Simple Proof

He hasnt explained it too well. What he should be saying is that if you were in the southern hemisphere, the highway would need to be longer in FE theory then it is in RE theory, because the distance around the FE is over 3 times larger than on a RE, so everything needs to be bigger. But its not so much a highway, but works better with flying a long distance.

Colossal - well of course it works better with flying, I mean you can see the curvature of the Earth from a concord, but flying altogether is rejected by the FE theory as part of the conspiracy, so...

I think I explained it well, there's no need to get so technical, the equation itself is sufficient to prove that the closer you get to the poles, the more things are gonna get smaller, which appear just as big on an FE map as things are on both the FE and RE equators, so the farther you move toward the poles, the more incorrect an FE map is, and the closer you get to the equator, the more it starts resembling a RE map. So, that discrepancy could very easily be fixed by taking an FE map and stretching it into a globe lol

And it actually doesn't matter whether you're flying or driving or walking or even where you are on Earth (unless you're moving directly along the equator, that would be the only exception), it can still be seen, just easier near the poles.

Now, imagine you're driving at a constant speed in each scenario.

aww, so I can't do this experiment in Britain, then?

@Chris - you can do this experiment in your back yard. Just wouldn't be able to measure it as easily. If you took a 1000 megapixel picture of the horizon, at full zoom you'd be able to detect curvature, but the technology does not exist for ordinary people to do that, and thus the FE switches to elite conspiracy mode. But you could measure it by traveling in Europe.

Na man, because if you have a look at the FE map and the RE map they both get smaller as they go north lol. But going south, the FE gets bigger and the RE gets smaller again.

@Chris - you can do this experiment in your back yard. Just wouldn't be able to measure it as easily. If you took a 1000 megapixel picture of the horizon, at full zoom you'd be able to detect curvature, but the technology does not exist for ordinary people to do that, and thus the FE switches to elite conspiracy mode. But you could measure it by traveling in Europe.

I wasn't seriously suggesting doing the experiment, I was just taking a pop at the state of the traffic in Britain. Go back to your pointless arguments now...

But if you measured 100 miles from an FE map, it would tell you you ended up in a different place than you're actually at.

Have you ever traveled with a flat earth map? All my road maps depict the earth as flat; perhaps you have a special flat map showing inaccurate distances? If you ended up in a different place, I'd buy a Rands McNally if I were you...

I would like to see you get in a plane, and try to make a flight in the southern hemisphere based on the flat earth map.

@Colossal - yes, you're right... Okay, so I messed up on my last post a little (wait until the FEers pick up on it), but i was right about the discrepancy happening anywhere except along the equator. There still will be a discrepancy in the North, (albeit much smaller than in the South), as the RE and FE maps don't get smaller at the same rate (you can't convert a hemisphere into a 2D plane, retaining the same distances, try it with a hat lol , so it's still not accurate at all.

@Ski - Yes, I do have a road map that takes account for Earth's curvature. I don't think anyone's ever made a road map that depics the earth as flat, where did you get yours? Most of my maps take account of curvature, but I have seen maps where meridians and parallels intersect at 90 degrees, those are like a symetrically-inacruate flat earth maps if you will. I mean, it's obvious they're not accurate, because Russia and Canada/Alaska look absolutely ginormous.

You are confusing a flat RE map with a FE map.

Wow, I could start a thread about maps - maps do take account of curvature and when you follow them, they are accurate, doesn't that explain that the Earth is round? But I just don't have the energy to do it right now... I can already imagine all the extremely retarded questions that will follow... Good idea though...

Distance = Time * Velocity

This proves the Earth is round.

WRONG.

Colossal - well of course it works better with flying, I mean you can see the curvature of the Earth from a concord, but flying altogether is rejected by the FE theory as part of the conspiracy, so...

You've never been on a concord. 
There are confirmed pilots on this forum that state there is no curvature visible. 
There would also be curvature apparent on a flat Earth at high altitudes due to the radius of visibility. 

I think I explained it well, there's no need to get so technical, the equation itself is sufficient to prove that the closer you get to the poles, the more things are gonna get smaller, which appear just as big on an FE map as things are on both the FE and RE equators, so the farther you move toward the poles, the more incorrect an FE map is, and the closer you get to the equator, the more it starts resembling a RE map. So, that discrepancy could very easily be fixed by taking an FE map and stretching it into a globe lol

Use more periods to reduce confusion. 

The equation proves that your hypothetical situation could be demonstrated by grand experimentation.  It does not prove the Earth is round.  The discrepancy is just that: it doesn't make the FE map incorrect simply because you assume the RE map correct.  That is pseudoscience. 

@Chris - you can do this experiment in your back yard. Just wouldn't be able to measure it as easily. If you took a 1000 megapixel picture of the horizon, at full zoom you'd be able to detect curvature, but the technology does not exist for ordinary people to do that, and thus the FE switches to elite conspiracy mode. But you could measure it by traveling in Europe.

I don't think full zoom is what you'd want.  You don't seem to realize that lenses impart curvature onto an image regardless of zoom, megapixels, or technology. 

@Ski - Yes, I do have a road map that takes account for Earth's curvature. I don't think anyone's ever made a road map that depics the earth as flat, where did you get yours? Most of my maps take account of curvature, but I have seen maps where meridians and parallels intersect at 90 degrees, those are like a symetrically-inacruate flat earth maps if you will. I mean, it's obvious those are not accurate, because Russia and Canada/Alaska look absolutely ginormous.

You are confusing a flat RE map with a FE map.

Show me a map that does not show meridians and parallels intersecting at 90*, please. 

They work exactly the same in the FE map as they do on the RE map. 

you can't convert a hemisphere into a 2D plane, retaining the same distances, try it with a hat lol Smiley, so it's still not accurate at all.

Actually you can if you make the equator 1.5 times bigger lol. Like they have in the FE theory. I made a post about it. They cant explain why their equator distance doesnt match ours.

The equation proves that your hypothetical situation could be demonstrated by grand experimentation.  It does not prove the Earth is round.  The discrepancy is just that: it doesn't make the FE map incorrect simply because you assume the RE map correct.  That is pseudoscience. 

The equation doesn't proves anything.

However... Making a map based on the RE model would give distances in the southern hemisphere that are massively at odds with the distances experienced, particularly by air travel.

This would lead to the conclusion that something is very wrong with the model.

Any chance an FE'er could post a detailed FE map so we have something on which to base discussions.

I could do one but then I would open myself to straw man accusations.

@EvilToothpaste

Distance = Time * Velocity

This proves the Earth is round.

True. Unless you're implying the equation is wrong.

No, I've never been on a concord, and that's why I stated airplanes should never be mentioned on this forum, because the FE theory rejects them altogether anyway, so it doesn't matter what pictures I've seen or what I believe or what I've seen with my own eyes.

I use so many periods and make my sentences so convoluted, because people's criticism of obvious statements I make begin piling up, so I have to include more and more clarifications, which i initially considered implicit.

My situation is not hypothetical in any way and is being demonstrated constantly by everything that moves in the world. Saying it is states that distance does not equal time * velocity. I already stated that it does perfectly prove the Earth is round. Just stating it doesn't is unscientific.

I don't assume the RE is map is correct, I prove it by using the equation.

Pseudoscience is not based on evidence. The equation is irrefutable evidence the Earth is round.

You are correct about lenses imparting curvature (finally something scientific) - I was incorrect, I was trying to express that if there was a way to observe the horizon in greater detail, we would detect curvature, but of course there is no way to prove that (and that was my point when I said it).

Great, that was the ultimate going in circles and playing with semantics. Your points are rather philosophy-oriented and tend to pick on my wording, rather than on scientific evidence.

Get used to it, i have had to.

@Ski - Yes, I do have a road map that takes account for Earth's curvature. I don't think anyone's ever made a road map that depics the earth as flat, where did you get yours?

You have a map on which you can a draw a triangle and the sum of the angles of any triangle is always greater than 180° ?!?! Please provide it for me.

Okay, now we gotta distinguish between different mapping techniques. There is no way you can plot a map of the Earth on a 2D map without incurring discrepancies, but road maps and all maps are adjusted to take account of those discrepancies, that's why they are correct. They are BASED on the RE model, but are not an absolutely accurate depiction of a round earth. there is no map intended for modern use that is based on the FE model, then it would just be inaccurate (I wonder why).

There are 2D maps of earth, which when stretched form an ellipse and those are supposed to more accurately depict earth's curvature, and in those maps meridians dont run parallel to each other. there are maps that are rectangular maps, those are usually wall maps, and those are the ones where russia looks like it takes up half the world. they're only supposed to give you an idea of what the world looks like, they're like FE maps stretched both ways the way the FE map is stretched to the south.

Quote

you can't convert a hemisphere into a 2D plane, retaining the same distances, try it with a hat lol Smiley, so it's still not accurate at all.

Actually you can if you make the equator 1.5 times bigger lol. Like they have in the FE theory. I made a post about it. They cant explain why their equator distance doesnt match ours.

Here's how it works.

By doing some science/engineering/surveying RE'ers have figured out the dimensions of the earth.
This includes an equatorial circumference of 24,900 miles.

FE'ers have assumed this must be right (because urm.. I don't know).

If the equatorial circumference in RE is 24,900 miles then the radius of an FE must be 24,900 (because urm.. I don't know).

This gives an equatorial circumference in FE of 39,112 miles.

This makes the distances in the northern hemisphere where most westerners live about right, but distances towards the equator and in particular below it, way off.

It is not evidence.  It is not a proof. 

Distance = time * velocity:  Proof that relativity is wrong.  See what I did there? 

I agree. And the way to prove this is by using distance = time * veolcity. So the FE model is wrong, because it doesn't correspond to reality. (lol, but not really)

Thank you yuorealvinalarf.

And I really liked what you said about the Northern-centered nature of the FE. That has all kinds of implications... about which I'd rather not talk about right now...

I may have set up a straw man here.

Could any FE'er tell me the basis for the FAQ quoted number for FE radius.

FE'ers could have asserted that the FE equatorial circumference is 24,900miles (like RE).

That would have produced distances in the northern hemisphere that are much shorter than travel experience tells us.

Why do you suppose a figure is used that makes the distances wrong somewhere other than where the original FE'ers lived.

It is not evidence.  It is not a proof. 

Distance = time * velocity:  Proof that relativity is wrong.  See what I did there? 

No, I honestly did not see what you did there. Remember, we're talking about the Earth. You CANNOT bring up the special theory of relativity as an arguement coming from the perspective of a theory that assumes the stars orbit the Earth. And even if you do, the special theory of relativity only applies to speeds close to c. So, it really doesn't apply, but if you accommodate it for the conditions of the earth, it will also prove that the earth is round. So:

The special theory of relativity proves the Earth is round.

See what I did there?

Thank you yuorealvinalarf.

You're welcome.

I can't help thinking you would make your point more forcefully by not asserting the rather obtuse equation, but rather the implications of that to southern hemisphere travel.

Well, the equation is my proof... And I do agree that the implications for the Southern hemisphere are bigger, but the discrepancies with real size really do apply anywhere on Earth, besides along the equator, and I feel like this carries a stronger message... I don't know, you could be right. Thanks again

No, I honestly did not see what you did there. Remember, we're talking about the Earth. You CANNOT bring up the special theory of relativity as an arguement coming from the perspective of a theory that assumes the stars orbit the Earth. And even if you do, the special theory of relativity only applies to speeds close to c.

It was not an argument for or against the shape of the Earth.  I was simply using the same format of your "proof" to disprove relativity. 

Well, the equation is my proof... And I do agree that the implications for the Southern hemisphere are bigger, but the discrepancies with real size really do apply anywhere on Earth, besides along the equator, and I feel like this carries a stronger message... I don't know, you could be right. Thanks again

I'm gonna have to get a bit scientific here.

An equation is never proof.
Even in maths, equations can be proved, but the equation is not the proof.

While asserting such a thing you open yourself to argument/ridicule over what is fundamentally a side issue.

Even evidence is not proof, but it supports the validity of a hypothesis.

While asserting such a thing you open yourself to argument/ridicule over what is fundamentally a side issue.

But that's what these forums are all about!  (hope I didn't ruin the surprise)

Could any FE'er tell me the basis for the FAQ quoted number for FE radius.

I already have a thread on this, its unanswered obviously, as always. you have even posted in it lolz.

But no the FE equatorial distance isnt the same as the RE equatorial distance.

Equatorial Distances
RE = 24,900 miles
FE = 39,112 miles

Obviously the measured distance by engineers, pilots etc etc etc is 24,900 miles. The one that people use every day for navigating the world is 24,900 miles. But somehow FE'ers seem to think that there would be no problems with navigation, when the equatorial distance is an extra 14,212 miles.

Quote

Could any FE'er tell me the basis for the FAQ quoted number for FE radius.

I already have a thread on this, its unanswered obviously, as always. you have even posted in it lolz.

But no the FE equatorial distance isnt the same as the RE equatorial distance.

Equatorial Distances
RE = 24,900 miles
FE = 39,112 miles

Obviously the measured distance by engineers, pilots etc etc etc is 24,900 miles. The one that people use every day for navigating the world is 24,900 miles. But somehow FE'ers seem to think that there would be no problems with navigation, when the equatorial distance is an extra 14,212 miles.

Urm, I have quoted these figure myself just up the page.

My question was not what are the figures but how have they been come by.

On the basis of what data collection have these figures been produced.

Surely it is not a coincidence that they use the same number for one of the figures.

If the equatorial circumference in RE is 24,900 miles then the radius of an FE must be 24,900 (because urm.. I don't know).

This gives an equatorial circumference in RE of 39,112 miles.

No i think u stuffed it up, so i just made it clear. If you want to talk about this go do it in my thread, keep this one on topic i guess.

How they got their numbers is, took the RE equatorial circumference, assumed that was the same distance as twice the distance between the north and south pole (e.g. the FE diameter) then used the circumference equation, put in their diameter and got a circumference of the earth. They then ignored the fact that this changes the size of the equator, which we have a measurment for. FE made no measurements or recordings. All they needed was wikipedia and a calculator.