Why are the countries on the FET map so distorted?

Quote from: whocares on April 15, 2010, 11:12:37 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 14, 2010, 03:02:49 PM

You have consistently failed to answer any of my questions in this thread. So until you get down off your perch and answer them, we have nothing more to talk about. Good day.

All your questions were answered. Stop posting.

Where? Please show me, because you obviously know what you're talking about.

Give up Wilmore, haven't you realised we're not listening to you any more and you're talking to yourself? Everyone else in here thinks the questions have been answered. Therefore your yapping for answers becomes an irrelevance.

This thread needs to be locked.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 16, 2010, 02:32:59 PM

Give up Wilmore, haven't you realised we're not listening to you any more and you're talking to yourself? Everyone else in here thinks the questions have been answered. Therefore your yapping for answers becomes an irrelevance.

Well, you're obviously still listening to me. Also, everyone? So far I see you, and some guy with 11 posts who obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.


If you're so confident that you've answered my questions, then please show me the answers, because I keep going through the thread and all I can see are the posts where I repeat my questions. I can't see any answers.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 03, 2010, 11:03:33 AM

Quote from: 004forever on April 03, 2010, 10:39:56 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 03, 2010, 09:57:01 AM

How do you know its distorted?

because we've had accurate maps of those locations for hundreds of years.  We know how Australia and these other landmasses are shaped and they are not shaped like that.  There was no NASA or global conspiracy to hide the true shape of the land.  Your map fails.  Go back and try again

Again, how do you know? How do you know the maps you have are accurate? All I see are baseless statements.

Because we have the ability to fly over these countries.  We can look down and be able to determine whether or not it looks like the map. 

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 03, 2010, 11:03:33 AM

Quote from: 004forever on April 03, 2010, 10:39:56 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 03, 2010, 09:57:01 AM

How do you know its distorted?

because we've had accurate maps of those locations for hundreds of years.  We know how Australia and these other landmasses are shaped and they are not shaped like that.  There was no NASA or global conspiracy to hide the true shape of the land.  Your map fails.  Go back and try again

Again, how do you know? How do you know the maps you have are accurate? All I see are baseless statements.

Well first of all, NZ being quite small and yet large enough to prove a point. In aviation we use a conical projection to find our way around. While this has it's distortions, each map only shows about an 8th of the whole country. None of the maps actually join at the seam properly because they are all created around a central point.

My point being, they get me places perfectly damn fine and are the most accurate way of getting places. NZ isn't shaped like a boot as your 'maps' show because by putting two and two together, a large scale mash up of ALL of these conical projections gives us the correct and proper shape that every other image shows.

The same can be said for any other landmass. Get a map, if it takes you here rather than there, it is correct and probably doesn't match any FET map.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 03, 2010, 09:57:01 AM

How do you know its distorted?

I KNOW. Spent my entire life sailing the oceans of this planet. Your map is extremely way out. Now what would it take to convince you of that, apart from that thousands of vessels sail the same journey every day. And please don't refer me to FAQ - it's bs.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 03, 2010, 06:42:23 PM

Quote from: 004forever on April 03, 2010, 06:36:54 PM

any map drawn on a flat piece of paper is going to have distortions.  The smaller the area, the less distortions it will have (a map of your town will have very small negligible distortions and a map of the entire world will have some more serious distortions usually at the poles).  The reason for this is addressed in RET.  A map of a sphere cannot be perfectly mapped onto a flat surface(imagine trying to flatten an orange peel on a table without cutting or stretching some part of it). 

But, we can draw maps of smaller areas fairly accurately(imagine flattening a 2 square cm piece of orange peel on the table).  Is it perfect?  No, but it's very close.  The FET map?  not at all.

Yes, but all of that assumes that the Earth is round. Making bald statements along the lines of 'FE maps are wrong because they're not globes' isn't much of an argument.


Given that you have now conceded that RE maps are distorted, let me repeat my question in a somewhat modified form: how do you know that FE maps are distorted?

Quote from: 004forever on April 03, 2010, 06:40:07 PM

A map of a country will be fairly accurate no matter which theory you operate under.  So we can use these maps of smaller areas as a starting reference point. 

Your maps deviate very far from the accuracy starting point.  Our globes do not. 

Evidence please.

Goddammit,

This, is Australia


This map will be fairly accurate in both FET and RET theories.  We've known this shape for a very long time. 

This is Australia on a globe



Note the similar shape

This is a FET map.



Note the fact that they DO NOT look the same.

Any questions?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 04, 2010, 09:44:14 AM

Yes: why do you assume that the first two are correct? Again, evidence.

Did you not realise that no assumptions were made?

An accurate close range model of australia (within margin of error for both FE and RE was used) and compared to both the RE globe model and the FE "UN flag approximation" model to determine which was more accurate on a large scale.

I know current maps are accurate.

1. If they weren't air travel would be really hard since that 1,000 mile trip would not put you where you expect.  No road signs at 35,000 feet.

2. The FE maps are RE maps distorted to fit a disk.  But it can't be a real map since no FEer knows the size of the Earth.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 04, 2010, 09:44:14 AM

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 03, 2010, 06:57:36 PM

No it doesn't. Corrections are made to get around the distortions and use a RE so as to not get lost in real life

Seems like there are still problems with RE maps. Not seeing how any of this is evidence against current FE maps.

Taking a globe with you to navigate with doesn't seem like a very viable means of navigating.

If the earth were flat, no distortions would occur, you wouldn't need to make corrections and get to your destination easy. No map does this. No single map can exist without any sort of [perfectly explainable and acceptable] form of distortion. How do you propose maps and navigation work without any distortions what-so-ever?

A good point to make here is that the RE world map is also a flattened image and is only good for for showing were countries and oceans are in relation to each other. And in fact most maps are just that. Means to show how to get from A-B.  But Pilots and Seamen use different mapping systems. They have to know exactly what distances are from A-B. You can't easily refuel in the air or at sea if you get that stuff wrong.

Given that it's relatively easy to measure the earth these days and make a map, this above anything else will always undermine FET. It will never be possible to produce a researched FE map....because the moment FE'ers go out there to measure the world for themselves they will come to the same conclusions as Columbus and those other explorer's all those centuries ago.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 06, 2010, 05:16:42 AM

As we've already pointed out, RE maps are distorted, yet it doesn't seem to cause any problems.

There.

RE maps are only distorted when you make them onto a flat plane.

In other words, flat maps cannot accurately map the Earth without distorting it.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 06, 2010, 05:52:33 AM

Again: How do you know?

Do you read anything I post? I've pointed out above how nautical maps ARE completely accurate and how Gnomonic projection is used to make them so. Gnomonic projection is essential (because the world is round). What part of 'shipping can not tolerate incorrect maps' don't you understand? Every country does Hydrographic surveys. I'm in a job because shipping maps have to be always up to date. You can't mess around with the shape of the earth when you are sending thousands of vessels every day accross oceans that will kill them if those maps are wrong. I know what I'm talking about here.

FE will NEVER produce a map that they can prove is accurate...never never never. On the other hand RE has produced maps for centuries that ARE absolutely accurate to the mile sailed. The problem here is that none of these FE'ers are sailors. They look at a road map and of course that can get them from A-B without being absolutely correct because they just have to follow the road. At sea there are NO roads. Navigation relys on a host of things that are orbitting and round. You won't find a single mariner in the entire world that thinks the earth can be flat.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 06, 2010, 11:29:09 AM

Completely accurate, yet distorted?

DUH how else can you show a 3D globe on a flat plane, other than by putting a grid reference replicatiing the curve of the earth? We do have globes as well and 3D Computer animated maps now too if the mathematical accuracy of nautical mapping really is beyond your comprehension. The ship has to sail on a 3D surface. The map has to be right to enable to them to do that. You are just irritating now. You know perfectly well what I'm talking about but refuse to acknowledge it.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 06, 2010, 11:29:09 AM

Quote from: Catchpa on April 06, 2010, 07:48:24 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 06, 2010, 05:52:33 AM

Again: How do you know?

The burden of (dis)proof lies at you, because everyday navigation tools rely on RE. Nothing relies on FE.

Everyday navigation relies on distorted maps, not globes.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 06, 2010, 09:59:32 AM

*facepalm*
Do you read what other people post? Do you read any of mine? Really?

Not only have I read your posts, I asked you a question about them. You haven't answered...

Quote from: EarthISroundISproven on April 06, 2010, 10:44:24 AM

Do you read anything I post? I've pointed out above how nautical maps ARE completely accurate

Completely accurate, yet distorted?

Ugh...
This is not rocket science man.

All maps are distorted to some degree.  The more surface area you try to show on a 2D map, the larger the distortions. 
The trick is to have a lot of maps with small surface areas so the distortions don't cause significant problems.

Now, if the Earth was flat, there would be 0 distortions regardless of the size of the area you're trying to look at.

But for travel to be accurate and occur, distances need to be accurate.  Flying from New York to Oslo, Norway is about 3,777 miles.  A single flat map showing this area(upper Atlantic, lower Arctic Circle) would not be accurate.  But because we know this, we can compensate and use the mapping techniques discussed earlier.
If the Earth were flat, we wouldn't need to do this. 

Why do you think you never see a "distance" marker on a flat map of the whole Earth?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 06, 2010, 11:29:09 AM

Everyday navigation relies on distorted maps, not globes.

Quote from: flyingmonkey on April 06, 2010, 05:38:01 AM

RE maps are only distorted when you make them onto a flat plane.

In other words, flat maps cannot accurately map the Earth without distorting it.

Durrr, pretty sure we covered why maps are distorted when they are flat.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 08, 2010, 05:57:07 AM

Quote from: EarthISroundISproven on April 06, 2010, 12:50:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 06, 2010, 11:29:09 AM

Why do you assume that mapes used by everyone, all the time, are inaccurate, but the ones used by nobody, ever, represent that real shape of the Earth?

I could ask you the same question.

The flat maps we use are inaccurate, yes.  But there are a few key differences, number one being we know exactly how the maps are distorted.  We know that we can't draw a perfectly accurate flat map, so we compromise with the rules of reality and make maps that are predictably flawed.  Another point is that no one uses a map of the entire Earth to navigate.  We use a bunch of little maps.  When you map an area that isn't very large, you keep the distortions to a minimum. 

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 08, 2010, 05:57:07 AM

I'm not asking for a theoretical explanation of why distortion exists assuming the Earth is round. I'm asking you what you base your cartographic convictions on. Why do you assume that FE maps are distorted? If it's because people use road maps every day and still get from A-B, then why do you assume these maps are in fact distorted, and that globes, which nobody uses to get from A-B, are in fact an accurate representation of the Earth?

I've spent ten years making nautical maps. I can tell you right now that the FE map is incorrect. The distance between cape horn and cape town alone on the FE map is approx 5 times what it is in reality. I know it takes me 12 days at 14 knots to sail between the two. On the FE map it would take five times that! (or I would have to sail at a speed no ship can do to make it in 12 days) How stupid do you think we are. How stupid do you think the thousands of vessels and the navigators that sail them every day accross every ocean are? FACT the earth is a globe...proven every day by every ship that sails accross an ocean. Get yourself a boat and see for yourself Wilmore.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 08, 2010, 05:57:07 AM

Quote from: EarthISroundISproven on April 06, 2010, 12:50:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 06, 2010, 11:29:09 AM

Completely accurate, yet distorted?

DUH how else can you show a 3D globe on a flat plane, other than by putting a grid reference replicatiing the curve of the earth? We do have globes as well and 3D Computer animated maps now too if the mathematical accuracy of nautical mapping really is beyond your comprehension. The ship has to sail on a 3D surface. The map has to be right to enable to them to do that. You are just irritating now. You know perfectly well what I'm talking about but refuse to acknowledge it.

The ships supposedly get from A-B using distorted maps. How do you know that it's the maps which are distorted, and not the globe?


Why do you assume that mapes used by everyone, all the time, are inaccurate, but the ones used by nobody, ever, represent that real shape of the Earth?

Quote from: Lorddave on April 06, 2010, 01:38:07 PM

Ugh...
This is not rocket science man.

All maps are distorted to some degree.  The more surface area you try to show on a 2D map, the larger the distortions. 
The trick is to have a lot of maps with small surface areas so the distortions don't cause significant problems.

I'm not asking for a theoretical explanation of why distortion exists assuming the Earth is round. I'm asking you what you base your cartographic convictions on. Why do you assume that FE maps are distorted? If it's because people use road maps every day and still get from A-B, then why do you assume these maps are in fact distorted, and that globes, which nobody uses to get from A-B, are in fact an accurate representation of the Earth?

Well, people DO use globes to get from point A to Point B.  Just not physical globes.  See, physical globes are very hard to actually use for very small distances.  Could you find say.. The town of Newburgh, NY on a globe?  Probably not.  I live near there and even I couldn't do it.  Not a normal one anyway.  But we can do it with digital globe.

What you really should be asking, though, is "If the maps are distorted, what happens when you try to use it over a large scale without small bits (geonomic projections)"?  The answer would be "It doesn't work accurately".  And that would be why we know it's a distorted map.

Yes there are 3D computer mapping systems widely used now (although all navigators are required to be able to navigate at basic levels with basic instruments still) and we can see weather systems mapped over them, tidal flows, sisemic activity etc all in animated form. These are all things that mariners use to ensure they get safely accross an ocean. There's a very good reason why the contours of a globe are projected onto a flat image. So that mariners know how far they need to sail, how long they'll be at sea, how much fuel and supplies they'll need to make that journey. Now why on earth would anyone project global contours onto a 2D map if the world were flat? Nautical mapping is not a game.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 08, 2010, 05:57:07 AM

Quote from: EarthISroundISproven on April 06, 2010, 12:50:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 06, 2010, 11:29:09 AM

Completely accurate, yet distorted?

DUH how else can you show a 3D globe on a flat plane, other than by putting a grid reference replicatiing the curve of the earth? We do have globes as well and 3D Computer animated maps now too if the mathematical accuracy of nautical mapping really is beyond your comprehension. The ship has to sail on a 3D surface. The map has to be right to enable to them to do that. You are just irritating now. You know perfectly well what I'm talking about but refuse to acknowledge it.

The ships supposedly get from A-B using distorted maps. How do you know that it's the maps which are distorted, and not the globe?


Why do you assume that mapes used by everyone, all the time, are inaccurate, but the ones used by nobody, ever, represent that real shape of the Earth?

Any compensations made for a flat map in order to navigate correctly, end up giving you a globe model to navigate with. We use flat maps and compensate for their 'flatness' so that we are essentially working with a round model to get us places. Somehow, it seems to work. Care to explain why?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 10, 2010, 08:19:00 AM

If RET has so much proof, why am I still waiting to see it?

Because you won't travel south of the equator and observe the south celestial pole moving in sync with the northern one. Because you won't get yourself a telescope with setting circles on it and see that they work, disproving beeny light AND celestial gears at a stroke and leaving only curvature as a viable explanation for the horizon. Because you won't book yourself on a plane flight between two places in the southern hemisphere and take a stopwatch with you.
Because you won't travel a hundred miles east or west from where you live and see the angles of satellite TV dishes are pretty much the same as where you are. Because you can't be bothered to get up at dawn on an equinox and see exactly where the sun rises.

THAT is why you are still waiting. You won't take the word of anyone else who's done these things so that leaves you one option. Get off your fat lazy arse, extinguish your joint and measure reality yourself.

Quote

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 11, 2010, 11:26:53 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 10, 2010, 08:19:00 AM

If RET has so much proof, why am I still waiting to see it?

Because you won't travel south of the equator and observe the south celestial pole moving in sync with the northern one. Because you won't get yourself a telescope with setting circles on it and see that they work, disproving beeny light AND celestial gears at a stroke and leaving only curvature as a viable explanation for the horizon. Because you won't book yourself on a plane flight between two places in the southern hemisphere and take a stopwatch with you.
Because you won't travel a hundred miles east or west from where you live and see the angles of satellite TV dishes are pretty much the same as where you are. Because you can't be bothered to get up at dawn on an equinox and see exactly where the sun rises.

THAT is why you are still waiting. You won't take the word of anyone else who's done these things so that leaves you one option. Get off your fat lazy arse, extinguish your joint and measure reality yourself.

So in other words, I need to get this proof myself, because you don't have it. I see.

Are you unable to read the words You won't take the word of anyone else who's done these things?

We presented these things to you. I've written big long posts about setting circles and my own personal use of them. I've written a big long thread with diagrams about the satellite dishes. I have highlighted the results of a fellow forum member who got up before dawn to measure where the sun would appear and presented his data and method in this very forum (thankyou Trig). Others have stated the travel times they have experienced on journeys in the southern hemisphere. Myself and others have personally witnessed the movement of stars around the south celestial pole.
We have shown you all these things, written our experiences here for all to see over months (and years for some), and you dare to look down your nose at us and say "you don't have the proof".

Your attitude is beneath contempt.

Quote from: 004forever on April 09, 2010, 05:43:25 AM

HE'S FUCKING BEEN THERE!  He's sailed those differences and can verify firsthand the accuracy of the maps.  What more do you want?  Do we need to send you on that voyage?  Are we going to need to drug test you afterwards so you know you weren't hallucinating?  Do we need to drug test you now?

What if I told you I've been there, and that I can verify firsthand the inaccuracy of the maps. Are we even now? Who's right and who's wrong?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 09, 2010, 05:49:24 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 06, 2010, 05:16:42 AM

So what, being able to predict that an eclipse will be visible in Torquay is proof that the depiction of Australia on a globe is accurate?

the answer is no

Okay, glad we settled that.

EarthISroundISproven's responses are all invalidated by his failure to return with the proof he supposedly had. Thermal Detonator responded a great deal, but a reponse which bears no relation to the question asked is not an answer.


Protip: a response != an answer

An answer is an answer regardless of things backing it up. The answer can, however, be wrong as I'm sure both sides agree on. What you're looking for is data, which can be included in an answer but not a necessity.

Protip: a response != an answer

When are you going to work out that your complaints don't make the other posters look inferior, but yourself?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 04, 2010, 06:01:29 PM

RE maps are provably correct because they can be used to predict accurate positions and times for the path of solar eclipse totality.
If a map says the path of totality will hit the coast of Australia at exactly 4.00pm, and this actually happens, it proves that the coast of Australia must be exactly where the map says it is. If you have a map showing Australia to be a different shape, then the track of totality will not hit the coast at the predicted time.
Interestingly the tracks of solar eclipses would need to move faster the further south you are in that flat earth map, and slower nearer the north pole. Strangely, that doesn't happen. We know this doesn't happen because of the time it takes for an eclipse to start and finish at different locations (before you ask for evidence).

So what, being able to predict that an eclipse will be visible in Torquay is proof that the depiction of Australia on a globe is accurate? I don't see the connection.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 06, 2010, 09:59:32 AM

*facepalm*
Do you read what other people post? Do you read any of mine? Really?

Not only have I read your posts, I asked you a question about them. You haven't answered...

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 07, 2010, 09:37:43 AM

Your question "Again, how do you know?" seems to refer to "how do I know round earth maps are accurate?"
Since I have already answered your question on the preceding pages, and I didn't feel like repeating myself, I decided to see if you could work that out for yourself. Obviously too hard for you.
In time, the subject Wilmore may master simple tasks.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 06, 2010, 05:16:42 AM

So what, being able to predict that an eclipse will be visible in Torquay is proof that the depiction of Australia on a globe is accurate? I don't see the connection.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 09, 2010, 05:31:29 AM

So the answer is that none of you know that FE maps are distorted, or that RE maps are accurate. You just assume these things.


Glad we cleared that up.

No, I explained how the accuracy of RE maps can be verified, and so have others in this thread. If you want to stick your head in the sand and deny those posts happened, go right ahead. It's not the rest of us being made to look stupid.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 09, 2010, 05:34:24 AM

No, I explained how the accuracy of RE maps can be verified, and so have others in this thread. If you want to stick your head in the sand and deny those posts happened, go right ahead. It's not the rest of us being made to look stupid.

You still haven't answered my question. This is the second time I've asked. If you want to stick your head in the sand and deny those posts happened, go right ahead...

If this admission of stupidity is your question, and you want me to dumb it down to the level of a five year old's understanding, then the answer is no but it is proof that the depiction of Torquay and surrounding environs is accurate. To verify Australia then an eclipse visible from Australia is verification.
I am beginning to think I need to start a thread in S&C about this sort of pretend stupidity from a moderator.

Yeah, whatever. Bored now. I've shown everyone else, don't need to bother with you.

You said there was proof of RET. You have yet to answer my questions about these supposed 'proofs' in a satisfactory manner.

I do not see how anyone can consider TD's single response to my repeated questions as anything other than a concession of the argument, and though I suppose it was satisfactory in that sense, it certainly isn't satisfactory if Thermal Detonator continues to claim that his original argument is valid.


Either the argument is conceded, in which case he should shut up, or he believes his point was valid in some way, in which case he needs to explain why (i.e. answer my question). The posts do not lie; go back through the thread, and you will see that I have in no way misrepresented the course of this discussion. I'll let people judge for themselves who ends up looking "inferior".

I think Ergonomicsky just won.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 17, 2010, 06:14:53 PM

I do not see how anyone can consider TD's single response to my repeated questions as anything other than a concession of the argument, and though I suppose it was satisfactory in that sense, it certainly isn't satisfactory if Thermal Detonator continues to claim that his original argument is valid.


Either the argument is conceded, in which case he should shut up, or he believes his point was valid in some way, in which case he needs to explain why (i.e. answer my question). The posts do not lie; go back through the thread, and you will see that I have in no way misrepresented the course of this discussion. I'll let people judge for themselves who ends up looking "inferior".

Do you know / realise why people tend to - according to your point of view of course - "not answer your questions in a satisfactory way" anymore?

1) Even just reading the debates in which you (and Parsifal and Tom Bishop and Parsec and...) participate, gets unbelievably annoying after a while (especially in this thread right here). This is mainly because you are always insufferably pedantic about "rules of a proper debate". So when someone doesn't answer your questions exactly as you demand, you dismiss that person's post / evidence / argument / ... as invalid and thus refuse to accept the given answer.

Good god, man. Is it so hard to just follow another person's reasoning and work with the answers / information given, instead of continuously repeating the same question over and over again because you feel "it hasn't been answered properly"? Learn to adjust to the people you're talking to and their way of debating, I would say.

2) Pedantic as you are over "the rules of debate", you're defenitely an expert at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost

For instance: throughout this entire thread several posters have presented you examples in which they show why the RE-maps (be they on a globe or on a sheet of paper, it doesn't matter the least bit) are correct and work in "the real world" thus making the current FE-maps highly unlikely to be a correct representation of what the world looks like.

Now, to anyone with a reasonable mind and capable of doing some logical reasoning: based on the given examples (in this thread and many past ones on the same subject) it stands without a doubt that the maps based on a ROUND Earth work / can be used to get to the place you want to go to => the model of the Round Earth must be true, otherwise maps based on it wouldn't work or would easily be shown to be inaccurate.

But how do you react when confronted with these examples / this proof? You go like this: "How do you know for sure? Give me more data! Where's the data?"
OR
"Phuh! You didn't adress my question exactly to the point. Hence your argument / proof is invalid!"
OR
You twist and turn the given argument to such an extent that it becomes impossible to understand what your problem with that argument exactly is.
OR
You deliberatly misinterpret the given argument / reasoning / proof so you could continue to ask more questions, more proof, more explanations (that or you're just plain thick).

No proof is ever good enough for you, or any other of the FE'ers in here. Going: "Nah nah nah nah! la-la-la-la! I can't here you! Your proof is invalid and I'm correct! La-la-la-la!" isn't a valid argument, you know.

TIP: If you can't accept the examples given to you in here, go talk to a captain of a large containership that travels over huge distances (from Europe to Asia for instance) and ask him which maps he's using to set out the course. Also ask him if he's ever noticed a difference between what the maps tell him and what he's experiencing in real time, thus if the RE-based maps could actually false / inaccurate.

In other words, what Thermal Detonator said: go see for yourself if you don't believe anyone in here. No more "moving of the goalpost" possible / necessary then and no more need to continuously ask the same questions over and over again or abuse "the rules of proper debate" to still be put in the right.

To summarize: stop being pedantic and try to go along / work with other people's answers / arguments / reasoning / ... . Or even better: go gather some proof for the FE-maps instead of constantly bashing the RE-maps.
It's getting old and annoying.

Regards,

Please point out a sinlge instance where I have engaged in pedantry of any kind.

Please point out a sinlge instance where I have engaged in pedantry of any kind.

All I'm asking for is some actual evidence that FE maps are distorted. You know, evidence, that thing that is used to back up otherwise baseless claims. None has been posted, by you or anyone else. End of story. End of discussion. If you want to claim that asking for evidence is 'pedantry', then go right ahead, but don't expect anyone to enter into serious discussion with you.

Do either of you know what 'pedantry' means?


Protip: it doesn't mean 'evidence'.

So how do you make a non-distorted Flat Earth map?

All I'm asking for is some actual evidence that FE maps are distorted. You know, evidence, that thing that is used to back up otherwise baseless claims. None has been posted, by you or anyone else. End of story. End of discussion. If you want to claim that asking for evidence is 'pedantry', then go right ahead, but don't expect anyone to enter into serious discussion with you.

All I'm asking for is some actual evidence that FE maps are distorted. You know, evidence, that thing that is used to back up otherwise baseless claims. None has been posted, by you or anyone else. End of story. End of discussion. If you want to claim that asking for evidence is 'pedantry', then go right ahead, but don't expect anyone to enter into serious discussion with you.

I'm not being pedantic about anything. Please point out a single instance where I have engaged in pedantry of any kind. I'm not debating semantics, using sophistic arguments, moving the goalposts, or doing anything of the sort. Your claim is totally fabricated, and I directly challenge you to find a single instance of such behaviour on my part in this thread. If you can't, I ask that you retract your unfair and unjustified comments.


All I'm asking for is some actual evidence that FE maps are distorted. You know, evidence, that thing that is used to back up otherwise baseless claims. None has been posted, by you or anyone else. End of story. End of discussion. If you want to claim that asking for evidence is 'pedantry', then go right ahead, but don't expect anyone to enter into serious discussion with you.

I've spent ten years making nautical maps. I can tell you right now that the FE map is incorrect. The distance between cape horn and cape town alone on the FE map is approx 5 times what it is in reality. I know it takes me 12 days at 14 knots to sail between the two. On the FE map it would take five times that! (or I would have to sail at a speed no ship can do to make it in 12 days) How stupid do you think we are. How stupid do you think the thousands of vessels and the navigators that sail them every day accross every ocean are? FACT the earth is a globe...proven every day by every ship that sails accross an ocean. Get yourself a boat and see for yourself Wilmore.

So the answer is that none of you know that FE maps are distorted, or that RE maps are accurate. You just assume these things.

Glad we cleared that up.

Quote from: Lorddave on April 04, 2010, 01:49:14 PM

I know current maps are accurate.

1. If they weren't air travel would be really hard since that 1,000 mile trip would not put you where you expect.  No road signs at 35,000 feet.

As we've already pointed out, RE maps are distorted, yet it doesn't seem to cause any problems.

Quote from: Lorddave on April 04, 2010, 01:49:14 PM

2. The FE maps are RE maps distorted to fit a disk.  But it can't be a real map since no FEer knows the size of the Earth.

It's not a real map? By what definition or standard? And again: how do you know it's not accurate?

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 04, 2010, 03:35:02 PM

Taking a globe with you to navigate with doesn't seem like a very viable means of navigating.

If the earth were flat, no distortions would occur, you wouldn't need to make corrections and get to your destination easy. No map does this. No single map can exist without any sort of [perfectly explainable and acceptable] form of distortion. How do you propose maps and navigation work without any distortions what-so-ever?

If mapping were done assuming a FE instead of a round one, then yes, no distortions would result. However, this is not the case.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 04, 2010, 06:01:29 PM

RE maps are provably correct because they can be used to predict accurate positions and times for the path of solar eclipse totality.
If a map says the path of totality will hit the coast of Australia at exactly 4.00pm, and this actually happens, it proves that the coast of Australia must be exactly where the map says it is. If you have a map showing Australia to be a different shape, then the track of totality will not hit the coast at the predicted time.
Interestingly the tracks of solar eclipses would need to move faster the further south you are in that flat earth map, and slower nearer the north pole. Strangely, that doesn't happen. We know this doesn't happen because of the time it takes for an eclipse to start and finish at different locations (before you ask for evidence).

So what, being able to predict that an eclipse will be visible in Torquay is proof that the depiction of Australia on a globe is accurate? I don't see the connection.

Quote from: EarthISroundISproven on April 09, 2010, 08:56:38 PM

Certifiably insane if you think thousands of mariners would risk their lives every day using maps that don't match the distances they find themselves sailing. You have absolutley no idea what you are talking about. Completely cuckoo.

Their maps are supposedly 'distorted' and don't match a globe. You're the one claiming they use maps that don't match 'reality' to get where they do.

Quote from: EarthISroundISproven on April 09, 2010, 07:48:01 PM

Hmm so Wilmore thinks he might have sailed in a boat to test a nautical map....Yeah I can play that game easily, when I ask him the distance, the knots, and the time it took to make the journey. On the other hand, I wreckon I've sailed to or from around two thids of the worlds major ports and to numerous minor ones too. So name any two ports Wilmore. Then you can go and check my data with thousands of records of vessels that made the same trip at your very own maritime records office and see that they too give the same data for the same journey.

How come I need to give you data, but you don't need to give me data? Also, this thread is about measuring the Earth, not the length of your sea-penis. Try to keep that in mind.