### Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

### Messages - Ellipsis

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16]
451
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spacial Length?
« on: April 24, 2010, 10:07:26 AM »
The second map has to cut off at the poles, otherwise it shows the same spacial point to take up the entire length.  It makes fewer assumptions, and still allows us to work accurately.  We KNOW the shortest route will be curved north or south depending on which hemisphere the path is in and we can predict EXACTLY how far that curve should go.  The FE map on the other hand predicts that straight lines should always be fastest and that curves should always be wasteful.

I could show you a much better map that makes no assumptions whatsoever about spacial distance, but it would be a spherical one known as a "globe."

452
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spacial Length?
« on: April 24, 2010, 09:57:02 AM »
To show that the FE map makes idiotic assumptions and further screws around with what should be obvious distances.  You'll also notice that the "shortest" possible route on the second map I showed doesn't look like a perfectly straight line either.  This is because in the southern hemisphere, lines that seem to curve south are indeed shorter, just as in the northern hemisphere lines that seem to curve north are shorter.  The FE map presumes the curve on a path from one side of of the world to the other should always be north.

453
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spacial Length?
« on: April 24, 2010, 09:48:53 AM »
whoops, doubled the post.

454
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spacial Length?
« on: April 24, 2010, 09:47:57 AM »
So, I guess Antarctica is the biggest continent on the Earth and one cannot travel East from Asia or Australia to reach the Wast coast of America, huh?
Who said that?  This map shows the lines of longitude and latitude to form perfect squares.  It is not to scale because no two-dimensional map can be perfectly to scale when representing a sphere.  If you want one perfectly to scale, check out a globe (also notice you'll be unable to see all parts of it at once).

455
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spacial Length?
« on: April 24, 2010, 09:38:11 AM »
Unless you've recorded Mr Green's voyage, this thread is 100% theory and 0% evidence.

Well, if you ignore the fact that flight paths cover the shortest possible distance only when taking the curvature of the Earth into account.  With a flat-earth model, they'd be going tens of thousands of miles out of their way.  Also, there's the point of magnetic polarity that was brought up earlier, the fact that we orbit the sun (close stars seem to change position every six months compared to those further out), retrograde motion, and even the shadow experiment by Eratosthenes in way back in 300BCE that rather accurately demonstrated the Earth's circumference.  We've seen it as roughly spherical for quite some time.

456
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spacial Length?
« on: April 23, 2010, 03:36:53 PM »
Then wouldn't all our compasses point perpendicular to the ground instead of parallel?  The one side should be strongly repelled and the opposite pole should be strongly attracted.  They'd point vertically instead of (as our compasses actually do) horizontally.  Or maybe I'm not understanding the analogy.

457
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« on: April 23, 2010, 03:31:24 PM »
Can nobody answer this?

I'd like a response too, but what I'm really curious about is why there are lines being used with the north pole as a reference at all.  On a flat earth, you could literally have perfect squares of longitude and latitude with absolutely no problem.  This concentric ring stuff is either just making it harder for themselves for absolutely no reason, or an admission that perfect squares of longitude and latitude make no sense on a spherical planet.

458
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spacial Length?
« on: April 23, 2010, 03:23:24 PM »
Ah, I get it.  Sorry for being ignorant about this stuff.  By "navigational tools" I could understand what they meant in terms of satellites, but what about a compass?  That certainly wasn't designed with any globe-shapes earth in mind; it's a simple magnet.  That just makes me wonder why the magnetic poles would be where they are.  One in the middle and another wrapped around the entire edge?  That just can't happen.  Meh, I'll leave that for a later time.  Don't wanna break too far from the subject.

459
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spacial Length?
« on: April 23, 2010, 03:14:00 PM »
They do so much talk about an "ice wall," I figured this was the gist of their map and that they were talking about Antarctica.

460
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Spacial Length?
« on: April 23, 2010, 03:05:42 PM »
According to an FE map I found, going from one side of the disk to the other in the shortest possible path means always going in a straight line directly through the north pole, correct?

So an FE person would say the red path is shorter and the green path is wasting time?  Why is it, then, that the red path is in fact the longest possible route, and the green is the shortest?  Which of these would you say is shorter?  Also note how the line curves south instead of north, as FE maps seem to dictate it should.  Is there an explanation for this, or is geometry in on the conspiracy as well?

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16]