differences in travelling distances

  • 3 Replies
  • 1615 Views
differences in travelling distances
« on: April 29, 2009, 12:12:18 PM »
I must confess I've been thinking about the flat earth theory quite a lot in the last days, and as an RE believer, I must say it is surprisingly solid. Yet, one question surfaced that I couldn't find an answer to in the FE theory. Therefore, I'd like to hear your take on the following.

Looking at the FE map of the world, it is obvious that the landmasses are being distorted quite heavily compared to the soil shown on the round globe of the RE folk. Thus, travelling distances and times should vary quite a lot (depending on where you go and where you came from though) between the systems. This is partly covered in the FAQ, which states that the simulated GPS has an inbuilt workaround that fools the electronic systems of planes and such about their actual position, thus, differences are being simulated when there actually are none.

However, there are systems that measure the length of my travel locally, such as the mile counter of my car. Since my car is not dictated by a global system and is incapable of working around actual travel distances since it doesn't know where I am or where I'm going, it displays the distances that are actually covered. These distances however only concur with the maps of the RE earth, but do not work with the FE model.

Does the FET have an explanation for this?

*

EnigmaZV

  • 3471
Re: differences in travelling distances
« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2009, 12:24:24 PM »
I must confess I've been thinking about the flat earth theory quite a lot in the last days, and as an RE believer, I must say it is surprisingly solid. Yet, one question surfaced that I couldn't find an answer to in the FE theory. Therefore, I'd like to hear your take on the following.

Looking at the FE map of the world, it is obvious that the landmasses are being distorted quite heavily compared to the soil shown on the round globe of the RE folk. Thus, travelling distances and times should vary quite a lot (depending on where you go and where you came from though) between the systems. This is partly covered in the FAQ, which states that the simulated GPS has an inbuilt workaround that fools the electronic systems of planes and such about their actual position, thus, differences are being simulated when there actually are none.

However, there are systems that measure the length of my travel locally, such as the mile counter of my car. Since my car is not dictated by a global system and is incapable of working around actual travel distances since it doesn't know where I am or where I'm going, it displays the distances that are actually covered. These distances however only concur with the maps of the RE earth, but do not work with the FE model.

Does the FET have an explanation for this?

Could we have some examples where you've measured the distances from one place to another on any map, and then traveled that distance in your car?  Also, do you know the OD of your tires?  Are they the same OD as OEM and properly inflated at all times?
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.

Re: differences in travelling distances
« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2009, 12:33:40 PM »
Could we have some examples where you've measured the distances from one place to another on any map, and then traveled that distance in your car?  Also, do you know the OD of your tires?  Are they the same OD as OEM and properly inflated at all times?

I've driven from my home in Germany through Denmark to Sweden for example, which was a tour of 854 kilometers (534 miles). My car was equipped with OEM tires, and I made sure they were properly inflated before I took up travelling. I compared the distances of specific points en route to the distances my car displayed, and they were extremely close.

On another note, may I take from your reply that you do not believe that actual distances concur with measured distances in general?

*

EnigmaZV

  • 3471
Re: differences in travelling distances
« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2009, 12:44:31 PM »
On another note, may I take from your reply that you do not believe that actual distances concur with measured distances in general?

I was just getting some formalities out of the way.  I personally believe that roads between cities and landmarks are too well traveled to be anything but the distance apart they're said to be.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who thinks differently.
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.