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 868
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position
« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2018, 01:16:46 PM »
This one is interesting (chart below). Cook’s map of New Zealand, which he charted in the 1770s. At first I thought Cook had got it completely wrong. Look at Cape Reinga (Google 34.4S, 172.7E), the northern tip of the north island. Cook has 187.3 longitude which seems completely wrong, until I realised that in those days they stated longitude as west of Greenwich meridian, whereas the modern convention is to state as east. If you subtract 187.3 from 360 you get 172.7E, which agrees perfectly with Google.

This article on Cook’s method of navigation states that he did not have Harrison’s new chronometer for determining longitude, and instead used the ‘lunar method’. See the article for a description of the method.

Follow-up posts will be on early surveys of the Antarctic coast, which Cook approached, but never visited. Another key question I want to address in this investigation is whether latitude and longitude co-ordinates complete use up the available space, or whether there is any unknown land that is completely outside the co-ordinate system.



Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position
« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2018, 01:43:20 PM »
This one is interesting (chart below). Cook’s map of New Zealand, which he charted in the 1770s. At first I thought Cook had got it completely wrong. Look at Cape Reinga (Google 34.4S, 172.7E), the northern tip of the north island. Cook has 187.3 longitude which seems completely wrong, until I realised that in those days they stated longitude as west of Greenwich meridian, whereas the modern convention is to state as east. If you subtract 187.3 from 360 you get 172.7E, which agrees perfectly with Google.

This article on Cook’s method of navigation states that he did not have Harrison’s new chronometer for determining longitude, and instead used the ‘lunar method’. See the article for a description of the method.

Follow-up posts will be on early surveys of the Antarctic coast, which Cook approached, but never visited. Another key question I want to address in this investigation is whether latitude and longitude co-ordinates complete use up the available space, or whether there is any unknown land that is completely outside the co-ordinate system.


What I find more interesting is that plate tectonics act at a rate of 2cm to 5cm a year: Yet, MIRACULOUSLY, New Zealand remains in the same exact place Cook found it, clearly demonstrating the LIE perpetuated by RE! You need to go tell Google to update the Earth in order to account for tectonics. Also tell all the textbook publishers to update their material... LOL!

ANOTHER FE VICTORY!
« Last Edit: December 06, 2018, 02:01:17 PM by totallackey »

Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position
« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2018, 02:41:14 PM »
What I find more interesting is that plate tectonics act at a rate of 2cm to 5cm a year: Yet, MIRACULOUSLY, New Zealand remains in the same exact place Cook found it, clearly demonstrating the LIE perpetuated by RE! You need to go tell Google to update the Earth in order to account for tectonics. Also tell all the textbook publishers to update their material... LOL!

ANOTHER FE VICTORY!

So in 200 years or so you'd expect a shift in position of perhaps 4m in some direction or other, or in other words about 0.1 arcseconds in latitude (if we're saying a N-S shift for example). I'm not entirely sure I would say I could spot a 0.1 arcsecond shift between this map and current Google maps. Do you have some other reason to claim that New Zealand is in the exact same position?

Secondly, I don't see a connection between plate tectonics and the shape of the earth. Are you saying if plate tectonic shift does not occur then this proves the earth is flat? I have a basketball in my garage and I have never had any tectonic shift problems with it. Does this mean it must be flat too (maybe it just needs pumping up)?

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5141
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position
« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2018, 03:04:32 PM »
0.1 degrees works out to approximately 10kms so it looks like everything still checks out. Total Lackey, we forgive your excitement to yell GOTCHA!
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position
« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2018, 04:36:09 PM »
What I find more interesting is that plate tectonics act at a rate of 2cm to 5cm a year: Yet, MIRACULOUSLY, New Zealand remains in the same exact place Cook found it, clearly demonstrating the LIE perpetuated by RE! You need to go tell Google to update the Earth in order to account for tectonics. Also tell all the textbook publishers to update their material... LOL!

ANOTHER FE VICTORY!

So in 200 years or so you'd expect a shift in position of perhaps 4m in some direction or other, or in other words about 0.1 arcseconds in latitude (if we're saying a N-S shift for example). I'm not entirely sure I would say I could spot a 0.1 arcsecond shift between this map and current Google maps. Do you have some other reason to claim that New Zealand is in the exact same position?

Secondly, I don't see a connection between plate tectonics and the shape of the earth. Are you saying if plate tectonic shift does not occur then this proves the earth is flat? I have a basketball in my garage and I have never had any tectonic shift problems with it. Does this mean it must be flat too (maybe it just needs pumping up)?
0.1 degrees works out to approximately 10kms so it looks like everything still checks out. Total Lackey, we forgive your excitement to yell GOTCHA!
A) I didn't provide the longitudes reference the map of Cook and Google Earth.

It was the OP:

This one is interesting (chart below). Cook’s map of New Zealand, which he charted in the 1770s. At first I thought Cook had got it completely wrong. Look at Cape Reinga (Google 34.4S, 172.7E), the northern tip of the north island. Cook has 187.3 longitude which seems completely wrong, until I realised that in those days they stated longitude as west of Greenwich meridian, whereas the modern convention is to state as east. If you subtract 187.3 from 360 you get 172.7E, which agrees perfectly with Google.

2) The OP states the map provided by Cook and current Google Earth, "...agrees perfectly...

It is the OP stating New Zealand is in the exact same position, down to the tenth of a degree.

According to RE, 00 has been 00 and has been known for some time.

Funny, all the PRECISE TECHNOLOGY touted by RE proponents in support of the globe (high resolution imagery and extremely accurate GPS courtesy of these amazing satellites), cannot detect the longitudinal change of an island the size of New Zealand or even entire continents over the course of 250 years. GPS has an accuracy of, "... a range of three to five meters, or up to 16 feet away."
GPS will be accurate within one foot in some phones next year
By Jacob Kastrenakes@jake_k  Sep 25, 2017, 2:32pm EDT
https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/9/25/16362296/gps-accuracy-improving-one-foot-broadcom

Well, we are a year away from the time the article was written. Yeah, looks like another flying car to me...LOL!

So, no...FE STILL WINS!!!
« Last Edit: December 06, 2018, 05:01:43 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5141
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position
« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2018, 05:19:32 PM »
You obviously didn't understand what was said.  Have another go, I will break it down for you:
  • One degree of latitude represnet approximately 111kms of distance.
  • Therefore 0.1 degrees represent approximately 11kms of distance.
  • According to tectonic plate theory, NZ should have shifted approximately 4m from the time of Cook's measurement to today.
  • That would create a shift of 0.00003 degrees.
  • This is not a significant difference.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 868
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2018, 05:24:38 PM »
I don’t really understand the logic.
What I find more interesting is that plate tectonics act at a rate of 2cm to 5cm a year:
Right, but how does modern science detect such movements? Either by the traditional lat/long method or by satellite.

Quote
Yet, MIRACULOUSLY, New Zealand remains in the same exact place Cook found it
(2018-1770) x 0.05 = 12.4 metres. Assuming the movement is north-south, we divide that by 111km (=111,000), which gives 0.000112 degrees, or about 0.4 arcseconds. (An arcsecond is 1/60^2 degrees, a very small angle.

I hope I got the maths right, I am sure robinofloxley can correct me (who comes to a similar answer above). 

So I don’t understand the ‘New Zealand remains in the same exact place’ bit. For (a) you wouldn’t see that from the map and (b) I was reading off the slightly blurred illustration above, with no pretence to huge accuracy.
Quote
clearly demonstrating the LIE perpetuated by RE! You need to go tell Google to update the Earth in order to account for tectonics. Also tell all the textbook publishers to update their material... LOL!
Quote
ANOTHER FE VICTORY!
Far from it.



Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 868
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position
« Reply #8 on: December 06, 2018, 05:26:33 PM »
You obviously didn't understand what was said.  Have another go, I will break it down for you:
  • One degree of latitude represnet approximately 111kms of distance.
  • Therefore 0.1 degrees represent approximately 11kms of distance.
  • According to tectonic plate theory, NZ should have shifted approximately 4m from the time of Cook's measurement to today.
  • That would create a shift of 0.00003 degrees.
  • This is not a significant difference.
Our posts crossed. I made the more extreme assumption of 5cm per year, which gives over 12m, but that is still a tiny fraction of a degree.

Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position
« Reply #9 on: December 06, 2018, 05:36:02 PM »
According to this https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/aug/03/mind-the-gap-australias-latitude-and-longitude-to-shift-2m-next-year

Then the latitude and longitude of Australia was adjusted by "nearly 2m" in 2017 to account for tectonic plate shift. Interesting, didn't know this happened - you learn something new every day...

"Daniel Jaksa of Geoscience Australia, the body responsible for mapping the continent, told Guardian Australia the shortfall between the two systems would be addressed with an upcoming change.

“We’re working on moving Australia’s latitude and longitude to reflect our actual position in the world.

"Australia will shift its longitude and latitude by 1.8m in the direction of its tectonic motion from 1 January 2017, with the overcorrection meaning the local and global coordinates will align in 2020. Similar corrections were made in 1966, 1984 and 1994."

Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2018, 08:04:09 PM »
Each of the last replies from RE remind of the good ole days of:


*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 522
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position
« Reply #11 on: December 06, 2018, 09:47:00 PM »
Each of the last replies from RE remind of the good ole days of:



I'm sure your video response is hilarious, but it's broken. And when you need to resort to a low content meme for a response you've just defeated your own argument. Not that you ever really had one.

NZ has moved a couple of meters and the spherically based map/navigation systems of the globe have accounted for it.

Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2018, 11:32:49 AM »
I'm sure your video response is hilarious, but it's broken.
Even though my response is broken, it is not nearly as broken as the current Google Earth depiction of NZ being located in the exact same position as Cook found it.
And when you need to resort to a low content meme for a response you've just defeated your own argument. Not that you ever really had one.
Says who?
NZ has moved a couple of meters and the spherically based map/navigation systems of the globe have accounted for it.
No... it hasn't.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5141
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position
« Reply #13 on: December 07, 2018, 11:48:58 AM »
Total Lackey-Can you address that the proposition that the amount NZ would have moved according to plate tectonic theory is several orders of magnitude less than both of the measurements cited and therefore irrelevant?
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 522
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position
« Reply #14 on: December 07, 2018, 11:55:48 AM »
I'm sure your video response is hilarious, but it's broken.
Even though my response is broken, it is not nearly as broken as the current Google Earth depiction of NZ being located in the exact same position as Cook found it.
And when you need to resort to a low content meme for a response you've just defeated your own argument. Not that you ever really had one.
Says who?

When you provide a valid argument for your position it will be addressed accordingly. You have yet to do so and a meme post is further evidence that you have yet to do so.

NZ has moved a couple of meters and the spherically based map/navigation systems of the globe have accounted for it.
No... it hasn't.

Evidence as such has already been provided. Provide an argument that it has not. "No... it hasn't" is not based upon anything factual other than you saying, No... it hasn't.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5463
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position
« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2018, 01:40:22 PM »
Can you explain some more about the premise of this thread? Why would the latitude or longitude coordinates of New Zealand have changed since the mid 1800's?

Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position
« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2018, 01:57:37 PM »
I'm sure your video response is hilarious, but it's broken.
Even though my response is broken, it is not nearly as broken as the current Google Earth depiction of NZ being located in the exact same position as Cook found it.
And when you need to resort to a low content meme for a response you've just defeated your own argument. Not that you ever really had one.
Says who?

When you provide a valid argument for your position it will be addressed accordingly. You have yet to do so and a meme post is further evidence that you have yet to do so.
Ah, the good ole sole arbiter of validity.

I was wondering when the sole arbiter would rear its head.
NZ has moved a couple of meters and the spherically based map/navigation systems of the globe have accounted for it.
No... it hasn't.
Evidence as such has already been provided. Provide an argument that it has not. "No... it hasn't" is not based upon anything factual other than you saying, No... it hasn't.
Wait, you can detail what constitutes validity but cannot discern that 172.7 = 172.7?

HTF is that possible?

Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position
« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2018, 02:03:32 PM »
Can you explain some more about the premise of this thread? Why would the latitude or longitude coordinates of New Zealand have changed since the mid 1800's?
The claim is that the coordinates have changes because of tectonic plate movements, but those movements are too slow to have significantly changed the coordinates in a mere 200 years, these things move over geologic time.

I believe the idea of the thread is to compare distances as calculated using old surveying methods with distances calculated with satellite data.
If those are consistent then it gives some confidence in the satellite data.
One of the issues with FE is that we know how far places are apart and there is no way to construct a map using that data which is true to those distances.
All maps are projections of a globe and thus have some distortion, were the earth really flat it would be possible to make a map which accurately represents the flat earth. The fact we can't proves that the earth is not flat. Your only get out for that is to claim that the known distances between places are not known accurately. I believe the idea of this thread is to demonstrate a level of confidence in those distances. If they are known accurately then no flat earth map is possible therefore the earth cannot be flat.
"This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement" - Tom Bishop

Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position
« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2018, 02:06:20 PM »
Total Lackey-Can you address that the proposition that the amount NZ would have moved according to plate tectonic theory is several orders of magnitude less than both of the measurements cited and therefore irrelevant?
Look at the issues raised.

edby stated Google Earth has NZ precisely where Cook stated it was in 1770.

GPS, HRI via satellites...

NZ would not be precisely where Cook stated it was in 1770.

That is fact.

Furthermore, no noted changes in reporting (according to the thief of Sherwood) for over 20 years. despite all this  high-tech?

Nope, not gonna give an inch on this one...

Just like the failure of a working CGI model of the Solar System utilizing Kepler/Newton/Einstein math inputs, this one fails too...

Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position
« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2018, 02:07:50 PM »
The fact we can't proves that the earth is not flat.
The fact we cannot proves we cannot occupy all spaces at once.