The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Macarios on June 16, 2019, 12:57:43 AM
-
Flat and Globe model both talk about Earth.
So, that's one thing they have in common.
We all agree that Sun makes full circle directly above Equator for each Equinox.
This is the latitude zero, and this is the same in Flat and Globe model.
We also agree that Sun makes full circle directly above Tropic of Cancer for December solstice
and above Tropic of Capricorn for June solstice.
So, Equator and the two Tropics are at the same place in both models.
We also agree that all spots that have solar noon at the same moment are at the same meridian.
All distances from the North pole are the same in Flat and in Globe model.
In both models Stockholm is 3405 kilometers from North pole, Otawa 4949 km and Sacramento 5712 km.
What else Flat and Globe models have in common?
-
We all agree that Sun makes full circle directly above Equator for each Equinox.
Not quite.
The bipolar FEers reject that as the equator isn't a circle for them.
It seems the main things FEers and REers have in common is that they both accept the existence of the sun, Earth and moon. That something makes us seem to go down, whether that be some force pushing/pulling us down, or Earth accelerating upwards.
And that at least at small scales, you can map a region with minimal error, and that other than the potential upwards acceleration, most agree that we don't feel Earth moving.
Other than that, due to the multitude of FE models which exist I find there is extremely little overlap.
There are widely different heights for the sun. Some have the sun/moon as flat, some as round.
Some have the NP at the centre, others have the SP at the centre, others have a point on the equator.
Some have NS distances matching, others have distance to 0, 0 matching, others have massively different distances.
Each model has some overlap, but a lot is then contradicted by other models.
-
The bipolar FEers reject that as the equator isn't a circle for them.
Ok, we can just exclude the word "circle".
Sun for each Equinox directly above the Equator travels its full length in 24 hours.
EDIT: Actually, Sun each day travels along the corresponding latitude for that day, and each
travel lasts 24 hours. All those latitudes are between two Tropics.
Each latitude can be divided into 360 segments that we call "degrees of longitude",
and during each hour Sun travels across 15 of those degrees.
-
Ha
they both agree that really big circles exist.
Re - curvature of the earth means perceptual curve and angular motion arent noticed by the naked eye/ inner ear.
Fe - plane travels in a circle around north pole.
Youre drawn into the north so you never really feel the slight turning of the plane.
Amazingly cognitive dissonance where its impossible on one hand, possible on the other.
-
Meridian Zero goes through Greenwich in both FE and GE model.
-
Tom also claimed the sun doesnt rise due east on the equinox.
-
Tom also claimed the sun doesnt rise due east on the equinox.
Anyone can measure azimuth of the sunrise for Equinox and see if he's telling the truth.
If he really said that then he obviously didn't check it out.
-
The sun rises multiple sun diameters away from East: https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox
-
The sun rises multiple sun diameters away from East: https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox
You say there are false claims, there are none.
-
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=77880.0
He is clueless.
-
All measurements are equal in Europe.
-
All measurements are equal in Europe.
That statement is FALSE
-
All measurements are equal in Europe.
That statement is FALSE
Prove.
-
All measurements are equal in Europe.
That statement is FALSE
Prove.
It is easy to prove. Established RE distances are as follows (in km)
Lisbon to Ankara: 3544km
Ankara to Dublin: 3267km
Dublin to Lisbon: 1342km
Lisbon to Helsinki: 3361km
Ankara to Helsinki: 2332 km
Dublin to Helsinki: 2024
If you try to lay out these distances on a flat sheet of paper, you cannot do it. Look at the image below. The distances between Lisbon, Ankara, and Helsinki set the relative positions of those three on the "map", like in a triangle, and then the distances between Lisbon, Ankara, and Dublin set the position of Dublin on the map, forming a second triangle.
At this point, Dublin and Helsinki are fixed on the map, but they measure about 2650 km instead of the RE number of 2024km.
The reason you can't do it is because RE distances cannot be accurately shown on a flat map. They are not the same. It's the same problem your rubbish flat earth map has.
(https://i.ibb.co/4ssYr29/map.gif)
-
All measurements are equal in Europe.
That statement is FALSE
Prove.
It is easy to prove. Established RE distances are as follows (in km)
Lisbon to Ankara: 3544km
Ankara to Dublin: 3267km
Dublin to Lisbon: 1342km
Lisbon to Helsinki: 3361km
Ankara to Helsinki: 2332 km
Dublin to Helsinki: 2024
If you try to lay out these distances on a flat sheet of paper, you cannot do it. Look at the image below. The distances between Lisbon, Ankara, and Helsinki set the relative positions of those three on the "map", like in a triangle, and then the distances between Lisbon, Ankara, and Dublin set the position of Dublin on the map, forming a second triangle.
At this point, Dublin and Helsinki are fixed on the map, but they measure about 2650 km instead of the RE number of 2024km.
The reason you can't do it is because RE distances cannot be accurately shown on a flat map. They are not the same. It's the same problem your rubbish flat earth map has.
(https://i.ibb.co/4ssYr29/map.gif)
I can't see the following image and I have my own unique flat earth map. Since it is in autocad format we can calculate every distance. I am using this one and everytime using same map. So there is nothing wrong here.
I can use only cities which exist on map. Since I am not living in Ankara but Istanbul, my map includes Istanbul and I will use it too.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/L24BM4.png)
Cities / Distances RE / distances FE
Istanbul to Wien: 1274kms / 1277 kms
Antalya to London: 2911 kms / 2998 kms
London to Madrid: 1263kms / 1257 kms
Lisbon to Rome: 1864 kms / 1838 kms
Rome to Antalya: 1654 kms/ 1660kms
Athens to Paris: 2096 kms / 2098 kms
The cities you have used; Ankara and Dublin aren't exist in my map. Helsinki has colored as white means its place not verified. I've used only Lisbon from your list. Other cities I've used some have green color means its place reliable and has yellow color means it perfectly verified cities. It seems a logical coreleation between distances. You can compare map shown here with the map I officially use. (LINK) (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74162.0)
Your claiming ist being false doesn't make it magically false. We have to use a map I accept as a flat earth map, not yours. Because I am the flat earther here, not you are. I am using most true flat earth map ever. I accept other maps but not distances on them.
-
The sun rises multiple sun diameters away from East: https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox
Please measure it yourself, and then talk about it.
Some of us did, and everyone else also can do it.
We have two equinoxes each year.
-
Cities / Distances RE / distances FE
Istanbul to Wien: 1274kms / 1277 kms
Antalya to London: 2911 kms / 2998 kms
London to Madrid: 1263kms / 1257 kms
Lisbon to Rome: 1864 kms / 1838 kms
Rome to Antalya: 1654 kms/ 1660kms
Athens to Paris: 2096 kms / 2098 kms
I might not have a PhD in FEism, but last time I checked:
1274 != 1277
2911 != 2998
1263 != 1257
1864 != 1838
1654 != 1660
2096 != 2098
(Note: != means not equal.
So there you have it.
Proof that FE distances don't match RE distances (at least assuming you reported the distances correctly).
Or does your brand of FEism include 2 different numbers being equal when it suits you as well?
P.S.
A better comparison might be this:
1274 < 1277
2911 < 2998
1263 > 1257
1864 > 1838
1654 < 1660
2096 < 2098
So we can see it isn't even just an issue of scaling, but an issue of the distances just not matching.
P.P.S. Your FE map isn't any truer than any other FE map.
P.S.S. We aren't just talking about you, but FE in general, which means we need to discuss all FE maps.
-
So, which map is closer to accurate: Wise's or Rowbotham's?
Anyone knows?
-
Cities / Distances RE / distances FE
Istanbul to Wien: 1274kms / 1277 kms
Antalya to London: 2911 kms / 2998 kms
London to Madrid: 1263kms / 1257 kms
Lisbon to Rome: 1864 kms / 1838 kms
Rome to Antalya: 1654 kms/ 1660kms
Athens to Paris: 2096 kms / 2098 kms
I might not have a PhD in FEism, but last time I checked:
1274 != 1277
2911 != 2998
1263 != 1257
1864 != 1838
1654 != 1660
2096 != 2098
(Note: != means not equal.
So there you have it.
It is because you are ignorant about mapping.
these values are calculated according to airports. The approach angle and length of airports may cause these values to vary between certain limits. The fact that an airfield is at a different angle can cause the average distance to be perceived differently on average by 20 kilometers. Hence;
1274 = 1277
2911 != 2998
1263 = 1257
1864 = 1838
1654 = 1660
2096 = 2098
5 values are completely same and one different; difference of 2911 and 2998: 3%. seems acceptable considering rest of others being same. Average differences: 3% / 6 = 0,5 % in mathematical error range. It means they overlap. Surely, you do not have to accept this and continue your childish objections.
-
So, which map is closer to accurate: Wise's or Rowbotham's?
Anyone knows?
Rowbotham's map was accurate compared maps in his time. Today we have more facility and more accurate maps, naturally.
-
It is because you are ignorant about mapping.
No, it is because your map doesn't match reality, and no FE map will match RE.
one different; difference of 2911 and 2998
And that means they don't agree.
Distances are not the same between FE and RE.
Yes, for some small distances you will have them matching, because a FE does approximate a RE on small scales.
-
No, it is because your map doesn't match reality, and no FE map will match RE.
You've proved how you are ignorant. I have not claimed FE map' match the RE map. I told its matching in Europe and proved it.
And that means they don't agree.
There is a term acceptable error, did not you ever heard this?
Distances are not the same between FE and RE.
No, they are in Europe.
Yes, for some small distances you will have them matching, because a FE does approximate a RE on small scales.
Simple because I've used 100.000 flights make my FE map perfect. There isn't an estimation while creating the map. All is calculated, oppositely RE BS.
-
So, which map is closer to accurate: Wise's or Rowbotham's?
Anyone knows?
Rowbotham's map was accurate compared maps in his time. Today we have more facility and more accurate maps, naturally.
Ok, let's see the shape of the coastal line of Great Britain island (where England Wales and Scotland are).
They measured it using sextants, measuring tapes, theodolites and other equipment.
They did great job.
They know how to do it.
They were accurate.
They also measured the other isles in the vicinity.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/British_Isles_all.svg/220px-British_Isles_all.svg.png)
So, what is common would be coastal lines of British Isles?
Also, coastal lines of Europe?
(Same method was used to measure North America, Europe, Asia, Africa...
They still know how to do it, do they?)
Wise, they measured distance from London to Istanbul to be 2501 km.
How far apart are London and Istanbul on your map?
-
So, which map is closer to accurate: Wise's or Rowbotham's?
Anyone knows?
Rowbotham's map was accurate compared maps in his time. Today we have more facility and more accurate maps, naturally.
Ok, let's see the shape of the coastal line of Great Britain island (where England Wales and Scotland are).
They measured it using sextants, measuring tapes, theodolites and other equipment.
They did great job.
They know how to do it.
They were accurate.
They also measured the other isles in the vicinity.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/British_Isles_all.svg/220px-British_Isles_all.svg.png)
So, what is common would be coastal lines of British Isles?
Also, coastal lines of Europe?
(Same method was used to measure North America, Europe, Asia, Africa...
They still know how to do it, do they?)
Wise, they measured distance from London to Istanbul to be 2501 km.
How far apart are London and Istanbul on your map?
While they have measure what was I doing? I was measuring too. Just our methods are different. I am measuring the distances by using aircrafts. I am using flight time and they are using some photos and now some cartography softwares.
I've measured it as 2.568 kms. I believe its being acceptable difference considering both cities have many airports cause some mistakes.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/883C8e.png)
-
No, they are in Europe.
Again, you have shown they are not.
If you want to discuss "acceptable error" (better known as uncertainty), then the RE distances are known accurately to within a km and can easily be googled. When you look at specific locations, you can get it even more accurately.
You have said your error is 20 km.
Yet you provide a disagreement of 87 km.
That means it is not "acceptable error" and instead they are 2 different values.
So once again, you have shown that your FE distances for Europe does not agree with RE values.
Simple because I've used 100.000 flights make my FE map perfect.
Your map is not perfect in any sense of the word.
You repeatedly ignoring the problems doesn't magically make them disappear.
Your method uses massive amounts of approximation as you are relying upon cherry picked flights, and trying to use the flight time with a bunch of estimation to determine the distance.
-
What is common to both Flat and Globe model?
Stalwart adherence.
-
I've measured it as 2.568 kms. I believe its being acceptable difference considering both cities have many airports cause some mistakes.
The 68 km of the difference is all the way from Istanbul to Gölcük.
Or from London all the way to Cambridge.
The error is "just" 2.7%, but very far from acceptable if you are aiming intercontinental ballistic missile at London.
Using Globe map ballistic projecties can have accuracy within meters.
Ok, let me ask you this simple question:
How far is from North Pole to Equator?
(How far is it in real world?)
-
What is common to both Flat and Globe model?
Stalwart adherence.
That would be common to people who support one or another, not to maps themselves. :)
-
I've measured it as 2.568 kms. I believe its being acceptable difference considering both cities have many airports cause some mistakes.
The 68 km of the difference is all the way from Istanbul to Gölcük.
Or from London all the way to Cambridge.
The error is "just" 2.7%, but very far from acceptable if you are aiming intercontinental ballistic missile at London.
Using Globe map ballistic projecties can have accuracy within meters.
Ok, let me ask you this simple question:
How far is from North Pole to Equator?
(How far is it in real world?)
Sorry, I can not deal all your questions. Because autocad is eating RAM device hardly. It doesn't mean my maps being wrong if there is 2,7% mistake between Istanbul and London. It is because globularist map is wrong. I don't think anybody tried to use a ballistic missile between Istanbul and London. Perhaps they will miss. Do you know more than half, even 70% of American rockets could not hit Syrian military bases because of map mistakes, not because of S300 air defence existance. ;D
-
I've measured it as 2.568 kms. I believe its being acceptable difference considering both cities have many airports cause some mistakes.
The 68 km of the difference is all the way from Istanbul to Gölcük.
Or from London all the way to Cambridge.
The error is "just" 2.7%, but very far from acceptable if you are aiming intercontinental ballistic missile at London.
Using Globe map ballistic projecties can have accuracy within meters.
Ok, let me ask you this simple question:
How far is from North Pole to Equator?
(How far is it in real world?)
Sorry, I can not deal all your questions. Because autocad is eating RAM device hardly. It doesn't mean my maps being wrong if there is 2,7% mistake between Istanbul and London. It is because globularist map is wrong. I don't think anybody tried to use a ballistic missile between Istanbul and London. Perhaps they will miss. Do you know more than half, even 70% of American rockets could not hit Syrian military bases because of map mistakes, not because of S300 air defence existance. ;D
Hitler was using Globe map to send his V1 and V2 to London, and he would be pretty accurate if RAF wasn't kicking lot of them off the sky.
EDIT: He was also hitting many other sites all over the England.
-
I've measured it as 2.568 kms. I believe its being acceptable difference considering both cities have many airports cause some mistakes.
The 68 km of the difference is all the way from Istanbul to Gölcük.
Or from London all the way to Cambridge.
The error is "just" 2.7%, but very far from acceptable if you are aiming intercontinental ballistic missile at London.
Using Globe map ballistic projecties can have accuracy within meters.
Ok, let me ask you this simple question:
How far is from North Pole to Equator?
(How far is it in real world?)
Sorry, I can not deal all your questions. Because autocad is eating RAM device hardly. It doesn't mean my maps being wrong if there is 2,7% mistake between Istanbul and London. It is because globularist map is wrong. I don't think anybody tried to use a ballistic missile between Istanbul and London. Perhaps they will miss. Do you know more than half, even 70% of American rockets could not hit Syrian military bases because of map mistakes, not because of S300 air defence existance. ;D
Hitler was using Globe map to send his V1 and V2 to London, and he would be pretty accurate if RAF wasn't kicking lot of them off the sky.
EDIT: He was also hitting many other sites all over the England.
I saw a map he is using flat on a photo.
-
Because autocad is eating RAM device hardly.
Then just provide the file(s) for others to use and measure.
It doesn't mean my maps being wrong if there is 2,7% mistake between Istanbul and London.
That isn't the key thing being discussed here. What is being discussed is if the FE model and RE model agree.
If you are saying it doesn't agree because the RE model is wrong, you are still saying it doesn't agree.
-
Because autocad is eating RAM device hardly.
Then just provide the file(s) for others to use and measure.
It doesn't mean my maps being wrong if there is 2,7% mistake between Istanbul and London.
That isn't the key thing being discussed here. What is being discussed is if the FE model and RE model agree.
If you are saying it doesn't agree because the RE model is wrong, you are still saying it doesn't agree.
Our discussing with macarios is our discussing. Allow us to decide what we are discussing. If we are discussing out of the issue so use the report option instead of crying.
-
We have to use a map I accept as a flat earth map, not yours. Because I am the flat earther here, not you are. I am using most true flat earth map ever. I accept other maps but not distances on them.
You stated that FE and RE maps agree for Europe. That is a FALSE statement. I proved that you cannot take established RE distance measurements between 4 European cities and lay them out on a flat map and have the distances between them all agree with the RE measurement.
It does not matter what your rubbish map shows or any other FE map shows. Your statement is still FALSE
-
Wise dossnt have a map.
Wise has a table of flight TIMES that he has then attempted to turn into distances between major cities.
Hes way off the grid in terms of wackoness.
-
I saw a map he is using flat on a photo.
Do you think he calculated trajectories himself? LOL
People who were launching rockets weren't on photographs.
Rocket bases were military secret and taking pictures there was prohibited.
-
We have to use a map I accept as a flat earth map, not yours. Because I am the flat earther here, not you are. I am using most true flat earth map ever. I accept other maps but not distances on them.
You stated that FE and RE maps agree for Europe. That is a FALSE statement. I proved that you cannot take established RE distance measurements between 4 European cities and lay them out on a flat map and have the distances between them all agree with the RE measurement.
It does not matter what your rubbish map shows or any other FE map shows. Your statement is still FALSE
Nope. It is true statement. There is a term in phrase as acceptable error. Just because you're an ignorant unaware of the knowledge doesn't mean that the argument here is wrong. It shows that you do not have enough information to understand this argument.
-
Wise dossnt have a map.
Wise has a table of flight TIMES that he has then attempted to turn into distances between major cities.
Hes way off the grid in terms of wackoness.
It sounds like a map to me. I've just not added the coastal lines because of imcapablity of organizing the images with map. It is easy for somebody have experience in photoshop, but this is not for me. Because we flat earthers are far to use photoshop oppositely globularists have used to use it.
-
I saw a map he is using flat on a photo.
Do you think he calculated trajectories himself? LOL
He were using maps exist thousands of years then corrected its most accurate version. Take your lol to yourself, I'm not playing lol but you can play it with your friends of kindergarden in lol cafes.
-
Wise dossnt have a map.
Wise has a table of flight TIMES that he has then attempted to turn into distances between major cities.
Hes way off the grid in terms of wackoness.
It sounds like a map to me. I've just not added the coastal lines because of imcapablity of organizing the images with map. It is easy for somebody have experience in photoshop, but this is not for me. Because we flat earthers are far to use photoshop oppositely globularists have used to use it.
riiiiight
what would make more sense
measure distances with distances?
or measuring distances using velocities that vary due to wind conditions, throttle used, etcetc.
not forgetting the all most important fact that NOT everywhere is an airport.
stay on the meds man.
-
Nope. It is true statement. There is a term in phrase as acceptable error.
No, it is a false statement. You repeating it means you are lying.
I have shown it isn't an acceptable error.
It is well beyond the limit of uncertainty and thus does not constitute an acceptable error.
You said 20 km. That means that in order for it to be "acceptable error" the maximum variation can be 20 km.
In reality, we don't need that as we can clearly show that FE and RE CANNOT agree upon the distances, even in Europe, as they are fundamentally incompatible.
-
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/KCJc5G.png)
-
More childish BS
You repeating a lie, means you are lying. There is no way out of that.
You have clearly proven that the distances do not match.
You have clearly shown that the distances on the RE model do not match the distances on your map.
You have stated your uncertainty is 20 km. Even expanding it to 40 km doesn't help. You have a difference in the distance of 87 km.
This is well beyond your uncertainty.
This means it isn't an "acceptable error" where the 2 values agree within uncertainty.
Instead it means the 2 values are actually different.
The distances you have provided prove your own claim to be false.
Repeating this false claim of yours is lying.
-
We have to use a map I accept as a flat earth map, not yours. Because I am the flat earther here, not you are. I am using most true flat earth map ever. I accept other maps but not distances on them.
You stated that FE and RE maps agree for Europe. That is a FALSE statement. I proved that you cannot take established RE distance measurements between 4 European cities and lay them out on a flat map and have the distances between them all agree with the RE measurement.
It does not matter what your rubbish map shows or any other FE map shows. Your statement is still FALSE
Nope. It is true statement. There is a term in phrase as acceptable error. Just because you're an ignorant unaware of the knowledge doesn't mean that the argument here is wrong. It shows that you do not have enough information to understand this argument.
It shows you are a liar, or ignorant, or a troll, or maybe all three.
There is no "argument", no "acceptable error" in the proof I provided. You cannot take accepted RE distances between Ankara, Lisbon, Dublin, and Helsinki and lay them out on a flat sheet of paper. There is no agreement between RE distances in Europe and alleged "FE distances" in Europe.
Your statement is FALSE.
Try it yourself. It's impossible. You can't create even a rudimentary map on a sheet of paper with just those four cities and proper RE distances between them.
-
And, one might note (as I have in previous threads), that the inability to create a map on a flat sheet of paper that has the proper distances between cities and continents, and proper relative sizes of continents is, all by itself, definitive proof the earth is not flat.
-
And, one might note (as I have in previous threads), that the inability to create a map on a flat sheet of paper that has the proper distances between cities and continents, and proper relative sizes of continents is, all by itself, definitive proof the earth is not flat.
Your claiming without an exact proof by claiming its existance with a wrong behave is not an evidence its not being flat. The only definitive proof here only can be the earth is flat, because it is so. There isn't any definitive or non definitive proof against it.
-
We have to use a map I accept as a flat earth map, not yours. Because I am the flat earther here, not you are. I am using most true flat earth map ever. I accept other maps but not distances on them.
You stated that FE and RE maps agree for Europe. That is a FALSE statement. I proved that you cannot take established RE distance measurements between 4 European cities and lay them out on a flat map and have the distances between them all agree with the RE measurement.
It does not matter what your rubbish map shows or any other FE map shows. Your statement is still FALSE
Nope. It is true statement. There is a term in phrase as acceptable error. Just because you're an ignorant unaware of the knowledge doesn't mean that the argument here is wrong. It shows that you do not have enough information to understand this argument.
It shows you are a liar, or ignorant, or a troll, or maybe all three.
There is no "argument", no "acceptable error" in the proof I provided. You cannot take accepted RE distances between Ankara, Lisbon, Dublin, and Helsinki and lay them out on a flat sheet of paper. There is no agreement between RE distances in Europe and alleged "FE distances" in Europe.
Your statement is FALSE.
Try it yourself. It's impossible. You can't create even a rudimentary map on a sheet of paper with just those four cities and proper RE distances between them.
Again, I've showed they are overlapping. You are free to close your eyes because of your belief on globularist theory.
-
More childish BS
You repeating a lie, means you are lying. There is no way out of that.
You have clearly proven that the distances do not match.
You have clearly shown that the distances on the RE model do not match the distances on your map.
You have stated your uncertainty is 20 km. Even expanding it to 40 km doesn't help. You have a difference in the distance of 87 km.
This is well beyond your uncertainty.
This means it isn't an "acceptable error" where the 2 values agree within uncertainty.
Instead it means the 2 values are actually different.
The distances you have provided prove your own claim to be false.
Repeating this false claim of yours is lying.
This is not childish BS but statement that you can not reply. Since you can not reply them you are calling them as BS.
No, something you have not courage to reply can not be BS, but yourself be. Now, be a man and reply all the statements, or you've agreed the earth's being flat and afraiding admit it to yourself. Just a bit remind.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/KCJc5G.png)
What do you think circle of the cities I've mentioned in above image? Can you think anything or do you need a reboot your system? If you need please tell me then I'll call rabinoz to call him to push your reset button.
-
Now, be a man and reply all the statements
If you want me to reply to all your statments, then stop with the childish BS and actually address what has been said.
If you spam irrelevant crap, don't be surprised if I don't respond to it.
If you just repeat the same refuted nonsense without addressing what I have said at all, don't be surprised if I don't respond to it.
Your claiming without an exact proof
He has a proof which someone provided (I forget who and can't be bothered to check).
It is literally impossible for measurements on a round surface to match those on a flat surface, in general.
You can find some that match (or scale one to have it match the other), but other measurements will be wrong.
You acting like a god and claiming that because you say something it is true and can't be denied/refuted is just more childish BS.
Again, even using your numbers, you have shown that your FE does not agree with a RE.
It isn't a simple case of uncertainty in your numbers. It is that there is actual disagreement.
87 km cannot be accounted for by an uncertainty of 40 km.
So either discard your map and don't claim it represents a FE, say there is much larger error (may I suggest 40 000 km?) or admit that FE distances don't match RE distances, even just for Europe.
-
We have to use a map I accept as a flat earth map, not yours. Because I am the flat earther here, not you are. I am using most true flat earth map ever. I accept other maps but not distances on them.
You stated that FE and RE maps agree for Europe. That is a FALSE statement. I proved that you cannot take established RE distance measurements between 4 European cities and lay them out on a flat map and have the distances between them all agree with the RE measurement.
It does not matter what your rubbish map shows or any other FE map shows. Your statement is still FALSE
Nope. It is true statement. There is a term in phrase as acceptable error. Just because you're an ignorant unaware of the knowledge doesn't mean that the argument here is wrong. It shows that you do not have enough information to understand this argument.
It shows you are a liar, or ignorant, or a troll, or maybe all three.
There is no "argument", no "acceptable error" in the proof I provided. You cannot take accepted RE distances between Ankara, Lisbon, Dublin, and Helsinki and lay them out on a flat sheet of paper. There is no agreement between RE distances in Europe and alleged "FE distances" in Europe.
Your statement is FALSE.
Try it yourself. It's impossible. You can't create even a rudimentary map on a sheet of paper with just those four cities and proper RE distances between them.
Again, I've showed they are overlapping. You are free to close your eyes because of your belief on globularist theory.
Stop talking rubbish. The RE distances between Ankara, Lisbon, Dublin, and Helsinki are well established. Get a piece of paper and a ruler. Choose a scale and make a simple map on that piece of paper showing just those cities and the distances between them.
Then post an image of your map to prove it can be done. Put up or shut up.
-
We have to use a map I accept as a flat earth map, not yours. Because I am the flat earther here, not you are. I am using most true flat earth map ever. I accept other maps but not distances on them.
You stated that FE and RE maps agree for Europe. That is a FALSE statement. I proved that you cannot take established RE distance measurements between 4 European cities and lay them out on a flat map and have the distances between them all agree with the RE measurement.
It does not matter what your rubbish map shows or any other FE map shows. Your statement is still FALSE
Nope. It is true statement. There is a term in phrase as acceptable error. Just because you're an ignorant unaware of the knowledge doesn't mean that the argument here is wrong. It shows that you do not have enough information to understand this argument.
It shows you are a liar, or ignorant, or a troll, or maybe all three.
There is no "argument", no "acceptable error" in the proof I provided. You cannot take accepted RE distances between Ankara, Lisbon, Dublin, and Helsinki and lay them out on a flat sheet of paper. There is no agreement between RE distances in Europe and alleged "FE distances" in Europe.
Your statement is FALSE.
Try it yourself. It's impossible. You can't create even a rudimentary map on a sheet of paper with just those four cities and proper RE distances between them.
Again, I've showed they are overlapping. You are free to close your eyes because of your belief on globularist theory.
Stop talking rubbish. The RE distances between Ankara, Lisbon, Dublin, and Helsinki are well established. Get a piece of paper and a ruler. Choose a scale and make a simple map on that piece of paper showing just those cities and the distances between them.
Then post an image of your map to prove it can be done. Put up or shut up.
It is established in globe map, not in my map. My established cities are different. I've posted an image of my map already. Chose cities have green or yellow color in upper image then I can do it.
Either suggest cities from flat map, or shut up.
-
It is established in globe map, not in my map. My established cities are different. I've posted an image of my map already. Chose cities have green or yellow color in upper image then I can do it.
Either suggest cities from flat map, or shut up.
The point he is making is that it doesn't matter.
It is literally impossible to draw these cities with the same distances on a flat map.
It isn't a case of your particular map disagreeing.
It is a case of it being mathematically impossible to map a curved surface like Earth onto a flat surface.
Any attempt to do so will have distortion and result in the distances changing.
With the accuracy of known locations of these cities the distances are known accurately enough to cause problems even for Europe.
Yes, you can make a map and say the distances are only known to within 40 000 km and use that to pretend they match.
But you will never be able to make a map to the same accuracy and have them match.
This means it is IMPOSSIBLE for accurately known distances to match on a RE and FE.
Saying you don't know the distance on a FE accurately enough to see if they match is not a valid rebuttal.
Yes, depending on the location you pick for each city, the distance may vary, but using the same locations from each city that excuse doesn't work.
The easiest way to show they don't work is what he has already done.
If you use 3 cities, you can construct a triangle. There is only one option for this triangle.
Then if you add another city you can construct a triangle from either set of the locations. (technically there are 2 options for these however it is typically fairly obvious which one is correct. Picking the other one below won't help).
The problem is it doesn't match for RE and FE.
Again, using the 4 cities he has chosen (Ankara, Dublin, Helsinki & Lisbon) you get the following pairs of distances:
| City | City | Distance/km |
| Ankara | Dublin | 3283 |
| Ankara | Helsinki | 2318 |
| Ankara | Lisbon | 3581 |
| Dublin | Helsinki | 2024 |
| Dublin | Lisbon | 1640 |
| Helsinki | Lisbon | 3360 |
From that we can construct our triangles.
Our base triangle will be Ankara, Dublin, Helsinki.
Then we will make a triangle to Lisbon from all 3 locations.
If we assume Earth is flat, and use the RE distances we get this:
(https://i.imgur.com/fgxq9oE.png)
And a zoomed in version of "Lisbon":
(https://i.imgur.com/Ggur2xi.png)
Notice that instead of being a single point we end up with 3 points.
These form a triangle with distances of 36, 51 and 74 km.
Again, this is not an issue with your specific map, or any specific FE map. It is a problem with trying to take distances from a RE and applying them to a FE map. They simply cannot work.
If you wish to disagree then show us a map where these distances match.
i.e. show us a map where you have the following distances:
| City | City | Distance/km |
| Ankara | Dublin | 3283 |
| Ankara | Helsinki | 2318 |
| Ankara | Lisbon | 3581 |
| Dublin | Helsinki | 2024 |
| Dublin | Lisbon | 1640 |
| Helsinki | Lisbon | 3360 |
If you can't produce such a map then don't claim that FE distances can match RE distances.
-
Globe earth says earth is Orbiting around the sun and the moon is Orbiting around the Globe earth.
And there are known distances from the earth and the sizes for both the sun and the moon.
And there is agreement in definite figures for each and all of these.
Flat earth says both the sun and the moon are Orbiting over the flat earth.
But the FE's seem to be in wide disagreement over the distances from the earth and the sizes of the sun and the moon.
FE is indefinite about distances and sizes.
-
It is established in globe map, not in my map. My established cities are different. I've posted an image of my map already. Chose cities have green or yellow color in upper image then I can do it.
Either suggest cities from flat map, or shut up.
The point he is making is that it doesn't matter.
It is literally impossible to draw these cities with the same distances on a flat map.
It isn't a case of your particular map disagreeing.
It is a case of it being mathematically impossible to map a curved surface like Earth onto a flat surface.
Any attempt to do so will have distortion and result in the distances changing.
With the accuracy of known locations of these cities the distances are known accurately enough to cause problems even for Europe.
Yes, you can make a map and say the distances are only known to within 40 000 km and use that to pretend they match.
But you will never be able to make a map to the same accuracy and have them match.
This means it is IMPOSSIBLE for accurately known distances to match on a RE and FE.
Saying you don't know the distance on a FE accurately enough to see if they match is not a valid rebuttal.
Yes, depending on the location you pick for each city, the distance may vary, but using the same locations from each city that excuse doesn't work.
The easiest way to show they don't work is what he has already done.
If you use 3 cities, you can construct a triangle. There is only one option for this triangle.
Then if you add another city you can construct a triangle from either set of the locations. (technically there are 2 options for these however it is typically fairly obvious which one is correct. Picking the other one below won't help).
The problem is it doesn't match for RE and FE.
Again, using the 4 cities he has chosen (Ankara, Dublin, Helsinki & Lisbon) you get the following pairs of distances:
| City | City | Distance/km |
| Ankara | Dublin | 3283 |
| Ankara | Helsinki | 2318 |
| Ankara | Lisbon | 3581 |
| Dublin | Helsinki | 2024 |
| Dublin | Lisbon | 1640 |
| Helsinki | Lisbon | 3360 |
From that we can construct our triangles.
Our base triangle will be Ankara, Dublin, Helsinki.
Then we will make a triangle to Lisbon from all 3 locations.
If we assume Earth is flat, and use the RE distances we get this:
(https://i.imgur.com/fgxq9oE.png)
And a zoomed in version of "Lisbon":
(https://i.imgur.com/Ggur2xi.png)
Notice that instead of being a single point we end up with 3 points.
These form a triangle with distances of 36, 51 and 74 km.
Again, this is not an issue with your specific map, or any specific FE map. It is a problem with trying to take distances from a RE and applying them to a FE map. They simply cannot work.
If you wish to disagree then show us a map where these distances match.
i.e. show us a map where you have the following distances:
| City | City | Distance/km |
| Ankara | Dublin | 3283 |
| Ankara | Helsinki | 2318 |
| Ankara | Lisbon | 3581 |
| Dublin | Helsinki | 2024 |
| Dublin | Lisbon | 1640 |
| Helsinki | Lisbon | 3360 |
If you can't produce such a map then don't claim that FE distances can match RE distances.
How were those distances derived? Were they estimated or did someone take a measuring wheel between those points?
-
If you can't produce such a map then don't claim that FE distances can match RE distances.
How were those distances derived? Were they estimated or did someone take a measuring wheel between those points?
If you claim that they are incorrect then please post your own distances.
-
If you can't produce such a map then don't claim that FE distances can match RE distances.
How were those distances derived? Were they estimated or did someone take a measuring wheel between those points?
If you claim that they are incorrect then please post your own distances.
Ah, so you don't actually know how the distances were derived.
-
I googled it for you.
https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html
-
If you can't produce such a map then don't claim that FE distances can match RE distances.
How were those distances derived? Were they estimated or did someone take a measuring wheel between those points?
If you claim that they are incorrect then please post your own distances.
Ah, so you don't actually know how the distances were derived.
Do you mean how they have been derived historically? Within what time frames are you asking for? Surveying and cartography are pretty old technical endeavors that have gotten increasing more exacting throughout the centuries. Can you be more specific?
-
Well they certainly werent derived by using flight TIMES and calcating distance using an approximated knots while not taking into effect wind vectors and landing delays.
-
Either suggest cities from flat map, or shut up.
There is no accepted flat map to choose cities from.
YOU claimed FE and RE measurements in Europe are equal. I posted the accepted RE distances between four European cities.
Show me even a rudimentary flat map with just those 4 cities with the accepted RE distances between them. Pick any fixed scale you want.
It's a simple request. If you can't do it, admit it. Otherwise, shut up.
-
If you can't produce such a map then don't claim that FE distances can match RE distances.
How were those distances derived? Were they estimated or did someone take a measuring wheel between those points?
If you claim that they are incorrect then please post your own distances.
Ah, so you don't actually know how the distances were derived.
You were going to give us your proposals for mapping the earth.
-
Distances were determined by measuring them.
Ever heard of Geodesy?
At least you know what "triangulation" is.
It is enough to measure one distance and two angles and to know complete data about the triangle.
From one side measure two more angles toward fourth point outside and you will have two known triangles connected.
Then you go on connecting more and more until you cover the whole country.
From time to time you measure more distances along the way for checkouts.
Now add GPS data to it and compare.
How big an error can be then?
-
How were those distances derived? Were they estimated or did someone take a measuring wheel between those points?
This thread has nothing to do with which model is correct.
All it is discussing is what is in common.
The simple fact is that it is impossible for distances to be common between the models. Even if Earth was a flat Torus, it still wouldn't share distances with a RE.
-
So, in Globe model Quito is at the Equator.
(We know it because at solar noon for Equinox Sun is directly overhead.)
In Flat model at equinoctial solar noon Sun in Quito is still directly overhead.
Does it mean that Quito is at the Equator in Flat model too?
Solar noon in Quito is exactly 5h 14min after solar noon in London (Greenwich).
Does it mean that in both models Quito is equally at 78.5 degrees west?
Are coordinates of Quito same in both models?
For equinoctial solar noon in Greenwich Sun is not directly overhead.
It is 38.5 degrees above southern horizon at the azimuth of 180 degrees.
It doesn't depend on model, it is real time local observation.
Regardless of the model Greenwich is at 90 - 38.5 = 51.5 degrees north.
It is at longitude Zero because starting meridian was set there by default.
Looks like geographic coordinates don't depend on model at all.
Is this wrong?
-
Are coordinates of Quito same in both models?
I would say before we go into the coordinates we need to ask if they make sense.
For the NP and SP centred maps, the longitude works fine.
But latitude makes no sense at all.
There is no angle for it to measure.
Or alternatively, there are multiple angles for it to measure.
You use the sun, an alternative (which I believe was more commonly used) is Polaris or the celestial pole.
On a RE, the angle to the sun at the equinox at solar noon and the angle to the celestial pole add to 90 degrees and is simply based upon the angle subtended at the centre of Earth.
But for a FE, they shouldn't necessarily add to 90 degrees and they aren't based upon where you are on Earth.
So sure, the coordinates agree, but only because FEers are just taking the RE coordinates. Not because these coordinates actually mean anything. I would say it is more akin to saying city names agree.
-
What about a simple obvious answer: "The horizon looks flat." And it really does:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/agflgl8bz3xhwfl/LHG-0693%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.02%2C%20300%20mm.jpg?dl=1)
-
Are coordinates of Quito same in both models?
I would say before we go into the coordinates we need to ask if they make sense.
For the NP and SP centred maps, the longitude works fine.
But latitude makes no sense at all.
There is no angle for it to measure.
Or alternatively, there are multiple angles for it to measure.
You use the sun, an alternative (which I believe was more commonly used) is Polaris or the celestial pole.
On a RE, the angle to the sun at the equinox at solar noon and the angle to the celestial pole add to 90 degrees and is simply based upon the angle subtended at the centre of Earth.
But for a FE, they shouldn't necessarily add to 90 degrees and they aren't based upon where you are on Earth.
So sure, the coordinates agree, but only because FEers are just taking the RE coordinates. Not because these coordinates actually mean anything. I would say it is more akin to saying city names agree.
For equinoctial solar noon at the Equator Sun's elevation is 90 degrees (0 degrees away from the local vertical - Equator is at 0 degrees latitude).
For equinoctial solar noon at the North pole Sun's elevation is 0 degrees (90 degrees away from the local vertical - North pole is at 90 degrees latitude).
And now:
For equinoctial solar noon in Madrid Sun's elevation is 49.59 degrees (40.41 degrees away from the local vertical - Madrid is at 40.41 degrees latitude).
For e.s.n. in Perth Sun's elevation is -58.07 degrees, this time from north (-31.93 degrees away from the local vertical - Perth is at -31.93 degrees latitude).
For e.s.n. in Helsinki Sun's elevation is 29.84 degrees (60.16 degrees away from the local vertical - Helsinki is at 60.16 degrees latitude).
These elevation angles are just real time local observations.
Repeatable for every e.s.n., twice per year.
Simple to measure using sextant.
This doesn't depend on model.
Sun can show you latitude wherever you are, and you measure Sun's elevation in degrees.
And in real life latitudes are in use regardless the model.
Sun could have these angles there even if the rest of Earth out of these cities "didn't exist at all".
-
Sun is only used to give latitudes in the ball earth model and longitude must be known for this method . It is entirely based on the unproven assumption that the sun is so distant that the suns rays are parallel .
Latitude in the North is just the angle of elevation to the north star as recorded at point of observation .That is how we were taught -no longitude needed . These are true latitudes since the pole star is stationary . Southern latitudes and distances between subsequent degrees are just calculated on the assumption that earth is a sphere and as such are not representative of reality.
A straightforward survey along an arc of longitude from south to north measuring elevation to Polaris will reveal the shape of the the earth - no calculation needed. If we are on a perfect sphere then degrees of latitude will be equidistant . If we are one an oblate sphere then degrees of latitude will lengthen to the north since curvarure decreases northward. If degrees of latitude were found to shorten Northward then consequently the earth must be flat and the pole star must be at a calculabe distance and the sun must be local .
I don't think there there is any common ground between FE and the globe model which is based on unproven assumptions of rotation and sphericity .
-
Sun is only used to give latitudes in the ball earth model and longitude must be known for this method . It is entirely based on the unproven assumption that the sun is so distant that the suns rays are parallel .
Latitude in the North is just the angle of elevation to the north star as recorded at point of observation .That is how we were taught -no longitude needed . These are true latitudes since the pole star is stationary . Southern latitudes and distances between subsequent degrees are just calculated on the assumption that earth is a sphere and as such are not representative of reality.
Polaris is not quite over the North Pole but is 0.73° away but that's close enough for finding approximate latitude.
Have you seen this entry in the Wiki?Finding your Latitude and Longitude (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Finding+your+Latitude+and+Longitude)
Latitude
To locate your latitude on the Flat Earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the Earth's Latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0˚ N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90˚ N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45° North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45˚ in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
That is not as simple as using Polaris but, according to the Wiki applies to both hemispheres and the 69.5 miles is only approximate.
The requirement of only being at an equinox can be removed if you accept that the declination of the sun (the degrees the sub-solar point is north or south) can be calculated for any date.
The same declination of the sun applies to either the Globe or the usual North Pole centred model.
Finding your Latitude and Longitude (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Finding+your+Latitude+and+Longitude)
Longitude
To find your longitude you just need to know how many hours apart you are from Greenwich, UK and a vertical stick to know when the sun is at its zenith over your present location.
This also applies to both the Globe and the usual North Pole centred model but can be a few degrees out.
Determining "when the sun is at its zenith" accurately, however, is not easy unless due South or North is known.
And "know how many hours apart you are from Greenwich, UK" requires that further knowledge.
A straightforward survey along an arc of longitude from south to north measuring elevation to Polaris will reveal the shape of the the earth - no calculation needed. If we are on a perfect sphere then degrees of latitude will be equidistant . If we are one an oblate sphere then degrees of latitude will lengthen to the north since curvarure decreases northward. If degrees of latitude were found to shorten Northward then consequently the earth must be flat and the pole star must be at a calculable distance and the sun must be local .
I don't think there there is any common ground between FE and the globe model which is based on unproven assumptions of rotation and sphericity .
-
It is entirely based on the unproven assumption that the sun is so distant that the suns rays are parallel .
You mean the established fact that the sun is so distant that the rays are basically parallel, just like those from the north star.
There is plenty of evidence supporting it, and none to challenge it.
These are true latitudes since the pole star is stationary
Not really, as there is no basis to use that as a measurement for position on a flat Earth. For a FE you should have a length, not an angular measurement.
Even if you want to assert that the pole star is stationary and above Earth, there is still no justification to use that as the reference and have that be at 90 degrees north. That only makes sense if Earth is round.
It also makes no sense for why the sun can't be used as well, other than for a FE it gives results which make no sense at all.
Southern latitudes and distances between subsequent degrees are just calculated on the assumption that earth is a sphere and as such are not representative of reality.
Again, you mean the FACT that Earth is round, and various other angles that can be measured.
If Earth was flat, southern latitudes would make no sense.
You would need to be infinitely far from Polaris to have the angle of elevation (and thus latitude) reach 0 (the equator).
You would need to be more than infinitely far away to have the angle of elevation drop below 0.
A straightforward survey along an arc of longitude from south to north measuring elevation to Polaris will reveal the shape of the the earth - no calculation needed.
Or even simpler, finding the north pole star from the south pole.
If Earth was flat, it should be visible everywhere.
As it isn't, Earth clearly isn't flat.
I don't think there there is any common ground between FE and the globe model which is based on unproven assumptions of rotation and sphericity .
You mean based upon the rejection of reality by FEers.
-
Latitude in the North is just the angle of elevation to the north star as recorded at point of observation.
Agreed. And those latitudes don't depend on the shape of the Earth.
The elevation of Polaris at any given place will not be affected by the shape of the Earth.
A straightforward survey along an arc of longitude from south to north measuring elevation to Polaris will reveal the shape of the the earth - no calculation needed. If we are on a perfect sphere then degrees of latitude will be equidistant . If we are one an oblate sphere then degrees of latitude will lengthen to the north since curvarure decreases northward. If degrees of latitude were found to shorten Northward then consequently the earth must be flat and the pole star must be at a calculabe distance and the sun must be local .
The "arc of longitude" is actually meridian.
It is arc in Globe model and straight line in Flat model, but whatever it is
the same one is equally going through the same set of places in both models.
Those places all have solar noon at the same moment.
I don't think there there is any common ground between FE and the globe model which is based on unproven assumptions of rotation and sphericity .
Rotation and sphericity are not the ground for any common element, but the relative movement between ground and Sun is.
Sun is not traveling 15 degrees per hour in some model.
Sun is traveling 15 degrees per hour in every day's observations out of models (before we assign any).
Those 15 degrees show 15 degree-meridians of difference in longitudes between two corresponding points.
For example between the beginning and the end of a one hour long travel of subsolatr point.
(Subsolar point also doesn't depend on model. We simply see it "there" at the moment of Lahaina Noon.)
-
Your "established fact" of parallel sun rays falls apart at solar eclipse time since the shadow cast on earth would be far greater than around seventy miles .
Latitude is based simply on angular observation of Polaris - not on sun position . That is all you need .
The simple survey point stands.
-
Your "established fact" of parallel sun rays falls apart at solar eclipse time since the shadow cast on earth would be far greater than around seventy miles .
Latitude is based simply on angular observation of Polaris - not on sun position . That is all you need .
The simple survey point stands.
Aaahaha
Eclipses are one of the many banes in the fe world.
The predictablitiy of RE eclipses and your lack of explanation means your "model" is incorrect.
-
Are suns rays parallel or not ?
-
The elevation of Polaris at any given place will not be affected by the shape of the Earth.
That depends on just what you mean.
If you mean reality wont change based upon what people think, then sure, people believing Earth is flat wont change reality.
But the angle would be different for FE vs RE.
A RE with Polaris very far away above the north pole has Polaris with an angle of elevation of 0 degrees at the equator.
A FE with Polaris a mere 5000 km above the surface has Polaris with an angle of elevation of 26.6 degrees at the equator.
-
Your "established fact" of parallel sun rays
Care to actually address what I said rather than your strawman?
Here, let me point it out for you:
You mean the established fact that the sun is so distant that the rays are basically parallel
Notice how I say they are basically parallel.
To make that more complex:
The sun's rays come in very close to parallel, nor perfectly parallel.
For a single location, the sun's rays come in from various points on the sun separated by an angle of roughly 0.5 degrees.
But what is actually measured is the position of the centre of the sun, which would be the parallax.
For Earth, going from the equator to the north pole is a parallax of 0.0025 degrees.
Latitude is based simply on angular observation of Polaris - not on sun position . That is all you need .
No, latitude is based simply upon the angle subtended at the centre of Earth.
It makes no sense for a FE.
Again, it isn't based upon Polaris, as Polaris isn't directly above the north pole, and it "moves" just like the sun, just around a much smaller circle.
If you want you can try to use the north celestial pole and south celestial pole, but that is just appealing to a RE still, as it is looking at the change in angle between level and Earth's axis.
The simple survey point stands.
And the southern region point still stands.
By your definition of latitude, it shouldn't exist for a FE.
-
Are suns rays parallel or not ?
Put it this way.
On the Globe, the sun's rays arrive at every point on earth from extremely close to the same direction, a difference of no more than 20 seconds or arc - if it could be measured.
But the sun is a finite diameter and every point on the sun emits light in every direction so the sun's rays are not quite parallel but diverge slightly.
Since the sun is roughly 100 times (107 to be more accurate) as far away as its diameter this divergence is roughly 0.5°.
The Flat Earth sun is said to be about 50 km in diameter and 5000 km above the earth and the Globe sun is about 1.4 million km in diameter and averages 149 million kilometres distant.
This divergence of about 1 in 100 can be easily checked by observing the width of the blurred edge of shadows (the penumbra) or
by making a pin-hole in a card and making an image of the sun on a surface a metre or two away.
This sort of thing:
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/912/mcs/media/images/81716000/jpg/_81716958_81716957.jpg)
The diameter of the spot should be close to 1/100 of distance from the card to the "screen".
So the answer to "Are sun's rays parallel or not?" is not quite "yes" or "no" but saying "yes" is not far off.
-
Are suns rays parallel or not ?
From any given point, Sun rays fly out in all directions.
This is what eek had issue with.
For the purpose of the disucssion and simplifying the analysis they only consider the parallel rays for establishing approx heating of summer vs winter.
For purpose of eclipses they use the edges of the sun to show the max umbras.
-
Rabinoz - I would like to point out that the moon is not thought to be a hole in the sky .
Casting a 70 mile shadow of a 2000 mile moon on to earth's surface whilst light from the sun propagates according to the inverse square law is too ridiculous to entertain . Unless of course the sun is a spotlight , then maybe .
Can't see anything in common between the imaginary globe theory and the reality of the stationary plane we live upon .
-
For calculation purposes the suns rays can be though of as parallel.
-
Casting a 70 mile shadow of a 2000 mile moon on to earth's surface whilst light from the sun propagates according to the inverse square law is too ridiculous to entertain.
Why?
Note, the 70 archaic unit shadow is only the umbra. The penumbra is much larger.
Do you know what is more ridiculous?
An allegedly 50 km wide moon casting a shadow such that sometimes we get an annular solar eclipse such that the size of the umbra is negative so we are in the antumbra, while sometimes casting an umbra that is over 100 km wide.
This is literally impossible.
The annular solar eclipse necessitates that the sun is larger than the moon, but the total solar eclipses that cover an area larger than the moon necessitates that the moon is larger than the sun.
This is a direct contradiction.
Can't see anything in common between the imaginary globe theory and the reality of the stationary plane we live upon .
Perhaps because there is no reality of a stationary plane, nor an imaginary globe. Instead we have the very real globe.
-
For calculation purposes the suns rays can be though of as parallel.
But like i said.
Depends on what you are calculating.
Is it the shadows? Eclipses? Summer?
-
Rabinoz - I would like to point out that the moon is not thought to be a hole in the sky .
Who suggested that it was?
Casting a 70 mile shadow of a 2000 mile moon on to earth's surface whilst light from the sun propagates according to the inverse square law is too ridiculous to entertain .
Really?
And why is a shadow smaller than the object casting the shadow, the moon "too ridiculous to entertain", when the moon is only 3474 km in diameter and the light source, the sun is 1,391,000 km in diameter?
I can't see where "the inverse square law" comes into it.
Unless of course the sun is a spotlight , then maybe .
Not the sun I see!
Can't see anything in common between the imaginary globe theory and the reality of the stationary plane we live upon .
If Flat Earth Theory can't explain solar eclipses that's not my problem but I was simply answering a question asked as simply as I could.
-
i.e. show us a map where you have the following distances:
| City | City | Distance/km |
| Ankara | Dublin | 3283 |
| Ankara | Helsinki | 2318 |
| Ankara | Lisbon | 3581 |
| Dublin | Helsinki | 2024 |
If you can't produce such a map then don't claim that FE distances can match RE distances.
Again, again and again, some of these cities aren't in my map. I can place them, but it will reduce the reliablity of map. I can check distances you chose from the following map:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/UdHWGH.png)
Again and again, grow up and chose cities from this map.
-
i.e. show us a map where you have the following distances:
| City | City | Distance/km |
| Ankara | Dublin | 3283 |
| Ankara | Helsinki | 2318 |
| Ankara | Lisbon | 3581 |
| Dublin | Helsinki | 2024 |
If you can't produce such a map then don't claim that FE distances can match RE distances.
Again, again and again, some of these cities aren't in my map. I can place them, but it will reduce the reliablity of map. I can check distances you chose from the following map:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/UdHWGH.png)
Again and again, grow up and chose cities from this map.
At this map Moscow looks closer to the North Pole than St. Petersburg.
In reality St. Petersburg is 478 km closer to the North Pole than Moscow.
How do I know?
Polaris is directly over North Pole.
If you are at the North Pole, the Polaris elevation is 90 degrees.
As you are going away from the North Pole in any direction, the farther you go, the Polaris elevation is lower.
Elevation of the Polaris from St. Petersburg is 60 degrees.
Elevation of the Polaris from Moscow is 55.7 degrees.
Which means you are farther from the North Pole in Moscow.
-
i.e. show us a map where you have the following distances:
| City | City | Distance/km |
| Ankara | Dublin | 3283 |
| Ankara | Helsinki | 2318 |
| Ankara | Lisbon | 3581 |
| Dublin | Helsinki | 2024 |
If you can't produce such a map then don't claim that FE distances can match RE distances.
Again, again and again, some of these cities aren't in my map. I can place them, but it will reduce the reliablity of map. I can check distances you chose from the following map:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/UdHWGH.png)
Again and again, grow up and chose cities from this map.
At this map Moscow looks closer to the North Pole than St. Petersburg.
In reality St. Petersburg is 478 km closer to the North Pole than Moscow.
How do I know?
Polaris is directly over North Pole.
If you are at the North Pole, the Polaris elevation is 90 degrees.
As you are going away from the North Pole in any direction, the farther you go, the Polaris elevation is lower.
Elevation of the Polaris from St. Petersburg is 60 degrees.
Elevation of the Polaris from Moscow is 55.7 degrees.
Which means you are farther from the North Pole in Moscow.
It does not make the Europe map different. because the globularist map in center is completely wrong. They are already closer to center of the earth than shown in globularist hoax. This is not relevant with it.
In short, your objection is null because the center of the earth isn't in Europe.
-
Again, again and again, some of these cities aren't in my map.
Again and again, YOUR MAP DOESN'T MATTER!
It is physically impossible to place these locations on a flat map and have the same distances as for a RE.
As such, FE and RE doesn't agree, even for Europe.
-
Again, again and again, some of these cities aren't in my map.
Again and again, YOUR MAP DOESN'T MATTER!
It is physically impossible to place these locations on a flat map and have the same distances as for a RE.
As such, FE and RE doesn't agree, even for Europe.
Nope. They are same. Because the globularist fake map is flat in Europe. All distances are flat. For example, if you draw a rectangle has four cities at each corners, so you'll find the distance of real hypotenuse as globularist hypotenuse. I made it somewhere here. If you want, so I can do it again. But if I do it so you should accept the earth's being flat then. So, give up childish appeals, grow up and accept the earth's being flat and you were defending a BS with fake, childish, null arguments.
-
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/UdHWGH.png)
You've got Moscow further north than Helsinki and it certainly is not!
And you have Yekaterinburg far further north than even Helsinki and it certainly is not!
Then half of the earth (more than that if you think that the usual Flat Earth map is correct) is in the Southern Hemisphere.
A world map without the Southern Hemisphere is useless!
Where is Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Cape Town, Johannesburg, Buenos Aries, Sao Paolo or Santiago.
The topic is "What is common to both Flat and Globe model?" and those are quite important cities on the Globe.
Where are country boundaries and oceans? How do ships know where they can sail?
-
You've got Moscow further north than Helsinki and it certainly is not!
Again, I am talking about distances. The map may be facing different directions. this does not indicate that the maps are different, such things are usual because the global map is fabricated in the polar region. again, talk about the distances between cities in Europe. Give up childish behave.
-
Nope. They are same.
Stop lying.
It wont help you.
If you want to assert they are the same, go make a map with the distances provided. You will find it is impossible.
So go do it.
Show a map, with those 4 cities, with the distances between each pair clearly shown.
See if those distances match a RE.
Note: Just having some match doesn't count.
-
Again, again and again, some of these cities aren't in my map.
Again and again, YOUR MAP DOESN'T MATTER!
It is physically impossible to place these locations on a flat map and have the same distances as for a RE.
As such, FE and RE doesn't agree, even for Europe.
Nope. They are same. Because the globularist fake map is flat in Europe. All distances are flat. For example, if you draw a rectangle has four cities at each corners, so you'll find the distance of real hypotenuse as globularist hypotenuse. I made it somewhere here. If you want, so I can do it again. But if I do it so you should accept the earth's being flat then. So, give up childish appeals, grow up and accept the earth's being flat and you were defending a BS with fake, childish, null arguments.
WGS-84 model proves you wrong.
-
Again, again and again, some of these cities aren't in my map.
Again and again, YOUR MAP DOESN'T MATTER!
It is physically impossible to place these locations on a flat map and have the same distances as for a RE.
As such, FE and RE doesn't agree, even for Europe.
Nope. They are same. Because the globularist fake map is flat in Europe. All distances are flat. For example, if you draw a rectangle has four cities at each corners, so you'll find the distance of real hypotenuse as globularist hypotenuse. I made it somewhere here. If you want, so I can do it again. But if I do it so you should accept the earth's being flat then. So, give up childish appeals, grow up and accept the earth's being flat and you were defending a BS with fake, childish, null arguments.
WGS-84 model proves you wrong.
A model name does not magically proves anything, just proves how you are ignorant hope success with a name. Grow up and learn real science.
-
Nope. They are same.
Stop lying.
It wont help you.
If you want to assert they are the same, go make a map with the distances provided. You will find it is impossible.
So go do it.
Show a map, with those 4 cities, with the distances between each pair clearly shown.
See if those distances match a RE.
Note: Just having some match doesn't count.
Nope. I am not lying and it would helps me. Mark cities on my map where do you wonder the distance, or otherwise you are just blabbing like everytime you do.
-
Nope. I am not lying
You are lying.
Distances on a RE map are fundamentally incompatible with a FE.
Sure, you can get some distances correct, but not all. And that even applies across Europe.
I have shown clearly that with those 4 cities, you CANNOT place them on a flat map and get the distances the same as for RE.
If you wish to disagree, take those 4 cities, and those 6 distances and make a flat map with them.
I don't give a damn about your useless map. It has no bearing on this discussion, other than as the fact that you have already shown that the distances aren't correct.
-
WGS-84 model proves you wrong.
A model name does not magically proves anything, just proves how you are ignorant hope success with a name. Grow up and learn real science.
[/quote]
You don't even know what WGS-84 means so stop being silly and post something sensible and YOU don't seem to know and " real science"!
-
Shut up and ask cities you claim do not overlap in my map. Otherwise you have agreed the maps in Europa is same, google maps is a deception and the earth is flat.
-
And I thought it was bad that denver was north of London. He has all of Europe wrong.
-
And I thought it was bad that denver was north of London. He has all of Europe wrong.
Denver and London is on same parallel. But since Denver is in America so google maps does not overlap with flat map, but it is not in the issue. Grow up and chose cities in Europe or you ignorant angry globularists have agreed you are just manipulating the issue.
-
They are around 13 degrees apart. Not even close to level.
-
They are around 13 degrees apart. Not even close to level.
But they have close annual yearly temperature.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/2VI4zd.png)
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/z15McN.png)
11 degrees vs 12 degrees. even london is more north, it is one degree warmer than denver. Whatever statistics you look at, denver and london are on the same parallel. google maps is just a BS.
get it sokarul? They are similar cities, can't be 13 degrees paralel difference. If it would so London had to more and more colder than Denver according to annual yeraly temperature. But they are same, or close.
-
Lrn to altitude.
Now compare sun rise and sun set times.
Well that was easy.
-
Lrn to altitude.
Now compare sun rise and sun set times.
Well that was easy.
Sun rise and sun set times include wrong datas depend on not measurement but estimations. I've many times said this. Temperature statistics depend on some recorded data either from an airport or an station, but sun rise and set times depend on estimation. I've told that the sun rising time on theoric is wrong so much so that it almost claims midnight as morning in Istanbul nowadays. Stop childish objections.
-
but sun rise and set times depend on estimation.
No, they require people to observe them. No estimation required.
-
but sun rise and set times depend on estimation.
No, they require people to observe them. No estimation required.
Nope. I have observed, still observing it every morning, it is wrong. In the midnight web sites say its being sun rising time. It is no relevance with observation here. Stop to manipulation and support your crime partners. You are here because they have lost and you are here to manipulation. So I have won this. Your partners have lost, hence you are here to support them, right? Since rabinoz and jackblack are insuffucient to reply me so you have decided to help them. How pathetic help try. :)
-
Lrn to altitude.
Now compare sun rise and sun set times.
Well that was easy.
Sun rise and sun set times include wrong datas depend on not measurement but estimations. I've many times said this. Temperature statistics depend on some recorded data either from an airport or an station, but sun rise and set times depend on estimation. I've told that the sun rising time on theoric is wrong so much so that it almost claims midnight as morning in Istanbul nowadays. Stop childish objections.
Sun near and sun far.
-
It does not make the Europe map different. because the globularist map in center is completely wrong. They are already closer to center of the earth than shown in globularist hoax. This is not relevant with it.
In short, your objection is null because the center of the earth isn't in Europe.
Polaris was selected to be Polaris for the one and the only reason.
North Pole is directly under it.
If North Pole was somewhere else, then some other star would be selected to be polaris.
In that case North pole would still be directly under that other polaris.
Right now it is not.
By the way, during Equinoxes the Sun is circulating around North Pole, not around some other point.
-
It does not make the Europe map different. because the globularist map in center is completely wrong. They are already closer to center of the earth than shown in globularist hoax. This is not relevant with it.
In short, your objection is null because the center of the earth isn't in Europe.
Polaris was selected to be Polaris for the one and the only reason.
North Pole is directly under it.
If North Pole was somewhere else, then some other star would be selected to be polaris.
In that case North pole would still be directly under that other polaris.
Right now it is not.
By the way, during Equinoxes the Sun is circulating around North Pole, not around some other point.
We are not talking about reliablity of North Pole. Your map isn't centering the Polaris. because globe earther hoax has something is known as magnetic declination. So you have three pole. Magnetic pole, geographical pole, geomagnetic pole. Inother say, you are becoming comics when you talk about Polaris's being pole. Flat earth maps including mine gets Polaris/magnetic center as center. But your map isn't taking neither Polaris nor magnetic pole as center. And this creates difference. Your pole is a random point randomly selected as a top of your map. It is clear that pole of flat earth map is real pole and yours nothing but BS.
-
Shut up and ask cities you claim do not overlap in my map.
NO!
Shut up and provide an image showing the provided locations on a flat map.
This is not an objection to your specific pile of garbage that you call a map.
This is an objection to FE in general.
It is impossible for the distances to match.
Unless you can provide a flat map showing all 6 distances to be the same, I will conclude that FE and RE does not agree on distances, even for Europe.
Again, this clearly shows it cannot work:
(https://i.imgur.com/fgxq9oE.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Ggur2xi.png)
You can get 5 of the 6 distances correct.
But when you try to put in the 6th, it fails.
If you wish to assert that you can have the same distance for a FE and RE for Europe, you need to address this.
Stop just hiding behind your crappy map.
But if you really need 4 from your crappy map:
Lisbon, London, Moscow and Aleppo.
Make sure you provide distances accurate to 1 km.
If you can't, your map is useless for a comparison and what you would really be saying is that FE distances have so much error that they can agree with a wide variety of shapes.
But they have close annual yearly temperature.
Who cares?
Latitude isn't the only factor influencing weather.
As such, using it is quite useless.
Go and actually measure the latitude.
A much more valid test is how long the sun is up, just like we did before and you had to run away from.
So using time and date, lets look at the December solstice and June solstice.
Remember, during the June solstice, the further north you are the longer the day. During the December solstice the further south you are the longer the day.
So for the June solstice we have Denver, with a day length of 14:59:14, compared to London's 16:38:20.
That sure makes it seem like London is further north, but just to check, what about the December solstice?
Well now we have 9:21:16 for Denver compared to 7:49:44 for London.
Yep, London is definitely north of Denver.
No doubt about it.
If your map shows otherwise, it is wrong.
Sun rise and sun set times include wrong datas
So what you are saying is that you reject the data which shows you are wrong while happily accepting data with the same amount of validity just because you can pretend it shows you are right.
it almost claims midnight as morning in Istanbul nowadays. Stop childish objections.
You have repeatedly asserted that, but been unable to back it up with any evidence.
Weather is useless for accurately determining latitude, even for relative latitude when close. Sunrise and Sunset times are not.
-
It does not make the Europe map different. because the globularist map in center is completely wrong. They are already closer to center of the earth than shown in globularist hoax. This is not relevant with it.
In short, your objection is null because the center of the earth isn't in Europe.
Polaris was selected to be Polaris for the one and the only reason.
North Pole is directly under it.
If North Pole was somewhere else, then some other star would be selected to be polaris.
In that case North pole would still be directly under that other polaris.
Right now it is not.
By the way, during Equinoxes the Sun is circulating around North Pole, not around some other point.
We are not talking about reliablity of North Pole. Your map isn't centering the Polaris. because globe earther hoax has something is known as magnetic declination. So you have three pole. Magnetic pole, geographical pole, geomagnetic pole. Inother say, you are becoming comics when you talk about Polaris's being pole. Flat earth maps including mine gets Polaris/magnetic center as center. But your map isn't taking neither Polaris nor magnetic pole as center. And this creates difference. Your pole is a random point randomly selected as a top of your map. It is clear that pole of flat earth map is real pole and yours nothing but BS.
Three poles?
North Pole is one.
South Pole is two.
North Magnetic Pole is three.
South Magnetic Pole is four.
...
Geographic maps use geographic poles as reference.
Magnetic poles are marked as any other point of interest.
Polaris is above geographic pole. :)
-
It does not make the Europe map different. because the globularist map in center is completely wrong. They are already closer to center of the earth than shown in globularist hoax. This is not relevant with it.
In short, your objection is null because the center of the earth isn't in Europe.
Polaris was selected to be Polaris for the one and the only reason.
North Pole is directly under it.
If North Pole was somewhere else, then some other star would be selected to be polaris.
In that case North pole would still be directly under that other polaris.
Right now it is not.
By the way, during Equinoxes the Sun is circulating around North Pole, not around some other point.
We are not talking about reliablity of North Pole. Your map isn't centering the Polaris. because globe earther hoax has something is known as magnetic declination. So you have three pole. Magnetic pole, geographical pole, geomagnetic pole. Inother say, you are becoming comics when you talk about Polaris's being pole. Flat earth maps including mine gets Polaris/magnetic center as center. But your map isn't taking neither Polaris nor magnetic pole as center. And this creates difference. Your pole is a random point randomly selected as a top of your map. It is clear that pole of flat earth map is real pole and yours nothing but BS.
Three poles?
North Pole is one.
South Pole is two.
North Magnetic Pole is three.
South Magnetic Pole is four.
...
Geographic maps use geographic poles as reference.
Magnetic poles are marked as any other point of interest.
Polaris is above geographic pole. :)
Nope. You are wrong. Polaris is above magnetic pole, because whenever you use compass shows polaris.
-
Nope. You are wrong. Polaris is above magnetic pole, because whenever you use compass shows polaris.
No it isn't.
In some places it will coincidentally be there.
But in most places, Polaris is not in the direction of magnetic north.
In half the world, Polaris isn't even visible.
Polaris is close to being above the geographic pole.
-
Nope. You are wrong. Polaris is above magnetic pole, because whenever you use compass shows polaris.
No it isn't.
In some places it will coincidentally be there.
Yes it is. Whenever I use compass shows polaris. You claim otherwise, so prove it is not.
-
You claim otherwise, so prove it is not.
Again, not how the burden of proof works.
You want to claim that Polaris is above the magnetic north pole (which by the way is not necessarily in the direction of your compass pointing north). The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that.
You want to claim that Polaris is in the direction that a compass points, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that.
I don't see Polaris at all where I am.
-
You claim otherwise, so prove it is not.
Again, not how the burden of proof works.
You want to claim that Polaris is above the magnetic north pole (which by the way is not necessarily in the direction of your compass pointing north). The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that.
You want to claim that Polaris is in the direction that a compass points, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that.
I don't see Polaris at all where I am.
If you don't see Polaris at all so don't talk about it depends on imagination and estimation. Everybody in northern hemiplane knows that compass always show polaris. Now, grow up and don't talk something you have no idea. You do not have to interfene every issue you need to talk. This is not chattering forum. Grow up.
-
Sunrise, sunset,moonrise and moonset times are not estimates as someone on this thread has claimed. All such daily occurrences have been accurately calculated and can be confirmed by simple observations. The photographers ephemeris, used by landscape photographers around the globe for example, uses this data to show graphically all such daily phenomena for any point on the globe.
https://app.photoephemeris.com/?ll=16.768800,-3.007300&dt=20190703075200%2B0000
I find using aircraft flight times to produces a map is just laughable. Not only do flight times vary wildly due to weather, airport congestion and other random unknown factors but all flight routes bar none use satellite navigation systems in the first instance. In addition there is no such thing as a flat earth map nor will there ever be one, its simply impossible. Anyone who claims to have produced one is simply delusional.
-
You claim otherwise, so prove it is not.
Again, not how the burden of proof works.
You want to claim that Polaris is above the magnetic north pole (which by the way is not necessarily in the direction of your compass pointing north). The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that.
You want to claim that Polaris is in the direction that a compass points, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that.
I don't see Polaris at all where I am.
If you don't see Polaris at all so don't talk about it depends on imagination and estimation. Everybody in northern hemiplane knows that compass always show polaris. Now, grow up and don't talk something you have no idea. You do not have to interfene every issue you need to talk. This is not chattering forum. Grow up.
To be perfectly accurate, Polaris can only be viewed by an observer in the northern hemisphere. If you were standing on a point on the equator, Polaris would be in line with the horizon. If you were in the Southern Hemisphere, say in Australia, Polaris would not be visible. That is an undeniable fact.
-
Everybody in northern hemiplane knows that compass always show polaris.
NO!
At present the Magnetic North Pole is located at 175.346°E 86.448°N and so is some distance from the Geographic North Pole.
The magnetic declination in Istanbul, Turkey is +5.60° and so your magnetic compass would point about 5.60° east of where Polaris is over!
-
Everybody in northern hemiplane knows that compass always show polaris.
And that is another baseless claim of yours.
Got anything to back it up?
Perhaps even a simple time-lapse photo showing the northern sky and a compass?
-
Everybody in northern hemiplane knows that compass always show polaris.
NO!
At present the Magnetic North Pole is located at 175.346°E 86.448°N and so is some distance from the Geographic North Pole.
The magnetic declination in Istanbul, Turkey is +5.60° and so your magnetic compass would point about 5.60° east of where Polaris is over!
You are talking about theoric but I am talking about practical. Your magnetic declination is nothing but hoax. Hence my compass always shows the Polaris, other than your imagination. Your imaginatin isn't an evidence. Your globularist lies can not affect me. Grow up, and come to Turkey and see the magnetic declination is a lie but there is only one magnetic center and its place is constant. Magnetic declination means your so called globularist map is located 5 degrees mistaken. That's all.
They are deceiving you by this way. Inother say you are deceiving Australians by this way. Where compass shows north it is real north, magnetic declination is a lie, you know. Stop to do dishonesty and admit the truth.
-
Your magnetic declination is nothing but hoax.
No, it is very real. All it takes to observe it is to determine the direction to geographic north, which can be done in many ways, such as observing a time lapse of the night sky to determine the location of the celestial pole, or using a laser ring gyroscope, or measuring the length of the sun's shadow on a level surface and finding where it is longest.
Then compare that to a compass.
If you wish to assert Polaris is located in the same direction that the compass points, you need to prove it.
Stop just asserting garbage.
-
Your magnetic declination is nothing but hoax.
No, it is very real. All it takes to observe it is to determine the direction to geographic north, which can be done in many ways, such as observing a time lapse of the night sky to determine the location of the celestial pole, or using a laser ring gyroscope, or measuring the length of the sun's shadow on a level surface and finding where it is longest.
Then compare that to a compass.
If you wish to assert Polaris is located in the same direction that the compass points, you need to prove it.
Stop just asserting garbage.
I am always using compass and it always shows the Polaris. If you don't believe me so come to Northern hemiplane and see it by your own eyes. Observation prevents you makes more BS.
-
I am always using compass and it always shows the Polaris. If you don't believe me so come to Northern hemiplane and see it by your own eyes. Observation prevents you makes more BS.
Why are you still talking on the thread? I gave you RE distances between 4 European cities and challenged you to show on a sheet of paper a drawing showing those 4 cities and the distances between them using a scale of your choice.
The challenge was: Put up or Shut up.
Put up or Shut up. Either post the drawing with a scale, or don't post here again.
-
<bs>
Adults are talking. There are your fathers talkings represent the angry globularist earth society. I can't meet all of your demands at the same time. this was asked to me and I answered it. now you have to accept that the world is flat, as rabblack admits.
-
Adults are talking. There are your fathers talkings represent the angry globularist earth society. I can't meet all of your demands at the same time. this was asked to me and I answered it. now you have to accept that the world is flat, as rabblack admits.
Put up or Shut up.
-
I am always using compass and it always shows the Polaris.
Again, PROVE IT!
Your words are worthless due to how often you lie.
I can check the corresponding south pole, and guess what? The south celestial pole (which is aligned with the south geographic pole) is not in the direction of a compass pointing south.
That is enough for me to conclude that the north celestial pole is not in the direction of a compass pointing north.
If you want to continuing asserting it is, then that will just be another massive contradiction between FE and reality, between FE and RE.
But it is just another pathetic distraction from your inability to defend your prior claim.
You demanded 4 cities on your map, I gave them.
Now care to tell us the distance between them, accurate to within a few km?
Or care to produce a map with the 4 cities already provided with all 6 distances correct?
Or are you really say FE has no idea of the distances such that the massive errors mean any particular distance can match between the model.
For example, RE says 500 km, FE says somewhere between 400 km and 600 km.
-
<bs>
now you have to accept that the world is flat, as rabblack admits.
Wise, please run away until you accept that there is no rabblack! There is rabinoz, me, and there is JackBlack, a totally different person.
And neither of us accept that "accept that the world is flat". If you cannot post honestly please do not post at all!
-
I am always using compass and it always shows the Polaris.
Again, PROVE IT!
Prove the opposite.
-
<bs>
now you have to accept that the world is flat, as rabblack admits.
Wise, please run away
Put up or Shut up.
-
I am always using compass and it always shows the Polaris.
Again, PROVE IT!
Prove the opposite.
You are both right.
If you see the map, and look at the poles from Turkey, you will see that North Magnetic Pole is right behind Geographic North Pole.
From there those two poles are practically at the same line and compass will "show Polaris".
-
Prove the opposite.
You are the one making the claim, as such the burden of proof is on you.
Prove a compass always points to Polaris or your claim will be dismissed as nonsense.
Especially as Polaris isn't even always visible.
If you see the map, and look at the poles from Turkey, you will see that North Magnetic Pole is right behind Geographic North Pole.
From there those two poles are practically at the same line and compass will "show Polaris".
That doesn't actually help.
As Earth's magnetic field isn't a simple dipole (if it was magnetic north and geomagnetic north are in the same place) you can draw a line from your position in the direction the compass points and not actually get to magnetic north.
From maps I have found the declination in Turkey is 2 to 4 degrees. Most likely too small for inky to notice them being different, especially with his cheap compasses.
But if he is just using one point, he shouldn't be saying always.
-
From maps I have found the declination in Turkey is 2 to 4 degrees. Most likely too small for inky to notice them being different, especially with his cheap compasses.
But if he is just using one point, he shouldn't be saying always.
As you can see, he can say whatever he wants.
His goal is not to prove something.
He wants to "convince people and win".
Some people don't understan that this is not about "overpowering".
Religious Dogma worked that way, forcing people to believe what they were told.
Science doesn't.
People exchange data, test, experiment, measure, compare, reject obsolete and make progress.
~~~~~
On trial the defendant has his right to tell lies all he wants.
The purpose of the trial is to determine if they really are lies and to dismantle them if possible.
~~~~~
This is not for you, this is for all of us:
It is irrelevant on whom is "the burden of proof".
"Hitting the ball into their court" is non-productive.
If you know how to prove something, do it.
If you don't, then how do you know it is true?
Only by collecting more data and seeing with yourself if you are right.
-
People exchange data, test, experiment, measure, compare, reject obsolete and make progress.
I've exchanged data, tested, experimented, measured, compared and decided the earth is flat. Your so called claims, some names can not change this truth.
-
From maps I have found the declination in Turkey is 2 to 4 degrees. Most likely too small for inky to notice them being different, especially with his cheap compasses.
Your map is wrong so that declination is valid for only for your map. there is no need for declination on a real map. my compass always points to the same place and there is polaris on that place. As someone who lives in Australia, it is your own problem that you do not see it and believe it because Polaris is far from you. this is proof that it doesn't help that you have ideas without you have knowledge about it. you can't even be sure it exists. Because you've never seen her. You just look at the pictures shown to you, we see it with our naked eyes. So asking for evidence when you have no proof about something you don't see doesn't magically justify you.
-
People exchange data, test, experiment, measure, compare, reject obsolete and make progress.
I've exchanged data, tested, experimented, measured, compared and decided the earth is flat. Your so called claims, some names can not change this truth.
You did it the other way around.
You decided the world is what you want it to be and then discarded, twisted, or mocked all data that disprove your decision.
-
there is no need for declination on a real map.
No, there is. The declination can be quite significant, and it changes over time.
it is your own problem that you do not see it and believe it because Polaris is far from you.
No it isn't.
If Earth was flat, I should easily be able to see Polaris.
you can't even be sure it exists. Because you've never seen her.
Just because I live in Australia doesn't mean I haven't been elsewhere. I have seen Polaris.
Again, if you wish to assert Polaris is always the direction a compass points, provide evidence.
Provide pictures from numerous locations around the world, clearly showing Polaris in the sky with a compass to show the direction of magnetic north.
-
People exchange data, test, experiment, measure, compare, reject obsolete and make progress.
I've exchanged data, tested, experimented, measured, compared and decided the earth is flat. Your so called claims, some names can not change this truth.
You did it the other way around.
You decided the world is what you want it to be and then discarded, twisted, or mocked all data that disprove your decision.
Nope. This is a slander. As I said, I've exchanged data, tested, experimented, measured, compared and decided the earth is flat; you are free to accept it or not, but it is so. All flat earthers were round earthers for a while. But after we have meeted the flat earth, we have investigated and decided its being true. This will be your way too if you are a man just.
-
there is no need for declination on a real map.
No, there is. The declination can be quite significant, and it changes over time.
No, there isn't. Your map requires because it is fake. My map shows north with perfect accuracy no need to magnetic declination in any of it. Because your map is fake and flat earth maps are true, you know.
No it isn't.
Telling opposite of what I say does not help your case at all. Yes it is. Are you child?
If Earth was flat, I should easily be able to see Polaris.
Nope. You can not see because of for visual reasons you can't see it. this topic has been announced many times. but you didn't understand it because you were ignorant. your ignorance cannot be a reason about the shape of the world.
Just because I live in Australia doesn't mean I haven't been elsewhere. I have seen Polaris.
So you know it always stays north whereever you are. Use a compass and you'll see compass always see it wherever you are. There isn't anything as declination or any other BS which produced to hide your map mistakes. No need it at all.
Again, if you wish to assert Polaris is always the direction a compass points, provide evidence.
There are countless evidences in youtube. Open it and watch. I have watched it countlessly and show its being true. Watch and learn.
Provide pictures from numerous locations around the world, clearly showing Polaris in the sky with a compass to show the direction of magnetic north.
This is what I say. Thanks for admitting the truth. Yeah, north in compass always shows Polaris, wherever you are. No need to magnetic declination at all.
-
No, there isn't. Your map requires because it is fake.
No, RE maps require it to show positions accurately, because magnetic north is rarely aligned with geographic north.
Your map shows nothing perfectly.
Nope. You can not see because of for visual reasons you can't see it
Yes, visual reasons like Earth getting in the way because it is curved.
There are countless evidences in youtube.
And that is just another baseless claim from you.
I can find plenty of videos on youtube discussing magnetic declination.
But none showing Polaris is in the direction of magnetic north.
Do you have any evidence at all, or just your baseless claim?
This is what I say. Thanks for admitting the truth.
No, that is what you claim, without justification. I am asking for evidence and providing an example of such evidence.
That is not me admitting to your lie.
Now can you provide this evidence?
-
No, RE maps require it to show positions accurately, because magnetic north is rarely aligned with geographic north.
Nope. Because there is one magnetic north and it always stays same point. Your map mistakes only interest you.
Your map shows nothing perfectly.
Everything is perfect in my map. Prove the opposite. Claiming its being wrong without any evidence can not magically make it wrong.
Yes, visual reasons like Earth getting in the way because it is curved.
Nope. You are wrong again. As how you can't see the sun after it gone far more than 6000kms you can't see Polaris because of same reason, it is too far you see it.
And that is just another baseless claim from you.
Nope. There is. You are talking vast in vain. Make a search and then show the results. Your claimg them being absent does not magically make them absent.
I can find plenty of videos on youtube discussing magnetic declination.
Finding discussing about something does not magically make it true. It is still a BS.
But none showing Polaris is in the direction of magnetic north.
It is so. You did not search for it, just lyed.
Do you have any evidence at all, or just your baseless claim?
All evidences provided and you have denied all of them. Your denying evidences does not magically make them absent.
No, that is what you claim, without justification.
This is what you have admitted.
I am asking for evidence and providing an example of such evidence.
Example isn't an evidence by itself. Your claiming its being an example such an example does not magically make it an evidence. You are denying every kind of evidences and repeating same made up BS.
That is not me admitting to your lie.
You've admitted so you are liar.
Now can you provide this evidence?
The word this isn't a claim of evidence. Stop talking baseless.
-
People exchange data, test, experiment, measure, compare, reject obsolete and make progress.
I've exchanged data, tested, experimented, measured, compared and decided the earth is flat. Your so called claims, some names can not change this truth.
You did it the other way around.
You decided the world is what you want it to be and then discarded, twisted, or mocked all data that disprove your decision.
Nope. This is a slander. As I said, I've exchanged data, tested, experimented, measured, compared and decided the earth is flat; you are free to accept it or not, but it is so. All flat earthers were round earthers for a while. But after we have meeted the flat earth, we have investigated and decided its being true. This will be your way too if you are a man just.
Along some longer beach select two points 1852 meters away from each other.
The vertical line at one point will be one arc minute tilted away from the vertical line at the other point.
You measured things, so you have sextant. (Or maybe even theodolite.)
You can measure this.
You exchanged data, so you know why is Nautical Mile defined to be 1852 meters.
You tested things, so you know that horizon does not remains at eye level as you go higher.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would accept the Earth to be flat if it really was.
But in reality it is not the case.
-
People exchange data, test, experiment, measure, compare, reject obsolete and make progress.
I've exchanged data, tested, experimented, measured, compared and decided the earth is flat. Your so called claims, some names can not change this truth.
You did it the other way around.
You decided the world is what you want it to be and then discarded, twisted, or mocked all data that disprove your decision.
Nope. This is a slander. As I said, I've exchanged data, tested, experimented, measured, compared and decided the earth is flat; you are free to accept it or not, but it is so. All flat earthers were round earthers for a while. But after we have meeted the flat earth, we have investigated and decided its being true. This will be your way too if you are a man just.
Along some longer beach select two points 1852 meters away from each other.
The vertical line at one point will be one arc minute tilted away from the vertical line at the other point.
You measured things, so you have sextant. (Or maybe even theodolite.)
You can measure this.
You exchanged data, so you know why is Nautical Mile defined to be 1852 meters.
You tested things, so you know that horizon does not remains at eye level as you go higher.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would accept the Earth to be flat if it really was.
But in reality it is not the case.
This is not the case. You can do this test maybe in a sea, but not in a lake. Because lakes haven't enough high waves prevent your observation. There are many experiments prove lakes are completely flat.
Experiment 1:
Experiment 2:
And the last one. Simple and short video.
Now we are waiting you to keep your promise and start to agree the flat earth reality.
PS: I still don't open youtube videos just have controlled it by a different way.
-
Where are your 1 m waves at this sea?
(https://www.theturquoisecollection.com/media/13681266/kaputas-2742215_1920.jpg)
-
Where are your 1 m waves at this sea?
You are too far to see it. There are some formulas calculate the highness of waves. Use them. And that picture is also manipulated. You can't see a curve like that. It is a proof this photos being manipulated. You can ask whether its being manipulated or not to another flat earth believer around. 8)
-
Formula involves the wind speed.
What happens when there's almost no wind?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where are 1 m waves ar Black Sea, in Fındıklı, Rize ?
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/11/9c/e1/119ce17eaeb5e4ec3e76f62cf7d67021.jpg)
-
Formula involves the wind speed.
What happens when there's no wind?
There is always wind. Stop to manipulate. You can't see the high of highness of a wave 10 kilometres far to you. Calculate its angular size.
-
Formula involves the wind speed.
What happens when there's no wind?
There is always wind. Stop to manipulate. You can't see a wave 10 kilometres far to you. Calculate its angular size.
Sailor on the ship could see them, and there are none. Is he 10 km away too?
Have you ever been on a ship?
Did you see those waves all the time?
I saw Adriatic see at many places, sometimes waves weren't bigger than 10 cm.
(Except those that our boat made behind. Those were 25 cm.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Two sails at open sea.
Look how far back is the land.
Don't you think they would see those waves, if there were any around them?
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/sailing-ship-yachts-white-sails-260nw-266230880.jpg)
-
Stop to manipulate.
I am not manipulating.
YOU are the one who is trying to trick naive people into Flat Earth belief, not me.
-
Nope. Because there is one magnetic north and it always stays same point.
Prove it.
All the evidence shows otherwise.
Everything is perfect in my map. Prove the opposite.
I have, repeatedly, even in this thread, but you just ignore it.
How about you deal with the disproves I have already provided, such as the longitude difference between Sydney and Perth requires it to be closer to the centre than the equator, or the 2 pairs of cities where you have the wrong one further north?
As how you can't see the sun after it gone far more than 6000kms you can't see Polaris because of same reason
You mean ~10000 km, because it is then hidden by the curvature of Earth.
It clearly has nothing to do with distance, because the math shows it should still be well above the horizon and there is no decrease in brightness as you go further from it.
Make a search and then show the results. Your claimg them being absent does not magically make them absent.
Here you go:
https://i.imgur.com/de94YvR.png
https://i.imgur.com/mL6DMIV.png
The first is a crappy song.
The second is just a baseless assertion that Polaris is magnetic north with a strawman of what the RE model indicates, completely ignoring the strength of the magnetic field involved and its shape.
The 5th is a podcast primarily talking about how to circumnavigate on a pizza planet, with no evidence provided.
The 7th provides a method to find polaris using magnetic north, with a note saying it isn't as accurate as the other methods as magnetic north is not directly in line with Polaris.
The 8th is attacking the globe by fully accepting magnetic declination and trying to use that against a RE.
And plenty discussing magnetic deviation.
But perhaps the best one is this one:
A video by a flat Earthing proving that Polaris is left of magnetic north.
I guess that settles it.
Polaris isn't always in line with magnetic north.
So I guess that is one point FEers and REers can agree on.
This is what you have admitted.
I have admitted no such thing.
In no way was that post of mine any form of admission.
It was an instruction to you, telling you to provide evidence, with a specific form of evidence.
I know that the example is not evidence itself, it was an example of what said evidence should contain.
Now do you have this evidence, or should I use the above video to conclude that you are wrong?