geckothegeek

Please, before commenting, at the very least read the summary and below. I know it's a lot of text, but it's important.

So, on the Ice Wall map / Azimuthal Equidistant Projection map. I'm sure y'all know which one I mean.
People have flown over Antarctica, and the flight distances on the southern hemiplane are way too big - let alone the fact that if it were true, planes wouldn't fly the routes they fly, but shorter ones without unnecessary arcs. It's been discussed in countless of threads.

Then there's the newer, bipolar map with Antarctica as an actual continent - yay! But with this model, there's absolutely NO explanation for people travelling from the USA to Japan in the comparatively small amount of time that is observed, since they would have to fly over the Atlantic, Europe and most of Asia.

Also, the map clearly shows there is something "south" of the South Pole, which is contradictory. It's also not how magnetic fields work. There would be large spaces of sea where a compass needle simply would do nothing at all, or just point away from the South Pole - but in this model, the direction opposite south apparently doesn't have to be north. This is in direct contradiction to what is observed everywhere on Earth. And yes, I know the geographic and magnetic South Pole are two different locations, but this problem arises no matter where specifically locate the south pole, as long as it is a fixed point. Compass readings would never be accurate whenever you are east or west of 0° longitude.



To summarize:
The Antarctica as Ice Wall model cannot be true because (among other reasons, I'm sure I'm missing some)
 - there would be bizarrely unrealistic flight durations and routes on the Southern Hemiplane, no matter where specifically the continents are located. If anyone can come up with a map where routes and distances actually behave even roughly like they do in real life, by all means enlighten us.
 - Antarctica is an actual continent, not a huge ring of ice. You can visit it, and you can fly over it, and it's all been done before. If Antarctica is observed to NOT be an Ice Wall along the edge of Earth, then where could it possibly be located in this model so that everything (compass needles / the magnetic south pole; distance from other places) still approximately matches up? It's just not possible. Again, if you disagree, give me evidence (read: a map where it works).

The Two Pole model I've seen around lately cannot be true either, because
 - There's stretches of sea (and islands) "south" (further down on a map) of the South Pole. Where does a compass needle point? North? In that case, the other readings on the compass are not correct, which is not what is observed in real life in those places. Does it just point straight away from the south pole because of magnetic repulsion of the magnetized needle? In that case, again, it doesn't point north, which is not what is observed, either. And don't tell me it's because the actual magnetic south pole is somewhere else, because we know where it is, and it's on (or extremely near) Antarctica, not far off at the South End of the World.
 - There's the unfixable issue that you have to fly over the Atlantic and Europe to get to Japan, and even if you relocate stuff on the map (because people repeatedly say those are just models of how it could be, not maps), there's always the issue of planes on the west end of the Western Hemiplane having to fly over all of the rest of the world to reach the eastern edge of the Eastern Hemiplane. This is the case with all FE maps where neither of the Poles is in the center, and no amount of relocating continents can fix that, so the Bipolar Model CANNOT POSSIBLY be accurate. You should stop using it.

Please note what I am arguing here. This post is NOT trying to disprove FE theory. What I wanted to convey is that both models FE theory has at this moment for what the world roughly looks are not compatible with our observations of this world. My conclusion out of this is NOT that the Earth is round, but that your top priority at this moment should be finding a model of the Flat Earth that is actually in accordance with the real world. Again, I am not talking about specific distances and traveling times and stuff that can be fixed by relocating the continents. I am pointing out fundamental flaws in the very nature of the existing models.

Great timing for your post.  We are actually working out a model in this thread.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0

If a flat map is possible it will come to light.  If not it will be obvious.  It's not an argument thread but a compilation of indisputable facts.  Come join in.

There are no flat earth maps.
The  Unipolar ("ice ring") and the Bipolar ("Antarctica as a Continent") are just two projections made from the globe.

geckothegeek

And i've just stumbled upon a video about moon having an overlay of earth's true map... Just imagine if this is true, and if the real map is floating in the sky on the face of the moon, and nobody from flat earthers pays attention to it. Yet we're not even questioning the flat earth map for its flaws.
What the bloody hell is that guy even talking about? Moon doesn't reflect Earth like a mirror - neither in RE, nor in FE theory. This "map" is just the Moon's natural rock formations. You can actually verify this yourself with a telescope.

I just noticed the video's category is Comedy. Explains a lot, doesn't it?

There was an ancient legend that the moon was a mirror reflection of the earth.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8950
    • View Profile
There are no flat earth maps.

Actually, there are.

There are no flat earth maps.

Actually, there are.
Would you be kind enough to point us to one then? Because I've seen told to us time and time again that the two images on the wiki are not maps, but suggestions on how things *could* look. Which makes sense as both of them are simple projections of the globe model onto a flat plane.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8950
    • View Profile
There are no flat earth maps.

Actually, there are.
Would you be kind enough to point us to one then? Because I've seen told to us time and time again that the two images on the wiki are not maps, but suggestions on how things *could* look. Which makes sense as both of them are simple projections of the globe model onto a flat plane.

Here is one example of a FE map.

You can also find more here.

There are no flat earth maps.

Actually, there are.
Would you be kind enough to point us to one then? Because I've seen told to us time and time again that the two images on the wiki are not maps, but suggestions on how things *could* look. Which makes sense as both of them are simple projections of the globe model onto a flat plane.

Here is one example of a FE map.

You can also find more here.
We've been told, repeatedly, on this site that those aren't actual maps. Does this mean you support them as actual maps we could use to attempt to measure distances and track navigation on? Because from what I'm aware all of those are simply projections of the globe Earth onto a flat map. Which does not equal a FE map. As amusing as it is that you're 'trolling' me with a lmgtfy link.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8950
    • View Profile
We've been told, repeatedly, on this site that those aren't actual maps.
I assure you they are maps.


Does this mean you support them as actual maps we could use to attempt to measure distances and track navigation on?
Not sure, haven't attempted it.


As amusing as it is that you're 'trolling' me with a lmgtfy link.
If you consider that to be trolling you probably shouldn't be online anymore...

We've been told, repeatedly, on this site that those aren't actual maps.
I assure you they are maps.


Does this mean you support them as actual maps we could use to attempt to measure distances and track navigation on?
Not sure, haven't attempted it.


As amusing as it is that you're 'trolling' me with a lmgtfy link.
If you consider that to be trolling you probably shouldn't be online anymore...
A map implies distances and shapes should be correct. I'm more than up for using those and doing some calculations and such on them. Just want to be sure.

Hence my '.' around the word. I'll remember not to jest with you going forward as you appear to lack a sense of humor.

geckothegeek

There are no flat earth maps.

Actually, there are.

Just show them. They should be accurate in all respects. I have yet to see them.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2017, 07:25:18 PM by geckothegeek »

There are no flat earth maps.

Actually, there are.

Just show them. They should be accurate in all respects. I have yet to see them.
And to be clear these should accurately represent the shape and size of the world, whatever it is.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8950
    • View Profile

There are no flat earth maps.

Actually, there are.
Would you be kind enough to point us to one then? Because I've seen told to us time and time again that the two images on the wiki are not maps, but suggestions on how things *could* look. Which makes sense as both of them are simple projections of the globe model onto a flat plane.

Here is one example of a FE map.

You can also find more here.
There are no flat earth maps.

Actually, there are.

Just show them. They should be accurate in all respects. I have yet to see them.
Above is what he's given us. Apparently Junker believes these to be accurate depictions of the flat Earth we live on. Tom doesn't appear to agree with him on that, but at least Junker has offered something.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8950
    • View Profile
Apparently Junker believes these to be accurate depictions of the flat Earth we live on.

Curious, I don't remember claiming that.

Apparently Junker believes these to be accurate depictions of the flat Earth we live on.

Curious, I don't remember claiming that.
Then we must disagree on the meaning of the word 'map' because by the understanding of the word both myself and gecko have put forth that is exactly what you've said.

Just show them.

Already done.
We've been told, repeatedly, on this site that those aren't actual maps.
I assure you they are maps.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8950
    • View Profile
Apparently Junker believes these to be accurate depictions of the flat Earth we live on.

Curious, I don't remember claiming that.
Then we must disagree on the meaning of the word 'map' because by the understanding of the word both myself and gecko have put forth that is exactly what you've said.

Just show them.

Already done.
We've been told, repeatedly, on this site that those aren't actual maps.
I assure you they are maps.

I clearly must be missing something. I read everything you quoted and nowhere do any of my statements say what you claim.

Apparently Junker believes these to be accurate depictions of the flat Earth we live on.

Curious, I don't remember claiming that.
Then we must disagree on the meaning of the word 'map' because by the understanding of the word both myself and gecko have put forth that is exactly what you've said.

Just show them.

Already done.
We've been told, repeatedly, on this site that those aren't actual maps.
I assure you they are maps.

I clearly must be missing something. I read everything you quoted and nowhere do any of my statements say what you claim.
So in your world offering forth something when asked for it does not imply any sort of approval or agreement with that something when you don't state so? Huh, you really DO live in your own little world.
Maps were asked for/about.
You said there were maps and offered those up.
You now claim you never said you thought those were maps. O.o
So, as I said, clearly that means we disagree on what the word 'map' means, despite both gecko and myself laying out what we are looking for.

There are no flat earth maps.

Actually, there are.

Just show them. They should be accurate in all respects. I have yet to see them.

Here's what gecko said that you conveniently snipped most of away and replied "Already done." Perhaps you don't understand implication? Or how to be clear in your wording to avoid said implication?

geckothegeek

Apparently Junker believes these to be accurate depictions of the flat Earth we live on.

Curious, I don't remember claiming that.
Then we must disagree on the meaning of the word 'map' because by the understanding of the word both myself and gecko have put forth that is exactly what you've said.

Just show them.

Already done.
We've been told, repeatedly, on this site that those aren't actual maps.
I assure you they are maps.

I clearly must be missing something. I read everything you quoted and nowhere do any of my statements say what you claim.
So in your world offering forth something when asked for it does not imply any sort of approval or agreement with that something when you don't state so? Huh, you really DO live in your own little world.
Maps were asked for/about.
You said there were maps and offered those up.
You now claim you never said you thought those were maps. O.o
So, as I said, clearly that means we disagree on what the word 'map' means, despite both gecko and myself laying out what we are looking for.

There are no flat earth maps.

Actually, there are.

Just show them. They should be accurate in all respects. I have yet to see them.

Here's what gecko said that you conveniently snipped most of away and replied "Already done." Perhaps you don't understand implication? Or how to be clear in your wording to avoid said implication?

If "they" are "already done", where are "they" ???

I have said it before and I guess I will say it again . LOL.
This website might be more interesting if the theme of the website was :

" Look.....We all now what the shape of the earth is. It is a globe. But have you ever wondered how things would have to be if the earth was not a globe ? This website is for those ideas . The first problem seems to be in coming up with a flat earth map that accurately shows the sizes and shapes of the Continents and the spaces and distances between them."

The only two main maps presented so far (Unipolar and Bipolar Projections of The Globe) certainly don't have those properties. As a start someone or some group needs to do some work.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2017, 12:42:43 AM by geckothegeek »

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Interesting train of thought.

So in a flat earth, there could be a "bar magnet" buried not too far below the surface.   So if you were to travel in the direction that the compass points ("North") then you could find yourself moving towards or away from the setting sun (conventionally "West" and "East").

I'm pretty sure there is no record of such a remarkable event.

But I'm VERY sure it can't be true because "North" is also indicated by the position of the star "Polaris" (aka "The Pole Star")...and mariners all over the world will use a mix of compass navigation and celestial navigation.

If Polaris was off in one direction and the compass needle pointing off in some completely different direction (more than the handful of degrees accounted for by the magnetic and 'true' pole issue) - then I'm 100% certain that this would have been written about in EVERY guide to navigation...and it just isn't.

There is simply no way that the compass could be pointing other than within a few degrees of Polaris without us knowing about it.  So if FET requires these crazy compass directions then it MUST be false.

I had assumed that you'd be imagining a magnetic field that closely matches that of RET...so a very deeply buried, curved magnet would be needed.

But there is simply no possibility that there are places on Earth where the compass points toward the rising or setting sun...NOT POSSIBLE!

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Offline ISpy

  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Pointed this way from the 'Both the Ice Wall and Bipolar Maps Are Wrong' threat....

Ships heading south to the Antarctic will always end up in an area that is carefully controlled. Hence why detailed exploration is not possible

However on the standard FE map 'South' points in different directions. Therefore, ships heading south would meet the ice in different places along the range. And it is simply inconceivable that the 'UN Alliance' are able to strictly monitor and control the whole range nor set up identical sites around the ice to fool us!!


Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Pointed this way from the 'Both the Ice Wall and Bipolar Maps Are Wrong' threat....

Ships heading south to the Antarctic will always end up in an area that is carefully controlled. Hence why detailed exploration is not possible

However on the standard FE map 'South' points in different directions. Therefore, ships heading south would meet the ice in different places along the range. And it is simply inconceivable that the 'UN Alliance' are able to strictly monitor and control the whole range nor set up identical sites around the ice to fool us!!

So - when some one in South Africa looks towards the "south" (outwards from the center) - will they see the same "Southern Cross" star formation that someone in Australia or Southern Chile sees?   (HINT: Yes, they do!)  So where are those stars physically located?
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?