-
(http://)
-
This is considered low content posting. This is a warning.
-
I don't care anymore. I came here with open mind in a hope of good discussion. I made 3 proof about the earth is not flat. Your (especially jroa) reply was only a personal attack. The whole site is just a joke with tons of trolls. The flat earth case is closed for me! Best of regards!
PS:
Most people here trying to prove his argument with the statement he is an Engineer! I don't even care if you called Albert Einstein or Nicola Tesla if you can't prove your argument!
In the beginning God said: “div D = ρ, div B = 0, curl E = - ðB/ðt, curl H = J + ðD/ðt,”
and there was light.
If you don't understand this quote then you aren't a real engineer! Nowadays everyone can get a degree what a shame!
-
I don't care anymore. I came here with open mind in a hope of good discussion. I made 3 proof about the earth is not flat. Your (especially jroa) reply was only a personal attack. The whole site is just a joke with tons of trolls. The flat earth case is closed for me! Best of regards!
PS:
Most people here trying to prove his argument with the statement he is an Engineer! I don't even care if you called Albert Einstein or Nicola Tesla if you can't prove your argument!
In the beginning God said: “div D = ρ, div B = 0, curl E = - ðB/ðt, curl H = J + ðD/ðt,”
and there was light.
If you don't understand this quote then you aren't a real engineer! Nowadays everyone can get a degree what a shame!
And James Clerk Maxwell said "Amen"!
That video is exactly the information I have been trying for a long time to get across - maybe it needed pretty pictures.
Now if some moderator can move this to "The Flat Earth Society » Flat Earth Discussion Boards » Flat Earth Debate" we can have a proper debate.
-
The video actually tells you that the FEers cannot show a perfect FE map but this is not the same as proving that the earth is not flat, altho it comes very close.
The simple fact is that the FEers cannot show you an accurate FE map, they also cannot show you the positive proof of a flat earth, namely the Edge. And it ought to be easy because the edge should be in ANY direction if you go far enough. They'll give you lamer and lamer excuses as we go further into the 21st century and are able to penetrate further into the depths of the African jungle or the South American jungle or fly farther on faster jets. If they showed us the Edge they'd make a million converts that very day.
-
Proof comes when you try to map complete band of sub-solar points.
They all must be between Cancer Tropic and Capricorn Tropic
and they all must match Globe model.
Then try to measure distances in Flat model and to compre them with reality.
LOL
-
In the beginning God said: “div D = ρ, div B = 0, curl E = - ðB/ðt, curl H = J + ðD/ðt,”
and there was light.
Sounds like the god had a speech impediment.
-
In the beginning God said: “div D = ρ, div B = 0, curl E = - ðB/ðt, curl H = J + ðD/ðt,”
and there was light.
Sounds like the god had a speech impediment.
Try THIS (http://atheistnexus.org/group/physicists/forum/topics/god-said-div-d-r-div-b-0?xg_source=activity).
Speaking of propagation of electromagnetic wave through vacuum:
Magnetic field can induse electric field only by change, not by presence.
By increase or decrease in intensity.
That is why while in one point electric field grows,
it induces growing magnetic field in next point,
which induces electric field in next,
that induces magnetic in next,
and so on...
If it hapens at frequencies of 400-750 THz, then the electromagnetic wave is visible light.
If it is slower, then the light is infra-red.
If it is faster, then it is ultra-violet.
Faster than that are X and Gamma rays.
Like, for example, HERE (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ems3.html).
-
If I may, I'll put the video into my own words -- which may differ from the original. But here is the essence of the argument:
To a fairly high degree of accuracy (for the sake of argument let's say only within +/- ONE THOUSAND kilometers), the distance from North Pole to Equator is known to be 10,002 km and the equatorial radius is 40,075 km. Does any Flat Earther have any other values they can substantiate as being the ACTUAL values, again +/- 1000 km -- (HUGE margin of error, should be easy)?
By trivial geometry we know that a circle with a radius of 10,002 km would have a circumference in the range of 62,844.4 km -- That is IMPOSSIBLY too Large for Earth. Even if you think that π is 3 (http://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/08/flat-earth-follies-pi-is-3-because.html) that STILL makes it 60,012 km around. You CANNOT make this fit.
Conversely, a circle with a circumference of 40,075 km would have a radius of just 6,378.13 km -- IMPOSSIBLY too Small for Earth.
Therefore the Earth simply cannot be flat if these measurements are anywhere even CLOSE to the actual values.
Of course, I don't expect any Flat Earther to accept simple geometry - it's not in their nature to allow facts to get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. NASA IS LYING ABOUT THE DISTANCES! NASA IS PROJECTING A CHEMTRAIL HOLOGRAM INTO YOUR BRAIN. Ok fine -- believe whatever you what but know this -- the rest of us are pointing and laughing. Of course, that just PROVES you are right - right?
This is actually a very simple and elegant demonstration, well done OP!
-
1) The globe map in the video is already distorted/false/fake/a lie/innacurate/not real
2) The end.
-
1) The globe map in the video is already distorted/false/fake/a lie/innacurate/not real
2) The end.
OK then, it should be easy for you to show us the true map of the Flat Earth!
And it had better have the correct shape and dimensions of Australia and the correct distances between the Southern Hemisphere continents.
The correct distance pole to pole and around the equator would be good, those are well known and have been for centuries, long before your Nemesis, NASA, came on the scene!
-
1) The globe map in the video is already distorted/false/fake/a lie/innacurate/not real
2) The end.
Distances between places are measured and published.
It is not very hard to use triangulation to shape the ground surface.
In real life circumference of:
- Tropic of Cancer is roughly 23 000 miles,
- Equator is roughly 25 000 miles,
- Tropic of Capricorn is 23 000 miles.
When you try to draw it, including the map band between them,
it can be up to scale on globe, and on plane can not.
Geodesy and Triangulation made possible to know the real shape of
the ground we walk on, and sea we sail and swim.
-
When did you measure these distances?
-
When did you measure these distances?
Our maps are based on these measurements. Flight times prove they are correct.
Can you point to a single instance on any current map that is not accurate?
-
When did you measure these distances?
Our maps are based on these measurements. Flight times prove they are correct.
Can you point to a single instance on any current map that is not accurate?
Sandy Island.
-
Is Sandy Island... still on our maps?
I dare you to go to Google Maps right now...
-
For how many years did Sandy Island populate the round Earth maps?
-
For how many years did Sandy Island populate the round Earth maps?
So you are saying that there was a mistake in the maps. And that mistake was discovered by testing its accuracy. And then the maps were corrected?
That's great! Now we have an even better map!
That's how science works. We have a model, we test it, and if it does not fit, we adjust the model.
Now, in all fairness, I never heard of Sandy Island before this thread. I think it is extremely cool and funny that such a mistake slipped by map-makers for so long.
Thanks for showing me something very interesting, even though that most likely was not your intention :-)
-
YOU SHILLS ARE TERRIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why FE believers never will show you a perfect map?
--- because "perfect" maps do not exist.
Message to sane, marginally intelligent and honest true-earthers:
Map-makers deliberately inserted fake details or "artifacts" into their maps as water-marks for copy-right purposes. They could prove somebody copied their original research/map if the copy-cat mistakenly copied the artifact.
This is common knowledge in the map-making industry.
This is how terrible the globullist shills are because they really think their audience is as ignorant and stupid as themselves.
-
YOU SHILLS ARE TERRIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why FE believers never will show you a perfect map?
--- because "perfect" maps do not exist.
Message to sane, marginally intelligent and honest true-earthers:
Map-makers deliberately inserted fake details or "artifacts" into their maps as water-marks for copy-right purposes. They could prove somebody copied their original research/map if the copy-cat mistakenly copied the artifact.
This is common knowledge in the map-making industry.
This is how terrible the globullist shills are because they really think their audience is as ignorant and stupid as themselves.
Yes, I am a shill, I work for Satan, and yes I am part of the conspiracy. And even though you know I am what I am, you cannot provide a map of the flat earth that's even within 10% accuracy.
Our fake Globe map much more accurate than that. As proven by flight times and other observations.
So provide a reasonably accurate map of the Flat Earth where the distance between all continents confirms to all observations, so I can inform Satan that his plan has failed.
-
For how many years did Sandy Island populate the round Earth maps?
So you are saying that there was a mistake in the maps. And that mistake was discovered by testing its accuracy. And then the maps were corrected?
That's great! Now we have an even better map!
That's how science works. We have a model, we test it, and if it does not fit, we adjust the model.
Now, in all fairness, I never heard of Sandy Island before this thread. I think it is extremely cool and funny that such a mistake slipped by map-makers for so long.
Thanks for showing me something very interesting, even though that most likely was not your intention :-)
You asked for a single inaccuracy and I provided one.
-
For how many years did Sandy Island populate the round Earth maps?
So you are saying that there was a mistake in the maps. And that mistake was discovered by testing its accuracy. And then the maps were corrected?
That's great! Now we have an even better map!
That's how science works. We have a model, we test it, and if it does not fit, we adjust the model.
Now, in all fairness, I never heard of Sandy Island before this thread. I think it is extremely cool and funny that such a mistake slipped by map-makers for so long.
Thanks for showing me something very interesting, even though that most likely was not your intention :-)
You asked for a single inaccuracy and I provided one.
True. You did that. Thanks. I enjoy discovering new things.
Can you now provide a reasonably accurate map of the flat Earth? Or at least a reason why no such thing seem to exist?
-
So provide a reasonably accurate map of the Flat Earth ...
How much is it worth to you?
Make an offer.
No sane man would give you what you demand for free.
Do you think I am crazy??
-
I thought you said there was no money to be made by proving FE?
;D
-
I thought you said there was no money to be made by proving FE?
;D
You might as well give it up Omega.
Why is there no flat earth map ? Because there is no flat earth.
-
I thought you said there was no money to be made by proving FE?
;D
You are proving that right now.
Not willing to make an offer, are you???????????
You want a perfect map for free??? YOU SHILLS ARE TERRIBLE!!! No potato for you!
-
For how many years did Sandy Island populate the round Earth maps?
So you are saying that there was a mistake in the maps. And that mistake was discovered by testing its accuracy. And then the maps were corrected?
That's great! Now we have an even better map!
That's how science works. We have a model, we test it, and if it does not fit, we adjust the model.
Now, in all fairness, I never heard of Sandy Island before this thread. I think it is extremely cool and funny that such a mistake slipped by map-makers for so long.
Thanks for showing me something very interesting, even though that most likely was not your intention :-)
You asked for a single inaccuracy and I provided one.
True. You did that. Thanks. I enjoy discovering new things.
Can you now provide a reasonably accurate map of the flat Earth? Or at least a reason why no such thing seem to exist?
Our maps are not reasonably close? Perhaps you think the layout of the continents are different from our depiction?
-
When did you measure these distances?
Maybe you have some different measurements?
Use subsolar point finder to measure distances between meridians north and south od equator.
Then tell me the subsolar point finder is "lying".
And then explain why, out of so many people living there, nobody complains about site's "inaccuracy".
So many times more conspirators than ordinary people?
LOL
-
For how many years did Sandy Island populate the round Earth maps?
So you are saying that there was a mistake in the maps. And that mistake was discovered by testing its accuracy. And then the maps were corrected?
That's great! Now we have an even better map!
That's how science works. We have a model, we test it, and if it does not fit, we adjust the model.
Now, in all fairness, I never heard of Sandy Island before this thread. I think it is extremely cool and funny that such a mistake slipped by map-makers for so long.
Thanks for showing me something very interesting, even though that most likely was not your intention :-)
You asked for a single inaccuracy and I provided one.
True. You did that. Thanks. I enjoy discovering new things.
Can you now provide a reasonably accurate map of the flat Earth? Or at least a reason why no such thing seem to exist?
Our maps are not reasonably close? Perhaps you think the layout of the continents are different from our depiction?
Where are 'your' maps?
-
When did you measure these distances?
Maybe you have some different measurements?
Use subsolar point finder to measure distances between meridians north and south od equator.
Then tell me the subsolar point finder is "lying".
And then explain why, out of so many people living there, nobody complains about site's "inaccuracy".
So many times more conspirators than ordinary people?
LOL
What does the subsolar point have to do with anything? Are you claiming that if the Earth is flat, the sun can't be directly overhead? In what do you base these claims? Perhaps you are simply making crud up and trying to pass it off as evidence?
-
What does the subsolar point have to do with anything? Are you claiming that if the Earth is flat, the sun can't be directly overhead?
Because the Earth is curved, the sun appears in the sky at different angles relative to the viewer, than if the earth was flat.
The data confirms this.
In what do you base these claims?
We have been wondering that about you for a loooong time now
Perhaps you are simply making crud up and trying to pass it off as evidence?
Again, precisely what we wonder about you.
(disclaimer: 'we' refers to people who know the Earth is round based on the evidence, but who are more than willing to accept otherwise if evidence to the contrary is presented.)
-
So, let me get this straight. Your claim is that, on a flat Earth, we would not see a burning ball in the sky at different angles from different locations?
-
So, let me get this straight. Your claim is that, on a flat Earth, we would not see a burning ball in the sky at different angles from different locations?
The angles would be different. And I think you know that's what I mean.
-
So, let me get this straight. Your claim is that, on a flat Earth, we would not see a burning ball in the sky at different angles from different locations?
The angles would be different. And I think you know that's what I mean.
So, we would see the burning ball at different angles from different locations?
-
So, let me get this straight. Your claim is that, on a flat Earth, we would not see a burning ball in the sky at different angles from different locations?
The angles would be different. And I think you know that's what I mean.
So, we would see the burning ball at different angles from different locations?
You are trying to turn this upside down.
We have a set of data, which shows at what angle the sun is visible at any point in time at any place.
That set of data can be verified.
If the data says 'the sun will appear X degrees above the horizon at location Y at time Z', we can go to place Y at time Z and check the angle X.
If the Earth is flat, the set of data would consist of different values for X, Y and Z than on a round Earth.
We can calculate this. If we use the current data and project this on a flat Earth, the numbers don't work anymore. They are inaccurate.
Since the numbers are accurate (we can check this) and the numbers ONLY work on a round Earth orbiting the Sun, the data supports the theory.
This means we can actually navigate by the Sun. We can find our location on the sphere based on the time and position of the Sun in the sky.
-
How often is this data actually verified? My guess would be 0% of the time.
-
How often is this data actually verified? My guess would be 0% of the time.
First: saying it is not verified is not the same as proving it isn't. It isn't even proof the data is inaccurate.
Second: You can verify it yourself. At your current location. You don't even have to pay for gas. Just go outside and check.
Once again, you are completely beaten. I predict either complete silence or a wall of text with irrelevant links and madey-uppy stuff to deflect.
-
...
What does the subsolar point have to do with anything? Are you claiming that if the Earth is flat, the sun can't be directly overhead? In what do you base these claims? Perhaps you are simply making crud up and trying to pass it off as evidence?
Perhaps.
Debunk it.
Which facts will emerge in the process?
Have in mind that subsolar point isn't static.
It has ground speed.
And ALL subsolar points in every moment on Flat Earth and on Globe Earth must correspond.
When subsolar point is in Panama City on Globe Earth,
it can't be somewhere else on Flat Earth.
Same goes for Manaus in Brazil, for Kampala in Uganda,
and for any city, village, mountain peak, ...
between two Tropics.
-
Saying that something can be verified is not the same as saying it has been verified. Funny how different words have different meanings, am I right?
-
Saying that something can be verified is not the same as saying it has been verified. Funny how different words have different meanings, am I right?
I am saying *you* can go outside and verify it. And if the data matches the observation, this is evidence for the theory that the Earth is round.
Do it. Go outside. Give in to your doubts and do some actual checking for once.
Perhaps you can prove me wrong for the first time? Wouldn't that be delicious?
Doooo iiiiit.....
-
...
What does the subsolar point have to do with anything? Are you claiming that if the Earth is flat, the sun can't be directly overhead? In what do you base these claims? Perhaps you are simply making crud up and trying to pass it off as evidence?
Perhaps.
Debunk it.
Which facts will emerge in the process?
Have in mind that subsolar point isn't static.
It has ground speed.
And ALL subsolar points in every moment on Flat Earth and on Globe Earth must correspond.
When subsolar point is in Panama City on Globe Earth,
it can't be somewhere else on Flat Earth.
Same goes for Manaus in Brazil, for Kampala in Uganda,
and for any city, village, mountain peak, ...
between two Tropics.
I still fail to see why there can't be a sub solar point on a flat Earth.
-
Saying that something can be verified is not the same as saying it has been verified. Funny how different words have different meanings, am I right?
I am saying *you* can go outside and verify it. And if the data matches the observation, this is evidence for the theory that the Earth is round.
Do it. Go outside. Give in to your doubts and do some actual checking for once.
Perhaps you can prove me wrong for the first time? Wouldn't that be delicious?
Doooo iiiiit.....
But, I was outside last night at the beach with my nephew and I commented on how flat the horizon is. He agreed. I then verified this morning that it still is very flat.
-
...
What does the subsolar point have to do with anything? Are you claiming that if the Earth is flat, the sun can't be directly overhead? In what do you base these claims? Perhaps you are simply making crud up and trying to pass it off as evidence?
Perhaps.
Debunk it.
Which facts will emerge in the process?
Have in mind that subsolar point isn't static.
It has ground speed.
And ALL subsolar points in every moment on Flat Earth and on Globe Earth must correspond.
When subsolar point is in Panama City on Globe Earth,
it can't be somewhere else on Flat Earth.
Same goes for Manaus in Brazil, for Kampala in Uganda,
and for any city, village, mountain peak, ...
between two Tropics.
I still fail to see why there can't be a sub solar point on a flat Earth.
What you fail to see is that the sun at a given time will seem to be at a different point in the sky based on your location. And that we know exactly where the sun will be at any given point in time on any given point on Earth. And that these predictions only work on a round Earth.
I have a terrific astronomy program, called Stellarium. I can enter my location and check the location of every known celestial body. I can actually predict with 100% accuracy what will be visible at any time at any place (obviously not including clouds or physical obstacles).
Handy little tool will even let me remove the ground and see the entire sky as a full 'sphere' around us, showing where the stars would be visible if the Earth was transparent.
And it all... ads... up...
There are no discrepancies. I can take a screenshot of the sky in Australia at this time, send it to someone in Australia and the picture will match.
All this... because the data is correct. We know where everything is, was and where it will be.
So it's not just that we have an accurate map of the globe. We have an accurate map of the globe in relation to an accurate map of the sky.
And it is accurate. All... the friggin'... time...
-
Saying that something can be verified is not the same as saying it has been verified. Funny how different words have different meanings, am I right?
I am saying *you* can go outside and verify it. And if the data matches the observation, this is evidence for the theory that the Earth is round.
Do it. Go outside. Give in to your doubts and do some actual checking for once.
Perhaps you can prove me wrong for the first time? Wouldn't that be delicious?
Doooo iiiiit.....
But, I was outside last night at the beach with my nephew and I commented on how flat the horizon is. He agreed. I then verified this morning that it still is very flat.
That's funny. I look out the window and see mountains. Not flat at all.
-
jrao, how did you verify the horizon is flat when you were talking with your nephew? With naked eye that is incapable of distinguishing sufficiently small objects one from another? With naked eye that can't notice if the edge of the object you are looking at from 1m is perfectly straight or curved?
-
Please provide your data and methods for a proper pear review. Thank you in advance.
-
Please provide your data and methods for a proper pear review. Thank you in advance.
Not only is it 'peer review', you dipshit, it's also something YOU refuse to do.
-
Maybe you don't need subsolar point?
But it is not the question of ONE SINGLE subsolar point in one single moment of time.
Point is in relations between subsolar points as time goes by.
Example:
Australia.
Middleton, Queensland, close to Tropic of Capricorn.
Coordinates: 22.359 degrees south, 141.553 degrees east.
Anmatjere, Northern Territory, close to Tropic of Capricorn.
Coordinates: 22.244 degrees south, 133.396 degrees east.
Distance between them 520.46 miles. Ground pretty flat, not hard to measure.
Distance between their meridians 8.157 degrees.
Ground speed of subsolar point 957 miles per hour.
(Subsolar point travels same as Sun: 15 degrees per hour.)
At that speed subsolar point in 24 hours travels 22968 miles.
So, circumference of Almost-Tropic-of-Capricorn is 22968 miles.
Smaller than circumference of equator.
~~~~~
Does the example above have error(s)?
Does it have unnecessary steps?
How would you calculate same thing?
-
I would be happy to pear review you if you roundies would ever provide data and methods.
-
I would be happy to pear review you if you roundies would ever provide data and methods.
I just gave you the example.
How would you calculate it?
-
I would be happy to pear review you if you roundies would ever provide data and methods.
Pears
(http://www.pollinator.ca/bestpractices/images/pears%20small.jpg)
Peers
(https://www.iidc.indiana.edu/styles/iidc/deimages/IRCA/IncorporatingPeers.jpg)
Peer review
(http://www.eophtha.com/eophtha/Gallery/Images%20gallery/Journals/The%20process%20of%20peerreview.jpg)
-
So, data and no methods, huh? Is that not the definition of blind faith?
-
So, data and no methods, huh? Is that not the definition of blind faith?
The only one that's blind is you. There are several suggestions in this thread for you to try out. Several sets of data have been presented.
You are (again) defeated.
Must suck quite badly for you. You are having a *really* bad week, flat-earth-wise.
Here: go download this and see where the program fails. http://www.stellarium.org/us
-
My week has actually been amazingly good. I got married on Friday, thank you very much.
-
Congratulations!
-
Thanks!
-
Congratulations, and best wishes for long happy life together.
-
So, data and no methods, huh? Is that not the definition of blind faith?
You are engineer?
You said you are.
Method is pretty simple algebra.
Gave you on silver platter
- distance between places,
- angular distance between places,
- angular speed of subsolar point (must be equal to angular speed of the Sun),
...
Looks pretty obvious to any high school student.
And maybe middle school.
Any objections?
-
Congratulations jroa!!
-
I would be happy to pear review you if you roundies would ever provide data and methods.
I like pears, so you have any reliable "pear reviews" of pears availed "Down Under"?
Still there are noteworthy events that would put trivia like spelling out of your mind! You're forgiven.
:) Congratulations! :)
-
I love to see threads where supposed "moderators" derail the thread into nonsense.
Jroa cannot provide an accurate flat earth map, so he decides to derail the thread instead. Seen it happen numerous times, and quite frankly it is pathetic. It has become painfully obvious to me the administrator does not care about the quality of this board.
-
I love to see threads where supposed "moderators" derail the thread into nonsense.
Jroa cannot provide an accurate flat earth map, so he decides to derail the thread instead. Seen it happen numerous times, and quite frankly it is pathetic. It has become painfully obvious to me the administrator does not care about the quality of this board.
::) Yes fancy jroa having the nerve to go and get married, just to derail the thread! ::)
:'( Sorry, couldn't resist that! :'(
-
I love to see threads where supposed "moderators" derail the thread into nonsense.
Jroa cannot provide an accurate flat earth map, so he decides to derail the thread instead. Seen it happen numerous times, and quite frankly it is pathetic. It has become painfully obvious to me the administrator does not care about the quality of this board.
::) Yes fancy jroa having the nerve to go and get married, just to derail the thread! ::)
:'( Sorry, couldn't resist that! :'(
Well, to be fair, I have some opinions about a guy getting married on Friday and then spends his honeymoon spouting nonsense on a forum.
But maybe that's just me.
-
The jealousy is so thick, I need rubber boots to wade through it.
-
Congratulations, and best wishes for long happy life together.
Congratulations jroa!!
Thanks!
-
:) Congratulations! :)
Thank you!
-
I love to see threads where supposed "moderators" derail the thread into nonsense.
Jroa cannot provide an accurate flat earth map, so he decides to derail the thread instead. Seen it happen numerous times, and quite frankly it is pathetic. It has become painfully obvious to me the administrator does not care about the quality of this board.
Here's the thing, at this point it's pretty safe to say that jroa doesn't buy into any of this flat earth nonsense and just likes to troll. So his posts are just noise.
Also, congratulations on getting on getting married jroa!
-
Here's the thing, at this point it's pretty safe to say that jroa doesn't buy into any of this flat earth nonsense and just likes to troll. So his posts are just noise.
Also, congratulations on getting on getting married jroa!
Unless...he DIDN'T get married, and this is his most masterful derailment yet, derailing us from his earlier derailment?!? :o :o
In either case, Congratulations to you, Jroa! ;D
-
Here's the thing, at this point it's pretty safe to say that jroa doesn't buy into any of this flat earth nonsense and just likes to troll. So his posts are just noise.
Also, congratulations on getting on getting married jroa!
Unless...he DIDN'T get married, and this is his most masterful derailment yet, derailing us from his earlier derailment?!? :o :o
In either case, Congratulations to you, Jroa! ;D
Claiming to have gotten married just to derail a thread would be particularly loathsome. It's possible I guess but if he wants to debase himself that way it's on him not us so still I say congratulations.
-
How about the flat earthers draw a mapmof the flat earth?
That'll show us roundies good.
(Had to bring it back on topic)
-
How about the flat earthers draw a mapmof the flat earth?
That'll show us roundies good.
(Had to bring it back on topic)
You've never seen a map of the Earth? Did you lose your eyesight as a baby?
-
How about the flat earthers draw a mapmof the flat earth?
That'll show us roundies good.
(Had to bring it back on topic)
You've never seen a map of the Earth? Did you lose your eyesight as a baby?
We've seen plenty of maps, but they all seem to be various projections of the Globe Earth, strange that - even those "flat" Rand McNally ones, Robinson projection, I believe.
But, we've never seen a map of the Flat Earth. Every time we criticise what is in the Wiki, we get told "but that is not the official map!"
Then dig a bit and what do we find?
Is it this?
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/application/files/4514/6118/3813/Flat_earth.png)
A Modern Flat Earth Map | | Or is it this?
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/application/files/9614/6160/9987/michaelwilmore.jpeg)
Michael Wilmore's Flat Earth Map |
Both of these are just Azimuthal Equidistant Projections of the Globe!
If these maps do not represent the flat earth, why not delete them?
-
We've seen plenty of maps
Then, why do you keep demanding that we show you more?
-
We've seen plenty of maps
Then, why do you keep demanding that we show you more?
Maybe to finally find some map that shows the real shape of Australia?
Those shown by now never did it.
-
We've seen plenty of maps
Then, why do you keep demanding that we show you more?
Why do you insist the world is flat if you can't even show an accurate map of it?
-
We've seen plenty of maps
Then, why do you keep demanding that we show you more?
Because when we say that some aspect flat of Earth map doesn't match reality, you in particular claim, "But there is no official Flat Earth Map!"
As far as I can tell, those maps are not even in the Wiki. I had to dig a bit to find them.
Or, do you mean that there is now "An official Flat Earth map"?
-
Never can be, and never will be a flat earth map that shows consistent time zones and actual true distances especially in Australia, Southern Africa and Southern parts of South America. There will also never be a model using a Flat Earth map that will correctly give Southern Hemisphere hours of sunlight during, say, December, especially the 24 hour sun at bases in Antarctica. FE'ers will always either shun these questions, or say something silly like "the data is wrong". You will never win with them.
-
Sydney, 17 Nov 2016-19:38 (7:38pm Sydney local time - Sunset)
The Sun is over Madagascar, verifiable multiple ways, here is one or any sky almanac:
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PwjefzrSvuQ/WDRgTTrAvoI/AAAAAAAACmQ/01K4qEEzfwM8qdpYlTdvx2Uuwh0sSz3-wCLcB/s1600/timeanddate-map-sunset-syd-20161117.jpg)
Meanwhile, over in Sydney the Sun is setting at an azimuth 246° -- well South of due West.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rZlnWPkUiYs/WDRhV81nN5I/AAAAAAAACmg/2Gm6GAvubDoDSoFO91fmz-r32X3z-ODrwCLcB/s1600/syd-sunset-17nov2016-246deg.png)
As confirmed by Wolfie6020 in his recent post:
(http://)
And the issue with the Flat Earth map becomes glaringly obvious...
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-A_zgwz2BSyc/WDRgk2NgyyI/AAAAAAAACmU/0Jzhj2hSijgOI30kUQDaf7crtsK7GHLngCLcB/s1600/aus-17-nov-2016-1938-sunset-explained.jpg)
And while you could utterly distort the map to map this ONE case work you would just break others.
Flat Earth is a flat out joke.
Individual errors on a map are not what we are concerned with -- we are concerned with the general character and accuracy of the map. Can it even place major cities in their relative positions and distances. The Flat Earth map cannot.
Meanwhile there are millions of measurements against current Globe-based maps every day. From Flights to commercial trucks to commercial ships to on-demand transportation the GLOBE-based maps are put to the test and pass that test.
Stellarium and Celestial use spherical math to chart the movements of the planets, their moons, our moon, asteroids, thousands of satellites, and millions of stars (and yes the STARS MOVE - Barnard's Star has moved substantially *RELATIVE TO THE OTHER STARS* in just the past 30 years. They move EXACTLY as much as expected given their great distances. And it works extremely well and the ENTIRETY of those millions of observations is built around a single Truth -- bodies of mass mutually attract.
All of it, explained by that one principle.
Meanwhile - Flat Earthers can't manage a SIMPLE flat map of their supposedly flat world and can't even get a simple sunset right...
Flat Earth simply lies about pretty much everything. It's shameful.
-
I think of we put our heads together and bent physics a little we could make an "accurate" flat map using the premise of non euclidean space on a flat surface, Things may look distorted but we could explain that away if a (edit for Rab; right angle) triangle of sides 3 and 4 doesn't have to have a third side of 5 on a flat earth.
Would be a fun thought experiment IMO.
-
I think of we put our heads together and bent physics a little we could make an "accurate" flat map using the premise of non euclidean space on a flat surface, Things may look distorted but we could explain that away if a triangle of sides 3 and 4 doesn't have to have a third side of 5 on a flat earth.
Would be a fun thought experiment IMO.
You need to get Jane on side with her "non-Euclidean space hat on".
But a 3,4,5 side triangle is no problem. It just won't have a right-angle where you might have expected.
-
I think of we put our heads together and bent physics a little we could make an "accurate" flat map using the premise of non euclidean space on a flat surface, Things may look distorted but we could explain that away if a triangle of sides 3 and 4 doesn't have to have a third side of 5 on a flat earth.
Would be a fun thought experiment IMO.
You need to get Jane on side with her "non-Euclidean space hat on".
But a 3,4,5 side triangle is no problem. It just won't have a right-angle where you might have expected.
Lol, did I forget to say right angle triangle?
Good pick you got me.
-
Because there is nothing perfect in this world.
-
Because there is nothing perfect in this world.
Where is your map you've been working on?
-
Gleason's Map is it.
-
Gleason's Map is it.
Showing you ignorance again, I see.
:P Sure! :P Gleason's map is simply a North Polar Equidistant Azimuthal Projection of the Globe.
And like all projections of the globe it has known distortions.
In this case mainly grossly distorted distances in the East-West direction, starting from no error right at the North Pole to being 57% too wide at the equator and massively increasing as the South Pole is approached.
The Gleason's Map never pretended to be a "Flat Earth Map". Look what it says on the actual map:
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Maps/1892-new-standard-map-of-the-world%20-%20Title_zpspntgvbn8.png)
On the map itself, it states: GLEASON’S
NEW STANDARD MAP OF THE WORLD
ON THE PROJECTION OF J. S. CHRISTOPHER,
MODERN COLLEGE, BLACKHEATH, ENGLAND
SCIENTIFICALLY AND PRACTICALLY CORRECT
AS “IT IS”
An "Azimuthal Equidistant Projection" has the properties that all bearings and distances from its centre to any point on the Globe are correct.
Because of this property, it is popular with radio amateurs because it gives the direction and distance to the receiving station.
But the Gleason's Map tends to be claimed by Flat Earthers because it seems the same projection as their UN map and "Rowbotham's map".
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Maps/ENaG%20Fig.%2054%20Diagram%20of%20the%20earths%20surface_zpszvpodp9d.png)
EARTH NOT A GLOBE Fig. 54: Diagram of the earth's surface
Still if you like to carry on believing your fiction, so be it!
-
I have to admit that the mention of "Sandy Island" baffles me. I went to Wikipedia to find out about and discovered there are about a dozen very real places called Sandy Island. If there was an "imaginary" place, somebody should be more specific about which maps had it and where. I will point out that some reefs, atolls, and islands pop up or disappear over the course of time, as for example the result of avulsion, erosion, hurricanes, etc., so the mere fact that an island was mapped at some point and later not found (or did not appear on old maps and now is mapped) is not proof of an error.
The point that there is not an "official" Flat Earth map is very telling. It's not a question of "official". In the matter of globes that supposedly represent a Round Earth, there is no "official" globe - not the Replogle, nor Rand McNally, nor even National Geographic - but all the globes closely resemble each other in layout. If the Earth is really flat, then a map of it on an equally flat piece of paper should should pretty much show the layout with no distortion in shape or directions and the only math involved is the scale (say, one inch equal ten thousand miles) .... and every other map on flat paper of the flat earth would closely resemble each other. No such agreement in FE maps. The excuse is they're not "official". But a map of the Flat Earth, to be accurate, should show where The Edge is - and it would be in every direction if you go far enough; it's not even clear if The Edge is a perfect circle or a rectangle or a square or a polygon or something with jagged edges. Nor where it is, at any point at all; what is clear is that it positively cannot be in Antarctica because plenty of ships have completely circumnavigated Antarctica.
Now it seems to me that PROVING that the Earth is Flat requires a map that is, if not perfect, at least fairly accurate about such a crucial detail as the location of The Edge. That the FES is still using a 19th century map (based on 17th century math) in the 21st century, with absolutely no further information about the location of The Edge, is Very Revealing.
-
Gleason's Map is it.
Showing you ignorance again, I see.
:P Sure! :P Gleason's map is simply a North Polar Equidistant Azimuthal Projection of the Globe.
And like all projections of the globe it has known distortions.
In this case mainly grossly distorted distances in the East-West direction, starting from no error right at the North Pole to being 57% too wide at the equator and massively increasing as the South Pole is approached.
The Gleason's Map never pretended to be a "Flat Earth Map". Look what it says on the actual map:
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Maps/1892-new-standard-map-of-the-world%20-%20Title_zpspntgvbn8.png)
On the map itself, it states: GLEASON’S
NEW STANDARD MAP OF THE WORLD
ON THE PROJECTION OF J. S. CHRISTOPHER,
MODERN COLLEGE, BLACKHEATH, ENGLAND
SCIENTIFICALLY AND PRACTICALLY CORRECT
AS “IT IS”
An "Azimuthal Equidistant Projection" has the properties that all bearings and distances from its centre to any point on the Globe are correct.
Because of this property, it is popular with radio amateurs because it gives the direction and distance to the receiving station.
But the Gleason's Map tends to be claimed by Flat Earthers because it seems the same projection as their UN map and "Rowbotham's map".
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Maps/ENaG%20Fig.%2054%20Diagram%20of%20the%20earths%20surface_zpszvpodp9d.png)
EARTH NOT A GLOBE Fig. 54: Diagram of the earth's surface
Still if you like to carry on believing your fiction, so be it!
I don't think you have any clue whatsoever about what you write. You just parrot what your handlers tell you.
Gleason's is a flat earth map. Nautical miles fit perfectly. And the land masses encompass the proper degrees of latitude and longitude as they would transcribe across a flat plane sitting beneath an encompassing firmament.
-
I've got a map ;D
Using a metric I've derived before on this forum:
The Earth is defined by the x and y axes, with the North Pole (for the sake of tradition) at 0, and the South at infinity. An infinite plane is used so that if you reach the South, you can come out the far side. Once the metric is used, the distance shouldn't actually be infinite. This is just our set.
Longitude is 0 along the line y=0, latitude is zero on the circle of radius 1 centred at the North pole.
Now then, our spectacularly awful looking metric. For points P1=(x1,y1), P2 = (x2,y2):
[jsTex]d(P_1,P_2) = \cos^{-1} \left( \sin \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_1^2 + y_1^2 -1}{2x_1} \right) \right) \sin \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_2^2 + y_2^2 -1}{2x_2} \right) \right) +\cos \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_1^2 + y_1^2 -1}{2x_1} \right) \right) \cos \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_2^2 + y_2^2 -1}{2x_2} \right) \right) \cos \left|\tan^{-1} \left( \frac{y_1}{x_1} \right) - \tan^{-1} \left( \frac{y_2}{x_2} \right) \right| \right)[/jsTex]
The following map gives over half the Earth. The rest can be extended out, but it grows in size.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Stereographic_projection_SW.JPG)
But remember, we're in non-Euclidean space so you have to calculate distances with the above metric.
-
Because there is nothing perfect in this world.
Where is your map you've been working on?
It is about finish, it is perfect.
I'm not finishing it by the idea of don't loose the control on it. I know the hungry crocodiles are waiting for it to eat. If we lost control of it, may prevent us from using copyright laws. I do not need to score my own goal with my own working.
I wrote that reason on same topic.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68183.msg1840185#msg1840185
-
But remember, we're in non-Euclidean space so you have to calculate distances with the above metric.
::) :P Please Jane, can I still use my trusty Lufkin steel tape? :P ::)
-
People have been able to find their way around on this Earth using nothing but a wide assortment of flat earth maps since we started practicing cartography.
To say otherwise is simply being purposefully obtuse, willfully ignorant, or an outright liar.
Maps came first.
Maps are drawn on a flat surface and a perfect reflection of the reality around us.
-
People have been able to find their way around on this Earth using nothing but a wide assortment of flat earth maps since we started practicing cartography.
To say otherwise is simply being purposefully obtuse, willfully ignorant, or an outright liar.
Maps came first.
Maps are drawn on a flat surface and a perfect reflection of the reality around us.
It would be far more correct to say that maps of limited areas of the earth came first, but in those days there were no accurate ways to measure distance and longitude. Latitude could be measured with good accuracy since the inventions of the astrolabe, mariner's quadrant and the sextant.
But with the accurate latitude and longitude measurements, it soon became apparent that any flat map of the earth must have distortions in direction, shape and/or distance.
This is why there have been so many "projections of the Globe" since Mercator's time. All have their strengths and weaknesses.
Mercator's has accurate local shapes and directions, but it is well known for its gross exaggeration of size as the poles are approached.
Nevertheless, because its lines of latitude and longitude are all straight and perpendicular to each other, it is a convenient projection to see the whole world and easily "zoom in" to local areas. This is why a version of Mercator's is used for Google and OSM on-line maps.
Since no single flat map can accurately represent the whole world, early mariners often carried globes to better picture where they were. But no globe can be large enough to show the fine detail needed for navigation near land, so flat maps of limited regions are used.
This stuff is common knowledge to anyone with any interest in navigation and to deny it is to go in the face of many centuries of knowledge of sea-faring.
Go tell that to your boss Mr Lackey lackey
noun
1. a servant, especially a liveried footman or manservant.
"lackeys were waiting to help them from the carriage"
-
I've got a map ;D
Using a metric I've derived before on this forum:
The Earth is defined by the x and y axes, with the North Pole (for the sake of tradition) at 0, and the South at infinity. An infinite plane is used so that if you reach the South, you can come out the far side. Once the metric is used, the distance shouldn't actually be infinite. This is just our set.
Longitude is 0 along the line y=0, latitude is zero on the circle of radius 1 centred at the North pole.
Now then, our spectacularly awful looking metric. For points P1=(x1,y1), P2 = (x2,y2):
[jsTex]d(P_1,P_2) = \cos^{-1} \left( \sin \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_1^2 + y_1^2 -1}{2x_1} \right) \right) \sin \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_2^2 + y_2^2 -1}{2x_2} \right) \right) +\cos \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_1^2 + y_1^2 -1}{2x_1} \right) \right) \cos \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_2^2 + y_2^2 -1}{2x_2} \right) \right) \cos \left|\tan^{-1} \left( \frac{y_1}{x_1} \right) - \tan^{-1} \left( \frac{y_2}{x_2} \right) \right| \right)[/jsTex]
The following map gives over half the Earth. The rest can be extended out, but it grows in size.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Stereographic_projection_SW.JPG)
But remember, we're in non-Euclidean space so you have to calculate distances with the above metric.
Awesome.
But remember, we're in non-Euclidean space so you have to calculate distances with the above metric.
::) :P Please Jane, can I still use my trusty Lufkin steel tape? :P ::)
You need to order on the "non euclidean lufkin tape"
Lufkins are overpriced for the quality imo, I prefer the way a stanley feels.
Edit. Couldn't resist.
(https://s15.postimg.org/6eqnrg72f/20161128_143544.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/6eqnrg72f/)
Mines a little beat up.
-
But remember, we're in non-Euclidean space so you have to calculate distances with the above metric.
::) :P Please Jane, can I still use my trusty Lufkin steel tape? :P ::)
You need to order on the "non euclidean lufkin tape"
Lufkins are overpriced for the quality imo, I prefer the way a stanley feels.
Edit. Couldn't resist.
(https://s15.postimg.org/6eqnrg72f/20161128_143544.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/6eqnrg72f/)
Mines a little beat up.
Likewise!
I got a good price on the Lufkin at Bunnings and IMHO, I prefer the way a Lufkin feels.
Besides the Lufkin metric had metric along both edges, but the Stanley (which I also have) has metric one side and feet and inches on the other.
All very technical stuff this, hey what!
But they were fresh out of this "non-Euclidean Lufkin tape" at the time. (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Clip%20Art/Non-Euclidean%20Lufkin_zpsoa73qbyi.png)
-
Yeah cant use that imperial crap.
Bunnings amazes me the amount of imperial stuff they sell in a metric country.
Apparently most of their suppliers are from the US...
-
Yeah cant use that imperial crap.
Bunnings amazes me the amount of imperial stuff they sell in a metric country.
Apparently most of their suppliers are from the US...
Look closer at what I wrote!
Besides the Lufkin metric had metric along both edges, but the Stanley (which I also have) has metric one side and feet and inches on the other.
All very technical stuff this, hey what!
But they were fresh out of this "non-Euclidean Lufkin tape" at the time. (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Clip%20Art/Non-Euclidean%20Lufkin_zpsoa73qbyi.png)
An look closer at the "non-Euclidean Lufkin tape" - it says Lufkin
ULTIMATE
8m
8m x 19mm
.
Now, ;D down on bended knee and apologise for suggesting that I might use those dread feet and inches. ;D, or I might be forced take off my glove!
I guess I've used metric units for around 60 years - after escaping from the clutches of civil and mechanical engineering into all electrical engineering.
I often post in " ;) Imperious ;) Units" so the . . . . . . Americans and Brits will understand.
Just imagine driving a French car (Peugeot 508 wagon) around the UK, with the car reading km/h, speed limits in mph and buying petrol in pounds/litre etc, etc.
Then getting to Ireland and swapping across the Ireland/Ulster border with no signs for the border other than a yellow to white centre line and speed limit change from km/h to mph.
Too bad if you're driving south in a 50 mph zone (with the car on 80 km/hr) and unknowing cross the border into a town at 50 km/hr. The joys of unit changes!
-
I often post in " ;) Imperious ;) Units" so the . . . . . . Americans and Brits will understand.
Just stick with metric.
The smart ones will have no problem keeping up.
The dumb ones don't understand either one.
-
I just meant that I woulda bought the lufkin also if stanley had an imperial side lol.
Agreed stick with metric, anyone who cares will do the conversions.
-
I just meant that I woulda bought the lufkin also if stanley had an imperial side lol.
Agreed stick with metric, anyone who cares will do the conversions.
I'll accept that as an apology and keep my glove on - but what idiot would wear gloves when it's 36°[1] outside?
The Stanley was a long while ago, when some still used feet, inches and sixteenths etc.
But do you remember the decimal equivalent of 9/64" so you could transfer the measurement from the ruler (in sixty-fourths) to the micrometer (in thou), ugh!.
Then "Chickenmess" comes in with his 8"/mile2, that is supposed to answer everything about curvature.
[1] I know I should have written 36C but that might not have confused those from the "Imperious Countries" into thinking 36° was quite cool.
-
But do you remember the decimal equivalent of 9/64" so you could transfer the measurement from the ruler (in sixty-fourths) to the micrometer (in thou), ugh!.
Luckily you are good at maths.
What are you measuring in micrometers with a ruler?
I use callipers if I need to be more accurate than .5mm (which doesn't happen all that often.)
Actually broke them out doing my valve clearances on my duc recently.
Edit. My bad I think you are talking about the tool micrometer rather than the unit of measure.
-
But do you remember the decimal equivalent of 9/64" so you could transfer the measurement from the ruler (in sixty-fourths) to the micrometer (in thou), ugh!.
You do realize that you simply divide 9 by 64 to get the decimal equivalent, right? Is it division that scares you so much, or calculators in general?
-
But do you remember the decimal equivalent of 9/64" so you could transfer the measurement from the ruler (in sixty-fourths) to the micrometer (in thou), ugh!.
You do realize that you simply divide 9 by 64 to get the decimal equivalent, right? Is it division that scares you so much, or calculators in general?
Of course I know that, but when I was working with 1/64's was in die making and machining was in the 1950's.
In cases you hadn't heard, no calculators then and dividing by 64 in your head is not that easy. The first decent calculator I had was an HP-45 in 1973.
So it was easier to remember the decimals, you know the 0.015625", 0.03125" etc, etc.
-
But do you remember the decimal equivalent of 9/64" so you could transfer the measurement from the ruler (in sixty-fourths) to the micrometer (in thou), ugh!.
You do realize that you simply divide 9 by 64 to get the decimal equivalent, right? Is it division that scares you so much, or calculators in general?
Of course I know that, but when I was working with 1/64's was in die making and machining was in the 1950's.
In cases you hadn't heard, no calculators then and dividing by 64 in your head is not that easy. The first decent calculator I had was an HP-45 in 1973.
So it was easier to remember the decimals, you know the 0.015625", 0.03125" etc, etc.
What kind of die maker works with fractions? I have never seen die drawings with fractions on them.
Also, a slide rule is arguably faster and just as precise as a modern calculator. Did the slide rules scare you away from mathematics?
-
But do you remember the decimal equivalent of 9/64" so you could transfer the measurement from the ruler (in sixty-fourths) to the micrometer (in thou), ugh!.
You do realize that you simply divide 9 by 64 to get the decimal equivalent, right? Is it division that scares you so much, or calculators in general?
Of course I know that, but when I was working with 1/64's was in die making and machining was in the 1950's.
In cases you hadn't heard, no calculators then and dividing by 64 in your head is not that easy. The first decent calculator I had was an HP-45 in 1973.
So it was easier to remember the decimals, you know the 0.015625", 0.03125" etc, etc.
What kind of die maker works with fractions? I have never seen die drawings with fractions on them.
Also, a slide rule is arguably faster and just as precise as a modern calculator. Did the slide rules scare you away from mathematics?
A "sly drool" in a machine shop? we had enough comedians as it was, and I was only in my teens and I didn't do much die making, plenty of metal lathe-work.
I used slide rules (still have a couple in a drawer somewhere) often enough from around 1958 till I got my first calculator.
But no, slide rules (10" anyway) are only good to about 3 places and in Electrical Engineering that was barely enough. Any calculators (all HP's) I have had have been at least 10 digit.
Then you ask "Did the slide rules scare you away from mathematics?"
Slide rules don't do mathematics! They just help with the simple arithmetic - a tiny sub-set of mathematics.
No, slide-rules were fine, but I balked a bit at non-linear differential equations, "Schrödinger wave equation" and vector solutions to Maxwell's equations, not to mention recursive and non-recursive digital filters - little thingos like that.
-
First, you claim that die makers use fractions, now are making the claim that they must solve non-linear differential equations. Do you ever have discussions about things you are knowledgeable about?
-
Yeah cant use that imperial crap.
Bunnings amazes me the amount of imperial stuff they sell in a metric country.
Apparently most of their suppliers are from the US...
I have never quite understood why we never adopted the metric system. It just makes total sense all the way around. I'm sure there is a reason why, but it'll never be good enough.
-
First, you claim that die makers use fractions, now are making the claim that they must solve non-linear differential equations. Do you ever have discussions about things you are knowledgeable about?
Your reading comprehension has fallen below zero by now!
They don't do "Schrödinger wave equation, solutions to Maxwell's equations nor recursive and non-recursive digital filters" much in any die maker's shop I have seen,
but those things do pop up in Electrical Engineering.
By the way, fractions might not be used in making the dies, but they certainly come in when measuring up larger things around the shop. But not wanting to overtax your valuable time I could hardly go into every little detail, lest I land in tl;dr territory.
But, I'll take that risk, just to get back in topic, of course, which happens to be "Why FE believers never will show you a perfect map?"
and I claim that one reason is that Flat Earther's cannot show a map that has a consistent
distance from the Equator to the North pole, which is 6214 miles 3 furlongs 2 chains 4 yards 0 feet and 315/64 inches[1] and the
circumferential distance around the Equator, which is 24901 miles 5 furlongs 8 chains 9 yards 0 feet and 829/32 inches[2] - just so these Yanks and Brits can follow it!
[1] Based on the best approximation I could find of :P 10,001,965.72931270 metres :P.
[2] Based on the best approximation I could find of :P 6,378,206 metres :P, pretty rough, I know.
-
Well, I had enough for one night... Jora, nice trolling.You have added absolutely nothing to this topic. You never challenged any of the substantial evidence brought up against you, you only swiftly evaded it all with ad hominem.
Is it because you know the flat earth is a joke?
-
Well, I had enough for one night... Jora, nice trolling.You have added absolutely nothing to this topic. You never challenged any of the substantial evidence brought up against you, you only swiftly evaded it all with ad hominem.
Is it because you know the flat earth is a joke?
n00b
-
I've got a map ;D
Using a metric I've derived before on this forum:
The Earth is defined by the x and y axes, with the North Pole (for the sake of tradition) at 0, and the South at infinity. An infinite plane is used so that if you reach the South, you can come out the far side. Once the metric is used, the distance shouldn't actually be infinite. This is just our set.
Longitude is 0 along the line y=0, latitude is zero on the circle of radius 1 centred at the North pole.
Now then, our spectacularly awful looking metric. For points P1=(x1,y1), P2 = (x2,y2):
[jsTex]d(P_1,P_2) = \cos^{-1} \left( \sin \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_1^2 + y_1^2 -1}{2x_1} \right) \right) \sin \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_2^2 + y_2^2 -1}{2x_2} \right) \right) +\cos \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_1^2 + y_1^2 -1}{2x_1} \right) \right) \cos \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_2^2 + y_2^2 -1}{2x_2} \right) \right) \cos \left|\tan^{-1} \left( \frac{y_1}{x_1} \right) - \tan^{-1} \left( \frac{y_2}{x_2} \right) \right| \right)[/jsTex]
The following map gives over half the Earth. The rest can be extended out, but it grows in size.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Stereographic_projection_SW.JPG)
But remember, we're in non-Euclidean space so you have to calculate distances with the above metric.
Let's go right back to here, with its spectacularly awful looking metric.
Now my question is can I whip out my trusty Lufkin Tape ( :P I think it's an ordinary Euclidean one :P) and measure distances from near here to a town almost exactly due West of here.
The 8 m tape was a bit tedious, so I actually have used Garmin map data, but I've driven that route so many times that I would trust those distances to certainly better than ±1%. I know my car odometer is that close. The car and map show the road distance and the map has direct distance and Lat/Long as well, so let's see what we get.
The two locations are the westerly point, Withcott at 27.553°S 152.024°E and the easterly point, Blacksoil at 27.576°S 152.706°E
on the Warrego Highway that heads west from Ipswich.
Lat 1 | Long 1 | Lat 2 | Long 2 | Road dist | Direct dist | Avg Lat | Long diff | Globe km/deg @ Lat | Calc Dist |
-27.553° | 152.024° | -27.576° | 152.706° | 71.6 km | 67.4 km | -27.564° | 0.682° | 98.6 km/° | 67.2 km |
The "direct distance" is the map distance between Withcott and Blacksoil. The road distance is given just as a comparison because it is not practical to measure directly "as the drone flies" and as expected it is a few kilometers more than the direct distance.
The Globe km/deg @ Lat is the expected distance for 1° of longitude at a latitude of 27.576°S
and is calculated as the (circumference of the earth at the equator) x cos(Latitude).
Then the calculated distance is (Globe km/deg @ Lat) x (Latitude difference).
The Direct Distance agrees with the Calculated Distance as closely as can be expected.
So it appears that on the "real earth", whether "Euclidean" or "non-Euclidean", we can measure distances with our ordinary "yardsticks".
Is this what we would expect on a "non-Euclidean" surface? Does the "yard-stick" expand to fit the distance according to your metric?
-
Is this what we would expect on a "non-Euclidean" surface? Does the "yard-stick" expand to fit the distance according to your metric?
Typically yardsticks occupy space, so yep. They naturally give what the metric would give.
The easiest case of a non-Euclidean surface to visualize would be a curved surface existing in Euclidean space. Place string on said curved surface, it naturally gives the distance between those two points when limited to the surface.
Having space itself be non-Euclidean basically just cuts out the middleman. A flat stick gives the distance between two points, and said stick has a fixed length: and that length is determined by the metric. The stick doesn't expand, it's only space that's at all different.
Take the points P1 and P2 to be the beginning and end of your yardstick. Then the distance between them, d(P1, P2) would be the length of the stick, one yard, and that's fixed. Then take any values you want for (x1, y1) and (x2, y2).
You can see that taking one of them to be, say, (0,0), gives you an entirely different range of coordinates for the other point, than taking one to be closer to the edge.
-
First, you claim that die makers use fractions, now are making the claim that they must solve non-linear differential equations. Do you ever have discussions about things you are knowledgeable about?
Your reading comprehension has fallen below zero by now!
They don't do "Schrödinger wave equation, solutions to Maxwell's equations nor recursive and non-recursive digital filters" much in any die maker's shop I have seen,
but those things do pop up in Electrical Engineering.
By the way, fractions might not be used in making the dies, but they certainly come in when measuring up larger things around the shop. But not wanting to overtax your valuable time I could hardly go into every little detail, lest I land in tl;dr territory.
But, I'll take that risk, just to get back in topic, of course, which happens to be "Why FE believers never will show you a perfect map?"
and I claim that one reason is that Flat Earther's cannot show a map that has a consistent
distance from the Equator to the North pole, which is 6214 miles 3 furlongs 2 chains 4 yards 0 feet and 315/64 inches[1] and the
circumferential distance around the Equator, which is 24901 miles 5 furlongs 8 chains 9 yards 0 feet and 829/32 inches[2] - just so these Yanks and Brits can follow it!
[1] Based on the best approximation I could find of :P 10,001,965.72931270 metres :P.
[2] Based on the best approximation I could find of :P 6,378,206 metres :P, pretty rough, I know.
I will give you that die shops often do some amount of fabrication, using fractions, as well as make dies, if you will agree that die makers do not use feactions in the course of making dies.
-
I will give you that die shops often do some amount of fabrication, using fractions, as well as make dies, if you will agree that die makers do not use feactions in the course of making dies.
No contest, I'll gladly concede that, we did not tolerate any "feactions" at all.
But let's leave all that stuff behind us. For me, it was long, long ago.
-
rabby, welding as well as die making?
-
rabby, welding as well as die making?
"Welding"? Where did that come in. But sometimes some large dies are fabricated by welding.
I've done my share of (mainly very poor) arc welding, but mainly for fabrication on my own things, like the shelves and roll-out fridge mount I have used in the back of two 4WDs (Land Cruiser series 100 and now Landcruiser Prado - Land Cruiser LC90 in the USA).
So no, I was never a "welder"!
Mind you "dies" and "welder" does remind me of a rather tragic welding "event", when someone who died using a welder.
He was welding in ??? bare feet ??? on a ??? metal roof ??? and put the electrode holder under his arm to roll a cigarette. Nuff said :'(. Should have been alarm bells all the way!
But hey, apart from (un)handy-man stuff that machine shop stuff was only in my teens in a tiny shop run by my father ran making parts for various items like washing machines and dryers and later (after my time there) for mowers include ride-ons.
Sure, I can "use" lots of power tools and lighter machinery (various lathes, welders, drill presses, shapers and a tiny bit of milling machine stuff), but never as a real tradesman and that was long, long ago.
I won't try to compete with you on knowledge or skill in that area.
-
I only asked because, here in the US, welders tend to work in your hated fractions, while machinists work with decimals. Just wondering.
-
I only asked because, here in the US, welders tend to work in your hated fractions, while machinists work with decimals. Just wondering.
This got ;) tl;dr ;), so
the short answer any welders in bigger firms use metric.
The long answer is:
I cannot answer from any authority, but after using metric for so long I presume welders here all use metric measures.
We have had landscaping type work with fences and quite a big retaining wall. Not a lot of welding, but the contractor did happen do a little welding himself, but would never have thought of using imperial measure, let alone fractions.
When we were using imperial measure, I used to get frustrated with the difficulty of procuring good decimal steel rulers.
Certainly, if outside workers like that all use metric by now, any engineering work would most certainly be metric, so no chance of feet and inches - fractions or decimal.
I can sort of understand USA and the UK sticking to imperial measures as the extent of changes involved in any changeover would be massive.
But don't get me started on the "conservatism" or the USA. Admittedly it's 45 years since I was there but even then, we could direct dial to the USA from here, but had to use an operator (or send a "cable") back to Australia.
Australia changed currency in 1966 (with mixed currency for a while) and weights and measures in 1971. The transition to metric weights and measures took a lot longer than the currency change.
Engineering and building materials are now of course entirely in metric and large engineering or building firm would have done everything in metric for decades.
But a lot of "handymen" (myself included, though handy might be a stretch) still use some imperial (Whitworth of all things) nuts and bolts, just for compatibility with the things being repaired.
I imagine Chile, even though there was a fair bit of English influence earlier, has always used metric, following Spain.
Sorry, as usual my yes/no answer got to be another tl;dr.