[TomInAustin]

I told you exactly what that projection is.

There is no accurate flat earth map, mostly because the entire concept and debate is something that has pretty recently been reinvigorated. There needs to be a team of people with expertise in cartography AND a willingness to rethink the world map from the ground up.

People navigated for thousands of years without the assumption of the Earth being round. Even the projection you see in your smart phone GPS is essentially a "flat" map.

I did not ask for an official map but what YOU think it looks like. 

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I told you exactly what that projection is.

There is no accurate flat earth map, mostly because the entire concept and debate is something that has pretty recently been reinvigorated. There needs to be a team of people with expertise in cartography AND a willingness to rethink the world map from the ground up.

People navigated for thousands of years without the assumption of the Earth being round. Even the projection you see in your smart phone GPS is essentially a "flat" map.

I did not ask for an official map but what YOU think it looks like.

I don't think anything about the AEP "map." I know that the distances are accurate for latitude only. As is thoroughly explained if you do even a small amount of research into how the projection was made.

[TomInAustin]

I told you exactly what that projection is.

There is no accurate flat earth map, mostly because the entire concept and debate is something that has pretty recently been reinvigorated. There needs to be a team of people with expertise in cartography AND a willingness to rethink the world map from the ground up.

People navigated for thousands of years without the assumption of the Earth being round. Even the projection you see in your smart phone GPS is essentially a "flat" map.

I did not ask for an official map but what YOU think it looks like.

I don't think anything about the AEP "map." I know that the distances are accurate for latitude only. As is thoroughly explained if you do even a small amount of research into how the projection was made.

Again I asked nothing about any projection map.  I know how projection maps are made.  I asked what do you think a flat earth map looks like?  Not a trick question, I really want to know.

I misspoke earlier and said latitude when I meant longitude (since edited).  Do you think that longitude lines maintain the same angle as they go south from the north pole? If so the distance between points at any latitude would be simple to calculate.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I told you exactly what that projection is.

There is no accurate flat earth map, mostly because the entire concept and debate is something that has pretty recently been reinvigorated. There needs to be a team of people with expertise in cartography AND a willingness to rethink the world map from the ground up.

People navigated for thousands of years without the assumption of the Earth being round. Even the projection you see in your smart phone GPS is essentially a "flat" map.

I did not ask for an official map but what YOU think it looks like.

I don't think anything about the AEP "map." I know that the distances are accurate for latitude only. As is thoroughly explained if you do even a small amount of research into how the projection was made.

Again I asked nothing about any projection map.  I know how projection maps are made.  I asked what do you think a flat earth map looks like?  Not a trick question, I really want to know.

I misspoke earlier and said latitude when I meant longitude (since edited).  Do you think that longitude lines maintain the same angle as they go south from the north pole? If so the distance between points at any latitude would be simple to calculate.

Longitude and Latitude would have nothing at all to do with a flat earth map.

[TomInAustin]

I told you exactly what that projection is.

There is no accurate flat earth map, mostly because the entire concept and debate is something that has pretty recently been reinvigorated. There needs to be a team of people with expertise in cartography AND a willingness to rethink the world map from the ground up.

People navigated for thousands of years without the assumption of the Earth being round. Even the projection you see in your smart phone GPS is essentially a "flat" map.

I did not ask for an official map but what YOU think it looks like.

I don't think anything about the AEP "map." I know that the distances are accurate for latitude only. As is thoroughly explained if you do even a small amount of research into how the projection was made.

Again I asked nothing about any projection map.  I know how projection maps are made.  I asked what do you think a flat earth map looks like?  Not a trick question, I really want to know.

I misspoke earlier and said latitude when I meant longitude (since edited).  Do you think that longitude lines maintain the same angle as they go south from the north pole? If so the distance between points at any latitude would be simple to calculate.

Longitude and Latitude would have nothing at all to do with a flat earth map.

Let me try one more time.  What do you think a flat earth map looks like?

[Oami]

There is no accurate flat earth map, mostly because the entire concept and debate is something that has pretty recently been reinvigorated. There needs to be a team of people with expertise in cartography AND a willingness to rethink the world map from the ground up.

There are no decent flat earth maps, because there are no flat earth cartographers.

What kind of willingness would you require? Willingness to ignore the movement of the sun and the other stars? Willingness to ignore the rotation of the earth? What kind of cartographic methods actually would be accepted?

[3DGeek]

So we're being told here that the FE map that shows a series of equally spaced concentric circles for the lines of latitude and straight lines radiating outwards from the North pole for the lines of longitude is no longer considered "correct" in FE circles?

That is very interesting.

I should warn potential revisionist FE cartographers that no matter how they bend, stretch or otherwise distort the shapes of continents and oceans - they will not be able to reproduce the known observations for aircraft flight times and similar hard data correctly.

The mathematics of the situation actually guarantees that only two shapes can explain all of the distances and angles correctly - one of those is a spherical earth as in RET - the other is the inverse of that - a world where the continents and oceans line the inside of a hollow sphere. (Hollow-earthers seem to like this idea - and if there is one thing in our entire universe that both FE'ers and RE'ers can agree upon - it's that the HE'ers are batshit crazy!)

The only map projection that can produce the same distances and angles from a round object to a flat one is this kind of thing:


...which I suppose might work for a Flat Earth if you don't mind having people teleport over the gaps around the edges!

[Disgraced_Shield]

If you are so certain and secure in your belief that the earth is round, why have you been unable to prove it to your friend? That would be the easiest way to handle the situation.

See, this is problematic for me, since the burden of proof is on the FE supporters, who make the claim which refutes accepted science.

And before you tell me that the proof has been made- it hasn't, and you know it hasn't, given the number of 'nobody knows' and 'maybes' and 'we believe' claims. You're all very, very long on theory, and extremely short on tangible evidence.

[Roundy]

See, this is problematic for me, since the burden of proof is on the FE supporters, who make the claim which refutes accepted science.

This is a dubious argument at best. Scientific progress is basically a series of people demonstrating why the accepted dogma of the time is wrong. I mean, Galileo made a claim that refuted accepted science and you lot love him. At the end of the day the burden of proof is on RE because that's the claim that rejects direct observation.

[Tom Bishop]

See, this is problematic for me, since the burden of proof is on the FE supporters, who make the claim which refutes accepted science.

Flat Earth Theory is rooted in empiricism. FE supporters are generally skeptics and empiricists. The burden of proof is on the claimant, and the claimant is not the side claiming that water is wet. The burden of proof is on those who are making the claims of things beyond experience.

http://wiki.tfes.org/Burden_of_Proof

Q. Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove it?

A. No. You're the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system. We're not claiming those things.

A fundamental tenant to the Zetetic philosophy is to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. Zeticism is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable.

You're the one making all of these fantastic claims. You're the one claiming that space ships exist, that the government can land man on the moon, send robots to mars, and that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.

The burden is on you to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on skeptics to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

Another example - A company called Moller International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim without evidence that the Sky Car is working and ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. Should the burden of proof be on Moller that all of their claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on potential investors and the public to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?

The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic. The burden of proof is on you.

[Smokified]

If you are so certain and secure in your belief that the earth is round, why have you been unable to prove it to your friend? That would be the easiest way to handle the situation.

If you are so certain and secure in your belief that the earth is flat, why have you been unable to prove it to anyone at all?

[Tom Bishop]

If you are so certain and secure in your belief that the earth is round, why have you been unable to prove it to your friend? That would be the easiest way to handle the situation.

If you are so certain and secure in your belief that the earth is flat, why have you been unable to prove it to anyone at all?

It is already proven by default. Look out your window sometime. That is a strong and direct empirical proof. It must actually be proven that the earth exists in some other hidden form beyond experience.

[Smokified]

If you are so certain and secure in your belief that the earth is round, why have you been unable to prove it to your friend? That would be the easiest way to handle the situation.

If you are so certain and secure in your belief that the earth is flat, why have you been unable to prove it to anyone at all?

It is already proven by default. Look out your window sometime. That is a strong and direct empirical proof. It must actually be proven that the earth exists in some other hidden form beyond experience.

I have watched boats disappear under the horizon on Lake Superior from the top of Lutsen Mountain with my own eyes.  Are you trying to say that the perception you gather from looking out your window somehow represents the totality of what is really there?  You are clearly having a problem comprehending how small we are in comparison to the planet we live on, and subsequently the nearly unfathomable massiveness of the universe.

There is this thing we have as "intelligent beings" called credible information.  Simply denying something because you have CHOSEN not to see it for yourself, is not even remotely a valid argument that something doesn't exist.  I can say you don't exist simply because I have never seen it for myself...but something tells me you would argue otherwise.

There is only 1 reality, and it is not dictated by perception until you get to the quantum level theories which is an area I don't even remotely expect you to try to venture into.

[Tom Bishop]

I have watched boats disappear under the horizon on Lake Superior from the top of Lutsen Mountain with my own eyes.  Are you trying to say that the perception you gather from looking out your window somehow represents the totality of what is really there?

I am saying that the Round Earth Theory is something which must be proven by default, not assumed. The Sinking Ship effect is addressed and studied in Earth Not a Globe, and proven to be an illusion, but even assuming that the study is completely wrong, your observation only really suggests so far is that the earth is a hill, and my only advice to you is to continue your investigation.

[Smokified]

I have watched boats disappear under the horizon on Lake Superior from the top of Lutsen Mountain with my own eyes.  Are you trying to say that the perception you gather from looking out your window somehow represents the totality of what is really there?

I am saying that the Round Earth Theory is something which must be proven by default, not assumed. The Sinking Ship effect is addressed and studied in Earth Not a Globe, and proven to be an illusion, but even assuming that the study is completely wrong, your observation only really suggests so far is that the earth is a hill, and my only advice to you is to continue your investigation.

You are operating under some kind of misconception that the idea of a round earth is just an assumption simply because you have not seen it in its entirety from looking out your window.

You tell me to look out my window and observe for myself, but then when I tell you I have observed for myself on a far greater scale, you come up with some bogus explanation as to why my observation wasn't valid.

The "sinking ship effect" explanation by "Earth is Not a Globe" is a complete misinterpretation of information.  I have thoroughly studied both reality, and the flat earth theory, and the part that I can't figure out is the mental condition that allows a person to put this much effort into trying to prove something that NOBODY has ever observed while trying to use the justification that the theory is proven by default specifically due to observation, when the alternate and logically accepted solution has been based on countless observations and even more numerous experiments that anyone can do for themselves.

[markjo]

I am saying that the Round Earth Theory is something which must be proven by default, not assumed.

How can RET be proven to the satisfaction of FE'ers when the FE'ers keep rejecting all evidence that proves RET?

[Tom Bishop]

I am saying that the Round Earth Theory is something which must be proven by default, not assumed.

How can RET be proven to the satisfaction of FE'ers when the FE'ers keep rejecting all evidence that proves RET?

The evidence is justifiably rejected. In the case of the sinking ship Rowbotham studies the matter and concludes that in many situations the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope, proving that it is not really be going behind a "hill of water". The same is reported in Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship and other works.

You will need to respond to and address those studies rather than complain about your ancient proofs being rejected.

[Boots]

I am saying that the Round Earth Theory is something which must be proven by default, not assumed.

How can RET be proven to the satisfaction of FE'ers when the FE'ers keep rejecting all evidence that proves RET?

The evidence is justifiably rejected. In the case of the sinking ship Rowbotham studies the matter and concludes that in many situations the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope, proving that it is not really be going behind a "hill of water". The same is reported in Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship and other works.

You will need to respond to and address those studies rather than complain about your ancient proofs being rejected.

OK. Here is the response. Sometimes the reason the ship can't be resolved by the human eye is because it is too distant and lighting conditions are poor etc. These are the situations in which Rowbotham concludes that the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope. What you need to address if you really want to refute this global earth proof is the times when the ship can't be restored or when we see exactly the same amount of ship no matter what strength of telescope we are using, if any at all.

[Smokified]

I am saying that the Round Earth Theory is something which must be proven by default, not assumed.

How can RET be proven to the satisfaction of FE'ers when the FE'ers keep rejecting all evidence that proves RET?

The evidence is justifiably rejected. In the case of the sinking ship Rowbotham studies the matter and concludes that in many situations the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope, proving that it is not really be going behind a "hill of water". The same is reported in Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship and other works.

You will need to respond to and address those studies rather than complain about your ancient proofs being rejected.

OK. Here is the response. Sometimes the reason the ship can't be resolved by the human eye is because it is too distant and lighting conditions are poor etc. These are the situations in which Rowbotham concludes that the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope. What you need to address if you really want to refute this global earth proof is the times when the ship can't be restored or when we see exactly the same amount of ship no matter what strength of telescope we are using, if any at all.

I find it exceedingly interesting how you put this much effort into dispensing this kind of absolute BS.  Are you really under the impression that you are fooling anyone?  Do you actually believe what you are saying? 

Visibility conditions play a factor in scenarios where a ship can be restored into vision using optical enhancement, however this can only be observed until the ship moves beyond the line of site as dictated by the curvature of the earth. A major thing the FE theory leaves out is ocean swelling caused by constant wind direction.  This can mean that the surface of the water is several feet higher several miles out to sea if the wind conditions allow for it.  This would give the false perception that you are seeing the ship beyond the distance you should be able to based on the curvature of the earth due to the ship being elevated from your position.

We have optical lenses that take pictures of the earth from 300 miles in space with decent detail.  You can't use the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat.  Unless you are ok with just flat out lying.

[Boots]

I am saying that the Round Earth Theory is something which must be proven by default, not assumed.

How can RET be proven to the satisfaction of FE'ers when the FE'ers keep rejecting all evidence that proves RET?

The evidence is justifiably rejected. In the case of the sinking ship Rowbotham studies the matter and concludes that in many situations the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope, proving that it is not really be going behind a "hill of water". The same is reported in Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship and other works.

You will need to respond to and address those studies rather than complain about your ancient proofs being rejected.

OK. Here is the response. Sometimes the reason the ship can't be resolved by the human eye is because it is too distant and lighting conditions are poor etc. These are the situations in which Rowbotham concludes that the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope. What you need to address if you really want to refute this global earth proof is the times when the ship can't be restored or when we see exactly the same amount of ship no matter what strength of telescope we are using, if any at all.

I find it exceedingly interesting how you put this much effort into dispensing this kind of absolute BS.  Are you really under the impression that you are fooling anyone?  Do you actually believe what you are saying? 

Visibility conditions play a factor in scenarios where a ship can be restored into vision using optical enhancement, however this can only be observed until the ship moves beyond the line of site as dictated by the curvature of the earth. A major thing the FE theory leaves out is ocean swelling caused by constant wind direction.  This can mean that the surface of the water is several feet higher several miles out to sea if the wind conditions allow for it.  This would give the false perception that you are seeing the ship beyond the distance you should be able to based on the curvature of the earth due to the ship being elevated from your position.

We have optical lenses that take pictures of the earth from 300 miles in space with decent detail.  You can't use the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat.  Unless you are ok with just flat out lying.

Are you responding to me? You should read my post again. Please point out where I have flat-out lied.