A Few Issues With the OTHER FES Map

Quote from: Pongo on June 07, 2010, 02:29:37 AM

Quote from: Sliver on June 06, 2010, 09:12:59 PM

So Parsifal is the only "FE'er" to even try this one?  I mean come on!

Not every flat earth proponent believes in this model.  It would be unethical for them to argue in defense of something that they do not believe in.

According to Parsifal, believing in something is irrelevant to arguing in defense for it.  Are you calling Parsifal unethical?

I call it much more than unethical, it really is trolling of the worst kind.

Every time you open your mouth you are using the trust you have earned. Every time you use your name, you are building that name into what all others will believe you are.

Parsifal wants us to decide whether he is saying "might" as in "there might be a black diamond" or "might" as in "there might be good weather tomorrow", in just the way he wants. But reality is different: if you talk misleadingly you live with the worst possible interpretation people make of your misleading claims.

Those scientists that Parsifal, Tom Bishop, levee and friends like so much to disqualify live by that standard: every new idea they have is judged based on all their professional history. Or else, ask Andrew Wakefield, Fleischmann and Pons, Charles Dawson (finder of the Piltdown Man).

Science is a collaborative endeavor, where liars and blabbermouths are spotted and blackballed only slowly. That is why they are pretty much blackballed for good, including all their work, not just the obvious lie. We should judge them at least by the same standards which rule the community they consider inferior to them.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 06, 2010, 08:46:57 PM

well couldn't you just use an accelerometer or a gyroscope to aid you???

Interesting idea. How might that work?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 06, 2010, 08:46:57 PM

also, you could follow the southern cross.

The southern cross goes in circles around the south celestial pole. I don't think that's the objective here.

a gyroscope or accelerometer can ensure you're traveling in a straight vector.

a gyroscope or accelerometer can ensure you're traveling in a straight vector.

What exactly is "a straight vector," how does one travel in one, and how does using a gyroscope or accelerometer accomplish this?

What exactly is "a straight vector,"

A vector that is straight.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 07, 2010, 10:32:44 AM

What exactly is "a straight vector,"

A vector that is straight.

A vector cannot be straight. The adjective "straight" is inapplicable to it. Saying that a vector is straight is like saying that a sound is purple.

Quote from: General Disarray on June 07, 2010, 10:33:58 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on June 07, 2010, 10:32:44 AM

What exactly is "a straight vector,"

A vector that is straight.

A vector cannot be straight. The adjective "straight" is inapplicable to it. Saying that a vector is straight is like saying that a sound is purple.

vec·tor? ?/?v?kt?r/  Show Spelled[vek-ter]  Show IPA
–noun
1.Mathematics.
a.a quantity possessing both magnitude and direction, represented by an arrow the direction of which indicates the direction of the quantity and the length of which is proportional to the magnitude. Compare scalar (def. 4).

2.the direction or course followed by an airplane, missile, or the like.

A vector can therefore be straight. ie. a straight direction with some magnitude.

vec·tor? ?/?v?kt?r/  Show Spelled[vek-ter]  Show IPA
–noun
1.Mathematics.
a.a quantity possessing both magnitude and direction, represented by an arrow the direction of which indicates the direction of the quantity and the length of which is proportional to the magnitude. Compare scalar (def. 4).

A vector can therefore be straight. ie. a straight direction with some magnitude.

A straight direction? How can a direction be straight?

Quote from: LBtheWise on June 07, 2010, 10:50:31 AM

vec·tor? ?/?v?kt?r/  Show Spelled[vek-ter]  Show IPA
–noun
1.Mathematics.
a.a quantity possessing both magnitude and direction, represented by an arrow the direction of which indicates the direction of the quantity and the length of which is proportional to the magnitude. Compare scalar (def. 4).

A vector can therefore be straight. ie. a straight direction with some magnitude.

A straight direction? How can a direction be straight?

fine, a straight line. vector can mean path in some contexts

Quote from: LBtheWise on June 07, 2010, 10:50:31 AM

vec·tor? ?/?v?kt?r/  Show Spelled[vek-ter]  Show IPA
–noun
1.Mathematics.
a.a quantity possessing both magnitude and direction, represented by an arrow the direction of which indicates the direction of the quantity and the length of which is proportional to the magnitude. Compare scalar (def. 4).

A vector can therefore be straight. ie. a straight direction with some magnitude.

A straight direction? How can a direction be straight?

How can a direction be anything else?

The existence of a straight direction or vector is irrelevant to this thread.

fine, a straight line. vector can mean path in some contexts

And how does a gyroscope or accelerometer assist one to travel in a straight line?

How can a direction be anything else?

Please explain how a direction can be straight.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 07, 2010, 11:00:42 AM

fine, a straight line. vector can mean path in some contexts

And how does a gyroscope or accelerometer assist one to travel in a straight line?

Quote from: LBtheWise on June 07, 2010, 11:01:35 AM

How can a direction be anything else?

Please explain how a direction can be straight.

If you asked me the directions to the nearest toilet, and i said go east, would'nt you go in a straight line east?

If you asked me the directions to the nearest toilet, and i said go east, would'nt you go in a straight line east?

In the absence of any significant obstacle to doing so, yes; however, the line being straight does not make the direction straight.

Quote from: LBtheWise on June 07, 2010, 11:46:48 AM

If you asked me the directions to the nearest toilet, and i said go east, would'nt you go in a straight line east?

In the absence of any significant obstacle to doing so, yes; however, the line being straight does not make the direction straight.

...how can a direction be curved?  I can head East, but not slightly south, then bending a bit to East.

...how can a direction be curved?  I can head East, but not slightly south, then bending a bit to East.

Who said a direction could be curved?

Quote from: LBtheWise on June 07, 2010, 11:46:48 AM

If you asked me the directions to the nearest toilet, and i said go east, would'nt you go in a straight line east?

In the absence of any significant obstacle to doing so, yes; however, the line being straight does not make the direction straight.

I misread that.  However, if you're walking in a straight line, your direction isn't necessarily straight?  ...what?

I misread that.  However, if you're walking in a straight line, your direction isn't necessarily straight?  ...what?

A direction can't be straight for the same reason that a sound can't be blue; the term "straight" has no meaning applied to it. If you walk in a curved line, you're not walking in a curved direction, you're changing the direction you're walking in.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 07, 2010, 05:50:09 PM

I misread that.  However, if you're walking in a straight line, your direction isn't necessarily straight?  ...what?

A direction can't be straight for the same reason that a sound can't be blue; the term "straight" has no meaning applied to it. If you walk in a curved line, you're not walking in a curved direction, you're changing the direction you're walking in.

Then why do you seem to claim it's impossible to follow a straight direction?  At least, that's what I seem to be deducing from your arguments thus far.

Then why do you seem to claim it's impossible to follow a straight direction?  At least, that's what I seem to be deducing from your arguments thus far.

What I'm claiming is that it makes no sense to describe a direction as "straight," because something which is straight has zero curvature, whereas a direction has undefined curvature.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 07, 2010, 06:43:28 PM

Then why do you seem to claim it's impossible to follow a straight direction?  At least, that's what I seem to be deducing from your arguments thus far.

What I'm claiming is that it makes no sense to describe a direction as "straight," because something which is straight has zero curvature, whereas a direction has undefined curvature.

On the map shown there is clearly one straight line of both  longtitude and lattitude. Those directions would be straight and followable, or do you admit the map wrong?
Also on a truly flat earth there would be zero curvature, especially in places ike the Salt Flats (hencethe name). Say I use visible, unmoving objects to plot a course, one on my left and one on my right. staying at an equal distance from each of them of them at all times so I do not have to rely on compasses or any other direction giving (apparently lying) device. On a flat earth this would gaurantee a straight course. Curvature of the course would only be plausible in that case on a spherical or curved earth. So is the map wrong or is the premise of a flat earth wrong? Your claim makes only one possible.

OK, looking at this map, a few issues come to mind. 

The first one is, what the heck is holding in the water?  At least the other model had a wall of ice holding it all in.  What does this model, and levee's model as well, claim is holding the water on the planet?

The second has to do with a question I asked in another thread.  What would happen to someone attempting circumnavigation going from north to south in a straight line?  On a globe, they would cross the south pole, head north from there, and eventually reach their starting point.  On this model, they would seemingly cross the south pole, and then run off the planet.

Please explain guys.

Thank you, Pasifal for derailing my thread.  I'm going to restate the question.  Would the FE'ers who feel this map is accurate, please enlighten us as to not only what keeps the water in, but also what would happen to a traveler heading south along the Prime Meridian once they pass the south pole and continue to the edge of the map?  Come on, Lord Wilmore, levee.  Well, I know levee doesn't really agree with this map, but his is similar enough to have the same problem.

So, Lord Wilmore, I take it I can safely assume that you have no means of answering my questions regarding the map you support?  The same goes for levee.  I know your map is different from Wilmore's, but it's similar enough, but let's look at it.



Now, first off, your map appears to bend the Prime Meridian, but I'm sure if you drew longitude lines on your map, one of them would run straight up and down.  Even if it didn't, it would still be possible to travel in a straight line, due south, across the south pole, and right off the map.  Not to mention, you have not explained what hold the water in on your map either.


How's that!  TWO FET maps shot down in one thread!!!  Double win for RE!

People in California may not agree that they're coast is that curved. South America also seems rather distorted - stretched - to the point where it appears bigger than Africa.  Australia is a bit stretched too.

So, Lord Wilmore, I take it I can safely assume that you have no means of answering my questions regarding the map you support?

Why, because I haven't been here in the last 12-18 hours? Seriously, don't be such an idiot.


Your questions are answered quite simply. First, what lies beyond the known Earth is, rather unsurprisingly, unknown. There may be an ice sheet, there may be continents and landmasses, who knows? There is no point just making things up. The extent of the Outer Ocean has yet to be ascertained.


Second, 'circumnavigation' relies on instruments or navigation via the stars. 'South' is not a direction like right up or down. Assuming the geographic south pole is your reference for south, you're not going to reach the south pole and then travel away from it whilst still going south. I really don't understand how you think travelling south would lead in the direction you suggest.

Quote from: Sliver on June 08, 2010, 06:02:32 AM

So, Lord Wilmore, I take it I can safely assume that you have no means of answering my questions regarding the map you support?

Why, because I haven't been here in the last 12-18 hours? Seriously, don't be such an idiot.


Your questions are answered quite simply. First, what lies beyond the known Earth is, rather unsurprisingly, unknown. There may be an ice sheet, there may be continents and landmasses, who knows? There is no point just making things up. The extent of the Outer Ocean has yet to be ascertained.


Second, 'circumnavigation' relies on instruments or navigation via the stars. 'South' is not a direction like right up or down. Assuming the geographic south pole is your reference for south, you're not going to reach the south pole and then travel away from it whilst still going south. I really don't understand how you think travelling south would lead in the direction you suggest.

He answers!  Perhaps you should modify the map I posted?  You know, showing instead of a definitive edge, some sort of "gray area".  As for the navigation, your map suggests that one could use to travel due south, then across the south pole, and then on to the "edge/gray area".  On a globe, once you cross the south pole, you are then heading north, on your map, you are still heading south.  I guess this is where you're going to exclaim, "It's an incomplete map!"

...you are still heading south.  I guess this is where you're going to exclaim, "It's an incomplete map!"

I'm going to ask "What?". How do you intend to go south after passing the South Pole, if south is defined by the pole to begin with?
After passing the South Pole, heading south means going in the general direction of the Pole, which would be... yes! Going back to the Pole!

Quote from: Sliver on June 08, 2010, 08:28:55 AM

...you are still heading south.  I guess this is where you're going to exclaim, "It's an incomplete map!"

I'm going to ask "What?". How do you intend to go south after passing the South Pole, if south is defined by the pole to begin with?
After passing the South Pole, heading south means going in the general direction of the Pole, which would be... yes! Going back to the Pole!

OK, take another look at this map.

Take a look at the red arrow running down the middle.  You'll notice it is pointing south.  Now, what would you call the direction it is going once it crosses the south pole?  It hasn't turned north, like it would on a globe.  I hasn't turned east or west.  See this was part of my OP.  Maybe you should have responded to that instead of picking up my post to Wilmore in mid-sentence.

Now, what would you call the direction it is going once it crosses the south pole?

Anti-north.

Quote from: Sliver on June 09, 2010, 04:35:51 PM

Now, what would you call the direction it is going once it crosses the south pole?

Anti-north.

:sigh:  You're not even trying anymore, dude.

:sigh:  You're not even trying anymore, dude.

Why ask a question if you aren't going to accept the answer you're given?