• 98 Replies
• 22842 Views
?

RenaissanceMan

« on: July 01, 2006, 03:20:05 PM »
Adelaide and Sydney are cities in Australia. One is located at about 138.5 degrees east longitude and the other about 151 degrees east longitude. Both cities are within 1 degree of 34.5 degrees south latitude.

According to the round earth model, these cities should be about 715 miles apart. On the flat earth model, they should be over 2000 miles apart.

Who lives in Australia and can tell me how far apart these cities actually are?

TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2006, 03:52:34 PM »
I don't believe the FE model distorts the relative size of continents.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

RenaissanceMan

« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2006, 03:55:38 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
I don't believe the FE model distorts the relative size of continents.

Then can you explain the apparent discrepancy in the distance between these two cities? Lines of longitude are not arbitrary, there are a result of the observation of the sun.

TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2006, 04:00:19 PM »
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
I don't believe the FE model distorts the relative size of continents.

Then can you explain the apparent discrepancy in the distance between these two cities? Lines of longitude are not arbitrary, there are a result of the observation of the sun.

Did you even read the quote?  Go out and measure the distance - It will be the same on the FE.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

RenaissanceMan

« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2006, 04:05:14 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
I don't believe the FE model distorts the relative size of continents.

Then can you explain the apparent discrepancy in the distance between these two cities? Lines of longitude are not arbitrary, there are a result of the observation of the sun.

Did you even read the quote?  Go out and measure the distance - It will be the same on the FE.

Obviously, I can't just go out and measure it. However, I can calculate it. And I calculate it to be over 2000 miles using the flat earth model.

So, is the model wrong, or is the distance between those two cities over 2000 miles?

TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2006, 04:12:32 PM »
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"

Obviously, I can't just go out and measure it. However, I can calculate it. And I calculate it to be over 2000 miles using the flat earth model.

So, is the model wrong, or is the distance between those two cities over 2000 miles?

Your calculations are based on a government system, therefore, in the FE, wrong.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

RenaissanceMan

« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2006, 04:18:18 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"

Obviously, I can't just go out and measure it. However, I can calculate it. And I calculate it to be over 2000 miles using the flat earth model.

So, is the model wrong, or is the distance between those two cities over 2000 miles?

Your calculations are based on a government system, therefore, in the FE, wrong.

Is that right. My calculations are based on the longitude and latitude of the cities. these values are based on the apparent position of the sun and the measurement of time. These things are measurable by anyone.

Same question, is the FE model wrong, or is the distance between these cities over 2000 miles?

TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2006, 04:32:04 PM »
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"

these values are based on the apparent position of the sun and the measurement of time.

Uh, no.  Latitude and longitude are not relative to the sun.  Longitude is relative to an arbitrary point on the Earth's surface.  This point is the Royal Observatory in Greenwich (UK), which designates the Prime Meridian, or zero longitude.  Latitude is relative to the equator.  So the coordinates of any point  is it's relation to TRO in Greenwich and the equator.

Quote
My calculations are based on the longitude and latitude of the cities.

Like I said, your calculations are based on a system developed by the governments keeping the secret, therefore, the numbers must be suspect.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

RenaissanceMan

« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2006, 04:41:34 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"

these values are based on the apparent position of the sun and the measurement of time.

Uh, no.  Latitude and longitude are not relative to the sun.  Longitude is relative to an arbitrary point on the Earth's surface.  This point is the Royal Observatory in Greenwich (UK), which designates the Prime Meridian, or zero longitude.  Latitude is relative to the equator.  So the coordinates of any point  is it's relation to TRO in Greenwich and the equator.

Quote
My calculations are based on the longitude and latitude of the cities.

Like I said, your calculations are based on a system developed by the governments keeping the secret, therefore, the numbers must be suspect.

Longitude is calculated from the apparent position of the sun measured in time. It's zero reference is the Royal Observatory in Greenwich (UK).  How do YOU think longitude is measured?

?

Mephistopheles

• 892
« Reply #9 on: July 01, 2006, 06:23:09 PM »
Why would the distances be different, RenaissanceMan?
ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
« Reply #10 on: July 01, 2006, 06:40:45 PM »
Quote
How do YOU think longitude is measured?

A rough esimate can be made using the sun and a watch.  However, the values are relative to a 360 degree system, not the movement of the sun.  The sun moves about 15 degrees an hour so in 24 hours = 360 degrees.
Longitude is still measured in relation to TRO.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

RenaissanceMan

« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2006, 07:29:45 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote
How do YOU think longitude is measured?

A rough esimate can be made using the sun and a watch.  However, the values are relative to a 360 degree system, not the movement of the sun.  The sun moves about 15 degrees an hour so in 24 hours = 360 degrees.
Longitude is still measured in relation to TRO.

Ok, so you accept that the sun moves 360 degrees (1 rotation) in 24 hours, making it's apparent movement over the earth at 15 degrees per hour? How do you think the estimate is 'rough'? The sun moves at an EXACT rate, does it not? Has this not been observed for thousands of years?

?

RenaissanceMan

« Reply #12 on: July 02, 2006, 02:40:50 AM »
Noone lives in Sydney or Adelaide and knows how far it is to the other city?

Like I said, it's easy to calculate what the difference would be on the flat earth based on the latitude and longitude of the two points. Unfortunately, that calculation is off by a huge margin when compared to maps people actually use to get around.

Any two points south of the equator will demonstrate that the flat earth model cannot be correct. the further south you go, the more extreme the error becomes.

TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
« Reply #13 on: July 02, 2006, 10:33:41 AM »
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote
How do YOU think longitude is measured?

A rough esimate can be made using the sun and a watch.  However, the values are relative to a 360 degree system, not the movement of the sun.  The sun moves about 15 degrees an hour so in 24 hours = 360 degrees.
Longitude is still measured in relation to TRO.

Ok, so you accept that the sun moves 360 degrees (1 rotation) in 24 hours, making it's apparent movement over the earth at 15 degrees per hour? How do you think the estimate is 'rough'? The sun moves at an EXACT rate, does it not? Has this not been observed for thousands of years?

In order to get an EXACT number, you have to know the EXACT position of the sun and the EXACT time at Greenwich.  Your numbers can only be as accurate as your least accurate measurement.
Anyway, longitude is not relative to the sun, you can just use it to get an idea of your position.
Again, the FE doesn't distort the relative size of continents.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

RenaissanceMan

« Reply #14 on: July 02, 2006, 11:15:48 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
In order to get an EXACT number, you have to know the EXACT position of the sun and the EXACT time at Greenwich.  Your numbers can only be as accurate as your least accurate measurement.
Anyway, longitude is not relative to the sun, you can just use it to get an idea of your position.
Again, the FE doesn't distort the relative size of continents.

Perhaps you've missed the developments in clock technology in the last 100 years. You can obtain, and for very low cost, incredibly precise and portable clocks that are more than capable of this measurement.

Do the math. The error in the flat earth model south of the equator isn't trivial. It's a factor of about 2.5 times actual in Australia, and even higher in locations further south.

TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2006, 12:51:06 PM »
Quote
Since there are 24 hours in a day and 360 degrees in a circle, the sun moves 15 degrees per hour (360°/24 hours = 15° per hour). So if the time zone a person is in is three hours ahead of UTC then that person is near 45° longitude (3 hours × 15° per hour = 45°). The word near was used because the point might not be at the center of the time zone; also the time zones are defined politically, so their centers and boundaries often do not lie on meridians at multiples of 15°. In order to perform this calculation, however, a person needs to have a chronometer (watch) set to UTC and needs to determine local time by solar observation or astronomical observation. The details are more complex than described here

Notice this is not an exact measurement.
Also, perhaps you missed this part:
Quote

Like I said, your calculations are based on a system developed by the governments keeping the secret, therefore, the numbers must be suspect.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

• 551
« Reply #16 on: July 02, 2006, 12:55:51 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"

these values are based on the apparent position of the sun and the measurement of time.

Uh, no.  Latitude and longitude are not relative to the sun.  Longitude is relative to an arbitrary point on the Earth's surface.  This point is the Royal Observatory in Greenwich (UK), which designates the Prime Meridian, or zero longitude.  Latitude is relative to the equator.  So the coordinates of any point  is it's relation to TRO in Greenwich and the equator.

Quote
My calculations are based on the longitude and latitude of the cities.

Like I said, your calculations are based on a system developed by the governments keeping the secret, therefore, the numbers must be suspect.

Actually anyone looking at the FE model of the earth could calculate this with a simple ruler and knowledge of the conversion of inch to number of miles. the FE model does distort the earth and doesn't match the reality that actually exists. The one where I can fly from south america to austrailia via antartica in 9 hours. No flat earth model would allow me to do this in less then 20 hours.

It's funny that instead of admitting FE theory cannot explain the distortions of the model, they try to get into an arguement about the validity of latiude and longitude, as if they have anything to do with measuring distances between 2 points.

?

RenaissanceMan

« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2006, 01:27:46 PM »
Distances can be easily verified. If I drive an average of 60 miles and hour for 4 hours, how far will I go? about 240 miles?

Position can be readily verified with a good clock, some know how and a simple device to measure the sun's angle. It's not rocket science controlled by the 'conspiracy' simple sailors could do it a hundred years ago. The only difference now is that time pieces are so much more accurate.

According to Hammond, the map people, it's 740 miles from Adelaide, Australia to Sydney, Australia. There are roads connecting them, since you have to drive on a road... it's probably an 800 or so mile trip.

Using simple math, I calculate that the distance between those two cities on the flat earth model is 1878 miles. This discrepancy is HUGE. Way more huge than a simple discrepancy can account for... only a catastrophic failure of the flat earth model can explain this.

The cities are 12.5 degrees longitude apart, and are on the 34.5 degree south latitude, So on a flat earth 24,900 miles in diameter, they are situated about 8611 miles from the north pole and 1878 miles apart.

It must be REALLY hard to keep the Ausies snowed, huh?

TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2006, 01:38:10 PM »
How many times does it have to be said?!?  The FE doesn't distort the size of the continents!  Their position...well that's another matter.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

RenaissanceMan

« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2006, 01:55:23 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
How many times does it have to be said?!?  The FE doesn't distort the size of the continents!  Their position...well that's another matter.

It quite apparently does, and by a factor of 2.54 at a latitude of 34.5 south.

?

RenaissanceMan

« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2006, 04:09:17 PM »
Allow me to explain how the lines of Longitude start generating such errors in the flat earth model.

First, look at the FAQ, the flat earth model is a disk 24,900 miles in diameter, with an equator at half that distance. The equator, then, forms a circle 12450 miles in diameter, with a circumference of 39,112 miles.

Comparing this with the round earth, you see the first discrepancy. The circumference of the equator is off. The round earth is only 25,000 miles in circumference. Why not make the flat earth model have the same equatorial diameter? The fact is, The height of society in Samuel Rowbotham's day lived in Europe and the United States, so the model is most accurate there.

We continue with the flat earth model.

Lines of longitude extend from the north pole to the Ice Wall, there are 360 degrees of longitude equally spaced around the disk. So, at the north pole they all bunch up, and at the Ice Wall, they are as far apart as possible. In fact, each degree of longitude at the Ice Wall is 217.3 miles apart (78225 (diameter of the ice wall) / 360). And at the equator they're only 109.6 miles apart.At any point on the disk, the distance can be calculated between degrees of longitude through simple math.

The cities of Adelaide, Australia and Sydney, Australia are 12.5 degrees of longitude apart, and are at a latitude of 34.5 degrees south of the equator. Do the math, the distance netween them should be 1878 miles. But maps of Australia don't agree with that by a HUGE margin, they place the cities at 740 miles apart.

People in Australia use those maps every day. They would notice such a discrepancy.

?

RenaissanceMan

« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2006, 08:18:05 PM »
Quote from: TheEngineer
Again, the FE doesn't distort the relative size of continents.

It most clearly does. Do you want me to go over the math again?

?

Chaltier

• The Elder Ones
• 173
« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2006, 08:30:54 PM »
Why are you saying that FE cannot be correct because it doesn't match up with an RE-reliant number?

Let me reverse your logic for you, giving you the benefit of the doubt on your distance calculations: On the flat Earth, the distance between Adelaide and Sydney is over 2000 miles apart. On the RE model, they'd be only 715 miles apart. This disproves the round Earth theory.

--Chal

?

CrimsonKing

• 1621
« Reply #23 on: July 03, 2006, 08:35:28 PM »
Well Chal, all you need to do is see how long it takes something to get there, and figure out how fast that thing was going (i personally suggest a plane ride, its quite easy to do) and from that, you can easily figure out distance, simple simple physics formulae
he man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.

?

RenaissanceMan

« Reply #24 on: July 03, 2006, 08:50:41 PM »
Quote from: "Chaltier"
Why are you saying that FE cannot be correct because it doesn't match up with an RE-reliant number?

Let me reverse your logic for you, giving you the benefit of the doubt on your distance calculations: On the flat Earth, the distance between Adelaide and Sydney is over 2000 miles apart. On the RE model, they'd be only 715 miles apart. This disproves the round Earth theory.

--Chal

Obvious flaw, maps used for commerce and travel would be hideously wrong as they show the distance to be MUCH shorter than actual. People actually LIVING in Australia and attempting to travel and do commerce there would notice such a grievous difference.

I'm not saying FE CANNOT be correct, I'm saying FE APPEARS to not be correct because of these blatant errors in distance calculation. People LIVE there, don't you think they would notice this?

I'd LOVE to hear a good explanation as to why my calculations are somehow wrong.

?

Rick_James

• The Elder Ones
• 4311
• Rick <3 Gayer
lollerskates
« Reply #25 on: July 03, 2006, 09:27:55 PM »
As someone actually living in Australia, I can honestly say that the exact distance between Sydney and Adelaide is..........

HAH! and you thought i would prove the point either way forever! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
little do you guys know that there is no Sydney or Adelaide - it's all made up! We made it up as part of the AUSpiracy to make the rest of the world think we're dumb and stupid and not worth worrying about, when really we run this crazy little planet of ours. (DOn't worry we're much better at conspiracy hiding than the good ol FES)
one more thing before I go, as an aussie I can say with good authority that world is not only flat, it's a triangular shape.
Please feel free to debate further - just don't come to australia.  :shock:

?

quixotic

• 1607
• Im a mushroomcloudlayin motherfucker, motherfucker
« Reply #26 on: July 03, 2006, 09:36:23 PM »
Are you all mentally challenged???

How can any of you sit there and say this crap when NONE of you are from Australia. Do not debate this crap when you do not have a basis to your argument.

Living in Melbourne, Australia, I can definitely tell you that Adeliade is NOT 2000 miles away from Sydney. For a start it would be kilometers, secondly, have you ever even looked at a map of Australia you spoon whallopers....i mean seriously, do u know where Adelaide is??

This is poor....

If the world was flat....why dont we just fold ourselves into a plane and fly to another solar system??

feasible much??

Like...O M G ! ! ! He is, like, totally using the gun as like some kind of sexual weapon. O M G ! ! That is like, totally awesome! ! !

?

CrimsonKing

• 1621
« Reply #27 on: July 03, 2006, 09:38:11 PM »
quixotic, can you read, or do you just post shit without that little skill, saying it is not 2000 miles is ok... but telling us to look at a map is just dumb

oh and by the way, the units used do not actually change the distance, in case you have no grasp of numbers also
he man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.

Desu

• 742
• yaranaika.
« Reply #28 on: July 03, 2006, 09:40:35 PM »
Quote from: "quixotic"
Are you all mentally challenged???

How can any of you sit there and say this crap when NONE of you are from Australia. Do not debate this crap when you do not have a basis to your argument.

Living in Melbourne, Australia, I can definitely tell you that Adeliade is NOT 2000 miles away from Sydney. For a start it would be kilometers, secondly, have you ever even looked at a map of Australia you spoon whallopers....i mean seriously, do u know where Adelaide is??

This is poor....

If the world was flat....why dont we just fold ourselves into a plane and fly to another solar system??

feasible much??

I really hope you're trolling, and not that ill-informed.
Quote from: sam712
It must suck living in Richmond.
Since June 2006.

?

RenaissanceMan

« Reply #29 on: July 03, 2006, 09:47:52 PM »
Quote from: "quixotic"
Are you all mentally challenged???

How can any of you sit there and say this crap when NONE of you are from Australia. Do not debate this crap when you do not have a basis to your argument.

Living in Melbourne, Australia, I can definitely tell you that Adeliade is NOT 2000 miles away from Sydney. For a start it would be kilometers, secondly, have you ever even looked at a map of Australia you spoon whallopers....i mean seriously, do u know where Adelaide is??

This is poor....

If the world was flat....why dont we just fold ourselves into a plane and fly to another solar system??

feasible much??

Dude! Calm down!

Here's the deal. Looking at a map, I can clearly see that the distance between the two cities is 740 miles.

My POINT is that the FE model, calculated for the location of Adelaine and Sydney, positions the two cities at 1878 miles apart. CLEARLY, either calculations based on the FE model are wrong, or the map is wrong.

You live in Australia. What is the actual distance between Adelaide and Sydney?