Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.

all the lighting would be off, your disc would be infinite, and that would take infinite energy right?

or am i missing something

Quote from: Around And About on March 09, 2011, 04:59:01 PM

No, it doesn't make any sense. I think that's why people are saying it doesn't make sense. Whatever the rules are, I think they should be internally consistent, and I think that they should be able to confirm personal (Zetetic) observation, whatever the world's shape is. But feel free to provide whatever system of equations you have apparently devised in order to mathematically describe the earth's geometry.

They are not internally inconsistent.  It was never said/shown that they are. 

They are internally inconsistent. It was said/shown that they are.


(My goodness, if we stick to this format the thread might very well go on forever!)

Quote from: 29silhouette on March 08, 2011, 07:12:03 PM

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on March 03, 2011, 11:15:07 AM

What's the crux of this debate again?

A really long excuse about why it's near impossible (or impossible all together) to make an accurate flat earth map.

I have proposed a system for devising a map that has near if not greater accuracy than the round earth map.  The only issue is that trig has decided to troll the discussion with irrelevant rants.

So there's an accurate flat earth map on the way?  Cool. 

Quote from: Around And About on March 09, 2011, 04:59:01 PM

No, it doesn't make any sense. I think that's why people are saying it doesn't make sense. Whatever the rules are, I think they should be internally consistent, and I think that they should be able to confirm personal (Zetetic) observation, whatever the world's shape is. But feel free to provide whatever system of equations you have apparently devised in order to mathematically describe the earth's geometry.

They are not internally inconsistent.  It was never said/shown that they are. 

inconsistency implies a paradox being made. And there is. I get that you're saying that its a collapse in of two different states. Sort of like how in relativity, in one frame, something seems to be going faster than the other, and in the other frame vice versa. however, these states are non super-imposable, for reasons stated above. The only problem I have, is that when you flipped the parity, you changed how physics works. When you flip everything, things change. Specifically the weak interaction changes.

Quote from: 29silhouette on March 08, 2011, 07:12:03 PM

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on March 03, 2011, 11:15:07 AM

What's the crux of this debate again?

A really long excuse about why it's near impossible (or impossible all together) to make an accurate flat earth map.

I have proposed a system for devising a map that has near if not greater accuracy than the round earth map.  The only issue is that trig has decided to troll the discussion with irrelevant rants.

Is the FE map complete yet?

Hello,
The supposed inconsistency between the distances measured on the (supposedly round) Earth and the most commonly used model of FE has been a strikingly overused topic, especially lately. Need I remind anyone of TheJackel's "all I need is a time speed distance circular calculator you are pleading for credibility lol.. "? If so, I just have. If not, let us proceed.
The map considered for this solution is:


The solution itself bases on the fact that, due to bendy light, rays hit the Earth at different angles, and thus the projections of the same length on the surface will differ. They will be longer as we approach the rim. Thus, what we currently consider a metre will appear considerably longer, leading us to an illusion of RE distances. The definition of our units of length is at fault - it is an application of optics (which already assume perfectly straight light rays, hitting the round Earth at approximately 90 degrees). An actual unit of length should take Bendy Light into account, and thus consider an apparently longer distance to be - more or less - the same as something smaller closer to the pole.

The following diagram explains the problem in detail:


Now, this would seem to be a baseless conclusion. And yes, you would be right, if it weren't for the fact that many RE'ers favourite map* - Google Maps - confirms it. Just have a look at these screens, both taken at the same objective zoom:



Oh, so 1000km is approximately the same as 200km in different places. How very peculiar. As you can see, it's the RE model that's inconsistent, not only with reality, but even with itself!
A round Earth is a geographical impossibility. That is all.

I just so much love the scientific scheme of the bendy rays!

You must have something better to show if you want to be believed !

Hello,
The supposed inconsistency between the distances measured on the (supposedly round) Earth and the most commonly used model of FE has been a strikingly overused topic, especially lately. Need I remind anyone of TheJackel's "all I need is a time speed distance circular calculator you are pleading for credibility lol.. "? If so, I just have. If not, let us proceed.
The map considered for this solution is:


The solution itself bases on the fact that, due to bendy light, rays hit the Earth at different angles, and thus the projections of the same length on the surface will differ. They will be longer as we approach the rim. Thus, what we currently consider a metre will appear considerably longer, leading us to an illusion of RE distances. The definition of our units of length is at fault - it is an application of optics (which already assume perfectly straight light rays, hitting the round Earth at approximately 90 degrees). An actual unit of length should take Bendy Light into account, and thus consider an apparently longer distance to be - more or less - the same as something smaller closer to the pole.

The following diagram explains the problem in detail:


Now, this would seem to be a baseless conclusion. And yes, you would be right, if it weren't for the fact that many RE'ers favourite map* - Google Maps - confirms it. Just have a look at these screens, both taken at the same objective zoom:



Oh, so 1000km is approximately the same as 200km in different places. How very peculiar. As you can see, it's the RE model that's inconsistent, not only with reality, but even with itself!
A round Earth is a geographical impossibility. That is all.

Unfortunately your theory is completely wrong, and I shall proceed to describe to you its fatal flaw...

If light really is bendy in the way you describe, then yes, FE distance would optically the same as on a RE. The problem lies in the fact that distance can be measured in other ways besides optically. The most obvious way would be to measure your velocity and the time is took to transverse a distance and so derive a measurement of the distance.

If you looked outside your window and saw a tree 10 meters away, which you then measured your velocity and the time it took to get there, you would expect the two results to be equal. If bendy light is true, then the two different measures would disagree all the time. Since this has never been observed, then your "theory" cannot be true.

As said above there are other ways to determine distance, mechanical ones that do not rely on light in any way so whether the light were bendy or not would have no impact.  There is also the time it takes to traverse a set distance.

In the FE map it shows the southern hemisphere continents larger than in the RE maps.  If this were true then the distances would be noted on the odometer of a car.  This is not the case so the land masses must be the same size. 

So that must mean that the ocean distances east to west are larger than depicted on a RE map.  This would mean that the time for travel by boat or plane between South America and Africa would be far longer than calculated for a RE.  However, say for plane travel between those two continents at a constant speed, the time to travel between them is far shorter than the FE calculations would show.

So.....light just bends at 90 degree angles due to gasses now......well then. Man we sure got the sun beat don't we?

So.....light just bends at 90 degree angles due to gasses now......well then. Man we sure got the sun beat don't we?

If TheEarthIsRound1-6 couldn't convince them, what makes you think you'll succeed?

If light really is bendy in the way you describe, then yes, FE distance would optically the same as on a RE.

Quite the opposite. They would be incredibly distorted, thus generating the FE map as we know it.

The problem lies in the fact that distance can be measured in other ways besides optically. The most obvious way would be to measure your velocity and the time is took to transverse a distance and so derive a measurement of the distance.

As said above there are other ways to determine distance, mechanical ones that do not rely on light in any way so whether the light were bendy or not would have no impact.  There is also the time it takes to traverse a set distance.

That is correct. This is exactly why the distances on RE and FE are consistent. They merely appear to be different, whilst being mechanically identical.

Angle at which sun light hits the ground does not cause the ground to appear different sizes.

Angle at which sun light hits the ground does not cause the ground to appear different sizes.

Not directly, no. Similarly, burning fuel doesn't make a car go.

What about if you are in a closed room in Australia with only a lightbulb direct overhead. Would a meter stick look the same in that room as outdoors?

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 30, 2011, 07:04:01 PM

Angle at which sun light hits the ground does not cause the ground to appear different sizes.

Not directly, no. Similarly, burning fuel doesn't make a car go.

So you think bendy light is the mechanism through which the angle affects the distortion?

What about if you are in a closed room in Australia with only a lightbulb direct overhead. Would a meter stick look the same in that room as outdoors?

There would be an insignificant difference. Similarly, if you consider one square metre of RE's surface, it will most likely appear flat, even though we know there should be curvature to it.
Another problem with that is that humans generally need a reference point to make their judgements about distances/sizes. Consider the coin experiment here: http://sci.odu.edu/sci/Scire/05Edition/horizon.html

So you think bendy light is the mechanism through which the angle affects the distortion?

I'm afraid now. This has to be a trick question. That man in your avatar cannot be trusted.
But no, that's not what I meant. I think that the angle is the mechanism through which distortion appears, whilst bendy light is the "fuel".

I'm afraid now. This has to be a trick question. That man in your avatar cannot be trusted.
But no, that's not what I meant. I think that the angle is the mechanism through which distortion appears, whilst bendy light is the "fuel".

So, what is the relationship between angle and distortion?

The path reflected light rays will take before reaching the eye.

Would it make more sense to say that it is the angle that light reflects from, rather than the angle sunlight hits the ground that affects the distortion?  The latter changes throughout the course of the day, from an almost 0 degree angle at sunrise, to a 45 degree angle at noon (give or take a few with different seasons), back to almost 0 again at sunset, would this not cause a noticeable change in distortion in a daily cycle if distortion was related to this angle?

Would it make more sense to say that it is the angle that light reflects from, rather than the angle sunlight hits the ground that affects the distortion?

Certainly so, but one depends on the other.

would this not cause a noticeable change in distortion in a daily cycle if distortion was related to this angle?

It would. However, due to no objective reference points, we're not really able to perceive that correctly.
I recall reading about a social experiment (I don't have the source, unfortunately) where adults were put in "magnified" rooms to make them feel smaller, so that they could get an idea of how children feel. Of course, they knew full well that they are entering such a room, so they couldn't possibly be fooled into thinking they're *actually* smaller than they were in the first place, but it still made a decent impression of it. Now, what would happen if they didn't know that every single reference point they might possibly think of changes too?

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 31, 2011, 07:56:11 AM

Would it make more sense to say that it is the angle that light reflects from, rather than the angle sunlight hits the ground that affects the distortion?

Certainly so, but one depends on the other.

this really depends on the material.  If we're talking about a mirror or other highly reflective surface, I'd agree, but not all objects are so smooth.  For rough objects like rocks, light seems to reflect at all kinds of angles, due to the multifaceted nature of the rock.

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 31, 2011, 07:56:11 AM

would this not cause a noticeable change in distortion in a daily cycle if distortion was related to this angle?

It would. However, due to no objective reference points, we're not really able to perceive that correctly.
I recall reading about a social experiment (I don't have the source, unfortunately) where adults were put in "magnified" rooms to make them feel smaller, so that they could get an idea of how children feel. Of course, they knew full well that they are entering such a room, so they couldn't possibly be fooled into thinking they're *actually* smaller than they were in the first place, but it still made a decent impression of it. Now, what would happen if they didn't know that every single reference point they might possibly think of changes too?

This only shows that people do notice that something is different.  Whether it's the size of the person or the size of the room, the person knows something changed.  This seems contrary to your claim that we wouldn't perceive any change.  If there is actual distortion, why doesn't my back yard feel smaller at noon than at dusk.  If we can't reliably perceive the distortion, how can all the re'ers here manage to notice that Australia is heavily distorted?

Also, if perceived distance is dependent on angle of sunlight hitting the ground, how do we perceive distance at night when there is no sunlight at all?

this really depends on the material.  If we're talking about a mirror or other highly reflective surface, I'd agree, but not all objects are so smooth.  For rough objects like rocks, light seems to reflect at all kinds of angles, due to the multifaceted nature of the rock.

Good point. However, I think we can agree that the distribution of these angles will still largely depend on the incident angle.

This only shows that people do notice that something is different.  Whether it's the size of the person or the size of the room, the person knows something changed.  This seems contrary to your claim that we wouldn't perceive any change.

The key difference here is that the change was sudden and not smooth, and that their own observable dimensions (a reference point!) were not altered.

If there is actual distortion, why doesn't my back yard feel smaller at noon than at dusk.  If we can't reliably perceive the distortion, how can all the re'ers here manage to notice that Australia is heavily distorted?

The distortion becomes greatly exaggerated in small maps. Like I've said many times before, it's virtually impossible to produce a reliable FE map to a scale different than 1:1. Anything else will be just a projection, really.

Also, if perceived distance is dependent on angle of sunlight hitting the ground, how do we perceive distance at night when there is no sunlight at all?

It's light hitting the ground in general, not sunlight specifically. There has to be some light for us to perceive images.

Like I've said many times before, it's virtually impossible to produce a reliable FE map to a scale different than 1:1. Anything else will be just a projection, really.

You've said it. But no cartographer can agree with you. Maps exist and coexist in many different scales. Apparently, this notion is alien to you.

But no cartographer can agree with you.

Most can, in fact. All maps in existence are projections.

Maps exist and coexist in many different scales. Apparently, this notion is alien to you.

Yes, including variable scales. Have you looked up what a Mercator projection is yet, or have I been wasting time mentioning it ever so often?

Quote from: EmperorZhark on October 31, 2011, 01:50:53 PM

But no cartographer can agree with you.

Most can, in fact. All maps in existence are projections.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on October 31, 2011, 01:50:53 PM

Maps exist and coexist in many different scales. Apparently, this notion is alien to you.

Yes, including variable scales. Have you looked up what a Mercator projection is yet, or have I been wasting time mentioning it ever so often?

Ive been lurking and chuckling about the references to mercators.

I will let this go on a while longer before i pounce.

Ive been lurking and chuckling about the references to mercators.

As a word of explanation: There is only one context in which I reference the Mercator projection, or "mercators" [sic]. The context being that it's a map made to a variable scale, as previously demonstrated by markjo. If you'd like to argue that the Mercator projection is made to a fixed scale, and that Antarctica is exactly as long as the Equator, be my guest.

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 31, 2011, 12:21:49 PM

this really depends on the material.  If we're talking about a mirror or other highly reflective surface, I'd agree, but not all objects are so smooth.  For rough objects like rocks, light seems to reflect at all kinds of angles, due to the multifaceted nature of the rock.

Good point. However, I think we can agree that the distribution of these angles will still largely depend on the incident angle.

I think the amount of light that reflects off is dependent on the incident angle, not necessarily the distribution... or at least the pattern of distribution.

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 31, 2011, 12:21:49 PM

This only shows that people do notice that something is different.  Whether it's the size of the person or the size of the room, the person knows something changed.  This seems contrary to your claim that we wouldn't perceive any change.

The key difference here is that the change was sudden and not smooth, and that their own observable dimensions (a reference point!) were not altered.

Could this not be overcome by taking photos, one at midday, and one at night and then comparing them?

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 31, 2011, 12:21:49 PM

If there is actual distortion, why doesn't my back yard feel smaller at noon than at dusk.  If we can't reliably perceive the distortion, how can all the re'ers here manage to notice that Australia is heavily distorted?

The distortion becomes greatly exaggerated in small maps. Like I've said many times before, it's virtually impossible to produce a reliable FE map to a scale different than 1:1. Anything else will be just a projection, really.

The distortion in maps seems to imply that distortion is consistent, but with a moving sun, this can't be so.

I think the amount of light that reflects off is dependent on the incident angle, not necessarily the distribution... or at least the pattern of distribution.

I'm not sure why you would think so. Surely the laws of optics (with the little exception of bendy light, tee hee) still apply if the object we're reflecting light from isn't even.

Could this not be overcome by taking photos, one at midday, and one at night and then comparing them?

Quote

Doubtfully so. What exactly are you suggesting?
If I understand what you're getting at, I'm afraid it wouldn't work. The objects would "become bigger" and "move farther away", causing little to none observable difference on a two-dimensional picture.

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 31, 2011, 02:32:52 PM

The distortion in maps seems to imply that distortion is consistent, but with a moving sun, this can't be so.

And it isn't so. This is part of the reason why any scaled-down map is virtually impossible. The map assumes that all of the Earth is simultaneously lit from right above the centre. I'll be perfectly honest with you - I have no idea how one would even go about mapping the whole day cycle/night, as there would be different-looking pieces overlapping each other. We'd probably end up with something in the shape of a probability cloud of sorts. That is with the exception of a 1:1-scale map, where you could just locally draw what's directly under you, and thus preserve most of sunlight's effect on the shape.

Quote from: Theodolite on October 31, 2011, 02:18:44 PM

Ive been lurking and chuckling about the references to mercators.

As a word of explanation: There is only one context in which I reference the Mercator projection, or "mercators" [sic]. The context being that it's a map made to a variable scale, as previously demonstrated by markjo. If you'd like to argue that the Mercator projection is made to a fixed scale, and that Antarctica is exactly as long as the Equator, be my guest.

Are you saying that any of the "official" FE maps use a fixed scale?

Are you saying that any of the "official" FE maps use a fixed scale?

Please, markjo, please. Try to read up on discussions you're posting in before posting in them. I've been rambling for a very long time now about how it's impossible for a FE map to use a fixed scale; and I do mean rambling. Inexcusable, tiring, repeatable, boring rambling on the same subject, to seemingly no end.

Can you do that for me? Pretty please? Just a tiny bit of paying attention before posting, for uncle PizzaPlanet.