A Few Issues With the OTHER FES Map

Quote from: Parsifal on June 14, 2010, 01:31:53 AM

In that case, the Round Earth map isn't necessarily correct.

What makes you say that?

It hasn't been disproved. I was responding specifically to Thevoiceofreason's comment.

...I'm still left wondering why, if the RE map is perfect, Fe'ers think a FE map is possible.

...I'm still left wondering why, if the RE map is perfect, Fe'ers think a FE map is possible.

Can you please respond to this:

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 13, 2010, 06:50:52 PM

That's perfectly acceptable.  But the fact remains that, because the RE map is perfect, and flat projections of the surface of a sphere are distorted too much, a FE map is impossible.

Since Russell's Teapot is a perfect hypothesis, and Russell's Teapot existing is contrary to Russell's Teapot not existing, it is impossible for there not to exist such a teapot.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 14, 2010, 04:05:15 AM

...I'm still left wondering why, if the RE map is perfect, Fe'ers think a FE map is possible.

Can you please respond to this:

Quote from: Parsifal on June 13, 2010, 06:57:18 PM

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 13, 2010, 06:50:52 PM

That's perfectly acceptable.  But the fact remains that, because the RE map is perfect, and flat projections of the surface of a sphere are distorted too much, a FE map is impossible.

Since Russell's Teapot is a perfect hypothesis, and Russell's Teapot existing is contrary to Russell's Teapot not existing, it is impossible for there not to exist such a teapot.

Paradoxal nonsense.  You're twisting words around to make it seem like the teapot must exist; nothing has to exist.

1.  Russell's Teapot states there is a china teapot orbitting the Sun

2.  It is perfectly acceptable that a china teapot may very well orbit the Sun; there is no proof against it

It's not hard to understand.  It's the premise upon which 'innocent until proven guilty' is based.  The stuff you wrote above is nonsense.

You finally post in this thread and you don't even answer the question???  Well, you dodged it earlier, but you never followed up to my rebuttal.

"Rebuttal" is a rather grand way to describe a post which contained an irrelevant side-point and continued ignorance. Nevertheless...

He answers!  Perhaps you should modify the map I posted?  You know, showing instead of a definitive edge, some sort of "gray area".

Why? This is what's known, and this is what's presented. I'm not going to attempt to outline any of what lies beyond the known Earth, because it is unknown. There is no 'definite edge', just a limit to what we have explored.

As for the navigation, your map suggests that one could use to travel due south, then across the south pole, and then on to the "edge/gray area".  On a globe, once you cross the south pole, you are then heading north, on your map, you are still heading south.  I guess this is where you're going to exclaim, "It's an incomplete map!"

[/quote]


On my map, you are not heading south once you pass the south pole. On this, everyone in the thread bar you is in agreement, FE'er and RE'er alike. Travelling 'south' means travelling towards the south pole, be it magnetic or geographic. You cannot travel away from the south pole and still be travelling south.

It's not hard to understand.  It's the premise upon which 'innocent until proven guilty' is based.  The stuff you wrote above is nonsense.

The "stuff" is of the exact same nature as your own claims.

And you still haven't explained one (well, actually circa five, but this one is particularly relevant to the thread) thing:
If it is impossible to project a sphere on a flat surface, then how do RE maps, which are projections of a sphere generally presented on flat surfaces, exist? My suggestion for an answer is that it IS possible to make such a projection. It will be distorted to some level, but it will be valid enough to be useful. In RET, that is what I believe to be the explanation of why maps are possible. If you do not agree with this statement, then you're disproving RE maps, which probably isn't your intention.
Following the aforementioned, RE maps are NOT perfect. They are distorted to some extent. They don't work flawlessly. However, they are good enough for John Q. Public to use.

Quote spam goes here:

You are demonstrating a basic principle of calculus: in the limit where the number of pieces in which you split the globe tends to infinity, the distortion tends to zero.

This is a projection of the RE map.  Note that, while still flawed, it is still quite accurate.

In reality, there is a mathematical proof that shows that every flat representation of a sphere's surface is, by necessity, distorted.

And now, for the grand winner:

Hence, once again, me questioning your grasp of the English language.

Hey, it's paradoxical, not paradoxal.
And, once again: a RE map = a flat (so flat I can put it in my suitcase!) representation of the Earth, which is (roughly) spherical.

Paradoxal nonsense.  You're twisting words around to make it seem like the teapot must exist; nothing has to exist.

1.  Russell's Teapot states there is a china teapot orbitting the Sun

2.  It is perfectly acceptable that a china teapot may very well orbit the Sun; there is no proof against it

It's not hard to understand.  It's the premise upon which 'innocent until proven guilty' is based.  The stuff you wrote above is nonsense.

Of course it's nonsense. The point was to illustrate that your statement that a FE map is impossible is nonsense.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 14, 2010, 04:12:29 AM

It's not hard to understand.  It's the premise upon which 'innocent until proven guilty' is based.  The stuff you wrote above is nonsense.

The "stuff" is of the exact same nature as your own claims.

And you still haven't explained one (well, actually circa five, but this one is particularly relevant to the thread) thing:
If it is impossible to project a sphere on a flat surface, then how do RE maps, which are projections of a sphere generally presented on flat surfaces, exist? My suggestion for an answer is that it IS possible to make such a projection. It will be distorted to some level, but it will be valid enough to be useful. In RET, that is what I believe to be the explanation of why maps are possible. If you do not agree with this statement, then you're disproving RE maps, which probably isn't your intention.
Following the aforementioned, RE maps are NOT perfect. They are distorted to some extent. They don't work flawlessly. However, they are good enough for John Q. Public to use.

Quote spam goes here:

Quote from: trig on June 13, 2010, 02:58:02 PM

You are demonstrating a basic principle of calculus: in the limit where the number of pieces in which you split the globe tends to infinity, the distortion tends to zero.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 13, 2010, 05:36:34 PM

This is a projection of the RE map.  Note that, while still flawed, it is still quite accurate.

Quote from: trig on June 13, 2010, 03:22:45 PM

In reality, there is a mathematical proof that shows that every flat representation of a sphere's surface is, by necessity, distorted.

And now, for the grand winner:

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 13, 2010, 04:36:27 PM

Hence, once again, me questioning your grasp of the English language.

Hey, it's paradoxical, not paradoxal.
And, once again: a RE map = a flat (so flat I can put it in my suitcase!) representation of the Earth, which is (roughly) spherical.

This is such a bad, cheap philosophical argument, I cannot think you really want to fight about it. Was Jackofhearts swindled into saying a mathematically inexact statement? The answer is... Who cares???

The representation of the surface of spheres in flat maps is reasonably precise and well understood (even though it is not perfect), The representation of of flat "planets" in a map is easier still. We are not interested in little word games about this, we are interested in the humongous problems that every "flat Earth map" has.

This is such a bad, cheap philosophical argument, I cannot think you really want to fight about it. Was Jackofhearts swindled into saying a mathematically inexact statement? The answer is... Who cares???

The representation of the surface of spheres in flat maps is reasonably precise and well understood (even though it is not perfect), The representation of of flat "planets" in a map is easier still. We are not interested in little word games about this, we are interested in the humongous problems that every "flat Earth map" has.

Which is what we're currently discussing. If you followed the thread carefully, you'd know as much.
Summary:
   1. Round Earth maps are perfect.
   2. It is impossible to make a perfect flat map of a spherical Earth.
   3. Therefore FE is impossible.
I believe you can see what the problems of this track of thought are.
This is what we're currently discussing, and that is why the answer is not "Who cares???". It's actually very relevant, because the "inexact" statement is the topic at hand.
And he wasn't swindled into saying an inexact statement. He was, and is, using something entirely incorrect as a proof of the Round Earth. What he doesn't notice is that, by doing so, he is actually attacking RET. Therefore, I am defending both theories from his statements.
However, I am glad that at you understand that his statement is inexact. I was slowly beginning to have my doubts, seeing how confident he seems.

Allow me to illustrate a similar, yet not identical situation (note: this is not entirely serious, which means it is not supposed to be taken as entirely serious. It is an illustrative illustration, the point of which is to illustrate a phenomenon):
Step I: A claim of perfection of an unrelated thing:
   The current understanding of DNA is perfect.
Step II: An "inexact" statement:
   Okay, so, as we all know, F=m*v+s
Step III: A statement contradictory to the second one, supposedly drawn as a conclusion of the first two:
   AND THAT'S WHY F=am!!!!!

Of course it's nonsense. The point was to illustrate that your statement that a FE map is impossible is nonsense.

Does that mean that FE'ers will be getting on making one, then?

Hey, it's paradoxical, not paradoxal.
And, once again: a RE map = a flat (so flat I can put it in my suitcase!) representation of the Earth, which is (roughly) spherical.

Firstly, you fail miserably; paradoxal is a word, one with the exact same meaning as paradoxical.  Look it up. 

Secondly, what the hell do you mean the RE map is a flat representation of the Earth?  The RE map is spherical.  Any flat representation of the spherical RE map is too flawed/distorted to work properly as a FE map.  What's not to get?

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 14, 2010, 01:35:54 PM

Hey, it's paradoxical, not paradoxal.
And, once again: a RE map = a flat (so flat I can put it in my suitcase!) representation of the Earth, which is (roughly) spherical.

Firstly, you fail miserably; paradoxal is a word, one with the exact same meaning as paradoxical.  Look it up.

The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary disagrees. So does Oxford. And Wiktionary. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paradoxal
Can you provide me with a source of adequate credibility that reinforces your claim?

Secondly, what the hell do you mean the RE map is a flat representation of the Earth?  The RE map is spherical.  Any flat representation of the spherical RE map is too flawed/distorted to work properly as a FE map.  What's not to get?

A spherical map? Please provide me with an example. Unless you mean a globe, which, as I have already stated before, is not conventionally called a map.
I've done this before, but you seem to have missed the point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map - "Many maps are static two-dimensional, geometrically accurate (or approximately accurate) representations of three-dimensional space". Two-dimensional would imply "flat".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_map - here you can see a few examples of RE maps. They're flat, too.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 13, 2010, 10:25:22 PM

Just because something is currently not disproved, doesn't make it correct

In that case, the Round Earth map isn't necessarily correct.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 13, 2010, 10:30:02 PM

In another thread, I showed why the flat earth can never be accurate.
FE predicts Colorado to be about 60% the size of what it is in reality.
unless the state were to lie on a geoid, the maths won't add up.
Given that no FE map is accurate, it would follow that FE doesn't exist.

You showed that one particular FE map makes this prediction. You also didn't show how its area "in reality" is known. You can't generalise this to "no FE map is accurate."

no, I used the two possible maps. the long/lat coordinates of the four corners are set in stone. for FE, they are based on radius, and assume uniformity. as long as this is true of any FE model, that model will be false. and yes the are in reality is known. I gave you a link about the subject. the area of Colorado was calculated from landscaping techniques, and this is independent from geoid based calculations. sources from the US government or an Atlas should be ok for you right?

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 14, 2010, 04:54:53 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 14, 2010, 01:35:54 PM

Hey, it's paradoxical, not paradoxal.
And, once again: a RE map = a flat (so flat I can put it in my suitcase!) representation of the Earth, which is (roughly) spherical.

Firstly, you fail miserably; paradoxal is a word, one with the exact same meaning as paradoxical.  Look it up.

The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary disagrees. So does Oxford. And Wiktionary. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paradoxal
Can you provide me with a source of adequate credibility that reinforces your claim?

lrn2read.  That wiktionary site showed that it's the exact same thing as paradoxical.  Try here, too.

Paradoxal:
—Related forms
par·a·dox·i·cal, par·a·dox·al, adjective

Good try, though.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 14, 2010, 04:54:53 PM

Secondly, what the hell do you mean the RE map is a flat representation of the Earth?  The RE map(globe) is spherical.  Any flat representation of the spherical RE map is too flawed/distorted to work properly as a FE map.  What's not to get?

A spherical map? Please provide me with an example. Unless you mean a globe, which, as I have already stated before, is not conventionally called a map.
I've done this before, but you seem to have missed the point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map - "Many maps are static two-dimensional, geometrically accurate (or approximately accurate) representations of three-dimensional space". Two-dimensional would imply "flat".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_map - here you can see a few examples of RE maps. They're flat, too.

There you go. I fixed my quote.  And I'll say again, any 2-dimensional representation of the globe (RE map) is distorted (some more than others).  None of these distorted maps could work properly as a FE map.

lrn2read. (I guess that's where your "self-restraint", aka ability to discuss in a civilized manner, end, huh?)  That wiktionary site showed that it's the exact same thing as paradoxical.  Try here, too.

Oh, no, it is you who should read more carefully. That Wiktionary site clearly states that paradoxal is a French word, and that its meaning in English is paradoxical. French is not English. Ergo, paradoxal is not an English word. Paradoxical, on the other hand, is.
The other site you suggested also claims that "de-finitely" (with the hyphen), "pro fessor", "shite", and "in distinctly" are words. I also can't find any organization behind it to confirm its credibility, as opposed to Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries. Your source's quality is below laughable.

Good try, though.

There you go. I fixed my quote.  And I'll say again, any 2-dimensional representation of the globe (RE map) is distorted (some more than others).  None of these distorted maps could work properly as a FE map.

Which we have agreed upon numerous times. A FE map cannot be created by distorting a globe (which is conventionally not called a map, or a RE map at that). What is your point of saying it yet again?

Quote from: Sliver on June 11, 2010, 04:55:32 PM

You finally post in this thread and you don't even answer the question???  Well, you dodged it earlier, but you never followed up to my rebuttal.

"Rebuttal" is a rather grand way to describe a post which contained an irrelevant side-point and continued ignorance. Nevertheless...

Quote

He answers!  Perhaps you should modify the map I posted?  You know, showing instead of a definitive edge, some sort of "gray area".

Why? This is what's known, and this is what's presented. I'm not going to attempt to outline any of what lies beyond the known Earth, because it is unknown. There is no 'definite edge', just a limit to what we have explored.

Quote

As for the navigation, your map suggests that one could use to travel due south, then across the south pole, and then on to the "edge/gray area".  On a globe, once you cross the south pole, you are then heading north, on your map, you are still heading south.  I guess this is where you're going to exclaim, "It's an incomplete map!"

On my map, you are not heading south once you pass the south pole. On this, everyone in the thread bar you is in agreement, FE'er and RE'er alike. Travelling 'south' means travelling towards the south pole, be it magnetic or geographic. You cannot travel away from the south pole and still be travelling south.
[/quote]
OK, so you tell me, on your map, if you are traveling south along the Prime Meridian and cross the south pole, then continue in the same direction, where do you go?  According to your map, you would run into this "unexplored" region.  If this is incorrect, please redraw the red line to show what would happen?

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 15, 2010, 03:00:50 AM

There you go. I fixed my quote.  And I'll say again, any 2-dimensional representation of the globe (RE map) is distorted (some more than others).  None of these distorted maps could work properly as a FE map.

Which we have agreed upon numerous times. A FE map cannot be created by distorting a globe (which is conventionally not called a map, or a RE map at that). What is your point of saying it yet again?

My point is that an FE map is impossible, due to reasons stated above.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 15, 2010, 07:03:30 AM

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 15, 2010, 03:00:50 AM

There you go. I fixed my quote.  And I'll say again, any 2-dimensional representation of the globe (RE map) is distorted (some more than others).  None of these distorted maps could work properly as a FE map.

Which we have agreed upon numerous times. A FE map cannot be created by distorting a globe (which is conventionally not called a map, or a RE map at that). What is your point of saying it yet again?

My point is that an FE map is impossible, due to reasons stated above.

Which is incorrect, due to reasons stated several times in this thread. Since you seem to like foreign languages, I'll attempt to please you: tertium non datur is not adequate in this context. Allow me to visualize:
John wants to climb up a hill. He cannot use an elevator, because there is no elevator. Does that itself mean that John cannot get on the hill in any way?
Also, Parsifal's Teapot.
Also, "paradoxical".

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 15, 2010, 07:40:35 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 15, 2010, 07:03:30 AM

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 15, 2010, 03:00:50 AM

There you go. I fixed my quote.  And I'll say again, any 2-dimensional representation of the globe (RE map) is distorted (some more than others).  None of these distorted maps could work properly as a FE map.

Which we have agreed upon numerous times. A FE map cannot be created by distorting a globe (which is conventionally not called a map, or a RE map at that). What is your point of saying it yet again?

My point is that an FE map is impossible, due to reasons stated above.

Which is incorrect, because of reasons stated above. Since you seem to like foreign languages, I'll attempt to please you: tertium non datur is not adequate in this context. Allow me to visualize:
John wants to climb up a hill. He cannot use an elevator, because there is no elevator. Does that itself mean that John cannot get on the hill in any way?
Also, Parsifal's Teapot.

Parsifal already admitted that the 'teapot' nonsense was, in fact, nonsense.

Of course it's nonsense.

And you still seem to not understand my point:

1.  Globe = Map of Earth (no flaws)
2.  Flat representations of said globe are flawed.
3.  A FE map is a flat representation of said globe.

Conclusion:  FE maps are flawed.

It's not hard to follow.

Parsifal already admitted that the 'teapot' nonsense was, in fact, nonsense.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 14, 2010, 03:01:34 PM

Of course it's nonsense.

My point exactly. You still seem not to understand it.

And you still seem to not understand my point:

1.  Globe = Map of Earth (no flaws)
2.  Flat representations of said globe are flawed.
3.  A FE map is a flat representation of said globe.

Conclusion:  FE maps are flawed.

It's not hard to follow.

Your reasoning is using RET to prove RET (argumentum ad ignorantiam).

Visualization (note: for the purpose of explaining "argumentum ad ignorantiam" ONLY):
1. The Earth is flat
2. A globe is a globe, which is not flat, because it's a globe
3. A globe is very flawed, because its shape is entirely wrong
Conclusion: FET WIN

However, FE maps are flawed. We established this much. And if you're willing to stand with this conclusion, then this discussion has ended a long time ago, with a single coherent post of Catchpa, and, once again, I have to ask what your point of restating things already agreed upon is. However, if you intend to change the conclusion into "FE maps are impossible", which was your original claim, then we're back to the teapot.
Make your mind up.

You still haven't told me whether or not you acknowledged that "paradoxal" is not a word in the English language.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 15, 2010, 07:51:49 AM

Parsifal already admitted that the 'teapot' nonsense was, in fact, nonsense.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 14, 2010, 03:01:34 PM

Of course it's nonsense.

My point exactly. You still seem not to understand it.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 15, 2010, 07:51:49 AM

And you still seem to not understand my point:

1.  Globe = Map of Earth (no flaws)
2.  Flat representations of said globe are flawed.
3.  A FE map is a flat representation of said globe.

Conclusion:  FE maps are flawed.

It's not hard to follow.

Your reasoning is using RET to prove RET (argumentum ad ignorantiam).

Visualization (note: for the purpose of explaining "argumentum ad ignorantiam" ONLY):
1. The Earth is flat
2. A globe is a globe, which is not flat, because it's a globe
3. A globe is very flawed, because its shape is entirely wrong
Conclusion: FET WIN

However, FE maps are flawed. We established this much. And if you're willing to stand with this conclusion, then this discussion has ended a long time ago, with a single coherent post of Catchpa, and, once again, I have to ask what your point of restating things already agreed upon is. However, if you intend to change the conclusion into "FE maps are impossible", which was your original claim, then we're back to the teapot.
Make your mind up.

You still haven't told me whether or not you acknowledged that "paradoxal" is not a word in the English language.

You're right, it's not.  I originally went to dictionary.com, originally, just to make sure paradoxal was a word, and I was misled.  My bad.

And you're right again, it'd be too much of a jump to say a FE map is impossible.  How about obscenely unlikely?  Because, honestly, if a FE'er hasn't come up with a decent map by now, I don't think they ever will.  'Lack of funds' is not an excuse; since we have acknowledged that the RE map (globe) is correct, FE'ers have all the correct measurements for the continents, etc. 

...wait a sec.  No, a FE map is still impossible, and here's why; we know the exact dimensions of the continents on Earth.  And if the FES were to have a correct map, the continents would have to be correct.  However, the continents on both a spherical and flat surface cannot be the same (due to distortion).  And since we know the continents in the RET are correct...

FE is impossible.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 15, 2010, 07:51:49 AM

Parsifal already admitted that the 'teapot' nonsense was, in fact, nonsense.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 14, 2010, 03:01:34 PM

Of course it's nonsense.

My point exactly. You still seem not to understand it.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 15, 2010, 07:51:49 AM

And you still seem to not understand my point:

1.  Globe = Map of Earth (no flaws)
2.  Flat representations of said globe are flawed.
3.  A FE map is a flat representation of said globe.

Conclusion:  FE maps are flawed.

It's not hard to follow.

Your reasoning is using RET to prove RET (argumentum ad ignorantiam).

Visualization (note: for the purpose of explaining "argumentum ad ignorantiam" ONLY):
1. The Earth is flat
2. A globe is a globe, which is not flat, because it's a globe
3. A globe is very flawed, because its shape is entirely wrong
Conclusion: FET WIN

However, FE maps are flawed. We established this much. And if you're willing to stand with this conclusion, then this discussion has ended a long time ago, with a single coherent post of Catchpa, and, once again, I have to ask what your point of restating things already agreed upon is. However, if you intend to change the conclusion into "FE maps are impossible", which was your original claim, then we're back to the teapot.
Make your mind up.

You still haven't told me whether or not you acknowledged that "paradoxal" is not a word in the English language.

Thats not an argumentum ad ignorantium, which is when you say something is true because you don't have any disproof.
His disproof is
A) If a world exists, then a precise map can be made of it (If E, then Pm)
B) A model of FE would be flat, disregarding changes in terrain.
C) It is impossible to make a precise flat map of the world.
therefore FE doesn't exist

...wait a sec.  No, a FE map is still impossible, and here's why; we know the exact dimensions of the continents on Earth.  And if the FES were to have a correct map, the continents would have to be correct.  However, the continents on both a spherical and flat surface cannot be the same (due to distortion).  And since we know the continents in the RET are correct...

FE is impossible.

I'd like a response to that.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 15, 2010, 01:21:59 PM

...wait a sec.  No, a FE map is still impossible, and here's why; we know the exact dimensions of the continents on Earth.  And if the FES were to have a correct map, the continents would have to be correct.  However, the continents on both a spherical and flat surface cannot be the same (due to distortion).  And since we know the continents in the RET are correct...

FE is impossible.

I'd like a response to that.

Also see the threads regarding Wyoming and Colorado, which are almost prefect angular sectors, if you due the math with FE, your off be about 40%

Now I can rest easy knowing
FE HAS BEEN DISPROVED.

Unless a FE'er has something to say about that.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 15, 2010, 07:59:21 AM

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 15, 2010, 07:51:49 AM

Parsifal already admitted that the 'teapot' nonsense was, in fact, nonsense.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 14, 2010, 03:01:34 PM

Of course it's nonsense.

My point exactly. You still seem not to understand it.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 15, 2010, 07:51:49 AM

And you still seem to not understand my point:

1.  Globe = Map of Earth (no flaws)
2.  Flat representations of said globe are flawed.
3.  A FE map is a flat representation of said globe.

Conclusion:  FE maps are flawed.

It's not hard to follow.

Your reasoning is using RET to prove RET (argumentum ad ignorantiam).

Visualization (note: for the purpose of explaining "argumentum ad ignorantiam" ONLY):
1. The Earth is flat
2. A globe is a globe, which is not flat, because it's a globe
3. A globe is very flawed, because its shape is entirely wrong
Conclusion: FET WIN

However, FE maps are flawed. We established this much. And if you're willing to stand with this conclusion, then this discussion has ended a long time ago, with a single coherent post of Catchpa, and, once again, I have to ask what your point of restating things already agreed upon is. However, if you intend to change the conclusion into "FE maps are impossible", which was your original claim, then we're back to the teapot.
Make your mind up.

You still haven't told me whether or not you acknowledged that "paradoxal" is not a word in the English language.

Thats not an argumentum ad ignorantium, which is when you say something is true because you don't have any disproof.
His disproof is
A) If a world exists, then a precise map can be made of it (If E, then Pm)
B) A model of FE would be flat, disregarding changes in terrain.
C) It is impossible to make a precise flat map of the world.
therefore FE doesn't exist

These two are of different nature, but you're right. His idea is more a petitio principii. Sorry for causing unnecessary confusion. Your argumentation is not argumentum ad ignorantiam. Yours assumes an opinion as a fact in C, therefore it's an argument from personal incredulity, which is slightly better than an argument from ignorance. It still is, however, a logical fallacy. Unless you have a reasonable explanation as to why it's impossible to create a map of a flat Earth without originally assuming that it's not flat.

You're right, it's not.  I originally went to dictionary.com, originally, just to make sure paradoxal was a word, and I was misled.  My bad.

Thank you. I appreciate the fact that you admitted it.

And you're right again, it'd be too much of a jump to say a FE map is impossible.  How about obscenely unlikely?  Because, honestly, if a FE'er hasn't come up with a decent map by now, I don't think they ever will.  'Lack of funds' is not an excuse; since we have acknowledged that the RE map (globe) is correct, FE'ers have all the correct measurements for the continents, etc.

Thanks again. And you have all the right to believe that it's highly unlikely.

...wait a sec.  No, a FE map is still impossible, and here's why; we know the exact dimensions of the continents on Earth.  And if the FES were to have a correct map, the continents would have to be correct.  However, the continents on both a spherical and flat surface cannot be the same (due to distortion).

But flat maps of a spherical Earth exist, and are used globally. Their distortion is minimal, and the dimensions are correct. I could just take this, add a little bit more water and land around the poles, call it a brand-new FE map, claim that it's impossible to get there, and I'd pretty much be able to claim that the dimensions issue is solved. Or I could say that globes are wrong, because the dimensions they present are not correct according to FE maps. It proves nothing.

Why is lack of funds not an excuse?

Now I can rest easy knowing
FE HAS BEEN DISPROVED.

Unless a FE'er has something to say about that.

No, it's been proven to contain discrepancies. Has gravitation been disproved because of extra fast stars? Or, since we're into dimensions, the AU anomalies? The answer is no. All you have proven is that if the Earth is spherical, then it isn't flat (due to the map argument). Which I agree with.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 15, 2010, 01:21:59 PM

...wait a sec.  No, a FE map is still impossible, and here's why; we know the exact dimensions of the continents on Earth.  And if the FES were to have a correct map, the continents would have to be correct.  However, the continents on both a spherical and flat surface cannot be the same (due to distortion).

But flat maps of a spherical Earth exist, and are used globally. Their distortion is minimal, and the dimensions are correct. I could just take this add a little bit more water and land around the poles, claim that it's impossible to get there, and I'd pretty much be able to claim that the dimensions issue is solved.

 Unfortunately, taking a map like that and adding some stuff will never work.  Firstly, I bolded a very important word; minimal.  Minimal is too much; you need no distortion.  Secondly, the reason why the FES has had to distort maps so much (north pole centered, etc) is so they ‘fit’ with RE phenomena, like night and day.  Your map certainly wouldn’t; you also couldn’t explain the massive flight times between Alaska and Russia, for example; in a round Earth, they’d be much shorter than your model. 

With the combination of flight times, known dimensions of our continents, RE phenomena (night, day, etc), and the fact that 2d projections of spheres are hopelessly distorted, that pretty much disproves FET.

Unfortunately, taking a map like that and adding some stuff will never work.  Firstly, I bolded a very important word; minimal.  Minimal is too much; you need no distortion.

So RE maps are incorrect after all? You've been saying that before, but then you firmly denied it.

Secondly, the reason why the FES has had to distort maps so much (north pole centered, etc) is so they ‘fit’ with RE phenomena, like night and day.  Your map certainly wouldn’t; you also couldn’t explain the massive flight times between Alaska and Russia, for example; in a round Earth, they’d be much shorter than your model.

That's why I didn't do it. I only said it could explain this one issue, to make a point that no impossibility of making a map has been proven.

With the combination of flight times, known dimensions of our continents, RE phenomena (night, day, etc), and the fact that 2d projections of spheres are hopelessly distorted, that pretty much disproves FET.

Again, is gravity disproved? No, it simply needs more research, or possibly higher-quality research.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 16, 2010, 02:51:08 AM

Unfortunately, taking a map like that and adding some stuff will never work.  Firstly, I bolded a very important word; minimal.  Minimal is too much; you need no distortion.

So RE maps are incorrect after all? You've been saying that before, but then you firmly denied it.

Where or when did I imply that RE maps are incorrect?  In that statement you quoted, I said how FE projections of the RE map/globe are minimally distorted.  Minimally is still too much, however; you're looking for not distorted at all.  I'm not sure where you got of thinking I said RE maps are incorrect...

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 16, 2010, 02:51:08 AM

With the combination of flight times, known dimensions of our continents, RE phenomena (night, day, etc), and the fact that 2d projections of spheres are hopelessly distorted, that pretty much disproves FET.

Again, is gravity disproved? No, it simply needs more research, or possibly higher-quality research.

Gravity has nothing to do with this.  I didn't even bring it up.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 16, 2010, 03:02:40 AM

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 16, 2010, 02:51:08 AM

Unfortunately, taking a map like that and adding some stuff will never work.  Firstly, I bolded a very important word; minimal.  Minimal is too much; you need no distortion.

So RE maps are incorrect after all? You've been saying that before, but then you firmly denied it.

Where or when did I imply that RE maps are incorrect?  In that statement you quoted, I said how FE projections of the RE map/globe are minimally distorted.  Minimally is still too much, however; you're looking for not distorted at all.  I'm not sure where you got of thinking I said RE maps are incorrect...

No, those are RE projections, unless you accuse every single cartographer who has ever made a map other than a globe to be a FE'er. If you say those are wrong, you say RE maps are wrong.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 16, 2010, 03:02:40 AM

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 16, 2010, 02:51:08 AM

With the combination of flight times, known dimensions of our continents, RE phenomena (night, day, etc), and the fact that 2d projections of spheres are hopelessly distorted, that pretty much disproves FET.

Again, is gravity disproved? No, it simply needs more research, or possibly higher-quality research.

Gravity has nothing to do with this.  I didn't even bring it up.

Ah, I'm sorry, I forgot I need to explain things very carefully to make myself understood. Gravity has a lot to do with this, and I brought it up, which explains why you might not remember bringing it up yoursef. The point is, the same way of reasoning can be used to disprove FE like you're trying to, or gravity. "It has flaws!!!!!11!!1!!" doesn't do much.