Why, oh Wyoming?

  • 55 Replies
  • 11983 Views
Why, oh Wyoming?
« on: April 20, 2010, 04:22:11 AM »
The state of Wyoming is bounded by four straight lines:
   Parallel 41°N along the southern border
   Parallel 45°N along the northern border
   Meridian 104°3'W along the eastern border
   Meridian 111°3'W along the western border

The four corners are all right-angles, so the state should be a perfect rectangle.
The eastern and western borders are each 276 miles long, as would be expected.

So how come the southern border is 365 miles long, while the northern border is only 342 miles long?

That would make sense if the earth was (roughly) spherical, but not if it was flat.

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2010, 05:32:16 AM »
The state of Wyoming is bounded by four straight lines:
   Parallel 41°N along the southern border
   Parallel 45°N along the northern border
   Meridian 104°3'W along the eastern border
   Meridian 111°3'W along the western border

The four corners are all right-angles, so the state should be a perfect rectangle.
The eastern and western borders are each 276 miles long, as would be expected.

So how come the southern border is 365 miles long, while the northern border is only 342 miles long?

That would make sense if the earth was (roughly) spherical, but not if it was flat.


That's where the conspiracy comes in!

Wherever you have got your data from, they've obviously lied about the shape and size of this "Wyoming", if it even exists.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2010, 07:29:16 AM »
The state of Wyoming is bounded by four straight lines:
   Parallel 41°N along the southern border
   Parallel 45°N along the northern border
   Meridian 104°3'W along the eastern border
   Meridian 111°3'W along the western border

The four corners are all right-angles, so the state should be a perfect rectangle.
The eastern and western borders are each 276 miles long, as would be expected.

So how come the southern border is 365 miles long, while the northern border is only 342 miles long?

That would make sense if the earth was (roughly) spherical, but not if it was flat.

Who ever said that lines of latitude were straight lines in FET?  ???
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2010, 07:44:28 AM »
Who ever said that lines of latitude were straight lines in FET?  ???

Are you suggesting that Wyoming is actually a trapezoid on a flat plane?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2010, 07:48:00 AM »
Who ever said that lines of latitude were straight lines in FET?  ???

Are you suggesting that Wyoming is actually a trapezoid on a flat plane?

*sigh*  If you look at an FE map, you will notice that lines of latitude are concentric circles just like an RE map.  Please learn more about FET so that you can ask intelligent questions in the future.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

OmgHAI

  • 3121
Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2010, 07:48:59 AM »
Who ever said that lines of latitude were straight lines in FET?  ???

Are you suggesting that Wyoming is actually a trapezoid on a flat plane?

*sigh*  If you look at an FE map, you will notice that lines of latitude are concentric circles just like an RE map.  Please learn more about FET so that you can ask intelligent questions in the future.
makes me sad :'(
<3 <3 <3
You ravers are not nearly as awesome as you think you are.

Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2010, 07:53:35 AM »
Who ever said that lines of latitude were straight lines in FET?  ???

Are you suggesting that Wyoming is actually a trapezoid on a flat plane?

*sigh*  If you look at an FE map, you will notice that lines of latitude are concentric circles just like an RE map.  Please learn more about FET so that you can ask intelligent questions in the future.


Shall I take that as a "yes"?

If so, that makes perfect sense.


Except for the bit about the corners being right-angles.

They would need to be just over 87.6° in the southern corners, and just under 92.4° in the northern corners.

Or am I missing something else regarding flat-earth geometry?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #7 on: April 20, 2010, 08:21:25 AM »
Who ever said that lines of latitude were straight lines in FET?  ???

Are you suggesting that Wyoming is actually a trapezoid on a flat plane?

*sigh*  If you look at an FE map, you will notice that lines of latitude are concentric circles just like an RE map.  Please learn more about FET so that you can ask intelligent questions in the future.


Shall I take that as a "yes"?

If so, that makes perfect sense.


Except for the bit about the corners being right-angles.

They would need to be just over 87.6° in the southern corners, and just under 92.4° in the northern corners.

Or am I missing something else regarding flat-earth geometry?

You're kidding, right?  Not only are you missing something regarding flat earth geometry, you're missing something regarding round earth geometry. Lines of latitude and lines of longitude are pretty much the same in both FET and RET.  Now, pray tell, how does one get right angle corners using concentric circles and lines radiating out from the center of those circles?  The answer is the same in both FET and RET, you can't.  Here's a hint, lines of longitude are not parallel in either system.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2010, 08:22:58 AM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #8 on: April 20, 2010, 08:27:16 AM »
Who ever said that lines of latitude were straight lines in FET?  ???

Are you suggesting that Wyoming is actually a trapezoid on a flat plane?

*sigh*  If you look at an FE map, you will notice that lines of latitude are concentric circles just like an RE map.  Please learn more about FET so that you can ask intelligent questions in the future.


Shall I take that as a "yes"?

If so, that makes perfect sense.


Except for the bit about the corners being right-angles.

They would need to be just over 87.6° in the southern corners, and just under 92.4° in the northern corners.

Or am I missing something else regarding flat-earth geometry?

You're kidding, right?  Not only are you missing something regarding flat earth geometry, you're missing something regarding round earth geometry. Lines of latitude and lines of longitude are pretty much the same in both FET and RET.  Now, pray tell, how does one get right angle corners using concentric circles and lines radiating out from the center of those circles?  The answer is the same in both FET and RET, you can't.  Here's a hint, lines of longitude are not parallel in either system.


**sigh**

On a sphere, the lines of latitude and lines of longitude will always meet at right-angles.

I agree that they won't on a plane.

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #9 on: April 20, 2010, 10:17:27 AM »
Who ever said that lines of latitude were straight lines in FET?  ???

Are you suggesting that Wyoming is actually a trapezoid on a flat plane?

*sigh*  If you look at an FE map, you will notice that lines of latitude are concentric circles just like an RE map.  Please learn more about FET so that you can ask intelligent questions in the future.


Shall I take that as a "yes"?

If so, that makes perfect sense.


Except for the bit about the corners being right-angles.

They would need to be just over 87.6° in the southern corners, and just under 92.4° in the northern corners.

Or am I missing something else regarding flat-earth geometry?

You're kidding, right?  Not only are you missing something regarding flat earth geometry, you're missing something regarding round earth geometry. Lines of latitude and lines of longitude are pretty much the same in both FET and RET.  Now, pray tell, how does one get right angle corners using concentric circles and lines radiating out from the center of those circles?  The answer is the same in both FET and RET, you can't.  Here's a hint, lines of longitude are not parallel in either system.


**sigh**

On a sphere, the lines of latitude and lines of longitude will always meet at right-angles.

I agree that they won't on a plane.


**sigh** I just wanted to join in, that looks fun.

And by the way, we've all gone over the fact that a flat earth would cause landmass distortion a seemingly infinite number of times. I hope you have fun using this argument again, and again, in the future.

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #10 on: April 20, 2010, 01:30:22 PM »
On RE, lines of latitude aren't straight either (Except the equator. All other lines of latitude are 'small circles' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_circle

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #11 on: April 20, 2010, 06:08:25 PM »

On a sphere, the lines of latitude and lines of longitude will always meet at right-angles.

I agree that they won't on a plane.


They do on both, obviously you are misunderstanding the FE model.


Draw 2 circles, do it.
Then from the center point, draw 2 lines radiating outwards, doesn't matter where

The angle where the line meets any circle will be 90o

Every point on a circle is at 90o to a line from the center, that's how circles work.

What you have done is drawn a perpendicular bisector of a tangent.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2010, 06:11:04 PM by flyingmonkey »

Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #12 on: April 21, 2010, 01:42:53 AM »
I think I understand now.
Sorry if I was being dense.

What you're saying is that because both RET & FET have the lines of longitude diverging from the north pole, then both theories would predict that Wyoming's northern border would be shorter than its southern border (or, indeed, any four-sided area bounded by lines of longitude & latitude). And that the observable evidence would neither prove nor disprove either theory.

Have I got that right?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #13 on: April 21, 2010, 05:58:10 AM »
Sounds about right.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #14 on: April 21, 2010, 06:52:00 AM »
Thanks.

Just one more thing.

How does that work for Australia? Or anywhere in what RET would call the "southern hemisphere"?

Wouldn’t RET predict that an area bounded by two attitudes and two longitudes have northern border longer than the southern one, while FET would predict that the southern border should be the longer?

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #15 on: April 21, 2010, 10:36:39 AM »
Thanks.

Just one more thing.

How does that work for Australia? Or anywhere in what RET would call the "southern hemisphere"?

Wouldn’t RET predict that an area bounded by two attitudes and two longitudes have northern border longer than the southern one, while FET would predict that the southern border should be the longer?


Yes. Unless you subscribe to the FE model that has the south pole at the centre rather than the North pole. There is no evidence to suggest one model over the other.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #16 on: April 23, 2010, 08:52:19 AM »
Thanks.

Just one more thing.

How does that work for Australia? Or anywhere in what RET would call the "southern hemisphere"?

Wouldn’t RET predict that an area bounded by two attitudes and two longitudes have northern border longer than the southern one, while FET would predict that the southern border should be the longer?


Can nobody answer this?

Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #17 on: April 23, 2010, 03:31:24 PM »
Can nobody answer this?

I'd like a response too, but what I'm really curious about is why there are lines being used with the north pole as a reference at all.  On a flat earth, you could literally have perfect squares of longitude and latitude with absolutely no problem.  This concentric ring stuff is either just making it harder for themselves for absolutely no reason, or an admission that perfect squares of longitude and latitude make no sense on a spherical planet.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #18 on: April 23, 2010, 05:25:52 PM »
Because meridians are not parallel lines.

Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2010, 02:14:32 AM »
Because meridians are not parallel lines.

You know that's not an answer to my question about Australia, right?

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2010, 09:34:24 AM »
Because meridians are not parallel lines.

You know that's not an answer to my question about Australia, right?

Australia is so far off from the Earth's magnetic South Pole that it is quite difficult to plot a meridian using a compass. Furthermore, Polaris is invisible from there to use it as a guiding star.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2010, 10:35:37 AM »
Because meridians are not parallel lines.

You know that's not an answer to my question about Australia, right?

Australia is so far off from the Earth's magnetic South Pole that it is quite difficult to plot a meridian using a compass. Furthermore, Polaris is invisible from there to use it as a guiding star.

Then it's a good thing that the sun can be used as a guiding star.  http://www.wilderness-survival-skills.com/learn-celestial-navigation.html
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2010, 10:36:54 AM »
Because meridians are not parallel lines.

You know that's not an answer to my question about Australia, right?

Australia is so far off from the Earth's magnetic South Pole that it is quite difficult to plot a meridian using a compass. Furthermore, Polaris is invisible from there to use it as a guiding star.

Then it's a good thing that the sun can be used as a guiding star.  http://www.wilderness-survival-skills.com/learn-celestial-navigation.html
Oh, cool story bro. I guess direction of south changes during daylight savings time and from one end of the time zone to the other.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #23 on: April 24, 2010, 10:47:03 AM »
Because meridians are not parallel lines.

You know that's not an answer to my question about Australia, right?

Australia is so far off from the Earth's magnetic South Pole that it is quite difficult to plot a meridian using a compass. Furthermore, Polaris is invisible from there to use it as a guiding star.

Then it's a good thing that the sun can be used as a guiding star.  http://www.wilderness-survival-skills.com/learn-celestial-navigation.html
Oh, cool story bro. I guess direction of south changes during daylight savings time and from one end of the time zone to the other.
If you want to navigate using natural references, then you have to use nature's timing (solar noon), not human timing (time zones).  But you already knew that, didn't you?  ::)
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #24 on: April 24, 2010, 10:48:12 AM »
Where do i buy a watch with nature's timing?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #28 on: April 24, 2010, 11:06:33 AM »
I thoght sundials worked only if you knew the true direction of South?!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: Why, oh Wyoming?
« Reply #29 on: April 24, 2010, 11:11:10 AM »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.