« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Distance and math

  • 83 Replies
  • 16731 Views
?

bingosherlock

  • 17
  • +0/-0
Distance and math
« on: September 12, 2008, 08:49:50 AM »
If the earth is flat, how come you need to use spherical geometry in order to accurately calculate the distance between two objects?  For instance, many "distance by zip code" applications are based on using the coordinates of the center of a zip code area and plugging them into something like the Haversine formula:

R = earth’s radius (mean radius = 6,371km)
Δlat = lat2− lat1
Δlong = long2− long1
a = sin²(Δlat/2) + cos(lat1).cos(lat2).sin²(Δlong/2)
c = 2.atan2(√a, √(1−a))
d = R.c

Since GPS data has been opened up to civilians and GPS data sources (by their very nature) overlap in area, it would be impossible to fake this data in a way that would produce the illusion of a sphere where there wasn't one.  This is compounded by the fact that you can verify the above data simply by walking between two coordinates and doing the math.

So you know, how does this fit into the FE way of life?

Logged
*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
  • +1/-0
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2008, 10:24:39 AM »
It's because the conspiracy wants to tell you that the Earth is round.  :-\

Those are conspiracy maths.
Logged
*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • +0/-0
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2008, 10:29:33 AM »
Trigonometry is all part of the conspiracy. Everything formula that uses sine, cosine, tangents etc. is essentially fake and does not really work. It just appears to work due to the illusions created by bendy maths. I'm surprised you didn't know this.
Logged
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 05, 2008, 12:45:49 PM
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.
?

jargo

  • 161
  • +0/-0
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2008, 10:40:04 AM »
Quote from: MadDogX on September 12, 2008, 10:29:33 AM
Trigonometry is all part of the conspiracy. Everything formula that uses sine, cosine, tangents etc. is essentially fake and does not really work. It just appears to work due to the illusions created by bendy maths. I'm surprised you didn't know this.

You can always draw latitudes and longitudes on a ball and check that sine cosine an tangets works fine when calulating position of point on the surface of that ball.
Logged
*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • +0/-0
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2008, 10:44:30 AM »
Quote from: jargo on September 12, 2008, 10:40:04 AM
Quote from: MadDogX on September 12, 2008, 10:29:33 AM
Trigonometry is all part of the conspiracy. Everything formula that uses sine, cosine, tangents etc. is essentially fake and does not really work. It just appears to work due to the illusions created by bendy maths. I'm surprised you didn't know this.

You can always draw latitudes and longitudes on a ball and check that sine cosine an tangets works fine when calulating position of point on the surface of that ball.


Do I really need to add "</sarcasm>" to the end of that post? Perhaps check my sig?
Logged
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 05, 2008, 12:45:49 PM
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.
?

jargo

  • 161
  • +0/-0
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2008, 10:50:17 AM »
Quote from: MadDogX on September 12, 2008, 10:44:30 AM
Do I really need to add "</sarcasm>" to the end of that post? Perhaps check my sig?

You never can't be sure with these flat earth theorists. :)
Logged
?

BlueThen

  • 52
  • +0/-0
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2008, 01:05:50 PM »
Come on people, this is the debate forum. Stop fooling around!
Logged
?

ghazwozza

  • 942
  • +0/-0
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2008, 02:18:50 PM »
Quote from: BlueThen on September 12, 2008, 01:05:50 PM
Come on people, this is the debate forum. Stop fooling around!

I agree, does anyone have any serious replies?
Logged
?

Rig Navigator

  • 808
  • +0/-0
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2008, 02:27:25 PM »
Quote from: ghazwozza on September 12, 2008, 02:18:50 PM
I agree, does anyone have any serious replies?

The math looks right to me.  It definitely is more complex than the math would be for calculating distances on a plane.
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18029
  • +3/-4
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2008, 01:20:01 AM »
Quote from: bingosherlock on September 12, 2008, 08:49:50 AM
If the earth is flat, how come you need to use spherical geometry in order to accurately calculate the distance between two objects?  For instance, many "distance by zip code" applications are based on using the coordinates of the center of a zip code area and plugging them into something like the Haversine formula:

R = earth’s radius (mean radius = 6,371km)
Δlat = lat2− lat1
Δlong = long2− long1
a = sin²(Δlat/2) + cos(lat1).cos(lat2).sin²(Δlong/2)
c = 2.atan2(√a, √(1−a))
d = R.c

Since GPS data has been opened up to civilians and GPS data sources (by their very nature) overlap in area, it would be impossible to fake this data in a way that would produce the illusion of a sphere where there wasn't one.  This is compounded by the fact that you can verify the above data simply by walking between two coordinates and doing the math.

So you know, how does this fit into the FE way of life?

I don't see any evidence in this post that spherical math is accurate for distances.
Logged
?

bingosherlock

  • 17
  • +0/-0
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2008, 08:35:10 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 13, 2008, 01:20:01 AM
I don't see any evidence in this post that spherical math is accurate for distances.

Mapping applications such as google maps or mapquest depend on it being accurate for distances.  The fact that GPSes can tell you how far you are from something is pretty good evidence, too.

But I guess the question is, can you figure out an accurate method for accurately calculating distance between two sets of coordinates without using non-Euclidean geometry?  I bet you can't.
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18029
  • +3/-4
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #11 on: September 13, 2008, 06:29:10 PM »
Quote from: bingosherlock on September 13, 2008, 08:35:10 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 13, 2008, 01:20:01 AM
I don't see any evidence in this post that spherical math is accurate for distances.

Mapping applications such as google maps or mapquest depend on it being accurate for distances.  The fact that GPSes can tell you how far you are from something is pretty good evidence, too.

But I guess the question is, can you figure out an accurate method for accurately calculating distance between two sets of coordinates without using non-Euclidean geometry?  I bet you can't.

I still don't see any evidence that spherical math is accurate for distances.
Logged
?

bingosherlock

  • 17
  • +0/-0
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2008, 07:57:00 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 13, 2008, 06:29:10 PM
I still don't see any evidence that spherical math is accurate for distances.

Next time you're on an airplane, you should use your champion argumentation skills to have the airline use Euclidean geometry instead of spherical geometry to plan the flight.  A trip from DCA to LAX will end with you landing somewhere in Arizona.

Seriously, if you're just going to avoid the evidence, like the fact that the entire world uses spherical geometry to calculate distances (and oddly enough, the fact that nobody has reported an inability to calculate distances accurately,) why do you even bother posting in the first place? 
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18029
  • +3/-4
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #13 on: September 13, 2008, 11:08:12 PM »
Quote
I still don't see any evidence that spherical math is accurate for distances.
Logged
*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • +0/-0
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #14 on: September 14, 2008, 04:02:55 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 13, 2008, 11:08:12 PM
Quote
I still don't see any evidence that spherical math is accurate for distances.

This evidence thing again...

Tom, can you show me any evidence that the flat earth math/maps are more accurate than the spherical math/maps that denote RET? Here's the flat earth map.


You run into a few obvious problems south of the equator.  The squeeze mostly... Even if you discount the squeeze, you still have the distance problem. Boats can't hit the jet stream, and even jets can't hit the jet stream both ways, and uphill no doubt... They're not my grandfather... That whole curved path thing is a sure indicator you bet on a sick horse, but I'm not here to judge. Really.




This is a long way from accurate, due to scope and perspective, but it's a lot closer to real world distances than any FE map could ever come. How come my 15 minutes in gimp is closer to real world distance than FET Tom?

So show me up... If you can show me that distance measurements using Flat Earth math/maps can be as accurate, or more accurate than the collective worlds RE knowledge you win Tom.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 04:55:20 AM by AmateurAstronomer »
Logged
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18029
  • +3/-4
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #15 on: September 14, 2008, 04:16:05 AM »
I never made the claim that those FE maps were accurate. No FE'er made the claim that that map was accurate for the area and distances between continents. No one charted those maps first hand. Most of those FE maps are just Azimuthal projections of the Mercator map. Everyone accepts that.

However, you guys made the claim that your RE spherical geometry is accurate. You'll need to prove your claim.

Still waiting for that evidence...
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 04:21:23 AM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • +0/-0
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #16 on: September 14, 2008, 04:30:29 AM »
Why do we have to prove our RE map, but you're still waiting for the research to get done on your FE map? Regardless of what you think of our FE maps, if you cannot put forth a FE map, then don't ever even think of asking me for anything at all. Stop being lazy and get busy with the cartography.

You personally made the claim that your FE geometry is more accurate. You'll need to prove your claim.

Still waiting for that evidence...
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 04:35:56 AM by AmateurAstronomer »
Logged
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18029
  • +3/-4
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #17 on: September 14, 2008, 05:05:57 AM »
Quote
Why do we have to prove our RE map, but you're still waiting for the research to get done on your FE map?

Because we don't claim to have an accurate map. You do. You'll need to prove your claim.

Where's the evidence?
Logged
?

ghazwozza

  • 942
  • +0/-0
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #18 on: September 14, 2008, 05:14:52 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2008, 05:05:57 AM
Quote
Why do we have to prove our RE map, but you're still waiting for the research to get done on your FE map?

Because we don't claim to have an accurate map. You do. You'll need to prove your claim.

Where's the evidence?

What sort of evidence would you like? How about a list of shippings and flights that arrived on time? Or a list of railways that were built that weren't held up by ordering the wrong amount of track? Or maps of deep-sea fibre-optic cables that were the correct length?

Would any of these do as proof? Because I'm not going to bother finding them if you'll just reject them as some mad "conspiracy".
Logged
*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • +0/-0
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #19 on: September 14, 2008, 05:16:12 AM »
For one thing, I don't use Azimuthal projections to make FE maps, I use polar coordinate compression. It's much cleaner.

Second, here's your hero's map, and one of mine Tom.



Other than his obvious ballooning of New Zealand, and use of 17'th century maps, do you see any major problems with my map, and the only map that has ever been put forth by FET?

Thirdly, If you cannot accept that we might require proof from you in return for proof from us, then It's my belief we should treat any future entreaties with you as if we were dealing with a spoiled child...

You need to meet our reasoning half way. That is only fair.

« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 05:19:47 AM by AmateurAstronomer »
Logged
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.
?

bingosherlock

  • 17
  • +0/-0
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #20 on: September 14, 2008, 06:30:15 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2008, 05:05:57 AM
Quote
Why do we have to prove our RE map, but you're still waiting for the research to get done on your FE map?

Because we don't claim to have an accurate map. You do. You'll need to prove your claim.

Where's the evidence?

I can fly non-stop from IAD to JNB (Washington DC to Johannesburg, South Africa) in 15 hours and 10 minutes  (United flight 4590, operated by South African Airlines)

I can then fly non-stop from Johannesburg to Perth, Australia in 9 hours and 35 minutes.  (South African Airways flight 280)

There have been no flat map projections that make this possible.
Logged
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #21 on: September 14, 2008, 06:32:28 AM »
Quote from: bingosherlock on September 14, 2008, 06:30:15 AM
There have been no flat map projections that make this possible.

The FAQ already has this explanation.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • +0/-0
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #22 on: September 14, 2008, 06:36:51 AM »
Quote from: divito the truthist on September 14, 2008, 06:32:28 AM
Quote from: bingosherlock on September 14, 2008, 06:30:15 AM
There have been no flat map projections that make this possible.

The FAQ already has this explanation.

I can't argue with the FAQ though. Why don't you tell us and stand behind what the FAQ says? You going to go the jet stream both ways route?

Quoted for the new page...
Quote from: AmateurAstronomer on September 14, 2008, 05:16:12 AM
For one thing, I don't use Azimuthal projections to make FE maps, I use polar coordinate compression. It's much cleaner.

Second, here's your hero's map, and one of mine Tom.



Other than his obvious ballooning of New Zealand, and use of 17'th century maps, do you see any major problems with my map, and the only map that has ever been put forth by FET?

Thirdly, If you cannot accept that we might require proof from you in return for proof from us, then It's my belief we should treat any future entreaties with you as if we were dealing with a spoiled child...

You need to meet our reasoning half way. That is only fair.


Logged
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.
?

bingosherlock

  • 17
  • +0/-0
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #23 on: September 14, 2008, 06:40:16 AM »
Quote from: divito the truthist on September 14, 2008, 06:32:28 AM
Quote from: bingosherlock on September 14, 2008, 06:30:15 AM
There have been no flat map projections that make this possible.

The FAQ already has this explanation.

No it doesn't.  The FAQ doesn't say much more than "MAKE A MAP?  BUT MAKING MAPS IS HARD!  WE TRIED BUT IT DIDNT WORK"

You'd think that FE would be able to at least figure out the positions of continents relative to each other given the endless ways there are to measure such things.  I don't even want an accurate map, I just want a loose approximation based on things like flight times, sunrise times, etc
Logged
*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • +0/-0
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #24 on: September 14, 2008, 06:53:27 AM »
Quote from: bingosherlock on September 14, 2008, 06:40:16 AM
Quote from: divito the truthist on September 14, 2008, 06:32:28 AM
Quote from: bingosherlock on September 14, 2008, 06:30:15 AM
There have been no flat map projections that make this possible.

The FAQ already has this explanation.

No it doesn't.  The FAQ doesn't say much more than "MAKE A MAP?  BUT MAKING MAPS IS HARD!  WE TRIED BUT IT DIDNT WORK"

Damn... I've never seen it put that simply, but that's it to a T. Rowbowtham had a map, but we questioned it into the ground, and even if they decide to revise continent borders the distance issue is still going to drive it even further into the ground.

If they can't map the flat earth, the notion of a flat earth becomes a novelty.
Logged
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #25 on: September 14, 2008, 07:03:06 AM »
Quote from: bingosherlock on September 14, 2008, 06:40:16 AM
No it doesn't.

Perhaps rereading it will allow you to find your mistake.

Hint: I was never talking about a map projection.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • +0/-0
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #26 on: September 14, 2008, 07:11:10 AM »
Quote from: divito the truthist on September 14, 2008, 07:03:06 AM
Quote from: bingosherlock on September 14, 2008, 06:40:16 AM
No it doesn't.

Perhaps rereading it will allow you to find your mistake.

Hint: I was never talking about a map projection.

Damn man, Can't you just tell him what you mean?

You really think re-reading the FAQ's will profit him in any way? Couldn't you just stop being passive aggressive and actually state your side of this particular argument?

Do you have an opinion? Do you care to share it? Are you going to take the party line?
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 07:15:34 AM by AmateurAstronomer »
Logged
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #27 on: September 14, 2008, 07:32:22 AM »
Quote from: AmateurAstronomer on September 14, 2008, 07:11:10 AM
You really think re-reading the FAQ's will profit him in any way?

I'd hope so; reading is quite fundamental in life. If he is prone to skip over things, or to not comprehend their meaning, do you think he will always receive handouts?
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • +0/-0
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #28 on: September 14, 2008, 07:40:57 AM »
Quote from: divito the truthist on September 14, 2008, 07:32:22 AM
Quote from: AmateurAstronomer on September 14, 2008, 07:11:10 AM
You really think re-reading the FAQ's will profit him in any way?

I'd hope so; reading is quite fundamental in life. If he is prone to skip over things, or to not comprehend their meaning, do you think he will always receive handouts?

I see you took the party line...

Ok then, what did he skip over, what did he miss relating to his argument? His argument I think was that you can fly in @9 hours from South Africa to Perth AU on a conventional aircraft. Are you taking the jet stream boost explanation? What about return trip?
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 08:20:40 AM by AmateurAstronomer »
Logged
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #29 on: September 14, 2008, 08:22:05 AM »
Hint: Flights are curved in both models.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
« previous next »