Why are the countries on the FET map so distorted?

Quote from: Lorddave on April 08, 2010, 02:48:56 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 08, 2010, 02:47:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 08, 2010, 05:57:07 AM

Quote from: EarthISroundISproven on April 06, 2010, 12:50:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 06, 2010, 11:29:09 AM

Completely accurate, yet distorted?

DUH how else can you show a 3D globe on a flat plane, other than by putting a grid reference replicatiing the curve of the earth? We do have globes as well and 3D Computer animated maps now too if the mathematical accuracy of nautical mapping really is beyond your comprehension. The ship has to sail on a 3D surface. The map has to be right to enable to them to do that. You are just irritating now. You know perfectly well what I'm talking about but refuse to acknowledge it.

The ships supposedly get from A-B using distorted maps. How do you know that it's the maps which are distorted, and not the globe?


Why do you assume that mapes used by everyone, all the time, are inaccurate, but the ones used by nobody, ever, represent that real shape of the Earth?

Any compensations made for a flat map in order to navigate correctly, end up giving you a globe model to navigate with. We use flat maps and compensate for their 'flatness' so that we are essentially working with a round model to get us places. Somehow, it seems to work. Care to explain why?

He gave his explanation:
The globe model is wrong and when we compensate for the flatness of the maps, we get the proper, flat earth map.

This falls apart if you actually try to use the maps over long distances.

No... but... we aren't creating an FE model, we're creating a RE model. This is what different projections are for. We know their strengths and weaknesses and use them to our advantage.

I'm just telling it how he said it.  Or how I think he said it anyway.

He gave his explanation:
The globe model is wrong and when we compensate for the flatness of the maps, we get the proper, flat earth map.

This falls apart if you actually try to use the maps over long distances.

That's right because if you are say, planning a journey accross the Pacific, you need to know the total distance to cross it before you leave port, so that you can carry enough fuel and supplies. There are nautical maps of entire oceans that have a global projection over them. You can then use those projection lines to work out what the distance is in any direction. The Pacific is a good example because it covers almost half the globe. There's no way a flat map would ever work as a tool to navigate it, without the global projection.

At the end of the day you can't argue with actual distance. No flat map can ever get the distances between continents right, the perspective will always be wrong. Gnomonic projection on the other hand allows mariners to use 2D maps to accurately plan routes, work out distances. The important thing is that the maths of a globe are accurate. If I read a Gnomonic projection it tells me Cape Town to Southern Argentina is approx 3800 miles. I work out I can do it in 12 days. I take fuel and supplies for that. And guess what, it really does take 12 days and is 3800 miles. I don't understand why any FEer can't get their head around that. You can't doctor the distances that thousands of vessels sail every day. They are what they are, and they say globe.

Quote from: Lorddave on April 08, 2010, 02:48:56 PM

He gave his explanation:
The globe model is wrong and when we compensate for the flatness of the maps, we get the proper, flat earth map.

This falls apart if you actually try to use the maps over long distances.

That's right because if you are say, planning a journey accross the Pacific, you need to know the total distance to cross it before you leave port, so that you can carry enough fuel and supplies. There are nautical maps of entire oceans that have a global projection over them. You can then use those projection lines to work out what the distance is in any direction. The Pacific is a good example because it covers almost half the globe. There's no way a flat map would ever work as a tool to navigate it, without the global projection.

At the end of the day you can't argue with actual distance. No flat map can ever get the distances between continents right, the perspective will always be wrong. Gnomonic projection on the other hand allows mariners to use 2D maps to accurately plan routes, work out distances. The important thing is that the maths of a globe are accurate. If I read a Gnomonic projection it tells me Cape Town to Southern Argentina is approx 3800 miles. I work out I can do it in 12 days. I take fuel and supplies for that. And guess what, it really does take 12 days and is 3800 miles. I don't understand why any FEer can't get their head around that. You can't doctor the distances that thousands of vessels sail every day. They are what they are, and they say globe.

Yeah but they won't accept it unless every ship sailing between any port gives pure raw data of all their trips including distance estimated, fuel used, fuel per mile, ect...

And even then something tells me they won't care.

Quote from: EarthISroundISproven on April 08, 2010, 04:57:35 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on April 08, 2010, 02:48:56 PM

He gave his explanation:
The globe model is wrong and when we compensate for the flatness of the maps, we get the proper, flat earth map.

This falls apart if you actually try to use the maps over long distances.

That's right because if you are say, planning a journey accross the Pacific, you need to know the total distance to cross it before you leave port, so that you can carry enough fuel and supplies. There are nautical maps of entire oceans that have a global projection over them. You can then use those projection lines to work out what the distance is in any direction. The Pacific is a good example because it covers almost half the globe. There's no way a flat map would ever work as a tool to navigate it, without the global projection.

At the end of the day you can't argue with actual distance. No flat map can ever get the distances between continents right, the perspective will always be wrong. Gnomonic projection on the other hand allows mariners to use 2D maps to accurately plan routes, work out distances. The important thing is that the maths of a globe are accurate. If I read a Gnomonic projection it tells me Cape Town to Southern Argentina is approx 3800 miles. I work out I can do it in 12 days. I take fuel and supplies for that. And guess what, it really does take 12 days and is 3800 miles. I don't understand why any FEer can't get their head around that. You can't doctor the distances that thousands of vessels sail every day. They are what they are, and they say globe.

Yeah but they won't accept it unless every ship sailing between any port gives pure raw data of all their trips including distance estimated, fuel used, fuel per mile, ect...

And even then something tells me they won't care.

Casue each and every ship is part of the conspiracy, we faked the data, or they just don't respond well to evidence?

Yeah but they won't accept it unless every ship sailing between any port gives pure raw data of all their trips including distance estimated, fuel used, fuel per mile, ect...

And even then something tells me they won't care.

Well that is information IS logged for every vessel sailed. In fact logs are a legal maritime requirement and some vessels keep hourly or bi-hourly logs. Hence the saying 'the ship's log'. Those records are kept at shipping and national maritime offices. And they are detailed records, listing everything from a ships dimensions, to it's cargo, persons aboard, route etc etc. Even privately owned pleaure boats have to register their vessels and report to the local coast guard every time they sail. So there is already all the statistical evidence they could possible require out there if they want hard evidence.

Yeah but they won't accept it unless every ship sailing between any port gives pure raw data of all their trips including distance estimated, fuel used, fuel per mile, ect...

And even then something tells me they won't care.

FE response:
What did you use to measure this?

It doesn't say what we want it to.

Your measuring equipment was designed for RE and therefore doesn't work

Quote from: Lorddave on April 08, 2010, 05:24:43 PM

Quote from: EarthISroundISproven on April 08, 2010, 04:57:35 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on April 08, 2010, 02:48:56 PM

He gave his explanation:
The globe model is wrong and when we compensate for the flatness of the maps, we get the proper, flat earth map.

This falls apart if you actually try to use the maps over long distances.

That's right because if you are say, planning a journey accross the Pacific, you need to know the total distance to cross it before you leave port, so that you can carry enough fuel and supplies. There are nautical maps of entire oceans that have a global projection over them. You can then use those projection lines to work out what the distance is in any direction. The Pacific is a good example because it covers almost half the globe. There's no way a flat map would ever work as a tool to navigate it, without the global projection.

At the end of the day you can't argue with actual distance. No flat map can ever get the distances between continents right, the perspective will always be wrong. Gnomonic projection on the other hand allows mariners to use 2D maps to accurately plan routes, work out distances. The important thing is that the maths of a globe are accurate. If I read a Gnomonic projection it tells me Cape Town to Southern Argentina is approx 3800 miles. I work out I can do it in 12 days. I take fuel and supplies for that. And guess what, it really does take 12 days and is 3800 miles. I don't understand why any FEer can't get their head around that. You can't doctor the distances that thousands of vessels sail every day. They are what they are, and they say globe.

Yeah but they won't accept it unless every ship sailing between any port gives pure raw data of all their trips including distance estimated, fuel used, fuel per mile, ect...

And even then something tells me they won't care.

Casue each and every ship is part of the conspiracy, we faked the data, or they just don't respond well to evidence?

Oh they'll probably say "I wasn't there so I can't verify it's accuracy" or some crap like that.  But in reality, they know full well that no one is going to take the massive amount of time required to actually do it just to prove what most people already know.

Would you spend years of your life and thousands of hours of work just to show one person what is painfully obvious to most people?  All on the off chance that they might go "oh wow... I was wrong"?

Then either they are incredible stupid or certifiably insane!

So the answer is that none of you know that FE maps are distorted, or that RE maps are accurate. You just assume these things.


Glad we cleared that up.

So the answer is that none of you know that FE maps are distorted, or that RE maps are accurate. You just assume these things.


Glad we cleared that up.

No, I explained how the accuracy of RE maps can be verified, and so have others in this thread. If you want to stick your head in the sand and deny those posts happened, go right ahead. It's not the rest of us being made to look stupid.

So the answer is that none of you know that FE maps are distorted, or that RE maps are accurate. You just assume these things.


Glad we cleared that up.

Dude, do you even read the new posts in a forum?  All we've been doing is sitting around coming up with reasons why FET map can't be correct.  Earthisroundisrproven has given several really good reasons why he knows that your map is inaccurate and his is accurate.  

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 09, 2010, 05:31:29 AM

So the answer is that none of you know that FE maps are distorted, or that RE maps are accurate. You just assume these things.


Glad we cleared that up.

No, I explained how the accuracy of RE maps can be verified, and so have others in this thread. If you want to stick your head in the sand and deny those posts happened, go right ahead. It's not the rest of us being made to look stupid.

You still haven't answered my question. This is the second time I've asked. If you want to stick your head in the sand and deny those posts happened, go right ahead...

Dude, do you even read the new posts in a forum?  All we've been doing is sitting around coming up with reasons why FET map can't be correct.  Earthisroundisrproven has given several really good reasons why he knows that your map is inaccurate and his is accurate. 

Yeah, reasons like 'I know because I know', and 'If this were true, then this would happen and it doesn't, though I have no evidence of any of this'. Where is his data? Where is his evidence? How can he possibly have proven anything with either of those things?

Quote from: 004forever on April 09, 2010, 05:36:20 AM

Dude, do you even read the new posts in a forum?  All we've been doing is sitting around coming up with reasons why FET map can't be correct.  Earthisroundisrproven has given several really good reasons why he knows that your map is inaccurate and his is accurate.  

Yeah, reasons like 'I know because I know', and 'If this were true, then this would happen and it doesn't, though I have no evidence of any of this'. Where is his data? Where is his evidence? How can he possibly have proven anything with either of those things?

HE'S FUCKING BEEN THERE!  He's sailed those differences and can verify firsthand the accuracy of the maps.  What more do you want?  Do we need to send you on that voyage?  Are we going to need to drug test you afterwards so you know you weren't hallucinating?  Do we need to drug test you now?

So what, being able to predict that an eclipse will be visible in Torquay is proof that the depiction of Australia on a globe is accurate? I don't see the connection.

If this admission of stupidity is your question, and you want me to dumb it down to the level of a five year old's understanding, then the answer is no but it is proof that the depiction of Torquay and surrounding environs is accurate. To verify Australia then an eclipse visible from Australia is verification.
I am beginning to think I need to start a thread in S&C about this sort of pretend stupidity from a moderator.

HE'S FUCKING BEEN THERE!  He's sailed those differences and can verify firsthand the accuracy of the maps.  What more do you want?  Do we need to send you on that voyage?  Are we going to need to drug test you afterwards so you know you weren't hallucinating?  Do we need to drug test you now?

What if I told you I've been there, and that I can verify firsthand the inaccuracy of the maps. Are we even now? Who's right and who's wrong?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 06, 2010, 05:16:42 AM

So what, being able to predict that an eclipse will be visible in Torquay is proof that the depiction of Australia on a globe is accurate?

the answer is no

Okay, glad we settled that.

Quote from: 004forever on April 09, 2010, 05:43:25 AM

HE'S FUCKING BEEN THERE!  He's sailed those differences and can verify firsthand the accuracy of the maps.  What more do you want?  Do we need to send you on that voyage?  Are we going to need to drug test you afterwards so you know you weren't hallucinating?  Do we need to drug test you now?

What if I told you I've been there, and that I can verify firsthand the inaccuracy of the maps. Are we even now? Who's right and who's wrong?

did you?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 09, 2010, 05:49:24 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 06, 2010, 05:16:42 AM

So what, being able to predict that an eclipse will be visible in Torquay is proof that the depiction of Australia on a globe is accurate?

the answer is no

Okay, glad we settled that.

The method used for predicting solar eclipses was derived from the motions of the moon and Earth as described by RET.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 09, 2010, 06:40:18 AM

What if I told you I've been there, and that I can verify firsthand the inaccuracy of the maps. Are we even now? Who's right and who's wrong?

did you?

Yes.

The method used for predicting solar eclipses was derived from the motions of the moon and Earth as described by RET.

Witch-doctors in Africa can predict solar eclipses, without RET or FET. In any event, none of this proves that RE maps are accurate.

Then lets see your data.

So a method exists to determine when a solar eclipse that wasn't derived from a RET or FET theory.  But, we can also derive those methods using RET as a starting point.  Can you claim the same for FET?

What if I told you I've been there, and that I can verify firsthand the inaccuracy of the maps. Are we even now? Who's right and who's wrong?

You clearly haven't Wilmore. You are just being arguementative and ignorant. THOUSANDS of mariners makes those journeys every day. They all agree what the real distances are...ALL OF THEM. Explain that.

Geez you can ring up any maritime office you like and get charts and data. It's all there - tons  of it. Where is the FE data Wilmore...WHERE IS IT?

Wow, boy has wilmore gotten pissed.

"Where's the data".
Where's your data?  None?  Ok then.

Here is what we can say factually.

Distance = Velocity * Time.

The distance between New York and Los Angeles is a fact because airplanes fly it every day.  They usually fly at the same velocity and travel for nearly the same amount of time (any storms or turbulence would throw this off).
Thus, that must be a factual distance.  Do you agree with this or should we both get into a plane and fly the distance ourselves to verify it?

Quote from: 004forever on April 09, 2010, 06:47:27 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 09, 2010, 06:40:18 AM

What if I told you I've been there, and that I can verify firsthand the inaccuracy of the maps. Are we even now? Who's right and who's wrong?

did you?

Yes.

When/where/what type of inaccuracy? It's highly possible that you were doing it wrong.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 09, 2010, 06:54:25 AM

Quote from: 004forever on April 09, 2010, 06:47:27 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 09, 2010, 06:40:18 AM

What if I told you I've been there, and that I can verify firsthand the inaccuracy of the maps. Are we even now? Who's right and who's wrong?

did you?

Yes.

When/where/what type of inaccuracy? It's highly possible that you were doing it wrong.

We also need your data or it didn't happen.

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 09, 2010, 01:29:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 09, 2010, 06:54:25 AM

Quote from: 004forever on April 09, 2010, 06:47:27 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 09, 2010, 06:40:18 AM

What if I told you I've been there, and that I can verify firsthand the inaccuracy of the maps. Are we even now? Who's right and who's wrong?

did you?

Yes.

When/where/what type of inaccuracy? It's highly possible that you were doing it wrong.

We also need your data or it didn't happen.

No we don't. Stop being high and mighty. All I want to know is what the inaccuracy was.

Quote from: Lorddave on April 09, 2010, 01:50:18 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 09, 2010, 01:29:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 09, 2010, 06:54:25 AM

Quote from: 004forever on April 09, 2010, 06:47:27 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 09, 2010, 06:40:18 AM

What if I told you I've been there, and that I can verify firsthand the inaccuracy of the maps. Are we even now? Who's right and who's wrong?

did you?

Yes.

When/where/what type of inaccuracy? It's highly possible that you were doing it wrong.

We also need your data or it didn't happen.

No we don't. Stop being high and mighty. All I want to know is what the inaccuracy was.

Just repeating what the FEers say.

Just repeating what the FEers say.

- Why should we steep to their level?

Quote from: Lorddave on April 09, 2010, 02:04:31 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 09, 2010, 01:52:54 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on April 09, 2010, 01:50:18 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 09, 2010, 01:29:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 09, 2010, 06:54:25 AM

Quote from: 004forever on April 09, 2010, 06:47:27 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 09, 2010, 06:40:18 AM

What if I told you I've been there, and that I can verify firsthand the inaccuracy of the maps. Are we even now? Who's right and who's wrong?

did you?

We can't stoop to their level, we most be high-minded and scientific in the face off..... whatever word would describe the FES.

Yes.

When/where/what type of inaccuracy? It's highly possible that you were doing it wrong.

We also need your data or it didn't happen.

No we don't. Stop being high and mighty. All I want to know is what the inaccuracy was.

Just repeating what the FEers say.

You SUCK at quoting people.Nearly every single one of your posts is like this. Fix it.

You SUCK at quoting people.Nearly every single one of your posts is like this. Fix it.

Ummm........... which ones? Whats wrong with most of my posts?

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 09, 2010, 03:40:47 PM

You SUCK at quoting people.Nearly every single one of your posts is like this. Fix it.

Ummm........... which ones? Whats wrong with most of my posts?

You put want you want to say in the middle of the quoted text. Anyway, now that you have fixed it, disregard and thank you.

Quote from: Death-T on April 09, 2010, 03:47:04 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 09, 2010, 03:40:47 PM

You SUCK at quoting people.Nearly every single one of your posts is like this. Fix it.

Ummm........... which ones? Whats wrong with most of my posts?

You put want you want to say in the middle of the quoted text. Anyway, now that you have fixed it, disregard and thank you.

It seems a little odd that you reacted in such an aggressive matter... must be the interwebz shield of anonymity.

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 09, 2010, 03:54:23 PM

Quote from: Death-T on April 09, 2010, 03:47:04 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 09, 2010, 03:40:47 PM

You SUCK at quoting people.Nearly every single one of your posts is like this. Fix it.

Ummm........... which ones? Whats wrong with most of my posts?

You put want you want to say in the middle of the quoted text. Anyway, now that you have fixed it, disregard and thank you.

It seems a little odd that you reacted in such an aggressive matter... must be the interwebz shield of anonymity.

Nah.
From what I've seen 2fst4u isn't naturally aggressive, he just hates it when people say or do something really foolish and not realize it.