Distortions in Southern Hemisphere

Come on Trekky, stop giving fuel to the nubs. The FE map is nothing but a polarization and you know that. It illustrates the concept and nothing more.

Quote from: Username on November 04, 2007, 12:47:29 PM

Your point addresses a known lacking in Flat Earth theory.  We don't have an accurate map.  Obviously, until we do, we won't be able to respond to this properly, with anything more than guesses.

Basic methods of charting land masses like early ships established the positions of continents very close to the RE model. The FE model would have to close to accurate to these crude forms of surveying. Thus the FE model would be very close the a distorted RE model. The vast differences in distance cannot be explained by so minute imperfections in the distortions.

Bum ba da!

Yes, it would have to be close....what's your point? That doesn't change anything about what I said the FE map is.

I'm curious what these "vast differences" are. Given the obvious aspects of the FE map that I've already explained, what "vast differences" does he think he knows about?

Given that the RE map has lots of charts backing it up, the FE map, to be accurate, must be a 2-d shape that fits the profile of a sphere. I think that is the basic issue here.

Also, I think the vast differences being referred to would the fact that if you were to take a known distance on the RE map or globe from point A on one continent to point B on another, then randomly select another transoceanic segment on the opposite side of the map especially south of the equator, you have 2 known lengths of travel right?

Well now, 'flatten out' the earth, reconfigure it however you like, and odds are - unless you totally mess with the orientation of the continents, the measurements don't work out the same. Not to mention if you move the continents around to make up for it, then all your other measurements are off now.

So in effect - it really isn't possible for the measurements from one continental location to another (if that far) to work out on a flat map. It is especially noticeable 'south' of the equator.

Anyway, gotta git down the road here - sorry if I missed something or didn't word that well enough. Gotta go!!

Take it easy,
John

2 major problems:

1) The map of Australia is guesswork at best. Major areas of Australia have yet to see any scientific cartography. If we saw an accurate map of Australia, we would all be surprised I'm sure.

2) This contention, while interesting and valid, cannot be accureately tested one way or the other. It is therefore moot, move on.

You gave up the right to be taken seriously a looong time ago.

You gave up the right to be taken seriously a looong time ago.

I sure hope you still support me for the next 12 days you're here.

Quote from: Yiak on November 12, 2007, 12:19:08 PM

You gave up the right to be taken seriously a looong time ago.

I sure hope you still support me for the next 12 days you're here.

What now? 
1. I don't support you.
2. I won't be gone in 12 days.

If 12 days is how long it takes to ban me:
1. You're not a moderator.
2. My reference to your previous ridiculous threads doesn't break the rules in any way I can see.
3. I can change my IP address easily. I can create a new account.

Also, I think the vast differences being referred to would the fact that if you were to take a known distance on the RE map or globe from point A on one continent to point B on another, then randomly select another transoceanic segment on the opposite side of the map especially south of the equator, you have 2 known lengths of travel right?

Well now, 'flatten out' the earth, reconfigure it however you like, and odds are - unless you totally mess with the orientation of the continents, the measurements don't work out the same. Not to mention if you move the continents around to make up for it, then all your other measurements are off now.

So in effect - it really isn't possible for the measurements from one continental location to another (if that far) to work out on a flat map. It is especially noticeable 'south' of the equator.

Anyway, gotta git down the road here - sorry if I missed something or didn't word that well enough. Gotta go!!

Take it easy,
John

And where would such possibly minor distances errors be accurately noted?

Woot Jiggle Wiggle. 
... giggle bump.

Quote from: Mystified on November 12, 2007, 10:36:20 AM

Also, I think the vast differences being referred to would the fact that if you were to take a known distance on the RE map or globe from point A on one continent to point B on another, then randomly select another transoceanic segment on the opposite side of the map especially south of the equator, you have 2 known lengths of travel right?

Well now, 'flatten out' the earth, reconfigure it however you like, and odds are - unless you totally mess with the orientation of the continents, the measurements don't work out the same. Not to mention if you move the continents around to make up for it, then all your other measurements are off now.

So in effect - it really isn't possible for the measurements from one continental location to another (if that far) to work out on a flat map. It is especially noticeable 'south' of the equator.

Anyway, gotta git down the road here - sorry if I missed something or didn't word that well enough. Gotta go!!

Take it easy,
John

And where would such possibly minor distances errors be accurately noted?

I'm not sure I understand your question ... do you mean where would short distance errors would occur? Or that anything I mentioned would be a minor distance error?

I will assume the latter. I'm trying to think of a better way to describe it for you. I hate to use an analogy here but I can't think of a better way to do it... to simplify this experiment take a cylinder (or globe if you want, that's fine too) and place upon it a couple of Styrofoam blocks or shapes of some kind.. relatively thin is fine and glue them down good and tight. place them relatively close even.. the more so the better to prove the point. Farther away and it will be more of an effect, but this shows the minor differences you were pointing out also.

Now stab a pencil or needle or what have you into each block wherever you choose, string a thread tight between them, then cut the cylinder along the backside, and lay it out flat. You will notice that the thread now droops. This would be an example of a northern discrepancy between known current distance between two points and if you were to flatten out the earth.

For the south pole, all you have to do is reverse the concept, cut the cylinder from the front and the thread either springs tight trying to keep it together or snaps.

Hope that helps, if not let me know... I'll try to do better.

Take care,
John

Edit: Also, in case the last part doesn't seem feasible, take a circle or disk, wrap it into even a gentle cone and repeat the same experiment, attempting to flatten the cone back out into a disk... the string will tighten out or snap sue to the distortion.

Before anyone says this proves nothing but experimental shapes, these are only experiments to prove distance variances - take into account we ALL know how far it is from say Tokyo to LA, or in common discussion here; say San Francisco, CA to Sydney, Australia - 7408 miles (11922 km) (6438 nautical miles) [a long haul I make at least once a year to see my brother... ugh!]

Take care,
John

 
 

Ok I'm out on the road for a bit. Will have the laptop but sporadic opportunity to log back in. Lemme know if this was satisfactory or not. I'll try to tinker with some stuff in my down time - since it's incredibly boring on stop overs.. LOL

Take care,
John

Wow, just took a look at the FE map. Why is New Zealand almost the same distance from Australia as the Vancouver is from Halifax? There's distortions, and then there's this. Ever taken a boat from Oz to NZ? Ever driven across Canada? If you haven't, then you wouldn't realise how hilariously wrong this is.

Wow, just took a look at the FE map. Why is New Zealand almost the same distance from Australia as the Vancouver is from Halifax? There's distortions, and then there's this. Ever taken a boat from Oz to NZ? Ever driven across Canada? If you haven't, then you wouldn't realise how hilariously wrong this is.

As has been stated numerous times, the FE map is simply a polarization. It showcases the concept of the flat Earth and nothing more. It is not and has never been claimed to be of scale or accurate.

I'm not sure I understand your question ... do you mean where would short distance errors would occur? Or that anything I mentioned would be a minor distance error?

I will assume the latter. I'm trying to think of a better way to describe it for you. I hate to use an analogy here but I can't think of a better way to do it... to simplify this experiment take a cylinder (or globe if you want, that's fine too) and place upon it a couple of Styrofoam blocks or shapes of some kind.. relatively thin is fine and glue them down good and tight. place them relatively close even.. the more so the better to prove the point. Farther away and it will be more of an effect, but this shows the minor differences you were pointing out also.

Now stab a pencil or needle or what have you into each block wherever you choose, string a thread tight between them, then cut the cylinder along the backside, and lay it out flat. You will notice that the thread now droops. This would be an example of a northern discrepancy between known current distance between two points and if you were to flatten out the earth.

For the south pole, all you have to do is reverse the concept, cut the cylinder from the front and the thread either springs tight trying to keep it together or snaps.

Hope that helps, if not let me know... I'll try to do better.

Take care,
John

Edit: Also, in case the last part doesn't seem feasible, take a circle or disk, wrap it into even a gentle cone and repeat the same experiment, attempting to flatten the cone back out into a disk... the string will tighten out or snap sue to the distortion.

Before anyone says this proves nothing but experimental shapes, these are only experiments to prove distance variances - take into account we ALL know how far it is from say Tokyo to LA, or in common discussion here; say San Francisco, CA to Sydney, Australia - 7408 miles (11922 km) (6438 nautical miles) [a long haul I make at least once a year to see my brother... ugh!]

Take care,
John

Didn't really read this cause I think we've misunderstood each other. I was asking where on the Earth, these minor (and in some cases, major), errors in distance (between continents) would be and how they'd be arrived at as erroneous.

The hardest part about figuring out the nature of this is that, as stated in my previous post, the FE map isn't accurate. It would be difficult to say what type of difference actually existed, especially since we'd be relying on plausibly misleading data.

Didn't really read this cause I think we've misunderstood each other. I was asking where on the Earth, these minor (and in some cases, major), errors in distance (between continents) would be and how they'd be arrived at as erroneous.

The hardest part about figuring out the nature of this is that, as stated in my previous post, the FE map isn't accurate. It would be difficult to say what type of difference actually existed, especially since we'd be relying on plausibly misleading data.

Accurate enough where differences should be detectable.

Basic methods of charting land masses like early ships established the positions of continents very close to the RE model. The FE model would have to close to accurate to these crude forms of surveying. Thus the FE model would be very close the a distorted RE model.

Yes, it would have to be close....what's your point?

What I meant by that was, it can't be some 1000 mile difference versus say, 50 miles. And these would only be in highly traveled routes. Elsewhere, such a discrepancy might be unnoticed.

And model != map.

What I meant by that was, it can't be some 1000 mile difference versus say, 50 miles. And these would only be in highly traveled routes. Elsewhere, such a discrepancy might be unnoticed.

What would only be in highly traveled routes?
Tell me, what is the circumference of Antarctica vs. the inner side of the ice wall?

And model != map.

For all intended purposes it serves as one. 

What would only be in highly traveled routes?

The probability of one finding a discrepancy would tend to be in highly traveled routes, depending on the size of the discrepancy.

Tell me, what is the circumference of Antarctica vs. the inner side of the ice wall?

That all depends on what part of the Ice Wall is actually traversed, or by what bearings they arrive at their location. I imagine Antarctica's circumference to be somewhat similar to the portion of the Ice Wall that is visited.

For all intended purposes it serves as one. 

Serves as a concept. And like I said, it would have to be close. That's not to say that other portions might be grossly different, but for the continents and such, they won't be much different.

People hold races around coast of Antarctica. On FE, this is making a circle with all the other continents inside.

Basic methods of charting both land and sea are rather accurate. I remember seeing early maps of all the Eastern continents drawn before any practical methods of checking it (like satellites) in middle school. It was amazingly accurate although you could tell it wasn't perfect. Those maps were drawn by piecing time and distances for ships and hikers together. This makes me think that ships doing the same thing today would notice the considerable time lapses, especially present in the south.

It was amazingly accurate

And you know this how?

Those maps were drawn by piecing time and distances for ships and hikers together. This makes me think that ships doing the same thing today would notice the considerable time lapses, especially present in the south.

This would leave us with the assumption that they were traveling at a speed different from expected.

Quote from: L0gic on November 20, 2007, 12:03:46 PM

It was amazingly accurate

And you know this how?

I meant to RE maps, not reality. My bad. 

Quote from: L0gic on November 20, 2007, 12:03:46 PM

Those maps were drawn by piecing time and distances for ships and hikers together. This makes me think that ships doing the same thing today would notice the considerable time lapses, especially present in the south.

This would leave us with the assumption that they were traveling at a speed different from expected.

Or that the Earth is Round...

"Back in the days before GPS units, ships had a hard time knowing how quickly they were going. Especially when they were out of sight of land, there was no way to know how quickly they were crossing the ocean. They came up with a system involving a rope with knots in it, a weighted anchor and an hourglass. They would turn the 30-second hourglass over, and toss the anchor in the ocean. The rope would start to play out, and it had a knot in it every 50 feet. They would simply count how many knots were let out by the time the hourglass was empty, and that would tell them their speed."

And they would toss an anchor and retrieve it hundreds of times during a journey? That wouldn't affect their speed?

the way i heard it, they would drop a large block of wood, which would float IN ONE PLACE, then measure how long it took the ship to move past it to see how fast they were sailing.

dropping an anchor and measureing the rope just tells how DEEP the water is. sorry.

here's a link again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica

it says antarctica has a coastline of 11,160 miles. NOT 60,000!

Quote from: Ladon on November 19, 2007, 10:35:37 PM

Wow, just took a look at the FE map. Why is New Zealand almost the same distance from Australia as the Vancouver is from Halifax? There's distortions, and then there's this. Ever taken a boat from Oz to NZ? Ever driven across Canada? If you haven't, then you wouldn't realise how hilariously wrong this is.

As has been stated numerous times, the FE map is simply a polarization. It showcases the concept of the flat Earth and nothing more. It is not and has never been claimed to be of scale or accurate.

Then why am I being told numerous times that the map is correct? If it is so incorrect, then why has there been no effort to create a correct one?

because they CANNOT, but refuse to admit it!

Actually, the RE map is correct, but it does not exist in 3 dimensions, only 2. Such a shape is undrawable, and thus the true shape of the flat earth is unknown.

Then why am I being told numerous times that the map is correct? If it is so incorrect, then why has there been no effort to create a correct one?

Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham did manage to map one eighth of the earth's surface before his death. The map shows several distance discrepancies which could not occur on a Round Earth, verified through testimonials and first hand accounts of navigators and explorers. There's a map in the book Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood.

i linked to this in a different thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection

notice this system makes the north AND south poles look like huge rings!

and remember, Robotham wrote this in the 1800s, using VERY crude measuring systems, which could easily have introduced errors, which he CHOSE to consider "proof" of flatness instead of trying to re-do them.

Ok, first of all, now I understand your question.
Second, you would find discrepencies everywhere, and much more than 50 miles the further South you went.

Just read back to my previous post and it's just plainly obvious. Try the experiment out for yourself, it's cheap and easy. It's impossible for the measurements we have for land masses, points of origin / destination, and public travel to many of these places to deny the fact that the Earth must be spherical in nature. Otherwise you would end up with an Earth that could arbitrarily change it's continents at will - and better yet break them up and such, then back again to be able to 'trick' people into believing all of our current systems.

If one had the time, all you have to do is pick a spot on the map, use a gyroscopic compass if you're unsure, and start stepping off the distance if you still don't believe it.

It's the most basic principles we have to explain the Earth as a globe. I'm always open for discussion on new / other theories, but this one is pretty much solid no matter how you try to take it down.

I've tried for many days now while on the road, and I cannot create a model that will work both ways. Even the math just doesn't work.

Take care,
John