Spacial Length?

According to an FE map I found, going from one side of the disk to the other in the shortest possible path means always going in a straight line directly through the north pole, correct?

So an FE person would say the red path is shorter and the green path is wasting time?  Why is it, then, that the red path is in fact the longest possible route, and the green is the shortest?  Which of these would you say is shorter?  Also note how the line curves south instead of north, as FE maps seem to dictate it should.  Is there an explanation for this, or is geometry in on the conspiracy as well?

It's just a representation of the FE map model, they have no idea what the Earth really looks like.

They do so much talk about an "ice wall," I figured this was the gist of their map and that they were talking about Antarctica.

Yeah, there is no FE map.  No map plus they say that all navigation is based on a round Earth and thus you can't actually fly in a straight line on a flat Earth because whatever navigational tool you use to keep your course will lead you around in a circle.

Ah, I get it.  Sorry for being ignorant about this stuff.  By "navigational tools" I could understand what they meant in terms of satellites, but what about a compass?  That certainly wasn't designed with any globe-shapes earth in mind; it's a simple magnet.  That just makes me wonder why the magnetic poles would be where they are.  One in the middle and another wrapped around the entire edge?  That just can't happen.  Meh, I'll leave that for a later time.  Don't wanna break too far from the subject.

Well, if the south pole was very far down, it's possible that the magnetic field would be at the border but only as they passed through and down. 
Kinda like half way down a bar magnet.

Then wouldn't all our compasses point perpendicular to the ground instead of parallel?  The one side should be strongly repelled and the opposite pole should be strongly attracted.  They'd point vertically instead of (as our compasses actually do) horizontally.  Or maybe I'm not understanding the analogy.

Then wouldn't all our compasses point perpendicular to the ground instead of parallel?  The one side should be strongly repelled and the opposite pole should be strongly attracted.  They'd point vertically instead of (as our compasses actually do) horizontally.  Or maybe I'm not understanding the analogy.

No you're understanding it perfect.  It's not supposed to make sense.

Unless you've recorded Mr Green's voyage, this thread is 100% theory and 0% evidence.

Unless you've recorded Mr Green's voyage, this thread is 100% theory and 0% evidence.

So is the idea of a flat Earth.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 23, 2010, 06:18:07 PM

Unless you've recorded Mr Green's voyage, this thread is 100% theory and 0% evidence.

So is the idea of a flat Earth.

Incorrect. Here are several books, all of which contain evidence supporting FET:


http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za00.htm

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38093.0

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30282.0

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=37630.0

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36850.0


Say what you like about the evidence itself, but that it exists is simply undeniable.

Quote from: Xerox on April 23, 2010, 06:22:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 23, 2010, 06:18:07 PM

Unless you've recorded Mr Green's voyage, this thread is 100% theory and 0% evidence.

So is the idea of a flat Earth.

Incorrect. Here are several books, all of which contain evidence supporting FET:


http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za00.htm

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38093.0

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30282.0

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=37630.0

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36850.0


Say what you like about the evidence itself, but that it exists is simply undeniable.

I want reproducible experiments that have been used to prove your theories about the Earth.  Not links to books full of someone's untested ideas.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 23, 2010, 06:26:40 PM

Quote from: Xerox on April 23, 2010, 06:22:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 23, 2010, 06:18:07 PM

Unless you've recorded Mr Green's voyage, this thread is 100% theory and 0% evidence.

So is the idea of a flat Earth.

Incorrect. Here are several books, all of which contain evidence supporting FET:


http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za00.htm

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38093.0

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30282.0

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=37630.0

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36850.0


Say what you like about the evidence itself, but that it exists is simply undeniable.

I want reproducible experiments that have been used to prove your theories about the Earth.  Not links to books full of someone's untested ideas.

If you wanted proof why didn't you ask for it?

[/quote]

I want reproducible experiments that have been used to prove your theories about the Earth.  Not links to books full of someone's untested ideas.
[/quote]

If you wanted proof why didn't you ask for it?
[/quote]

Okay, fine.  Give me proof.

Okay, fine.  Give me proof.

I don't have any.  I was just trying to point out that Lord Wilmore addressed your claim that FET is "100% theory and 0% evidence".

I can't prove the Earth is flat.

I can't prove the Earth is flat.

Ah, that's refreshing to hear.

Unless you've recorded Mr Green's voyage, this thread is 100% theory and 0% evidence.

Well, if you ignore the fact that flight paths cover the shortest possible distance only when taking the curvature of the Earth into account.  With a flat-earth model, they'd be going tens of thousands of miles out of their way.  Also, there's the point of magnetic polarity that was brought up earlier, the fact that we orbit the sun (close stars seem to change position every six months compared to those further out), retrograde motion, and even the shadow experiment by Eratosthenes in way back in 300BCE that rather accurately demonstrated the Earth's circumference.  We've seen it as roughly spherical for quite some time.

So, I guess Antarctica is the biggest continent on the Earth and one cannot travel East from Asia or Australia to reach the Wast coast of America, huh?

So, I guess Antarctica is the biggest continent on the Earth and one cannot travel East from Asia or Australia to reach the Wast coast of America, huh?

Who said that?  This map shows the lines of longitude and latitude to form perfect squares.  It is not to scale because no two-dimensional map can be perfectly to scale when representing a sphere.  If you want one perfectly to scale, check out a globe (also notice you'll be unable to see all parts of it at once).

whoops, doubled the post.

So, what was the purpose of the map you posted then?

To show that the FE map makes idiotic assumptions and further screws around with what should be obvious distances.  You'll also notice that the "shortest" possible route on the second map I showed doesn't look like a perfectly straight line either.  This is because in the southern hemisphere, lines that seem to curve south are indeed shorter, just as in the northern hemisphere lines that seem to curve north are shorter.  The FE map presumes the curve on a path from one side of of the world to the other should always be north.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 23, 2010, 07:21:11 PM

I can't prove the Earth is flat.

Ah, that's refreshing to hear.

Why? Does it bother you that much that people might think they can prove the Earth to be a particular shape when they really can't? Not to mention that most such cases on this forum are REers.

To show that the FE map makes idiotic assumptions and further screws around with what should be obvious distances.  You'll also notice that the "shortest" possible route on the second map I showed doesn't look like a perfectly straight line either.  This is because in the southern hemisphere, lines that seem to curve south are indeed shorter, just as in the northern hemisphere lines that seem to curve north are shorter.  The FE map presumes the curve on a path from one side of of the world to the other should always be north.

So, let me clear up if I understand your logic correctly:

You claim that one map is wrong because two lines have different lengths from what they would suppose to be on a Round Earth and you use another obviously faulty map to justify your claim.

The second map has to cut off at the poles, otherwise it shows the same spacial point to take up the entire length.  It makes fewer assumptions, and still allows us to work accurately.  We KNOW the shortest route will be curved north or south depending on which hemisphere the path is in and we can predict EXACTLY how far that curve should go.  The FE map on the other hand predicts that straight lines should always be fastest and that curves should always be wasteful.

I could show you a much better map that makes no assumptions whatsoever about spacial distance, but it would be a spherical one known as a "globe." 

I could show you a much better map that makes no assumptions whatsoever about spacial distance, but it would be a spherical one known as a "globe." 

Actually, it makes the rather large assumption that the Earth is round. You haven't proven this yet, so it is still an assumption.

We've actually demonstrated the Earth to be roughly spherical in numerous ways, which I listed off a handful of earlier.  There are just a few token folks out there who are unwilling to accept fact.  The globe model makes perfect predictions about which paths should be shortest.  Can you point out where it goes wrong, or some faulty prediction one could make through using it?

The globe model makes perfect predictions about which paths should be shortest.

And you know this how?

Because I can follow such paths, recording my speed and time (allowing me to easily calculate distance) and find one to be much shorter than the other.

...it makes the rather large assumption that the Earth is round...

I should've pointed this out when I first saw it, but no.  It doesn't make that assumption.  It makes that PREDICTION.  According to which distances have been shown to be shortest it forms this working model that makes no assumptions regarding spacial distance--it's only showing what all the evidence points to.