Offline Mock

  • *
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #20 on: August 23, 2017, 05:23:34 PM »
I would love for Tom Bishop to respond to my response to him!
Oh sweet summer child ...
We would all love it if FE'ers actually engaged in proper discussions with us. Sadly, that's not what usually happens :(

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1196
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #21 on: August 23, 2017, 05:26:17 PM »
I would love for Tom Bishop to respond to my response to him!
Oh sweet summer child ...
We would all love it if FE'ers actually engaged in proper discussions with us. Sadly, that's not what usually happens :(

I really don't get it.  FE is akin to religion as it's based totally on faith over science.  That said, people on religious forums will debate all day long.  Of course, they too rely on dusty old books.
Nothing Guest has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Guest's own delusions opinions.

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 780
    • View Profile
Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #22 on: August 23, 2017, 07:15:06 PM »
I would love for Tom Bishop to respond to my response to him!
Oh sweet summer child ...
We would all love it if FE'ers actually engaged in proper discussions with us. Sadly, that's not what usually happens :(

I really don't get it.  FE is akin to religion as it's based totally on faith over science.  That said, people on religious forums will debate all day long.  Of course, they too rely on dusty old books.

Science? Faith? When presented with facts the globers have just as much difficulty explaining.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7TKg9oV5oU
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

Offline zp0okii

  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #23 on: August 23, 2017, 07:20:17 PM »
I would love for Tom Bishop to respond to my response to him!
Oh sweet summer child ...
We would all love it if FE'ers actually engaged in proper discussions with us. Sadly, that's not what usually happens :(

I really don't get it.  FE is akin to religion as it's based totally on faith over science.  That said, people on religious forums will debate all day long.  Of course, they too rely on dusty old books.

Science? Faith? When presented with facts the globers have just as much difficulty explaining.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7TKg9oV5oU



Can you answer any of the questions I posed to Tom, or are you only posting non-sequitur videos?

My questions can be found here, in case you want to pretend like you didn't see them earlier in the thread in order to avoid being tasked with them:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6765.msg123497#msg123497

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1196
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #24 on: August 23, 2017, 07:23:33 PM »
I would love for Tom Bishop to respond to my response to him!
Oh sweet summer child ...
We would all love it if FE'ers actually engaged in proper discussions with us. Sadly, that's not what usually happens :(

I really don't get it.  FE is akin to religion as it's based totally on faith over science.  That said, people on religious forums will debate all day long.  Of course, they too rely on dusty old books.

Science? Faith? When presented with facts the globers have just as much difficulty explaining.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7TKg9oV5oU


When posting a 19-minute video it helps if you give time codes for "facts".   What I saw of your video was nonsense.  Please post a list of "facts".
Nothing Guest has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Guest's own delusions opinions.

Offline zp0okii

  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #25 on: August 23, 2017, 07:29:10 PM »
I would love for Tom Bishop to respond to my response to him!
Oh sweet summer child ...
We would all love it if FE'ers actually engaged in proper discussions with us. Sadly, that's not what usually happens :(

I really don't get it.  FE is akin to religion as it's based totally on faith over science.  That said, people on religious forums will debate all day long.  Of course, they too rely on dusty old books.

Science? Faith? When presented with facts the globers have just as much difficulty explaining.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7TKg9oV5oU


When posting a 19-minute video it helps if you give time codes for "facts".   What I saw of your video was nonsense.  Please post a list of "facts".

I watched the whole thing and it was absolute nonsense. FE can not explain why the path of totality is different during every eclipse. This guy's calculations were WAY off in terms of timestamps for totality visibility.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #26 on: August 26, 2017, 12:34:06 AM »
Tom - how do the sun and moon cross paths if they orbit one another?

Where in our materials have you seen it stated that they orbit each other?
Fully willing to admit I may be misinterpreting your theory, but from the images I've seen in the wiki, it appears they share an orbit around a common gravitational center. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct. The sun and moon orbit around that center, not each other.

So, you have no evidence to stand against the work of cartographers? Are all cartographers conspiring to propagate the "Round Earth Myth"? You need to provide evidence of some kind if this is the case - a defector's interview, or something to that effect. Are you prepared to furnish those?

Cartographers operate under the assumption that the earth is a globe. Also, they mostly just copy each other's work. For example, for over three hundred years California was depicted as an island off of the coast of America. Supposedly educated men lived for generations on California under the assumption that they were living on an island.

Quote
Cartographers are paid to do this kind of thing all the time - and many do it for fun on their own! How are we able to travel if our maps are incorrect? We have sacrificed relative size of regions for accuracy in distance (the classic maps we see are an example of this) - if the world were flat, this wouldn't be necessary! Distance and size would be constant due to transcribing locations from a flat plane (a flat earth) onto another flat plane (some paper).

People travel just fine with a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than Africa and Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents put together. What makes you think that travel would not be possible on another model?

Quote
But NASA can predict the next path of totality for the solar eclipse in 2024 - can Flat Earthers do this?

There is some information on that on this link: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_shadow_on_the_moon_during_a_Lunar_Eclipse_is_round
"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

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #27 on: August 26, 2017, 04:13:12 AM »
Tom - how do the sun and moon cross paths if they orbit one another?

Where in our materials have you seen it stated that they orbit each other?
Fully willing to admit I may be misinterpreting your theory, but from the images I've seen in the wiki, it appears they share an orbit around a common gravitational center. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct. The sun and moon orbit around that center, not each other.

So, you have no evidence to stand against the work of cartographers? Are all cartographers conspiring to propagate the "Round Earth Myth"? You need to provide evidence of some kind if this is the case - a defector's interview, or something to that effect. Are you prepared to furnish those?

Cartographers operate under the assumption that the earth is a globe. Also, they mostly just copy each other's work. For example, for over three hundred years California was depicted as an island off of the coast of America. Supposedly educated men lived for generations on California under the assumption that they were living on an island.

Quote
Cartographers are paid to do this kind of thing all the time - and many do it for fun on their own! How are we able to travel if our maps are incorrect? We have sacrificed relative size of regions for accuracy in distance (the classic maps we see are an example of this) - if the world were flat, this wouldn't be necessary! Distance and size would be constant due to transcribing locations from a flat plane (a flat earth) onto another flat plane (some paper).

People travel just fine with a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than Africa and Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents put together. What makes you think that travel would not be possible on another model?

Quote
But NASA can predict the next path of totality for the solar eclipse in 2024 - can Flat Earthers do this?

There is some information on that on this link: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_shadow_on_the_moon_during_a_Lunar_Eclipse_is_round

>>You are correct. The sun and moon orbit around that center, not each other.

Then they can never cross paths. If they share a common orbital center point, which would be created by their celestial gravitation, having them move to the same side of that orbital circle would change their orbital center. Think of it like an unbalanced wheel. At best, it would throw them apart into an unstable orbit. Most likely they would continue to approach one another on ever smaller orbits and collide.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

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
Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #28 on: August 26, 2017, 07:03:35 PM »
People travel just fine with a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than Africa and Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents put together. What makes you think that travel would not be possible on another model?

Ah - another "Educating Tom" moment!

The reason Mercator projections are used (they are actually DESIGNED for maritime navigation) is that Mercator projections preserve ANGLES at the price of making DISTANCES appear wildly distorted.   If you're navigating by compass and stars - then angles matter very much to you - but distances less so.

FE maps other than Mercator preserve neither angles nor distances - which makes them "wrong" rather than useful.

In fact, it's impossible to make an FE map that correctly preserves both angles and distances as compared to the RE world.

This results in desperate FE proponents having to argue that headings (compass/astronomical/solar) and distances (GPS, airlines, etc) are somehow being mistaken by all of the professional people who rely on them.

So please don't trot out nonsense you don't understand Tom.  You WILL be called on it from now on.

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

Offline zp0okii

  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #29 on: August 29, 2017, 02:23:21 PM »
Quote
People travel just fine with a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than Africa and Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents put together. What makes you think that travel would not be possible on another model?

That is because the Mercator map preserves angles and distance at the expense of relative size of landmasses... a well documented fact about the Mercator model.


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #30 on: August 29, 2017, 02:43:33 PM »
People travel just fine with a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than Africa and Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents put together. What makes you think that travel would not be possible on another model?

Ah - another "Educating Tom" moment!

The reason Mercator projections are used (they are actually DESIGNED for maritime navigation) is that Mercator projections preserve ANGLES at the price of making DISTANCES appear wildly distorted.   If you're navigating by compass and stars - then angles matter very much to you - but distances less so.

FE maps other than Mercator preserve neither angles nor distances - which makes them "wrong" rather than useful.

In fact, it's impossible to make an FE map that correctly preserves both angles and distances as compared to the RE world.

This results in desperate FE proponents having to argue that headings (compass/astronomical/solar) and distances (GPS, airlines, etc) are somehow being mistaken by all of the professional people who rely on them.

So please don't trot out nonsense you don't understand Tom.  You WILL be called on it from now on.

You don't need to know distances when circumnavigating or navigating with the Mercator map. What nonsense.

Quote
People travel just fine with a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than Africa and Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents put together. What makes you think that travel would not be possible on another model?

That is because the Mercator map preserves angles and distance at the expense of relative size of landmasses... a well documented fact about the Mercator model.

A ship captain is hardly in the position to know his true distance traveled independently of his Round Earth lat/lon coordinate device.
"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

Offline zp0okii

  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #31 on: August 29, 2017, 02:57:37 PM »
People travel just fine with a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than Africa and Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents put together. What makes you think that travel would not be possible on another model?

Ah - another "Educating Tom" moment!

The reason Mercator projections are used (they are actually DESIGNED for maritime navigation) is that Mercator projections preserve ANGLES at the price of making DISTANCES appear wildly distorted.   If you're navigating by compass and stars - then angles matter very much to you - but distances less so.

FE maps other than Mercator preserve neither angles nor distances - which makes them "wrong" rather than useful.

In fact, it's impossible to make an FE map that correctly preserves both angles and distances as compared to the RE world.

This results in desperate FE proponents having to argue that headings (compass/astronomical/solar) and distances (GPS, airlines, etc) are somehow being mistaken by all of the professional people who rely on them.

So please don't trot out nonsense you don't understand Tom.  You WILL be called on it from now on.

You don't need to know distances when circumnavigating or navigating with the Mercator map. What nonsense.

Quote
People travel just fine with a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than Africa and Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents put together. What makes you think that travel would not be possible on another model?

That is because the Mercator map preserves angles and distance at the expense of relative size of landmasses... a well documented fact about the Mercator model.

A ship captain is hardly in the position to know his true distance traveled independently of his Round Earth lat/lon coordinate device.


>>> 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?

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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #32 on: August 29, 2017, 03:09:39 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 and how they relate to each other 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? 
« Last Edit: August 29, 2017, 03:22:04 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

Offline zp0okii

  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #33 on: August 29, 2017, 03:12:17 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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #34 on: August 29, 2017, 03:28:35 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?
"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

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #35 on: August 29, 2017, 03:31:12 PM »
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?
That isn't a Mercator Map, fwiw. Try again with google XD

Offline zp0okii

  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #36 on: August 29, 2017, 03:32:32 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!

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #37 on: August 29, 2017, 03:32:59 PM »
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?
That isn't a Mercator Map, fwiw. Try again with google XD

My example doesn't get any better for you on this one:

« Last Edit: August 29, 2017, 03:38:17 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

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #38 on: August 29, 2017, 03:35:35 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.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2017, 03:41:43 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

Re: Path of Totality doesn't add up with the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #39 on: August 29, 2017, 03:39:27 PM »
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?
That isn't a Mercator Map, fwiw. Try again with google XD

My example doesn't get any better on this one:


That looks like the one posted here and I would note this one calls out the map only being accurate between 82°S and 82°N.
I also don't see why those angles can't be correct considering you would be going in opposite directions.