When will RE Community Accept Defeat?

Are you saying the very real and predictable moons are fake news nasa?

No, I'm saying the variation in the picture provided is fake.

And tell us why we can’t find the documentation for any verified landmass or canal.

Because you choose to ignore everything that shows you are wrong. It is wilful ignorance.
The curvature of Earth has been verified countless times. You choosing to ignore that doesn't magically make it go away.

After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established curvature charts like maps. It should be common knowledge just as the other details are about the landmasses or canals.

You mean like the geoid?
https://cddis.nasa.gov/926/egm96/geoid_050.gif?
Or the many topographic maps?
(Which show relative to the base curve)

Again, you choosing to ignore these doesn't magically mean they don't exist.

Also, after even more years you guys should have mapped out Earth and produced a too-scale map of Earth on a flat surface with a single scale throughout, which accurately matches reality and have an explanation for so many things.
Instead, all you have is "it looks flat", "NASA can't be trusted" and appeals to ignorance and lies.

But I see you have yet again abandoned ship. You have realised bringing up eclipses was a dead end for you, because RE has answers, while FE has none.
How about you tell us how the moon and eclipses work in your flat fantasy?

For you and all. Now tell us, why you have been unable to verify the curvature bulge over Australia?  Is it because you don’t know how, or the curvature is not there to measure? You can give me lengths widths and elevations, but you damn sure can’t actually tell me what the curvature bulge is over center, IF ANY.  Why?

Who told you it "can't" be verified?
Geodesists measured it and it was confirmed tons of times
For example, from Brisbane to Kalbarri is 3830 km, and the bulge is 285.64 km

And tell us why we can’t find the documentation for any verified landmass or canal. You do know this would end the debate, right? You are actually accepting defeat by not doing so.

Can't find documentation?
It is all verified, measured from Datum.
In other words, first the Datum was defined, and then all measurements were used with that Datum as reference.

I already gave you one of the links that explain what Datum is.
Let's try again:

Go ahead, tell me what the measurements are for a band of helium and then tell me again, you can’t actually verify the alleged circumference of Earth.   New guys here like myself,  put you guys to shame  where it matters.. We know what you are afraid of. “You Fear there is no Sphere” because you have no foundation, just fantasy.

Band of Helium?
If you mean the chemical element Helium, it has no band, it has one spectral line.

The first evidence of helium was observed on August 18, 1868,
as a bright yellow line with a wavelength of 587.49 nanometers
in the spectrum of the chromosphere of the Sun.

(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium)

Or you mean the band Helium, lead by Mary Timony?

Here is her page, I'm too lazy to look if there are her measures there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Timony

The principle of measuring curvature by mechanical and gps instruments has been put to you many times, which you ignore.

Remember these words when you wake in the morning,” The Earth is a sphere. You have made a PLAT Error."

Ahaha
Plata
What is the point of mapping curvsture?
People map elevation above sea level because thats what matters.
What economical or logistical point is there for someone to go to the trouble of mapping curvature?

Scientifically, there was an old greek guy who did a fairly good calc.
Then as surveys and satelites became better, people were able to gather more data and perfect the general sphere to ellipsoid to pear.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth

Really
Wtf are you on about?

Quote from: Stash on September 05, 2019, 10:58:22 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 05, 2019, 10:43:23 PM

After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established charts like maps. It should be common knowledge just as the other details are about the landmasses or canals.

Are you trying to be funny because this is the most hilarious statement you've made to date. What do you think the worlds maps and charts are based on?

You're not serious are you?

After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established curvature charts like maps.

It's called a "globe", dumbass, and you can get one from any newsagent, or on ebay. Pick one up and start charting today. (Yes, really, globes work as maps)

You deserve a "no-prize" for initiating this thread.

Amazingly plata fails to see the irony in his claim that the world lacks a round map.

Quote from: Stash on September 05, 2019, 10:58:22 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 05, 2019, 10:43:23 PM

After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established charts like maps. It should be common knowledge just as the other details are about the landmasses or canals.

Are you trying to be funny because this is the most hilarious statement you've made to date. What do you think the worlds maps and charts are based on?

You're not serious are you?

After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established curvature charts like maps.

Do you mean something like this:
http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/icg/2012/template/WGS_84.pdf

Brief Description:WGS  84  is  an  Earth-centered,  Earth-fixed  terrestrial  reference  system  and geodetic datum. WGS 84 is based on a consistent set of constants and model parameters that describe the Earth's size, shape, and gravity and geomagnetic fields. WGS 84 is the standard U.S. Department of Defense definition of a global reference system for geospatial information and is the  reference  system  for  the  Global  Positioning  System  (GPS).  It  is  compatible  with  the  International Terrestrial Reference System (ITRS).

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 05, 2019, 11:04:23 PM

Quote from: Stash on September 05, 2019, 10:58:22 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 05, 2019, 10:43:23 PM

After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established charts like maps. It should be common knowledge just as the other details are about the landmasses or canals.

Are you trying to be funny because this is the most hilarious statement you've made to date. What do you think the worlds maps and charts are based on?

You're not serious are you?

After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established curvature charts like maps.

Do you mean something like this:
http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/icg/2012/template/WGS_84.pdf

Quote

Brief Description:WGS  84  is  an  Earth-centered,  Earth-fixed  terrestrial  reference  system  and geodetic datum. WGS 84 is based on a consistent set of constants and model parameters that describe the Earth's size, shape, and gravity and geomagnetic fields. WGS 84 is the standard U.S. Department of Defense definition of a global reference system for geospatial information and is the  reference  system  for  the  Global  Positioning  System  (GPS).  It  is  compatible  with  the  International Terrestrial Reference System (ITRS).

Those aren't curved maps.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

Quote from: markjo on September 06, 2019, 11:41:28 AM

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 05, 2019, 11:04:23 PM

Quote from: Stash on September 05, 2019, 10:58:22 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 05, 2019, 10:43:23 PM

After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established charts like maps. It should be common knowledge just as the other details are about the landmasses or canals.

Are you trying to be funny because this is the most hilarious statement you've made to date. What do you think the worlds maps and charts are based on?

You're not serious are you?

After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established curvature charts like maps.

Do you mean something like this:
http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/icg/2012/template/WGS_84.pdf

Quote

Brief Description:WGS  84  is  an  Earth-centered,  Earth-fixed  terrestrial  reference  system  and geodetic datum. WGS 84 is based on a consistent set of constants and model parameters that describe the Earth's size, shape, and gravity and geomagnetic fields. WGS 84 is the standard U.S. Department of Defense definition of a global reference system for geospatial information and is the  reference  system  for  the  Global  Positioning  System  (GPS).  It  is  compatible  with  the  International Terrestrial Reference System (ITRS).

Those aren't curved maps.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

No one ever said WGS 84 is a "curved map". It's the spheroid reference system upon which maps are based. Maps are typically flat, a spheroid is typically not. Your wiki entry is misleading, inaccurately depicts the reference datum and irrelevant.

Create an accurate flat earth map and make a wiki entry around that.

Quote from: markjo on September 06, 2019, 11:41:28 AM

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 05, 2019, 11:04:23 PM

Quote from: Stash on September 05, 2019, 10:58:22 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 05, 2019, 10:43:23 PM

After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established charts like maps. It should be common knowledge just as the other details are about the landmasses or canals.

Are you trying to be funny because this is the most hilarious statement you've made to date. What do you think the worlds maps and charts are based on?

You're not serious are you?

After a 1,000+ years, you guys should have mapped curvature all over the world and have established curvature charts like maps.

Do you mean something like this:
http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/icg/2012/template/WGS_84.pdf

Quote

Brief Description:WGS  84  is  an  Earth-centered,  Earth-fixed  terrestrial  reference  system  and geodetic datum. WGS 84 is based on a consistent set of constants and model parameters that describe the Earth's size, shape, and gravity and geomagnetic fields. WGS 84 is the standard U.S. Department of Defense definition of a global reference system for geospatial information and is the  reference  system  for  the  Global  Positioning  System  (GPS).  It  is  compatible  with  the  International Terrestrial Reference System (ITRS).

Those aren't curved maps.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

WGS 84 describes the curvature of the earth.

the original question still remains unanswered - WHY DOES PLATAS DEMAND AN OVERLY COMPLICATED REQUIREMENT FOR PROOF OF CURVATURE OVER UNEVEN TERRAIN???

Those aren't curved maps.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

What would be the use of "curved maps", may I ask? The very purpose of maps is to represent the curved surface of the earth onto a flat surface.

That flat surface used to always be a hand-drawn or printed sheet but lately is often a computer or other display screen.

The old navigators did often plan their voyages on a Terrestrial Globe and many would carry quite a large one on board ship - they knew the real shape of the earth!
Look at these old Dutch sailors with their Terrestrial and Celestial Globes:

"The light of navigation", Dutch sailing handbook, 1608, showing compass, hourglass,
sea astrolabe, terrestrial and celestial globes, divider, Jacob's staff and astrolabe.

And

In 1537, Pedro Nunes published his Tratado da Sphera. In this book he included two original treatises about questions of navigation. For the first time the subject was approached using mathematical tools. This publication gave rise to a new scientific discipline: "theoretical or scientific navigation".

No, these old sailors knew the earth was a Globe, no question about it!

This 1689 map of the known world sure does not look like a map of the flat earth:

Map of the world produced in 1689 by Gerard van Schagen.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2019, 12:18:23 PM

Those aren't curved maps.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

What would be the use of "curved maps", may I ask?

Accuracy.

Quote from: rabinoz on September 06, 2019, 02:37:55 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2019, 12:18:23 PM

Those aren't curved maps.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

What would be the use of "curved maps", may I ask?

Accuracy.

When a great circle route is plotted, you now have a "curved map".

Quote from: rabinoz on September 06, 2019, 02:37:55 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2019, 12:18:23 PM

Those aren't curved maps.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

What would be the use of "curved maps", may I ask?

Accuracy.

Get back to us when FE has an "accurate" map.

Those aren't curved maps.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

Yes they are

There are a number of errors in the wiki and a number of assumptions such as:

WGS84 is a standard coord system its not the best fit, ie one size fits all thats GRS80.

WGS84 is used in simple GPS systems like your phone, its not accurate enough for surveying.

Despite the assertions in the wiki, there is a series of linked local elipsoids. For example the UK uses ETRS89 as the UK is drifting away from  WGS84 at a rate of 2.5cm a year, the current total drift is approximately 75cm.

ETRS89 is based on ITRF which itself translates to ITRS the common coord referencing system rather than WGS84. Its independent of any individual government, all of the standard transformational equations are maintained and supplied by the International Earth Rotation and Reference System Service.

Current ITRF is ITRF2019, its updated every year using 4 independent geodetic sources.

The WGS84 and the ITRS  do give coords in XYZ not XY as the wiki states.

Moving on to more accurate RE cartesian coordinates you use the geoid, which is the world wide standard base or 0 datum and is within +/- 2m of mean sea level at any location in the world. So for example on the east coast of the UK my zero from the geoid is about -80cm. Datum is set up on local observations, the stations set up triangulate to the geoid which allows accurate transformations  made in a standard referencing system.

I do not pretend to be an expert in this field, it is horrifically complicated and full of acronyms, and its been almost 2 decades since I carried out a geodetic survey myself.

Quote from: rabinoz on September 06, 2019, 02:37:55 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2019, 12:18:23 PM

Those aren't curved maps.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

What would be the use of "curved maps", may I ask?

Accuracy.

I mean there is a globe if you want a map showing curvature, but thats not practical in a lot of situations, hence maps

Quote from: rabinoz on September 06, 2019, 02:37:55 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2019, 12:18:23 PM

Those aren't curved maps.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

What would be the use of "curved maps", may I ask?

Accuracy.

But they are a bit impossible to use in books like atlases and street directories.

But talking about accuracy, please show me an accurate flat earth map - at least one that I can scale distances from with reasonable accuracy.

All I see from flat earthers on the shape of Australia is the sort of distorted rubbish on the left below:

The only NP AEP maps that I have seen have shown it like: "Ice Wall" Flat Earth Map - Australia

no, Australia looks more like this! Map of Australia, 1855

That map on the right was published in 1855 and I can scale large distance with quite good accuracy from that.

Those aren't curved maps.

You have brought up that objection before, and had it destroyed. You will need a lot more than pathetic spam links to back it up.

Yes, people produce flat maps using it, with these flat maps having known distortion.

Accuracy.

That doesn't necessarily make it useful.
You can easily have a physical curved map in the form of the globe. But in order to transport it it would need to be quite small. That means you don't have the required accuracy. Or you can take a massive one, larger than the vessel you are using, which means you can't really take it.

Flat maps for a small region have minimal inaccuracy due to the curvature and can easily be stored.
So curved maps are not all that useful.

Tom B wants a curved map...
That sir, would be a globe.
They exist.

What else you need?

What else you need?

Just another empty assertion that "the curvature has never been measured!" followed by fingers in his ears.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2019, 12:18:23 PM

Those aren't curved maps.

You have brought up that objection before, and had it destroyed. You will need a lot more than pathetic spam links to back it up.

Yes, people produce flat maps using it, with these flat maps having known distortion.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2019, 02:44:15 PM

Accuracy.

That doesn't necessarily make it useful.
You can easily have a physical curved map in the form of the globe. But in order to transport it it would need to be quite small. That means you don't have the required accuracy. Or you can take a massive one, larger than the vessel you are using, which means you can't really take it.

Flat maps for a small region have minimal inaccuracy due to the curvature and can easily be stored.
So curved maps are not all that useful.

"Nah-uh" is hardly "destroyed". The sources in the link say directly that it is using small flat maps.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2019, 12:18:23 PM

Those aren't curved maps.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

Yes they are

There are a number of errors in the wiki and a number of assumptions such as:

WGS84 is a standard coord system its not the best fit, ie one size fits all thats GRS80.

WGS84 is used in simple GPS systems like your phone, its not accurate enough for surveying.

Despite the assertions in the wiki, there is a series of linked local elipsoids. For example the UK uses ETRS89 as the UK is drifting away from  WGS84 at a rate of 2.5cm a year, the current total drift is approximately 75cm.

ETRS89 is based on ITRF which itself translates to ITRS the common coord referencing system rather than WGS84. Its independent of any individual government, all of the standard transformational equations are maintained and supplied by the International Earth Rotation and Reference System Service.

Current ITRF is ITRF2019, its updated every year using 4 independent geodetic sources.

The WGS84 and the ITRS  do give coords in XYZ not XY as the wiki states.

Moving on to more accurate RE cartesian coordinates you use the geoid, which is the world wide standard base or 0 datum and is within +/- 2m of mean sea level at any location in the world. So for example on the east coast of the UK my zero from the geoid is about -80cm. Datum is set up on local observations, the stations set up triangulate to the geoid which allows accurate transformations  made in a standard referencing system.

I do not pretend to be an expert in this field, it is horrifically complicated and full of acronyms, and its been almost 2 decades since I carried out a geodetic survey myself.

The ellipsoid is explained in the link.

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 06, 2019, 05:14:17 PM

What else you need?

Just another empty assertion that "the curvature has never been measured!" followed by fingers in his ears.

If curvature has been measured as you state, where is the documentation proving it relates to Eratosthenes experiment?  OPPS, another problem for the Globe community. You guys just can’t win.

 If curvature existed, curvature charts would have been established long ago. We have charts for everything else right?

Quote from: JackBlack on September 06, 2019, 04:31:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2019, 12:18:23 PM

Those aren't curved maps.

You have brought up that objection before, and had it destroyed. You will need a lot more than pathetic spam links to back it up.

Yes, people produce flat maps using it, with these flat maps having known distortion.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2019, 02:44:15 PM

Accuracy.

That doesn't necessarily make it useful.
You can easily have a physical curved map in the form of the globe. But in order to transport it it would need to be quite small. That means you don't have the required accuracy. Or you can take a massive one, larger than the vessel you are using, which means you can't really take it.

Flat maps for a small region have minimal inaccuracy due to the curvature and can easily be stored.
So curved maps are not all that useful.

"Nah-uh" is hardly "destroyed". The sources in the link say directly that it is using small flat maps.

No Tom, WGS 84 projections are used to make small flat maps.  From one of your own sources:

A projected coordinate system is always based on a geographic coordinate system that is based on a sphere or spheroid.

Quote from: Yes on September 06, 2019, 07:25:31 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 06, 2019, 05:14:17 PM

What else you need?

Just another empty assertion that "the curvature has never been measured!" followed by fingers in his ears.

If curvature has been measured as you state, where is the documentation proving it relates to Eratosthenes experiment?  OPPS, another problem for the Globe community. You guys just can’t win.

 If curvature existed, curvature charts would have been established long ago. We have charts for everything else right?

You have some serious holes in your logic here Plat.  Here's the problem you have; this is non-Euclidean geometry we're talking about.  You keep conflating a "flat" surface and a spherical one.  As far as Eratosthenes, that experiment has been reproduced, successfully, in modern times.  You can find a link to that research paper here:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9120/50/2/175/meta

So, no problem for the globe, again.  The problem with FE, and this is something I've debated with Mr. Davis about a few times, is that it necessarily requires an abandonment of rational thinking; this leads to an acceptance of fallacious thinking, not as a byproduct but as a requirement for allowing logical paradoxes to exist within the model. 

Seriously think about it - if the Earth is flat and the sun/moon are circling above it on a parallel plane of movement, the sun and moon can never rise or set.  We've already discussed the problem of the Southern Cross so I won't go into that again, but as a paradox, it is still there.  Then you have the horizon, space flight, GPS, radio wave behavior and many other issues that are known facets of modern life that make literally no sense if the world was flat.

Plat, your inability to understand these issues is irksome.  I don't know if you are trolling really hard (and very convincingly) or if you have some sort of learning disability.  You ignore anything you can't accept, repeat the same argument, ad nauseam, and seem to be completely broken when it comes to anything dealing with spatial reasoning. 

Tragic, really...

EDIT: My link to that research is stuck at a paywall.  If you want to download the paper for free, try this one:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272755423_Modern_replication_of_Eratosthenes'_measurement_of_the_circumference_of_Earth

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 06, 2019, 08:13:32 PM

Quote from: Yes on September 06, 2019, 07:25:31 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 06, 2019, 05:14:17 PM

What else you need?

Just another empty assertion that "the curvature has never been measured!" followed by fingers in his ears.

If curvature has been measured as you state, where is the documentation proving it relates to Eratosthenes experiment?  OPPS, another problem for the Globe community. You guys just can’t win.

 If curvature existed, curvature charts would have been established long ago. We have charts for everything else right?

You have some serious holes in your logic here Plat.  Here's the problem you have; this is non-Euclidean geometry we're talking about.  You keep conflating a "flat" surface and a spherical one.  As far as Eratosthenes, that experiment has been reproduced, successfully, in modern times.  You can find a link to that research paper here:

You don't understand. Eratosthenes experiment does not prove Earth is a sphere. It only proves if Earth is a sphere, then it would have a 3959 miles radius. But they never established curvature charts to prove Earth does have curvature as Eratosthenes calculated.  So in other words, it was never verified then (people followed blindly) nor today. OOPS, another ass bite.

Quote from: Gumwars on September 06, 2019, 08:30:13 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 06, 2019, 08:13:32 PM

Quote from: Yes on September 06, 2019, 07:25:31 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 06, 2019, 05:14:17 PM

What else you need?

Just another empty assertion that "the curvature has never been measured!" followed by fingers in his ears.

If curvature has been measured as you state, where is the documentation proving it relates to Eratosthenes experiment?  OPPS, another problem for the Globe community. You guys just can’t win.

 If curvature existed, curvature charts would have been established long ago. We have charts for everything else right?

You have some serious holes in your logic here Plat.  Here's the problem you have; this is non-Euclidean geometry we're talking about.  You keep conflating a "flat" surface and a spherical one.  As far as Eratosthenes, that experiment has been reproduced, successfully, in modern times.  You can find a link to that research paper here:

You don't understand. Eratosthenes experiment does not prove Earth is a sphere. It only proves if Earth is a sphere, then it would have a 3959 miles radius. But they never established curvature charts to prove Earth does have curvature as Eratosthenes calculated.  So in other words, it was never verified then (people followed blindly) nor today. OOPS, another ass bite.

Did you read the paper?  If you had, you would have copped to the fact that it verifies the CIRCUMFERENCE of the planet; i.e., confirms the curvature of the surface. So, OOOPS, looks like you goofed, AGAIN.

You do realize that the significance of Eratosthenes experiment is that the angles the light produce in the well shaft CAN ONLY HAPPEN IF THE WORLD ISN'T FLAT.

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 06, 2019, 08:50:02 PM

Quote from: Gumwars on September 06, 2019, 08:30:13 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 06, 2019, 08:13:32 PM

Quote from: Yes on September 06, 2019, 07:25:31 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 06, 2019, 05:14:17 PM

What else you need?

Just another empty assertion that "the curvature has never been measured!" followed by fingers in his ears.

If curvature has been measured as you state, where is the documentation proving it relates to Eratosthenes experiment?  OPPS, another problem for the Globe community. You guys just can’t win.

 If curvature existed, curvature charts would have been established long ago. We have charts for everything else right?

You have some serious holes in your logic here Plat.  Here's the problem you have; this is non-Euclidean geometry we're talking about.  You keep conflating a "flat" surface and a spherical one.  As far as Eratosthenes, that experiment has been reproduced, successfully, in modern times.  You can find a link to that research paper here:

You don't understand. Eratosthenes experiment does not prove Earth is a sphere. It only proves if Earth is a sphere, then it would have a 3959 miles radius. But they never established curvature charts to prove Earth does have curvature as Eratosthenes calculated.  So in other words, it was never verified then (people followed blindly) nor today. OOPS, another ass bite.

Did you read the paper?  If you had, you would have copped to the fact that it verifies the CIRCUMFERENCE of the planet; i.e., confirms the curvature of the surface. So, OOOPS, looks like you goofed, AGAIN.

You do realize that the significance of Eratosthenes experiment is that the angles the light produce in the well shaft CAN ONLY HAPPEN IF THE WORLD ISN'T FLAT.

OOPS, you don’t know about divergent Sun rays. It’s still inconclusive and the reason why you need established curvature charts to prove the masses didn’t follow Eratosthenes like blind sheep.

Quote from: Gumwars on September 06, 2019, 08:59:21 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 06, 2019, 08:50:02 PM

Quote from: Gumwars on September 06, 2019, 08:30:13 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 06, 2019, 08:13:32 PM

Quote from: Yes on September 06, 2019, 07:25:31 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 06, 2019, 05:14:17 PM

What else you need?

Just another empty assertion that "the curvature has never been measured!" followed by fingers in his ears.

If curvature has been measured as you state, where is the documentation proving it relates to Eratosthenes experiment?  OPPS, another problem for the Globe community. You guys just can’t win.

 If curvature existed, curvature charts would have been established long ago. We have charts for everything else right?

You have some serious holes in your logic here Plat.  Here's the problem you have; this is non-Euclidean geometry we're talking about.  You keep conflating a "flat" surface and a spherical one.  As far as Eratosthenes, that experiment has been reproduced, successfully, in modern times.  You can find a link to that research paper here:

You don't understand. Eratosthenes experiment does not prove Earth is a sphere. It only proves if Earth is a sphere, then it would have a 3959 miles radius. But they never established curvature charts to prove Earth does have curvature as Eratosthenes calculated.  So in other words, it was never verified then (people followed blindly) nor today. OOPS, another ass bite.

Did you read the paper?  If you had, you would have copped to the fact that it verifies the CIRCUMFERENCE of the planet; i.e., confirms the curvature of the surface. So, OOOPS, looks like you goofed, AGAIN.

You do realize that the significance of Eratosthenes experiment is that the angles the light produce in the well shaft CAN ONLY HAPPEN IF THE WORLD ISN'T FLAT.

OOPS, you don’t know about divergent Sun rays. It’s still inconclusive and the reason why you need established curvature charts to prove the masses didn’t follow Eratosthenes like blind sheep.

Did you read the paper, yes or no?

Quote from: Yes on September 06, 2019, 07:25:31 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 06, 2019, 05:14:17 PM

What else you need?

Just another empty assertion that "the curvature has never been measured!" followed by fingers in his ears.

If curvature has been measured as you state, where is the documentation proving it relates to Eratosthenes experiment?  OPPS, another problem for the Globe community. You guys just can’t win.

Sorry to disappoint you but this is not a contest to win or lose and the shape of the earth has been known to be a Globe for millennia.

If you really think that is incorrect show details of your flat earth, including an accurate map and the details of the paths of at least the sun and moon.

Of course you map should show the correct dimensions of the continents and the correct distance between cities.

There's much more but that's a start.

I know that this map and the paths of the sun and moon pats are quite impossible for you so you've lost already.

So, the answer to "When will RE Community Accept Defeat?" is obviously never!
And, in any case, you are not addressing "the RE Community" just a few members of a tiny on-line society!

If curvature existed, curvature charts would have been established long ago. We have charts for everything else right?

Why? What would be the point?
There is all the information you could ever want on height above sea-level in many different forms from data-bases,such as List of mountains in Australia
 to topographical maps like:


And, as I've stated before the "curvature" is well-defined! Read again, When will RE Community Accept Defeat? « Reply #1677 »
It doesn't matter one little bit because we are not trying to convince YOU are trying to convince US to admit defeat.