The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Selectrick on December 29, 2011, 01:04:29 AM

Title: Maps?
Post by: Selectrick on December 29, 2011, 01:04:29 AM
I would like to see a map of the so called FET that shows with some degree of accuracy how time zones are possible. Does one exist?  I searched 'time zones' but did not see any references to maps describing this potential dilemma for this FET. Anxiously awaiting a response!!
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Rushy on December 29, 2011, 08:09:49 AM
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png)

The sun revolves in a circular pattern above the disc, changing positions above the disc to compensate for seasons.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: ClockTower on December 29, 2011, 01:25:00 PM
...

The sun revolves in a circular pattern above the disc, changing positions above the disc to compensate for seasons.
What force accounts for the circular pattern and the changing positions?

Why is Australia (2400 miles in reality) in your map roughly six (2400/760 = 3.2) times as large as Greenland (760 miles in reality) measuring each at their widest east to west?
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 29, 2011, 01:44:52 PM
...

The sun revolves in a circular pattern above the disc, changing positions above the disc to compensate for seasons.
What force accounts for the circular pattern and the changing positions?

My theory on the mechanics behind this phenomenon. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52345.0)

I'll have another posted in the next couple days.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: ClockTower on December 29, 2011, 01:55:32 PM
...

The sun revolves in a circular pattern above the disc, changing positions above the disc to compensate for seasons.
What force accounts for the circular pattern and the changing positions?

My theory on the mechanics behind this phenomenon. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52345.0)

I'll have another posted in the next couple days.
Where's the math to support this theory?
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: iwanttobelieve on December 29, 2011, 02:10:50 PM
Master Lord Willmire has the best map
Can someone please link it?
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Silverdane on December 29, 2011, 02:32:53 PM
I would like to see a map of the so called FET that shows with some degree of accuracy how time zones are possible. Does one exist?  I searched 'time zones' but did not see any references to maps describing this potential dilemma for this FET. Anxiously awaiting a response!!

Why don't you go ahead and petition any and every world government and ask if they are willing to fund such a Flat Earth charting?

None of them will. Thus bothering with an FET map is a waste of thought.

Just go with the easiest explanation, and that's the one you have for FET. Easier is always more realistic.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Pongo on December 29, 2011, 04:27:34 PM
...

The sun revolves in a circular pattern above the disc, changing positions above the disc to compensate for seasons.
What force accounts for the circular pattern and the changing positions?

Why is Australia (2400 miles in reality) in your map roughly six (2400/760 = 3.2) times as large as Greenland (760 miles in reality) measuring each at their widest east to west?

Why are you actively derailling threads? 
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 10:27:43 AM
Crock Tower is a self declared Round Earth Troll.

Answer to derailing threads is self obvious.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: ClockTower on December 30, 2011, 04:25:59 PM
...

The sun revolves in a circular pattern above the disc, changing positions above the disc to compensate for seasons.
What force accounts for the circular pattern and the changing positions?

Why is Australia (2400 miles in reality) in your map roughly six (2400/760 = 3.2) times as large as Greenland (760 miles in reality) measuring each at their widest east to west?

Why are you actively derailling threads?
I've challenged FEers to support their claims, including the relative sizes of Australia and Greenland in the map provided. I've challenged the provided 'diagram' about its supporting physics and math. That's much more on target than you lame post that contributed nothing to the thread.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: squevil on December 30, 2011, 10:40:52 PM
land masses on a roundy map are not to scale either
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: ClockTower on December 30, 2011, 10:59:58 PM
land masses on a roundy map are not to scale either
Uhh.. Yes, on most RE maps they are. You do understand that projections report their distortions by the lines of meridians and parallels. The lines are equally distorted with the projection providing enough data to maintain the scale. I think I posted this link to assist FEers before: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MercatorProjection.html (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MercatorProjection.html).
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: squevil on December 31, 2011, 09:46:49 PM
i do realise that. but im jsut saying on a roundy map continents do appear the wrong size. there is no excuse for the flat map but i thought it was worth mentioning before the flat finger demanded an explanation
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: zarg on December 31, 2011, 11:35:01 PM
Use this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkel_tripel_projection) instead of Mercator. It has the least distortion overall.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: PizzaPlanet on January 01, 2012, 12:16:58 AM
Why is Australia (2400 miles in reality) in your map roughly six (2400/760 = 3.2) times as large as Greenland (760 miles in reality) measuring each at their widest east to west?
It's not.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: ClockTower on January 01, 2012, 01:00:12 AM
Why is Australia (2400 miles in reality) in your map roughly six (2400/760 = 3.2) times as large as Greenland (760 miles in reality) measuring each at their widest east to west?
It's not.
Oh, I forgot about your claim that there are two Australias. Sorry, I just can't allow for every wild FET variation in every post.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: PizzaPlanet on January 01, 2012, 04:18:05 AM
Oh, I forgot about your claim that there are two Australias.
Do try not to request an explanation of the same thing more often than once a day:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52439.msg1285950#msg1285950

By the way, I've once made a thread about the Earth being, in fact, a pizza (it's in the name). It was in Random Musings, but you can always pretend it wasn't. You're welcome.

Sorry, I just can't allow for every wild FET variation in every post.
Of course. The keywords "in your map" make it very clear that you were referring to the map we're currently discussing. It just so happens that, in this particular map, Australia is not roughly six (2400/760=3.2) times as large as Greenland [sic].
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: ClockTower on January 01, 2012, 04:56:05 AM
Do try not to request an explanation of the same thing more often than once a day:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52439.msg1285950#msg1285950

Sorry, I just can't allow for every wild FET variation in every post.
Of course. The keywords "in your map" make it very clear that you were referring to the map we're currently discussing. It just so happens that, in this particular map, Australia is not roughly six (2400/760=3.2) times as large as Greenland [sic].
1) Do tell me where I asked for an explanation twice in one day. Referring to your mistake is not a request, is it?
2) Do tell me how you determined that Australia is not roughly six times larger in width than Greenland in that map.
(http://i.imgur.com/pp6nF.jpg)
(Lines are slanted and offset in Australia for clarity, ensuring that it's clearly six segments.)
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: squevil on January 01, 2012, 04:44:43 PM
no clearly frustrated that the picture is on the bloody screen yet its still denied i suspect
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: PizzaPlanet on January 03, 2012, 02:12:11 PM
1) Do tell me where I asked for an explanation twice in one day. Referring to your mistake is not a request, is it?
What mistake? It was a thread in the Lounge. The very same forum where you claimed that I know the dimensions of your penis, among other things. Was that a mistake, too?

2) Do tell me how you determined that Australia is not roughly six times larger in width than Greenland in that map.
(http://i.imgur.com/pp6nF.jpg)
(Lines are slanted and offset in Australia for clarity, ensuring that it's clearly six segments.)
Of course, if you ignore the mechanical scaling rules of this purely optical map, you are correct.

In terms of natural deduction:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/9/5/2/952e118cdcc32fcd7dd638c8c104c0f6.png)
If falsity is true, any given proposition (C) is also true.

Similarly, I can say RET claims that the South Pole's circumference is fairly close to the length of the Equator, courtesy of Mercator.

Or, since you like Greenland and Australia so much, here:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Mercator_projection_SW.jpg)
Clearly, Greenland appears larger than Australia, but this is not the case. If I ignore the scaling rules of a Mercator projection, I have disproved RET.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: ClockTower on January 03, 2012, 02:19:18 PM
1) Do tell me where I asked for an explanation twice in one day. Referring to your mistake is not a request, is it?
What mistake? It was a thread in the Lounge. The very same forum where you claimed that I know the dimensions of your penis, among other things. Was that a mistake, too?

2) Do tell me how you determined that Australia is not roughly six times larger in width than Greenland in that map.
(http://i.imgur.com/pp6nF.jpg)
(Lines are slanted and offset in Australia for clarity, ensuring that it's clearly six segments.)
Of course, if you ignore the mechanical scaling rules of this purely optical map, you are correct.

In terms of natural deduction:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/9/5/2/952e118cdcc32fcd7dd638c8c104c0f6.png)
If falsity is true, any given proposition (C) is also true.

Similarly, I can say RET claims that the South Pole's circumference is fairly close to the length of the Equator, courtesy of Mercator.
So you can't tell me where else I asked for that explanation. You fail.

Do tell us where you see any mechanical scaling rules on that map.

Do tell us how you determined that the map was 'purely optical' and what 'purely optical' mean to you. To me, it means I can see it, but not otherwise get information from it.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: zarg on January 03, 2012, 04:31:59 PM
Do tell us how you determined that the map was 'purely optical' and what 'purely optical' mean to you.

Basically, PizzaPlanet takes the spherical transformation formula for the RET map and calls it an optical distance transformation. See here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51550.msg1264404#msg1264404 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51550.msg1264404#msg1264404)

He glosses over the fact that, when you calculate what physical shape the Earth would be based on these distance transformations, the only possible result is a sphere. He is content to simply say "these are all maps of how your eyes play tricks on you" so he never has to address any of the problems raised by the idea that they are physical 1:1 scale maps of a flat Earth, which is what every other FE'er claims.

He has never provided his own version of a physical 1:1 scale map based on his claims, presumably because he knows it would be a globe.

Arguing with PizzaPlanet is an utter waste of time because his only tactic is to pretend to have a better understanding of the subject than his opponent without ever coherently describing his own beliefs (which consistently contradict all accepted FET claims).


edit: Correction: I don't mean 1:1 scale, I mean 1:1 x-y ratio.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: ClockTower on January 03, 2012, 05:30:52 PM
Do tell us how you determined that the map was 'purely optical' and what 'purely optical' mean to you.

Basically, PizzaPlanet takes the spherical transformation formula for the RET map and calls it an optical distance transformation. See here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51550.msg1264404#msg1264404 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51550.msg1264404#msg1264404)

He glosses over the fact that, when you calculate what physical shape the Earth would be based on these distance transformations, the only possible result is a sphere. He is content to simply say "these are all maps of how your eyes play tricks on you" so he never has to address any of the problems raised by the idea that they are physical 1:1 scale maps of a flat Earth, which is what every other FE'er claims.

He has never provided his own version of a physical 1:1 scale map based on his claims, presumably because he knows it would be a globe.

Arguing with PizzaPlanet is an utter waste of time because his only tactic is to pretend to have a better understanding of the subject than his opponent without ever coherently describing his own beliefs (which consistently contradict all accepted FET claims).


edit: Correction: I don't mean 1:1 scale, I mean 1:1 x-y ratio.
Awesome post. Thanks.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: PizzaPlanet on January 04, 2012, 06:17:21 AM
Disregarding zarg's derailments (who only read several posts of the thread, causing massive confusion and disinformation. For shame!), a difference between distances perceived by the eye and actual distances is a direct implication of EAT.

He is, of course, correct in the fact that thanks to this phenomenon I don't have to state that distances are not what they are. I believe it's a good thing. Why would I claim that one kilometre is, in fact, five kilometres? It would be either dishonest or extremely delusional.

I have never provided a physical 1:1 scale map, yes. I think zarg doesn't understand what a 1:1 scale map would be, as requesting something like that is utter insanity. To clarify, a 1:1 scale model of the Earth would be a copy of the Earth. If I had the resources and capabilities of building things the size of celestial objects, I believe I could make large amounts of money on it. Just think about it - making a "second moon" with a Coca-Cola logo on it; such global... excuse me, planar... advertisement would be worth a fortune!
Alas, I don't know how to how to do it. If you have any ideas - please let me know. I'll offer a fair share of the profits.

The map does, however, maintain a 1:1 x:y ratio. I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Of course, it changes nothing, since in our arguments (in which I was supposedly incoherent and inane) you (and other FE'ers) constantly kept requesting a 1:1 scale map. Now you're saying that by "1:1 scale" you meant "not 1:1 scale". It may be so that your coherence needs work too.

On several occasions have I admitted that a globe is a valid map of the Earth, so I'm not certain why you felt it was necessary to say that my knowledge of this would stop me from providing a map. Perhaps it has to do with you making things up on the spot and not having paid much attention to the thread. A globe maintains a fairly good representation of distances while introducing a distortion in shape. It is an excellent map for many purposes.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: ClockTower on January 04, 2012, 08:19:14 AM
Disregarding zarg's derailments (who only read several posts of the thread, causing massive confusion and disinformation. For shame!), a difference between distances perceived by the eye and actual distances is a direct implication of EAT.
Nope. EAT has no math to make any such implication, especially not a direct one. Nice fake-out though.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: zarg on January 04, 2012, 12:00:46 PM
Disregarding zarg's derailments (who only read several posts of the thread, causing massive confusion and disinformation. For shame!), a difference between distances perceived by the eye and actual distances is a direct implication of EAT.

It's not a derailment. It's the explanation of what you meant, just as ClockTower requested. I linked directly to your own words. There is no disinformation. I've read all of your posts in that thread, and I've also seen your completely fantasy-based diagram (http://i.imgur.com/QH7Lr.png). It is all exactly as I described, as is this post of yours. Nothing you've said here or in that thread has contradicted what I described of your position. You continue to exemplify what I've said about your "debating" tactic by claiming "disinformation" while refusing to provide any corrections.


I have never provided a physical 1:1 scale map, yes. I think zarg doesn't understand what a 1:1 scale map would be, as requesting something like that is utter insanity. To clarify, a 1:1 scale model of the Earth would be a copy of the Earth. If I had the resources and capabilities of building things the size of celestial objects, I believe I could make large amounts of money on it. Just think about it - making a "second moon" with a Coca-Cola logo on it; such global... excuse me, planar... advertisement would be worth a fortune!
Alas, I don't know how to how to do it. If you have any ideas - please let me know. I'll offer a fair share of the profits.

The map does, however, maintain a 1:1 x:y ratio. I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Of course, it changes nothing, since in our arguments (in which I was supposedly incoherent and inane) you (and other FE'ers) constantly kept requesting a 1:1 scale map. Now you're saying that by "1:1 scale" you meant "not 1:1 scale". It may be so that your coherence needs work too.

How much clearer can I make the fact that I did not mean 1:1 scale than by saying "I did not mean 1:1 scale", which I did? It was a simple mistake for which I clarified. You wasted 2 thirds of your needlessly verbose post blatantly attacking something that you know full well is not what I meant to say.

The only relevant part of your useless rant is the part I've highlighted, which is utterly false. If x-y ratios were maintained, all of your circles' diameters would measure the same vertically as horizontally. You have presented distorted geometry, pretending that the distortion is the result of EA. To remove the distortion, you would need to shrink the east-west distances as you approach the south, which would be impossible to do while maintaining a 2D shape because the south is farther from the center than the north and must have a wider circumference.

What you refuse to provide is a map which has a uniformly equal x-y ratio as on the physical (not optical) Earth. You have not, and cannot, answer the challenge I posted in that thread: Imagine that there is a probe above Earth sending perfectly perpendicular beams, immune to the effects of EA, down to the flat surface to scan it, and provide a map that approximates what it would detect. On such a map, we should be able to compare relative distances between any two points at any angle using a ruler without adjustment calculations.

And now instead of addressing this, you will continue to dance around it with more meaningless statements like "a globe is an excellent map for many purposes" or "Earth is a fractal".
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: EmperorZhark on January 05, 2012, 01:11:11 PM
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png)

The sun revolves in a circular pattern above the disc, changing positions above the disc to compensate for seasons.

This is a RE map, not a FE map, for the umpteenth time.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Thork on January 05, 2012, 01:22:09 PM
This is a RE map, not a FE map, for the umpteenth time.
You are stood on a FE, not a RE for the umpteenth time. I guess we are at an impasse.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: EmperorZhark on January 05, 2012, 04:09:15 PM
This is a RE map, not a FE map, for the umpteenth time.
You are stood on a FE, not a RE for the umpteenth time. I guess we are at an impasse.

Yep. You don't understand cartography and projections.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Thork on January 05, 2012, 04:10:21 PM
This is a RE map, not a FE map, for the umpteenth time.
You are stood on a FE, not a RE for the umpteenth time. I guess we are at an impasse.

Yep. You don't understand cartography and projections.
You do not understand the shape of the earth.

This could be a very long game. ::)
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: EmperorZhark on January 07, 2012, 02:58:32 AM
This is a RE map, not a FE map, for the umpteenth time.
You are stood on a FE, not a RE for the umpteenth time. I guess we are at an impasse.

Yep. You don't understand cartography and projections.
You do not understand the shape of the earth.

This could be a very long game. ::)

It has been constantly demonstrated that you mistake FE maps with RE maps and i am the one who doesn't understand the shape of the Earth?

And you seriously believe that I do not understand what a sphere or a flat surface is?
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: PlanetEarth on January 27, 2012, 09:59:32 PM
i do realise that. but im jsut saying on a roundy map continents do appear the wrong size. there is no excuse for the flat map but i thought it was worth mentioning before the flat finger demanded an explanation

The flat map is distorted because it uses a picture of a round Earth. The continents on the edge are distorted because they are being viewed from an angle, not 90 degrees
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: areyouguysserious on January 28, 2012, 11:48:15 AM
I thought flat earth theory didnt have an agreed upon map.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Son of Orospu on January 29, 2012, 07:44:14 AM
I thought flat earth theory didnt have an agreed upon map.

That's what they claim when you debunk one of their proposed maps.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: areyouguysserious on February 01, 2012, 11:39:25 AM
Oh I see. It seems to me that navigators and pilots have for hundreds of years circumnavigated the globe based on round earth maps and round earth projections, based upon round earth theory and "science", with zero problems.

I wonder, has a navigator ever successfully charted a course using a flat earth map or flat earth projections? I fail to see how if flat earth theory is real, than everybody in the world isn't aware of this based on the observations of millions of people.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on February 03, 2012, 12:13:08 AM
Oh I see. It seems to me that navigators and pilots have for hundreds of years circumnavigated the globe based on round earth maps and round earth projections, based upon round earth theory and "science", with zero problems.

I wonder, has a navigator ever successfully charted a course using a flat earth map or flat earth projections? I fail to see how if flat earth theory is real, than everybody in the world isn't aware of this based on the observations of millions of people.

I would not say zero problems, tons of people have died, gotten lost, crashed, sunk, burned, and been killed by the indigenous people of other places for 100s of years while trying to circumnavigate/just go somewhere.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: zarg on February 03, 2012, 09:40:40 AM
tons of people have died, gotten lost, crashed, sunk, burned, and been killed by the indigenous people of other places for 100s of years while trying to circumnavigate/just go somewhere.

Another win for FE!
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: areyouguysserious on February 03, 2012, 11:50:05 AM
I meant in general, they had no problems navigating by the stars on a round earth getting from one place to another. Obviously there were plenty of shipwrecks, disease, and indigenous run ins, but that's besides the point. The point is that the world is round, and people successfully navigate on a round earth using round earth maps.

I fail to see how this is a win for flat earth.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Rushy on February 03, 2012, 11:53:12 AM
I meant in general, they had no problems navigating by the stars on a round earth getting from one place to another. Obviously there were plenty of shipwrecks, disease, and indigenous run ins, but that's besides the point. The point is that the world is round, and people successfully navigate on a round earth using round earth maps.

I fail to see how this is a win for flat earth.

Actually, they navigate using flat maps on a flat earth. You only see globes in a elementary school class room to help enforce the lie that people actually use them.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: ClockTower on February 03, 2012, 01:15:44 PM
I meant in general, they had no problems navigating by the stars on a round earth getting from one place to another. Obviously there were plenty of shipwrecks, disease, and indigenous run ins, but that's besides the point. The point is that the world is round, and people successfully navigate on a round earth using round earth maps.

I fail to see how this is a win for flat earth.

Actually, they navigate using flat maps on a flat earth. You only see globes in a elementary school class room to help enforce the lie that people actually use them.
Please do provide evidence to support your outlandish claim.

I also assume that people touch the globes, so your other claim is wrong too.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Aytron on February 07, 2012, 04:17:32 PM
Has it ever occurred to anyone that FEers were lazy about their map and just colored in the UN flag?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg/800px-Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg.png)
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: squevil on February 07, 2012, 04:29:43 PM
no but if you read more than you post you will soon see that that map used is refered to the un map
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 07, 2012, 04:33:24 PM
Has it ever occurred to anyone that FEers were lazy about their map and just colored in the UN flag?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg/800px-Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg.png

Has it occurred to you that FES was in existence about 100 years before the UN was formed, and it's more likely that the UN stole that map from us?

We're the ones who created and popularized that map back in the mid-1800's when the Flat Earth Society (then called the Universal Zetetic Society) was in full swing, a public sensation, and widely talked about. Everyone knew it was our map.

If the UN is using it, maybe they're trying to tell us something.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: ClockTower on February 07, 2012, 04:39:21 PM
Has it ever occurred to anyone that FEers were lazy about their map and just colored in the UN flag?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg/800px-Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg.png

Has it occurred to you that FES was in existence about 100 years before the UN was formed, and it's more likely that the UN stole that map from us?
Typical Tom Bishop post, ignoring the facts. The point was that the map in the FAQ seems to be a ripoff of the UN flag. You really flatter yourself to think anyone has noticed FES enough to "steal" anything from it.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Aytron on February 07, 2012, 04:45:55 PM
Yeah because the UN would love nothing more then to steal FET's thunder.




lolzzzz
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 07, 2012, 04:59:45 PM
Typical Tom Bishop post, ignoring the facts. The point was that the map in the FAQ seems to be a ripoff of the UN flag. You really flatter yourself to think anyone has noticed FES enough to "steal" anything from it.

FES was widely talked about in the 1800's. Newspapers of the day were publishing articles about us constantly.

"These guys believe that the earth is flat," etc.

http://newspaperarchive.com/

Go here and search for "Flat Earth," and you'll get 700,000 results of articles talking about a flat earth through the years.

Also see what newspapers were saying about Rowbotham: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za67.htm
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Aytron on February 07, 2012, 05:02:16 PM
Typical Tom Bishop post, ignoring the facts. The point was that the map in the FAQ seems to be a ripoff of the UN flag. You really flatter yourself to think anyone has noticed FES enough to "steal" anything from it.

FES was widely talked about in the 1800's. Newspapers of the day were publishing articles about us constantly.

"These guys believe that the earth is flat," etc.

http://newspaperarchive.com/

Go here and search for "Flat Earth," and you'll get 700,000 results of articles talking about a flat earth.

And about 1.7 million for Round Earth.  ;D
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 07, 2012, 05:23:05 PM
Yeah because the UN would love nothing more then to steal FET's thunder.

lolzzzz

You're underestimating the cultural popularity of FES.

The existence of the Flat Earth Society is routinely taught to high school students as an amusing aside. There are references in hundreds of books, newspapers, radio shows, and movies.

The cultural meme "Flat Earther" is in reference to members of this society, specifically.

What do you think brought you to this site, if not cultural recognition?
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: areyouguysserious on February 07, 2012, 05:25:43 PM
I found this site because I caught a reference in a wikipedia page. I find it absolutely fascinating. My co workers are all convinced its a sociologist's doctoral thesis that got out of control though.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: zarg on February 07, 2012, 05:27:17 PM
Has it ever occurred to anyone that FEers were lazy about their map and just colored in the UN flag?

No, they're even lazier than that. They didn't adapt from the UN flag, they just directly stole from this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection).
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 07, 2012, 05:33:29 PM
It's funny how the public treats us. In The Mist by Stephen King, name Flat Earth Society is used as a derogatory term to describe a group that refuses to accept the presence of monsters in the mist outside.

Again, skeptics against the fantastic and paranormal are portrayed as outcasts and somehow less rational than others who are quick to jump on the supernatural bandwagon. As if "a tentacle monster beat him up and ate him in the back room when no one was looking" is the most rational explanation, and should be readily accepted as truth.

Flat Earthers are skeptics, and rightly so. NASA's claims of the fantastic need to be peer reviewed by an unconnected party, just as claims of a tentacle monster you saw in the back room needs to be peer reviewed by an unconnected party.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: zarg on February 07, 2012, 05:36:48 PM
It's funny how the public treats us.

Well, yes. You are quite funny, after all.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: zarg on February 07, 2012, 05:45:33 PM
Has it ever occurred to anyone that FEers were lazy about their map and just colored in the UN flag?

No, they're even lazier than that. They didn't adapt from the UN flag, they just directly stole from this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection).

Oh, and don't listen to Tom's lies about their map pre-dating the United Nations either. That model of the earth was indeed based on the UN flag and didn't exist until the late 1970s.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 07, 2012, 05:47:33 PM
Has it ever occurred to anyone that FEers were lazy about their map and just colored in the UN flag?

No, they're even lazier than that. They didn't adapt from the UN flag, they just directly stole from this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection).

Oh, and don't listen to Tom's lies about their map pre-dating the United Nations either. That model of the earth was indeed based on the UN flag and didn't exist until the late 1970s.

Read Earth Not a Globe, please. We were using that same map 150 years ago.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: zarg on February 07, 2012, 05:50:42 PM
Has it ever occurred to anyone that FEers were lazy about their map and just colored in the UN flag?

No, they're even lazier than that. They didn't adapt from the UN flag, they just directly stole from this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection).

Oh, and don't listen to Tom's lies about their map pre-dating the United Nations either. That model of the earth was indeed based on the UN flag and didn't exist until the late 1970s.

Read Earth Not a Globe, please. The same model was used 150 years ago.

I have, and this:

(http://i.imgur.com/FHX6e.jpg)

is not the same map at all.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: areyouguysserious on February 07, 2012, 05:54:34 PM
New Zealand looks bigger than australia in that map.  ???
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 07, 2012, 05:55:23 PM
I have, and this:

http://i.imgur.com/FHX6e.jpg

is not the same map at all.

Yes it is. With the exception of Australia and New Zealand it's nearly exactly the same.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Aytron on February 07, 2012, 05:55:30 PM
The current map is the UN flag, with color.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: ClockTower on February 07, 2012, 05:55:50 PM
The cultural meme "Flat Earther" is in reference to members of this society, specifically.
Nope.

Reference: The Complete Idiot's Guide to Memes, By John Gunders, Damon Brown, John Gunders, Ph.D.
(http://i.imgur.com/wTIV7.jpg)
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 07, 2012, 05:56:55 PM
The cultural meme "Flat Earther" is in reference to members of this society, specifically.
Nope.

Reference: The Complete Idiot's Guide to Memes, By John Gunders, Damon Brown, John Gunders, Ph.D.
(http://i.imgur.com/wTIV7.jpg)

Actually, that's a reference to us.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: ClockTower on February 07, 2012, 06:00:12 PM
The cultural meme "Flat Earther" is in reference to members of this society, specifically.
Nope.

Reference: The Complete Idiot's Guide to Memes, By John Gunders, Damon Brown, John Gunders, Ph.D.
(http://i.imgur.com/wTIV7.jpg)

Actually, that's a reference to us.
Not specifically, unless you mean that you hold disproved beliefs.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Aytron on February 07, 2012, 06:02:57 PM
You could take every single one of these people into orbit around the earth, and they'd still say it was a nasa cover up or something,
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on February 07, 2012, 06:11:14 PM
You could take every single one of these people into orbit around the earth, and they'd still say it was a nasa cover up or something,

Most do not believe the earth is flat, they just enjoy when someone like iWitness comes on and gets fooled.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 07, 2012, 06:15:00 PM
The cultural meme "Flat Earther" is in reference to members of this society, specifically.
Nope.

Reference: The Complete Idiot's Guide to Memes, By John Gunders, Damon Brown, John Gunders, Ph.D.
(http://i.imgur.com/wTIV7.jpg)

Actually, that's a reference to us.
Not specifically, unless you mean that you hold disproved beliefs.

It's a reference to how people view the Flat Earth Society. The FES believes in a flat earth, contrary to public opinion and media hype.

"Flat Earther" isn't in reference to ancient Egyptians who believed in a flat earth in times when it was accepted. It's clearly referencing us, who believe it in times when it is not accepted.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: areyouguysserious on February 07, 2012, 06:17:34 PM
You could take every single one of these people into orbit around the earth, and they'd still say it was a nasa cover up or something,

I actually came across a thread discussing this. The claims were made that all the windows would actually be monitor screens showing a computer simulation of the outside of the "spacecraft", with simulated g forces and whatnot to fool the passenger into believing they were actually taking off. I think the thread was titled space tourism..or something like that. It went on for quite some time, and some of the claims were quite outrageous, even going so far as to suggest if one were to disrupt the monitors with a magnet or a hammer, then the conspiracy would kill not just you, but every one on board!
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: zarg on February 07, 2012, 06:19:08 PM
I have, and this:

http://i.imgur.com/FHX6e.jpg

is not the same map at all.

Yes it is. With the exception of Australia and New Zealand it's nearly exactly the same.

So let me get this straight. You're saying that it's more likely that the UN stole this (http://i.imgur.com/FHX6e.jpg) to produce this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg/800px-Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg.png) than it is likely that the FES stole this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg/600px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg) to produce this (http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png). Need I remind you what you said?

Has it occurred to you that FES was in existence about 100 years before the UN was formed, and it's more likely that the UN stole that map from us?

You're not backpedaling again, are you?
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 07, 2012, 06:25:21 PM
You could take every single one of these people into orbit around the earth, and they'd still say it was a nasa cover up or something,

I actually came across a thread discussing this. The claims were made that all the windows would actually be monitor screens showing a computer simulation of the outside of the "spacecraft", with simulated g forces and whatnot to fool the passenger into believing they were actually taking off. I think the thread was titled space tourism..or something like that. It went on for quite some time, and some of the claims were quite outrageous, even going so far as to suggest if one were to disrupt the monitors with a magnet or a hammer, then the conspiracy would kill not just you, but every one on board!

Actually, "space tourism" flights will just take you to the edge of space and come back down again. No trickery necessary. You will see some slight curvature to the horizon because at such great heights you are looking down at a circle.

You will see a scene similar to those high altitude balloons (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget/) which touch the edge of space.

So let me get this straight. You're saying that it's more likely that the UN stole this (http://i.imgur.com/FHX6e.jpg) to produce this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg/800px-Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg.png) than it is likely that the FES stole this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg/600px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg) to produce this (http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png).

Those are all versions of the FE map. We came up with the design, not the UN, and not some guy in the 1970's. There have been intermittent maps we've made between Rowbotham's time and the creation of the UN, which has Australia and New Zealand in proper proportions. See this one (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flatmap.jpg) we made in the 1930's for instance, published in Modern Mechanics, 1931.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: squevil on February 07, 2012, 06:27:52 PM
sometimes its a circle*
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52745.0
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 07, 2012, 06:30:39 PM
sometimes its a circle*
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52745.0

NASA modifies its imagery and gives the horizon more curvature to make it seems as if the craft is higher than it really is.

Unmodified, the images from orbit would look like the MIT balloon picture I linked above.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: areyouguysserious on February 07, 2012, 06:31:03 PM
Quote
Actually, "space tourism" flights will just take you to the edge of space and come back down again. No trickery necessary. You will see some slight curvature to the horizon because at such great heights you are looking down at a circle.

You will see a scene similar to those high altitude balloons which touch the edge of space.


You should tell that to the people claiming the Conspiracy would murder passengers.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: squevil on February 07, 2012, 06:35:57 PM
thats taken in the day time... besides i have also disproven spotlight sun theory without nasa's help. didnt see you defending your great book there either
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: ClockTower on February 07, 2012, 06:56:46 PM
The cultural meme "Flat Earther" is in reference to members of this society, specifically.
Nope.

Reference: The Complete Idiot's Guide to Memes, By John Gunders, Damon Brown, John Gunders, Ph.D.
(http://i.imgur.com/wTIV7.jpg)

Actually, that's a reference to us.
Not specifically, unless you mean that you hold disproved beliefs.

It's a reference to how people view the Flat Earth Society. The FES believes in a flat earth, contrary to public opinion and media hype.

"Flat Earther" isn't in reference to ancient Egyptians who believed in a flat earth in times when it was accepted. It's clearly referencing us, who believe it in times when it is not accepted.
You really should read the book if you can't manage to understand that paragraph. Put your ego in your pocket. Flat Earther meme is about anyone, not just you, holding any outdated or disproved belief, not just FET.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: zarg on February 07, 2012, 06:59:50 PM
Tom, you dodged my question. Are you saying that it's more likely that the UN stole this (http://i.imgur.com/FHX6e.jpg) to produce this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg/800px-Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg.png) than it is likely that the FES stole this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg/600px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg) to produce this (http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png)? Yes or no.


We came up with the design, not the UN

Really? You came up with the formula (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AzimuthalEquidistantProjection.html) which was used to generate the map that's in your FAQ and on UN's flag? Please show us the documentation supporting this claim.


sometimes its a circle*
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52745.0

NASA modifies its imagery and gives the horizon more curvature to make it seems as if the craft is higher than it really is.

Unmodified, the images from orbit would look like the MIT balloon picture I linked above.

Tom, explain my avatar (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52792.msg1295859#msg1295859).  What causes the circle of darkness?
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: ClockTower on February 07, 2012, 07:03:01 PM
Those are all versions of the FE map. We came up with the design, not the UN, and not some guy in the 1970's. There have been intermittent maps we've made between Rowbotham's time and the creation of the UN, which has Australia and New Zealand in proper proportions. See this one (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flatmap.jpg) we made in the 1930's for instance, published in Modern Mechanics, 1931.
So are any of those maps correct?
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: squevil on February 07, 2012, 07:03:35 PM
he isnt going to answer is he. its always the same. make some claims, get bombarded with facts that disprove such claims and drop out. we are used to the routine now
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 09, 2012, 07:54:21 AM
[You really should read the book if you can't manage to understand that paragraph. Put your ego in your pocket. Flat Earther meme is about anyone, not just you, holding any outdated or disproved belief, not just FET.

Absolutely incorrect. Quite obviously, calling someone a Flat Earther is in reference to the Flat Earth Society, who holds that the earth is flat in times when it is not accepted.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: ClockTower on February 09, 2012, 08:03:07 AM
[You really should read the book if you can't manage to understand that paragraph. Put your ego in your pocket. Flat Earther meme is about anyone, not just you, holding any outdated or disproved belief, not just FET.

Absolutely incorrect. Quite obviously, calling someone a Flat Earther is in reference to the Flat Earth Society, who holds that the earth is flat in times when it is not accepted.
Absolutely correct.

(http://i.imgur.com/3HBIZ.jpg)

Please refer to the definition of metaphor:

Quote from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/metaphorically
A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in "a sea of troubles"

Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 09, 2012, 08:05:40 AM
I do know what a metaphor is. It's a comparison. In this case, the term "Flat Earther" is being used to compare other people to us.

Just like if I said "you're so Christian." Obviously I am referencing Christians, even if I am using it as a metaphor to describe their traits.

Please cease posting.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: The Knowledge on February 09, 2012, 08:30:43 AM
Those are all versions of the FE map. We came up with the design, not the UN, and not some guy in the 1970's. There have been intermittent maps we've made between Rowbotham's time and the creation of the UN, which has Australia and New Zealand in proper proportions. See this one (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flatmap.jpg) we made in the 1930's for instance, published in Modern Mechanics, 1931.
So are any of those maps correct?

Every single version of the FE map has been disproved by great circle navigation using INS.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 09, 2012, 08:38:11 AM
Tom, you dodged my question. Are you saying that it's more likely that the UN stole this (http://i.imgur.com/FHX6e.jpg) to produce this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg/800px-Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg.png) than it is likely that the FES stole this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg/600px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg) to produce this (http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png)? Yes or no.

All of those originate from the Flat Earth maps in the 1800's.

Quote
We came up with the design, not the UN

Really? You came up with the formula (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AzimuthalEquidistantProjection.html) which was used to generate the map that's in your FAQ and on UN's flag? Please show us the documentation supporting this claim.

Why would I have to show that I came up with a formula when I never claimed anything of the sort?

The Flat Earth Society came up with that map, not the UN.

Quote
Tom, explain my avatar (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52792.msg1295859#msg1295859).  What causes the circle of darkness?

It's either a wide angle lens or barrel distortion.

People often post images claiming that they can see curvature at sea level (http://www.myfinepix.co.uk/sites/default/files/u70/dscf0030.jpg), when it is really just an effect of the lens.

In those other images from that same balloon at its apex, the horizon looks relatively flat (http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6050/6233433958_2177d3aed8.jpg), if not a little concave.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: The Knowledge on February 09, 2012, 08:40:01 AM
Tom, you dodged my question. Are you saying that it's more likely that the UN stole this (http://i.imgur.com/FHX6e.jpg) to produce this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg/800px-Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg.png) than it is likely that the FES stole this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg/600px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg) to produce this (http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png)? Yes or no.

All of those originate from the Flat Earth maps in the 1800's.


Quote
We came up with the design, not the UN

Really? You came up with the formula (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AzimuthalEquidistantProjection.html) which was used to generate the map that's in your FAQ and on UN's flag? Please show us the documentation supporting this claim.

Why would I have to show that I came up with a formula when I never claimed anything of the sort?

The Flat Earth Society came up with that map, not the UN.

Quote
Tom, explain my avatar (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52792.msg1295859#msg1295859).  What causes the circle of darkness?

Either a wide angle lens or barrel distortion.

Every single version of the FE map has been disproved by great circle navigation using INS.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Moon squirter on February 09, 2012, 08:45:02 AM
Just like if I said "you're so Christian." Obviously I am referencing Christians, even if I am using it as a metaphor to describe their traits.

You are using the word "christian" as an adjective, not a noun; therefore you are not referring directly to people who believe in Jesus, only the stereotypical image that has been bestowed upon them by others.

"He's a bit of a flat earther when it comes to global warming" is not inviting you to check with the FES about their views on global warming.

Metaphors cannot possible refer to their literal meaning.  That's why they're metaphors !

Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 09, 2012, 09:00:05 AM
Quote from: Moon squirter
You are using the word "christian" as an adjective, not a noun; therefore you are not referring directly to people who believe in Jesus, only the stereotypical image that has been bestowed upon them by others.

It's absolutely a reference to Christians to say to someone "you're so Christian." Christians are the stem of the metaphor, and very obviously have something to do with it.

Quote
"He's a bit of a flat earther when it comes to global warming" is not inviting you to check with the FES about their views on global warming.

Calling someone a Flat Earther is making a direct comparison to us, members of the Flat Earth Society, who have for over 150 years believed in a Flat Earth contrary to popular opinion and media hype. We're the stem of the comparison, quite obviously, because you're calling someone a Flat Earther as a metaphor.

It was argued that "Flat Earther" had nothing to do with the FES. This is incorrect. We are responsible for the very root of that phrase, not some unknown Flat Earth group who has held contrarian beliefs in the face of adversity.

The phrase "Flat Earther" isn't in reference to the Ancient Egyptians and other ancient societies who believed in a Flat Earth in times of acceptance. The metaphor is being used to describe someone who holds beliefs which the public no longer holds true. We're the only group of FE'ers who have believed in an FE in modern times. The metaphor is indisputably referencing us.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: zarg on February 09, 2012, 09:40:21 AM
Quote
Really? You came up with the formula (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AzimuthalEquidistantProjection.html) which was used to generate the map that's in your FAQ and on UN's flag? Please show us the documentation supporting this claim.

Why would I have to show that I came up with a formula when I never claimed anything of the sort?

Because that map is a direct result of the formula. It's not traced or adapted from a drawing, it's constructed mathematically by applying a distortion formula to a globe. Therefore, when you claim that they based it off of your "design", you must be claiming at least one of the following:If you can't back up either of these, then you're lying.


It's either a wide angle lens or barrel distortion.

Now that you've finally chosen to address this, let's please try to keep it to the original thread (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52792.msg1301700#msg1301700), where I've already responded to this.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Moon squirter on February 09, 2012, 10:00:25 AM
Quote from: Moon squirter
You are using the word "christian" as an adjective, not a noun; therefore you are not referring directly to people who believe in Jesus, only the stereotypical image that has been bestowed upon them by others.

It's absolutely a reference to Christians to say to someone "you're so Christian." Christians are the stem of the metaphor, and very obviously have something to do with it.

How can it be "absolutely a reference  to Christians", when you then vaguely say that christians "have something to do with it"?  The reference is to the stereotypical image of christians, which may or may not be true.

Quote
"He's a bit of a flat earther when it comes to global warming" is not inviting you to check with the FES about their views on global warming.

Calling someone a Flat Earther is making a direct comparison to us...

No it's not, by any stretch of the over-active imagination.  The person who is subject to that metaphor probably have nothing in common with the FES, nor will the FES have much in common with the person's views.  Are you getting it now?
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 09, 2012, 10:44:30 AM
Quote
Because that map is a direct result of the formula. It's not traced or adapted from a drawing, it's constructed mathematically by applying a distortion formula to a globe. Therefore, when you claim that they based it off of your "design", you must be claiming at least one of the following:
  • You created the globe.
  • You created the distortion formula.
If you can't back up either of these, then you're lying.

I didn't make any claims about a formula. If someone made a formula for turning a Mercator map into our Northern Azimuthal map, then they made a formula to do that. It's still our map. We're the ones who published and popularized it.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 09, 2012, 10:55:47 AM
How can it be "absolutely a reference  to Christians", when you then vaguely say that christians "have something to do with it"?  The reference is to the stereotypical image of christians, which may or may not be true.

It's a reference to Christians because you called someone Christian. It's fairly clear that you are referencing Christians when you say "you're so Christian."  ::)

Quote
Quote
"He's a bit of a flat earther when it comes to global warming" is not inviting you to check with the FES about their views on global warming.

Calling someone a Flat Earther is making a direct comparison to us...

No it's not, by any stretch of the over-active imagination.  The person who is subject to that metaphor probably have nothing in common with the FES, nor will the FES have much in common with the person's views.  Are you getting it now?

"Flat Earther" is a direct comparison to the Flat Earth Society's contrarian beliefs. I know it's a COMPARISON, and that the person who is subject to the metaphor is skeptical of Global Warming or whatever.

The point is that the Flat Earth Society is the direct root of the term Flat Earther. It's very, very obvious. Please cease debating. The fact that the FES is responsible for the term Flat Earther is overwhelmingly clear. It's over. Lick your wounds elsewhere.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: The Knowledge on February 09, 2012, 10:56:36 AM
Quote
Because that map is a direct result of the formula. It's not traced or adapted from a drawing, it's constructed mathematically by applying a distortion formula to a globe. Therefore, when you claim that they based it off of your "design", you must be claiming at least one of the following:
  • You created the globe.
  • You created the distortion formula.
If you can't back up either of these, then you're lying.

I didn't make any claims about a formula. If someone made a formula for turning a Mercator map into our Northern Azimuthal map, then they made a formula to do that. It's still our map. We're the ones who published and popularized it.

And I'm the one who disproved it via INS great circle navigation.  8)
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: zarg on February 09, 2012, 11:09:11 AM
Quote
Because that map is a direct result of the formula. It's not traced or adapted from a drawing, it's constructed mathematically by applying a distortion formula to a globe. Therefore, when you claim that they based it off of your "design", you must be claiming at least one of the following:
  • You created the globe.
  • You created the distortion formula.
If you can't back up either of these, then you're lying.

I didn't make any claims about a formula. If someone made a formula for turning a Mercator map into our Northern Azimuthal map, then they made a formula to do that. It's still our map. We're the ones who published and popularized it.

Tom, this is the result of applying that formula to a globe:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg/600px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg)

And this is the map that you claim the FES "designed":

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png)

You're telling me this is a coincidence?
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 09, 2012, 11:20:14 AM
Tom, this is the result of applying that formula to a globe:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg/600px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg

And this is the map that you claim the FES "designed":

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png

You're telling me this is a coincidence?

I can make a mathematical formula to draw swastikas on graphic calculators. It doesn't mean that I invented the swastika.

A Mercator map can be turned into a Northern Azimuthal map, and it doesn't matter. It's our map. We came up with it. We published it. We popularized it. End of story. I'm right on the "Flat Earther" subject, and I'm right on this one. My time here is done.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: zarg on February 09, 2012, 11:25:39 AM
Tom, you're confused. A Mercator map and an azimuthal equidistant map are both projections of a sphere. One isn't turned into the other.

Anyway, document your claim that FES published the first north polar azimuthal equidistant map.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 09, 2012, 11:37:30 AM
Read Earth Not a Globe. My time here is done.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: zarg on February 09, 2012, 12:10:22 PM
The one in Earth Not a Globe is not a north polar azimuthal equidistant map.

Document your claim that FES published the first north polar azimuthal equidistant map.



I can make a mathematical formula to draw swastikas on graphic calculators. It doesn't mean that I invented the swastika.

You seem to be having a hard time grasping why the fact that "your" map perfectly matches this formula is such a ridiculous coincidence.  So let's ignore the math itself for now and look at the practical application of it:

I measure the distance from the center of that map to any other point on it; for example, let's say the southeastern corner of Australia. Now if I take a globe which has a circumference equal to the diameter of your map, and wrap a string from the north pole of that globe to the southeastern corner of Australia, the length of the string will be exactly the same measurement. This will work for a line from the north pole to anywhere else on the map. How do you explain this phenomenon?
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: The Knowledge on February 09, 2012, 12:37:09 PM
Read Earth Not a Globe. My time here is done. I have been defeated yet again, curses. Damn my crapness.

Fi'ed.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: markjo on February 09, 2012, 12:48:43 PM
A Mercator map can be turned into a Northern Azimuthal map, and it doesn't matter. It's our map. We came up with it. We published it. We popularized it. End of story.

Except for the part where you forgot to mention that the map that you published and popularized is based on RET measurements so your really can't say that "you came up with it".

Quote
I'm right on the "Flat Earther" subject, and I'm right on this one. My time here is done.

Are you saying that being an FE'er automatically makes you a member of the FES, whether you want to be a member or not?
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Moon squirter on February 09, 2012, 01:03:53 PM
The point is that the Flat Earth Society is the direct root of the term Flat Earther.

So it follows that when someone describes something as "astronomical", they are ultimately referring to the The Royal Astronomical Society.  Yes, I see what you mean.  ???
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 09, 2012, 02:03:33 PM
The point is that the Flat Earth Society is the direct root of the term Flat Earther.

So it follows that when someone describes something as "astronomical", they are ultimately referring to the The Royal Astronomical Society.  Yes, I see what you mean.  ???

No, that does not follow at all. Calling something astronomical has nothing to do specifically with the Royal Astronomical Society. If you called someone a "Royal Astronomer," it might be a different story.

There have been Flat Earthers besides the members of the Flat Earth Society, but the metaphor "Flat Earther" isn't referencing the Ancient Egyptians or other ancient societies who believed that the earth was flat in times when it was accepted. The metaphor is referencing the FES, who believed in a Flat Earth in times when the notion was not accepted. "Flat Earther" is used to describe someone who believes something contrary to accepted truth. The only Flat Earthers which fit this description are members of the Flat Earth Society.

It is painfully, painfully, obvious that the term Flat Earther is in reference to the Flat Earth Society. There is nothing to debate, really. Kindly cease posting.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: markjo on February 09, 2012, 03:08:00 PM
It is painfully, painfully, obvious that the term Flat Earther is in reference to the Flat Earth Society.

The only thing that is painfully, painfully obvious is your ability to jump to unsupported conclusions.

Quote
There is nothing to debate, really.

If you're unwilling to listen to any point of view other than your own, then you're right, there is nothing to debate.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: squevil on February 09, 2012, 03:13:29 PM
tom never accepts another posters opinion. its his style. argueing with him is pointless
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Thork on February 09, 2012, 03:28:09 PM
tom never accepts another posters opinion. its his style. argueing with him is pointless
??? He agrees with me all the time. I have even on occasion, corrected him on matters of FET. He is rarely wrong, but humble and open-minded when shown to be mistaken.

However he isn't going to apologise just because he didn't bend to your will.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: ClockTower on February 09, 2012, 03:49:54 PM
The Flat Earth Society came up with that map, not the UN.
Nope.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
History

While it may have been used by ancient Egyptians for star maps in some holy books,[1] the earliest text describing the azimuthal equidistant projection is an 11th-century work by al-Biruni.[2]
In some countries this projection is named "Postel projection" after Guillaume Postel, who used it for a map in 1581.[1]
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 09, 2012, 04:11:41 PM
The Flat Earth Society came up with that map, not the UN.
Nope.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
History

While it may have been used by ancient Egyptians for star maps in some holy books,[1] the earliest text describing the azimuthal equidistant projection is an 11th-century work by al-Biruni.[2]
In some countries this projection is named "Postel projection" after Guillaume Postel, who used it for a map in 1581.[1]

No one was using that map in the 11th century. North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica weren't even discovered yet.

And ancient egyptians thought the world looked like this (http://www.tartessos.info/html2/images/1154_world_map_by_Moroccan_cartographer_al-Idrisi_for_king_Roger_of_Sicily.jpg).
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: zarg on February 09, 2012, 04:17:48 PM
He is rarely wrong, but humble and open-minded when shown to be mistaken.

Here are some examples of Tom Bishop being absolutely wrong:

none of these amateurs are doing these experiments near nightfall
All of the phases were influenced by NASA.
it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away near the lighthouse.
It's either a wide angle lens or barrel distortion.
Anything which claims to get into orbit is going to be classified. The US or Russian government isn't going to let other countries have access to ICBM-like technologies.
I have to build a Cubesat or otherwise partner with a university if I want to see Cubesat Telemetry data.

Each of these were easily falsifiable statements. In each case, when he was shown to be mistaken, Tom Bishop either ran away from the thread or fell into denial. If that is your definition of humility and open-mindedness, I suppose you're right.



No one was using that map in the 11th century. North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica weren't even discovered yet.

You're right that they weren't using the north polar aspect that covered the entire world; however, they were still using the same projection formula, which you implied was invented by some guy screwing around with a graphing calculator to produce "your" map.

Now Tom, please respond to this post (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52374.msg1301878#msg1301878).
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Thork on February 09, 2012, 04:26:40 PM
I see a bunch of things you disagree with. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.

Tom does not run away from threads. However you will appreciate that there are far more RErs than FErs stalking the boards. By virtue of sheer numbers you cannot expect an FE response to every RE post that is made. Once a point has been made it's often better (time efficient and interesting) to move to a new thread to make more interesting points on other subjects than to flog a dead horse repeating the same thing in 20 different ways to someone who is probably just trolling us anyway.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: squevil on February 09, 2012, 04:29:35 PM
you know who the trolls are, just ignore them
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: zarg on February 09, 2012, 04:40:49 PM
I see a bunch of things you disagree with. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.

That's why the links are included.

I chose statements that can be disproved straightforwardly. Most of Tom's statements are absolutes ("none of these", "all of these", "this can't happen unless...") so they can be invalidated simply by showing an exception. Others, such as his lies about the capabilities and limitations of telescopes and cameras, can be straightforwardly disproved by demonstrating the actual properties of the specific devices in question.


Tom does not run away from threads. However you will appreciate that there are far more RErs than FErs stalking the boards. By virtue of sheer numbers you cannot expect an FE response to every RE post that is made.

That may explain one or two instances, but when there becomes an ongoing pattern of Tom suddenly disappearing entirely from a thread where he was previously active right after his statement gets undeniably disproved, I get suspicious. You understand.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 09, 2012, 10:18:41 PM
none of these amateurs are doing these experiments near nightfall

That was a factual statement at the time I made that. To my knowledge no one did the balloon experiment at nightfall.

All of the phases were influenced by NASA.

Seeing as NASA was funding the development and directing the research of the project in question, everything about the project was influenced by NASA.

it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away near the lighthouse.

No one has looked into a telescope and demonstrated otherwise.

It's either a wide angle lens or barrel distortion.

This is an accurate statement. The curvature in those photos is clearly distorted by the lens. In other pictures from the apex of the same balloon flight the horizon is completely flat. The horizon can't be both flat and curved at the same time.

Anything which claims to get into orbit is going to be classified. The US or Russian government isn't going to let other countries have access to ICBM-like technologies.

This is a true statement. The US Government doesn't let anyone get into orbit. Military airspace starts at 60,000 feet. The public can't go above that altitude legally. Only the government and government contractors can breach that altitude. The Concord had to fly at 59,000 feet just to stay legal.

Sending a rocket into Military airspace is considered an act of war/terrorist threat. Rocket technologies which can reach very high altitudes are restricted.

I have to build a Cubesat or otherwise partner with a university if I want to see Cubesat Telemetry data.

The suggestion made in that thread was that I can buy an antenna and somehow decipher and decode cubesat communications which I have no knowledge of. That is absurd. My assessment of my options was accurate.

Quote
No one was using that map in the 11th century. North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica weren't even discovered yet.

You're right that they weren't using the north polar aspect that covered the entire world; however, they were still using the same projection formula, which you implied was invented by some guy screwing around with a graphing calculator to produce "your" map.

Sorry, but just because someone later comes up with a projection formula to turn a Mercator map into Rowboatham's map doesn't mean that it's not Rowbotham's map.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: zarg on February 09, 2012, 11:01:40 PM
No, NASA did not influence every phase. Yes, others have looked through the same type of telescope and confirmed you're a liar. No, lens distortion cannot account for the curvature.  Yes, other countries have access to "ICBM-like" technologies. No, the CubeSat data is not in an obscure format that outsiders can't "decode".

You're merely repeating the statements which have been disproved and ignoring the disproof. This is what you do. You make claims, get crushed, run away, then go back to square one a month or so later making the same claims and hoping everyone forgot that they're bullshit. I'm not going to reenact all those threads for you here. Anyone can click the links themselves and see how your statements were disproved in no uncertain terms.


That was a factual statement at the time I made that. To my knowledge no one did the balloon experiment at nightfall.

Tom Bishop caught in yet another lie. No, that was not factual to your knowledge at that time. You posted that on January 23rd. You had already posted in my thread, What causes the circle of darkness (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52642.msg1292628#msg1292628), on January 17th, in reply to a website dedicated to balloon experiments at nightfall. Nice try.


Quote
Quote
No one was using that map in the 11th century. North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica weren't even discovered yet.

You're right that they weren't using the north polar aspect that covered the entire world; however, they were still using the same projection formula, which you implied was invented by some guy screwing around with a graphing calculator to produce "your" map.

Sorry, but just because someone later comes up with a projection formula to turn a Mercator map into Rowboatham's map doesn't mean that it's not Rowbotham's map.

Nope.  Try again.

Please respond to this post (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52374.msg1301878#msg1301878):

I measure the distance from the center of that map to any other point on it; for example, let's say the southeastern corner of Australia. Now if I take a globe which has a circumference equal to the diameter of your map, and wrap a string from the north pole of that globe to the southeastern corner of Australia, the length of the string will be exactly the same measurement. This will work for a line from the north pole to anywhere else on the map. How do you explain this phenomenon?
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: Moon squirter on February 10, 2012, 12:23:26 AM
No, that does not follow at all. Calling something astronomical has nothing to do specifically with the Royal Astronomical Society. If you called someone a "Royal Astronomer," it might be a different story.

So why don't people say "he's a bit of a flat earth society member of the subject of global warming" ? ???

"Flat Earther" is used to describe someone who believes something contrary to accepted truth.  The only Flat Earthers which fit this description are members of the Flat Earth Society.

This has now reduced to absurdity:  You have assumed that all flat earth believers are card-carrying members of the FES.  That is quite a claim.  :o

Please cease.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: The Knowledge on February 10, 2012, 11:57:49 AM
tom never accepts another posters opinion. its his style. argueing with him is pointless
??? He agrees with me all the time. I have even on occasion, corrected him on matters of FET. He is rarely wrong, but humble and open-minded when shown to be mistaken.

However he isn't going to apologise just because he didn't bend to your will.

We need A Child Of Five to arbitrate for us.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: zarg on February 14, 2012, 11:08:01 PM
Please respond to this post (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52374.msg1301878#msg1301878):

I measure the distance from the center of that map to any other point on it; for example, let's say the southeastern corner of Australia. Now if I take a globe which has a circumference equal to the diameter of your map, and wrap a string from the north pole of that globe to the southeastern corner of Australia, the length of the string will be exactly the same measurement. This will work for a line from the north pole to anywhere else on the map. How do you explain this phenomenon?

I see Tom ran away again.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: areyouguysserious on February 15, 2012, 12:48:51 PM
The Flat Earth Society came up with that map, not the UN.
Nope.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
History

While it may have been used by ancient Egyptians for star maps in some holy books,[1] the earliest text describing the azimuthal equidistant projection is an 11th-century work by al-Biruni.[2]
In some countries this projection is named "Postel projection" after Guillaume Postel, who used it for a map in 1581.[1]

No one was using that map in the 11th century. North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica weren't even discovered yet.

And ancient egyptians thought the world looked like this (http://www.tartessos.info/html2/images/1154_world_map_by_Moroccan_cartographer_al-Idrisi_for_king_Roger_of_Sicily.jpg).

Ancient people actually did not think that the earth looked liked that. They actually had very accurate maps of the world based on, you guessed it, a round earth. See the Piri Reis map at this link: http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm

Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: narcberry on February 15, 2012, 01:16:47 PM
Ancient people actually did not think that the earth looked liked that. They actually had very accurate maps of the world based on, you guessed it, a round earth. See the Piri Reis map at this link: http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm

While the Piri Reis is amazingly consistent with current RE maps, it also is completely socially irreconcilable with the environment in 4000BC as some claim. It's much more likely to be a recent addition to his compendium during the period of naval exploration in the 16th century. You'll notice Tom Bishop was referring to maps in the 11th century.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: areyouguysserious on February 15, 2012, 03:02:07 PM
Ancient people actually did not think that the earth looked liked that. They actually had very accurate maps of the world based on, you guessed it, a round earth. See the Piri Reis map at this link: http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm

While the Piri Reis is amazingly consistent with current RE maps, it also is completely socially irreconcilable with the environment in 4000BC as some claim. It's much more likely to be a recent addition to his compendium during the period of naval exploration in the 16th century. You'll notice Tom Bishop was referring to maps in the 11th century.

Speculation. As has been noted, civilization during the Dark to Middle Ages didn't have the capability of producing such an accurate map of unknown landmasses at the time. The Piri Reis map was produced off of previous maps that existed from thousands of years back, see the possible source from the Great Library of Alexandria before its tragic burning. It was obviously an addition to his compendium, but it was added and compiled based on ancient charts.
Title: Re: Maps?
Post by: narcberry on February 15, 2012, 03:10:34 PM
Speculation.

Of course it was. So is your assertion. He who asserts, proves, yet your speculation is as good as mine.