« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Now let's talk about geography

  • 8 Replies
  • 2291 Views
?

jaybird39

  • 148
  • +0/-0
Now let's talk about geography
« on: October 28, 2006, 11:33:09 AM »
Now when we reference the geographic coordinates, being latitude and longitude, we use the distance of 1 degree of latitude is = 1 degree of longitude at the equator. The further north you go, the distance between lines of longitude decrease as a cosine function of latitude.

Oddly, the further south you go from the equator, the same mathmatical principle applies; the further south you go, the distance between lines of longitude decreases as a consine function of latitude.

In FE hypothesis, the further south you go, the distance would increase between lines of longitude.

If the world were flat, how can this be explained?
Logged
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
  • +0/-0
Re: Now let's talk about geography
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2006, 12:07:15 PM »
Quote from: "jaybird39"
In FE hypothesis, the further south you go, the distance would increase between lines of longitude.

If the world were flat, how can this be explained?


I think instead of "how can this be explained?" you mean "hey, this is different from what RE maps say.  What gives?"

The obvious answer is, if FE is right, nothing gives.  Lines of longitude do get farther apart as you go farther south.  Maps that say otherwise are wrong.
Logged
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?
?

jaybird39

  • 148
  • +0/-0
Now let's talk about geography
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2006, 12:14:22 PM »
then how is linear distance measured in the southern hemisphere that makes FE possible?
Logged
?

EasterBunny

Re: Now let's talk about geography
« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2009, 02:24:58 PM »
why hasn?t this gotten more attention? this is by far the hardest to argue statement.  so if i am to believe FE'ers then the distance between the tip of south America and the edge of Australia  must be 20x further than, let?s say the east cost of Canada and the middle of Russia. if this is true then how is it that it takes the same amount of time to travel each of these routs going the same speed?
Logged
?

Sir_Drainsalot

  • 2798
  • +0/-0
Re: Now let's talk about geography
« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2009, 05:14:16 PM »
Sigh.


Logged
?

EasterBunny

Re: Now let's talk about geography
« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2009, 11:03:10 AM »
bump
Logged
?

utilitarianism

  • 176
  • +0/-0
  • do you know the muffin man...
Re: Now let's talk about geography
« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2009, 07:45:50 PM »
lines of latittude would get closer together if the earth was a poincare disc
Logged
?

EasterBunny

Re: Now let's talk about geography
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2009, 10:55:14 AM »
....... wow.....  i dont think so...
Logged
?

Sentient Pizza

  • 281
  • +0/-0
Re: Now let's talk about geography
« Reply #8 on: June 04, 2009, 02:41:20 PM »
Quote from: Erasmus on October 28, 2006, 12:07:15 PM
Quote from: jaybird39
In FE hypothesis, the further south you go, the distance would increase between lines of longitude.

If the world were flat, how can this be explained?

I think instead of "how can this be explained?" you mean "hey, this is different from what RE maps say.  What gives?"

The obvious answer is, if FE is right, nothing gives.  Lines of longitude do get farther apart as you go farther south.  Maps that say otherwise are wrong.
No, i believe he stated his question properly. "how can this be explained?" by the FE model is exactly what is in order. It is not up to the world to proove it to FE believers, but rather the other way arround.

So the question still stands if you care to answer it with anything onther than 'well it's wrong' becaue RE is not real.

An addittion to the question would be - Why have longituge and latitude lines at all on a flat planet? Would they not be radial lines and rings (or something to that equivelant) on a flat Planet?
Logged
Your god was nailed to a cross. Mine carries a hammer...... any questions?
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »