A Few Issues With the OTHER FES Map

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 15, 2010, 01:40:47 PM

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.

I see no argument from incredulity. No accurate map has been produced, and none will ever be.
I proved it in my thread about Colorado. Given that Colorado is a perfect quadrilateral, and you assume the distance between longitude lines and latitude lines are respectively constant, and that the radius of flat earth is 40,000km, then you will find that the approximation with this flat earth model is discrepant with respects to the area of colorado as measured through landscaping and aerial photos. The only way to find the correct area of it is to integrate the region on a geoid. Thusly the shape of Colorado isn't flat, and an accurate FE map is impossible

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 16, 2010, 02:40:17 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 15, 2010, 01:40:47 PM

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.

I see no argument from incredulity. No accurate map has been produced, and none will ever be.
I proved it in my thread about Colorado. Given that Colorado is a perfect quadrilateral, and you assume the distance between longitude lines and latitude lines are respectively constant, and that the radius of flat earth is 40,000km, then you will find that the approximation with this flat earth model is discrepant with respects to the area of colorado as measured through landscaping and aerial photos. The only way to find the correct area of it is to integrate the region on a geoid. Thusly the shape of Colorado isn't flat, and an accurate FE map is impossible

Because my kitchen floor is flat the world is flat. 

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 16, 2010, 11:49:50 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 16, 2010, 02:40:17 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 15, 2010, 01:40:47 PM

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.

I see no argument from incredulity. No accurate map has been produced, and none will ever be.
I proved it in my thread about Colorado. Given that Colorado is a perfect quadrilateral, and you assume the distance between longitude lines and latitude lines are respectively constant, and that the radius of flat earth is 40,000km, then you will find that the approximation with this flat earth model is discrepant with respects to the area of colorado as measured through landscaping and aerial photos. The only way to find the correct area of it is to integrate the region on a geoid. Thusly the shape of Colorado isn't flat, and an accurate FE map is impossible

Because my kitchen floor is flat the world is flat. 

I see what u did there. Common John Davis, I was just starting to have faith in you. If your kitchen floor is made such that at every line on that plane is normal to the pull of gravity, then your kitchen floor is actually curved slightly. I don't know if your kitchen floor is flat or not, because no-one to my knowledge has tested the degree of curvature. If you integrate the region of you kitchen floor on FE, then in RE the difference will be minuscule, so you will be able to learn nothing about the shape of either your kitchen table or your earth. However if you do it with something as large as Colorado, the area's diverge by like 40%. and the region integrated via spherical coordinates is much closer to the actual measured area than the region integrated over polar.

I'd take that lack of a response from John as a personal victory.

Quote from: John Davis on June 16, 2010, 11:53:45 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 16, 2010, 11:49:50 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 16, 2010, 02:40:17 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 15, 2010, 01:40:47 PM

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.

I see no argument from incredulity. No accurate map has been produced, and none will ever be.
I proved it in my thread about Colorado. Given that Colorado is a perfect quadrilateral, and you assume the distance between longitude lines and latitude lines are respectively constant, and that the radius of flat earth is 40,000km, then you will find that the approximation with this flat earth model is discrepant with respects to the area of colorado as measured through landscaping and aerial photos. The only way to find the correct area of it is to integrate the region on a geoid. Thusly the shape of Colorado isn't flat, and an accurate FE map is impossible

Because my kitchen floor is flat the world is flat. 

I see what u did there. Common John Davis, I was just starting to have faith in you. If your kitchen floor is made such that at every line on that plane is normal to the pull of gravity, then your kitchen floor is actually curved slightly.

This is an assumption.

I don't know if your kitchen floor is flat or not, because no-one to my knowledge has tested the degree of curvature. If you integrate the region of you kitchen floor on FE, then in RE the difference will be minuscule, so you will be able to learn nothing about the shape of either your kitchen table or your earth.

Obviously my point

However if you do it with something as large as Colorado, the area's diverge by like 40%. and the region integrated via spherical coordinates is much closer to the actual measured area than the region integrated over polar.

This is an assumption.

I'd take that lack of a response from John as a personal victory.

I'm sorry, had you posted something in response or directed at me?  I'll address it if you wish.

I see no argument from incredulity.

An assumption that the Earth must be spherical is made by stating that a globe is flawless. That's circumstantial. If the Earth is spherical, then a globe is accurate. If the Earth is flat, well, the shape of a globe would be quite an inaccuracy. The second "if" has been skipped to use "the globe is perfect" as a fact, rather than an opinion, which it, in fact, is.
This assumption is then made to prove that the Earth is not flat.
Yup. Argument from incredulity.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 16, 2010, 11:49:50 PM

I see no argument from incredulity.

An assumption that the Earth must be spherical is made by stating that a globe is flawless. That's circumstantial. If the Earth is spherical, then a globe is accurate. If the Earth is flat, well, the shape of a globe would be quite an inaccuracy. The second "if" has been skipped to use "the globe is perfect" as a fact, rather than an opinion, which it, in fact, is.
This assumption is then made to prove that the Earth is not flat.
Yup. Argument from incredulity.

The globe is flawless because there are no flaws, hence the definition of 'flawless'.  Unless, of course, you can demostrate and prove flaws (saying it's flawed because the Earth is flat doesn't count )

We've already talked about circumstantial proof and requests with scary brackets.
Saying it's flawless because the Earth isn't flat doesn't count either.
Zing, the flawlessness is questionable.

We've already talked about circumstantial proof and requests with scary brackets.
Saying it's flawless because the Earth isn't flat doesn't count either.
Zing, the flawlessness is questionable.

Circumstantial proof?  The RE map/globe is flawless until flaws are proven to exist.  End of story.

Parsifal's Teapot, once again.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 17, 2010, 12:17:15 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 16, 2010, 11:53:45 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 16, 2010, 11:49:50 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 16, 2010, 02:40:17 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 15, 2010, 01:40:47 PM

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.

I see no argument from incredulity. No accurate map has been produced, and none will ever be.
I proved it in my thread about Colorado. Given that Colorado is a perfect quadrilateral, and you assume the distance between longitude lines and latitude lines are respectively constant, and that the radius of flat earth is 40,000km, then you will find that the approximation with this flat earth model is discrepant with respects to the area of colorado as measured through landscaping and aerial photos. The only way to find the correct area of it is to integrate the region on a geoid. Thusly the shape of Colorado isn't flat, and an accurate FE map is impossible

Because my kitchen floor is flat the world is flat. 

I see what u did there. Common John Davis, I was just starting to have faith in you. If your kitchen floor is made such that at every line on that plane is normal to the pull of gravity, then your kitchen floor is actually curved slightly.

This is an assumption.

Quote

I don't know if your kitchen floor is flat or not, because no-one to my knowledge has tested the degree of curvature. If you integrate the region of you kitchen floor on FE, then in RE the difference will be minuscule, so you will be able to learn nothing about the shape of either your kitchen table or your earth.

Obviously my point

Quote

However if you do it with something as large as Colorado, the area's diverge by like 40%. and the region integrated via spherical coordinates is much closer to the actual measured area than the region integrated over polar.

This is an assumption.

The first one was for the sake of argument. I was saying that in your model, the floor is flat, and in mine, yours is round.
but, the last bit that damns your argument is not an assumption. the area diverges by a lot. just do the calculations, it isn't that hard. I did it in another thread, and the value I got assuming flat earth was off by almost 100,000 km squared

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 16, 2010, 11:49:50 PM

I see no argument from incredulity.

An assumption that the Earth must be spherical is made by stating that a globe is flawless. That's circumstantial. If the Earth is spherical, then a globe is accurate. If the Earth is flat, well, the shape of a globe would be quite an inaccuracy. The second "if" has been skipped to use "the globe is perfect" as a fact, rather than an opinion, which it, in fact, is.
This assumption is then made to prove that the Earth is not flat.
Yup. Argument from incredulity.

you mad. In fact the globe is an accurate representation of reality.
if you read the post, then you'd see that.
FE map-->inaccurate prediction of colorado's area
RE globe-->accurate prediction of colorado's area

QED RE globe is a more accurate representation.
mind you this is based on the shape of a quadrilateral in either case, not any specific region.
a certain quadrilateral of set azimuth and zenith angle on earth aligns with the region if calculated in globular coordinates, not polar.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 17, 2010, 07:58:45 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 16, 2010, 11:49:50 PM

I see no argument from incredulity.

An assumption that the Earth must be spherical is made by stating that a globe is flawless. That's circumstantial. If the Earth is spherical, then a globe is accurate. If the Earth is flat, well, the shape of a globe would be quite an inaccuracy. The second "if" has been skipped to use "the globe is perfect" as a fact, rather than an opinion, which it, in fact, is.
This assumption is then made to prove that the Earth is not flat.
Yup. Argument from incredulity.

you mad. In fact the globe is an accurate representation of reality.
if you read the post, then you'd see that.
FE map-->inaccurate prediction of colorado's area
RE globe-->accurate prediction of colorado's area

QED RE globe is a more accurate representation.
mind you this is based on the shape of a quadrilateral in either case, not any specific region.
a certain quadrilateral of set azimuth and zenith angle on earth aligns with the region if calculated in globular coordinates, not polar.

How precisely did you measure Colorado?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 17, 2010, 12:57:29 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 17, 2010, 07:58:45 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 16, 2010, 11:49:50 PM

I see no argument from incredulity.

An assumption that the Earth must be spherical is made by stating that a globe is flawless. That's circumstantial. If the Earth is spherical, then a globe is accurate. If the Earth is flat, well, the shape of a globe would be quite an inaccuracy. The second "if" has been skipped to use "the globe is perfect" as a fact, rather than an opinion, which it, in fact, is.
This assumption is then made to prove that the Earth is not flat.
Yup. Argument from incredulity.

you mad. In fact the globe is an accurate representation of reality.
if you read the post, then you'd see that.
FE map-->inaccurate prediction of colorado's area
RE globe-->accurate prediction of colorado's area

QED RE globe is a more accurate representation.
mind you this is based on the shape of a quadrilateral in either case, not any specific region.
a certain quadrilateral of set azimuth and zenith angle on earth aligns with the region if calculated in globular coordinates, not polar.

How precisely did you measure Colorado?

They measured it via landscaping, to at least the precision of km squared.

Landscaping doesn't tell you what the area of a state is. It tells you what flowers grow there, and whatnot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landscaping
Relevancy?

Hmmm. Is the reason there are flaws in the Colorado/Wyoming boundary because the surveyors were relying on RET?  Because they didn't get it right either.

Hmmm. Is the reason there are flaws in the Colorado/Wyoming boundary because the surveyors were relying on RET?  Because they didn't get it right either.

You mean the Colorado/Utah boundary? uhm no, what do you think they were doing, using globularist GPS or mathematical computations of a geoid? no there was a mountain along the boundary so they got it messed up. that flaw is peanuts tho.
It isn't that large of a discrepancy.

No.  I mean the Colorado/Wyoming boundary.  North of Carr, there's a flaw.  It isn't peanuts to Coloradans.

Landscaping doesn't tell you what the area of a state is. It tells you what flowers grow there, and whatnot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landscaping
Relevancy?

Oops wrong word.

land surveying.
here is the relevant story
http://www.howderfamily.com/blog/?p=945

No.  I mean the Colorado/Wyoming boundary.  North of Carr, there's a flaw.  It isn't peanuts to Coloradans.

Source?
I'm not necessarily doubting your claim, I just want to see the relevant information

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 17, 2010, 01:31:17 PM

Landscaping doesn't tell you what the area of a state is. It tells you what flowers grow there, and whatnot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landscaping
Relevancy?

Oops wrong word.

land surveying.
here is the relevant story
http://www.howderfamily.com/blog/?p=945

Okay, so they got the border wrong.
That only makes things worse for your argument, and doesn't at all explain how Colorado's area has been measured. Plus map projections.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 17, 2010, 01:52:56 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 17, 2010, 01:31:17 PM

Landscaping doesn't tell you what the area of a state is. It tells you what flowers grow there, and whatnot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landscaping
Relevancy?

Oops wrong word.

land surveying.
here is the relevant story
http://www.howderfamily.com/blog/?p=945

Okay, so they got the border wrong.
That only makes things worse for your argument, and doesn't at all explain how Colorado's area has been measured. Plus map projections.

uhm yeah worse by like .01% of the area...
explanation? LAND SURVEYING. they walk it.
using compass/chronometer. the point is it is damn near close to a perfect quadrilateral minus a few kinks.
the measured area is not the GPS estimation. it is the actual measurement.

Measuring a mountainside's actual area gets a tad complicated.

compass

/thread

the point is it is damn near close to a perfect quadrilateral minus a few kinks.

On Mercator. /thread^2

Measuring a mountainside's actual area gets a tad complicated.

And? are you saying that the map is wrong, and that the area they achieved surveying the land is wrong, and that the governments estimation of their own land is wrong?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 17, 2010, 02:07:52 PM

compass

/thread

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 17, 2010, 02:07:52 PM

the point is it is damn near close to a perfect quadrilateral minus a few kinks.

On Mercator. /thread^2

Yes I agree that the thread is over, and FET is gone. Thanks for playing el vato. you are aware that quadrelateral means has four sides right? they can exist in euclidean, polar or spherical space. Its a quadrilateral in all four. Go troll somewhere else sir.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 17, 2010, 02:54:11 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 17, 2010, 02:07:52 PM

compass

/thread

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 17, 2010, 02:07:52 PM

the point is it is damn near close to a perfect quadrilateral minus a few kinks.

On Mercator. /thread^2

Yes I agree that the thread is over, and FET is gone. Thanks for playing el vato. you are aware that quadrelateral means has four sides right? they can exist in euclidean, polar or spherical space. Its a quadrilateral in all four. Go troll somewhere else sir.

But the measurements will be off. And I believe you're the one trolling here if you're trying to omit that fact.

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on June 17, 2010, 02:10:14 PM

Measuring a mountainside's actual area gets a tad complicated.

And? are you saying that the map is wrong, and that the area they achieved surveying the land is wrong, and that the governments estimation of their own land is wrong?

No, it was an off hand remark regarding actual area as different from 'footprint' area.  Just as I meant Wyoming when I said Wyoming.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 17, 2010, 05:01:08 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 17, 2010, 02:54:11 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 17, 2010, 02:07:52 PM

compass

/thread

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 17, 2010, 02:07:52 PM

the point is it is damn near close to a perfect quadrilateral minus a few kinks.

On Mercator. /thread^2

Yes I agree that the thread is over, and FET is gone. Thanks for playing el vato. you are aware that quadrelateral means has four sides right? they can exist in euclidean, polar or spherical space. Its a quadrilateral in all four. Go troll somewhere else sir.

But the measurements will be off. And I believe you're the one trolling here if you're trying to omit that fact.

How am I trolling? the measurements align with RET calculation. Colorado lies within a near perfect quadrilateral, which again is based on longitudes and latitudes. I don't see why you cannot accept this loss...