#### zp0okii

• 33
##### Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #40 on: August 29, 2017, 03:47:46 PM »
So how do you suggest we figure out a map then? If ship captains can't properly know their location/how far they have traveled, how should they chart their course?

Why are you assuming that it possible to easily know how far you have traveled on the open ocean?

You could use the altitude of the North Star to get a latitude, but you would need to know what latitudes points mean in regards to the total shape of the earth to get a real meaning.

Quote
Also, you don't need to know DISTANCE to travel accurately, but you do need to know ANGLES, which is what the Mercator model is all about - a flat earth model would have the same angles on a map as exist on the flat earth plane, which simply isn't how maps have been proven to work.

What makes you think that an angle is preserved on a flat Mercator map when transmuted into a globe?

Because that's the whole reason it was created! It provides the most reliable (but not fastest) route from point A to point B. A straight line on the Mercator results in a "J" shaped path, even though, when using a compass, it appears that you traveled a straight line along an x degree trajectory.

The angles aren't preserved. Look at the Mercator map:

Use the following three points:

A: The lower-most point in the bottom-left corner of the map. (Antarctica).
B: The bottom tip of Africa.
C: The lower-most point in the bottom-right corner of the map. (Antarctica).

Are you seriously going to tell us that this angle will be preserved on a globe?

For navigational purposes, yes it is! When using a compass to travel from point A from above to point C from above, you only have to follow the angle between the two referenced from a Mercator map in order to make it to the location - it may form a "J" on the globe, but the navigational angle is preserved! That's literally the entire reason it was commissioned!

Points A and C are near the same point in my example, the South Pole, according the Mercator map. How could two points near each other at the South Pole have such a wide angle originating from Africa in the Round Earth model?

Angles are most assuredly not preserved.

They absolutely are, and there are hard mathematics behind it - the reason the angles are so "wide" but so close is because you are going to the west for point A and to the east for point C. If you shifted the viewpoint of the Mercator map by a few miles either direction, points A and C would be next to each other, meaning you could just travel either East or West to reach the midpoint between the two - preserving the angles.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6734
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #41 on: August 29, 2017, 03:49:38 PM »
So how do you suggest we figure out a map then? If ship captains can't properly know their location/how far they have traveled, how should they chart their course?

Why are you assuming that it possible to easily know how far you have traveled on the open ocean?

You could use the altitude of the North Star to get a latitude, but you would need to know what latitudes points mean in regards to the total shape of the earth to get a real meaning.

Quote
Also, you don't need to know DISTANCE to travel accurately, but you do need to know ANGLES, which is what the Mercator model is all about - a flat earth model would have the same angles on a map as exist on the flat earth plane, which simply isn't how maps have been proven to work.

What makes you think that an angle is preserved on a flat Mercator map when transmuted into a globe?

Because that's the whole reason it was created! It provides the most reliable (but not fastest) route from point A to point B. A straight line on the Mercator results in a "J" shaped path, even though, when using a compass, it appears that you traveled a straight line along an x degree trajectory.

The angles aren't preserved. Look at the Mercator map:

Use the following three points:

A: The lower-most point in the bottom-left corner of the map. (Antarctica).
B: The bottom tip of Africa.
C: The lower-most point in the bottom-right corner of the map. (Antarctica).

Are you seriously going to tell us that this angle will be preserved on a globe?

For navigational purposes, yes it is! When using a compass to travel from point A from above to point C from above, you only have to follow the angle between the two referenced from a Mercator map in order to make it to the location - it may form a "J" on the globe, but the navigational angle is preserved! That's literally the entire reason it was commissioned!

Points A and C are near the same point in my example, the South Pole, according the Mercator map. How could two points near each other at the South Pole have such a wide angle originating from Africa in the Round Earth model?

Angles are most assuredly not preserved.

They absolutely are, and there are hard mathematics behind it - the reason the angles are so "wide" but so close is because you are going to the west for point A and to the east for point C. If you shifted the viewpoint of the Mercator map by a few miles either direction, points A and C would be next to each other, meaning you could just travel either East or West to reach the midpoint between the two - preserving the angles.

Put A and C on the left and right hand sides of the equator, on each side of the map, and keep B on the bottom of Africa.

On the globe A and C are now right next to each other, and you are telling us that the angle from Africa is preserved. Ridiculous.

If you need to "shift" the Mercator map to get correct angles, then it is not a universal map what preserves angles.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2017, 03:51:46 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6734
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #42 on: August 29, 2017, 03:56:35 PM »
Put point A on the North Pole (say the upper left corner), point B on Los Angeles, and point C on the South Pole (say the bottom left corner). The Mercator map is wrong in all stations where Los Angeles is not in alignment with points A and C. The idea that we need to change the orientation of the Mercator map to get the angle we want shows that it does not really represent accurate angles
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### Curious Squirrel

• 1338
##### Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #43 on: August 29, 2017, 04:04:53 PM »
Put point A on the North Pole (say the upper left corner), point B on Los Angeles, and point C on the South Pole (say the bottom left corner). The Mercator map is wrong in all stations where Los Angeles is not in alignment with points A and C. The idea that we need to change the orientation of the Mercator map to get the angle we want shows that it does not really represent accurate angles
A) The map is not correct outside of the bounds of 82N to 82S, as mentioned in the link I posted.
B) The other angles you are mentioning are definitely still preserved. Just because you don't seem to grasp the fact that one direction is West and the other is East so they'll obviously have different angles, doesn't make them suddenly not work.
C) Yes, you'll need to shift the center point of the map if you want to find, for example, the Westward angle from Cali to Japan. Any non-continuous map will have such issues. I would presume on a ship or somewhere that need it the map would be repeated so you could simply scroll it to the correct spot to find the angle you want.

#### zp0okii

• 33
##### Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #44 on: August 29, 2017, 04:05:02 PM »
Put point A on the North Pole (say the upper left corner), point B on Los Angeles, and point C on the South Pole (say the bottom left corner). The Mercator map is wrong in all stations where Los Angeles is not in alignment with points A and C. The idea that we need to change the orientation of the Mercator map to get the angle we want shows that it does not really represent accurate angles

You are misconstruing my point - What I am saying is that the "direct" angle from any point to another is dependent on not requiring crossing over the "tear" in the projection. If we were to look at the mercator map but have the POV be one where we are looking directly at Asia instead of into the Atlantic, then it will be easier to find the "direct" angle between your original points A and C. I'm not saying the Mercator model needs changed, just that the POV required to find the best angle changes depending on your point of origin and your destination.

#### zp0okii

• 33
##### Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #45 on: August 29, 2017, 04:05:53 PM »
Put point A on the North Pole (say the upper left corner), point B on Los Angeles, and point C on the South Pole (say the bottom left corner). The Mercator map is wrong in all stations where Los Angeles is not in alignment with points A and C. The idea that we need to change the orientation of the Mercator map to get the angle we want shows that it does not really represent accurate angles
A) The map is not correct outside of the bounds of 82N to 82S, as mentioned in the link I posted.
B) The other angles you are mentioning are definitely still preserved. Just because you don't seem to grasp the fact that one direction is West and the other is East so they'll obviously have different angles, doesn't make them suddenly not work.
C) Yes, you'll need to shift the center point of the map if you want to find, for example, the Westward angle from Cali to Japan. Any non-continuous map will have such issues. I would presume on a ship or somewhere that need it the map would be repeated so you could simply scroll it to the correct spot to find the angle you want.

LMAO same points RE: non-continuous maps made here.

#### 3DGeek

• 1024
• Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
##### Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #46 on: August 29, 2017, 10:15:03 PM »
I think the confusion here may be due to something I mis-spoke.  "HEADINGS" are preserved...not relative angles.   Remember in RET, if you're at the North Pole, every place in the world is South of you.

My apologies if this was confusing.

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