Time for a revision of the FAQ?

  • 35 Replies
  • 4442 Views
Re: Time for a revision of the FAQ?
« Reply #30 on: November 21, 2008, 02:02:40 PM »
Rigged instrumentation ,goldstein.

Okay, simple question that only requires a simple answer.

Why would anyone want to rig instrumentation to prove the world to be round rather than flat, if it is indeed flat?

Re: Time for a revision of the FAQ?
« Reply #31 on: November 21, 2008, 04:40:26 PM »
Quote
In answer to both questions: Every map maker (and not just the government sponsored ones either) prior to GPS for the last few thousand years...

If map makers have studied and demonstrated this, then why do the angles of triangles on their maps suggest that the earth is flat?
Well, if you make a 2D projection (ie draw a map on a piece of paper) of a 3D object, then of course you can draw a Euclidean triangle on it. But if you were then to try and map that onto the surface of the Earth (ie put down markers) then the "Straight" lines on the 2D Map will not be Straight lines in the Real World. Similarly, if you mark out a triangle on the surface of the Earth and copy this to the 2D map, you will find that what you thought as straight lines end up being curved. This is why the path of an aeroplane when drawn on a 2D map appears as curved. It is because in Non-Euclidean Space (ie the real world) the course that a plane takes is a Geodesic (shortest path between two points along a surface), but when projected onto a 2D (Euclidean Space) surface the result is a curved line.

Oh, and triangles on maps don't indicate that the Earth is flat. Can you show me a map where objects that make a (large enough) triangle on the surface of the Earth do not have their internal angles add up to 180 degrees?
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Time for a revision of the FAQ?
« Reply #32 on: November 21, 2008, 04:42:25 PM »
I don't think Tom understands the concept of a map projection.  :(
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Time for a revision of the FAQ?
« Reply #33 on: November 21, 2008, 05:16:42 PM »
Rigged instrumentation ,goldstein.

Okay, simple question that only requires a simple answer.

Why would anyone want to rig instrumentation to prove the world to be round rather than flat, if it is indeed flat?
Profit.

Re: Time for a revision of the FAQ?
« Reply #34 on: November 21, 2008, 06:01:25 PM »
Rigged instrumentation ,goldstein.

Okay, simple question that only requires a simple answer.

Why would anyone want to rig instrumentation to prove the world to be round rather than flat, if it is indeed flat?
Profit.
How?
Everyday household experimentation.

Re: Time for a revision of the FAQ?
« Reply #35 on: November 22, 2008, 04:59:05 AM »
Rigged instrumentation ,goldstein.

Okay, simple question that only requires a simple answer.

Why would anyone want to rig instrumentation to prove the world to be round rather than flat, if it is indeed flat?
Profit.

And exactly how would profit be gained by the 'lie' of the world being round? In what way could an organisation hope to gain finances by hiding the true nature of the world?

I realise that as a posting guest on a website dedicated to the world being flat, it is my choice to disprove or agree with what you believe. It would be incredible to imagine someone going onto the Vaticans website and asking them to prove that God exists, but at the same time, if you're going to answer questions relating to your belief, surely you can do better than a one word answer that makes little or no sense.

Scientifically and mathematically results can be skewed to answer even the most unbelievable claims, but motive is the truest test of the arguement. So far no-one can demonstrate that anyone would actually gain a thing by an elaborate conspiracy about the shape of our world.

Assuming that the people supplying this equipment in a rigged form where doing it for profit, would it not be logical to presume that even larger profits could be earned by a rival company who provided unrigged equipment? Think about it and you can't really argue sensibly with that logic.