Flat Earth Map

Just to save you some time, no FEer claims to have an accurate map of the world, and all the ones you see posted around this site are (flawed) guesses. Any attempts to attach a scale to them would only further expose the flaws of the map, therefore they are unwilling to do so.

Also, any attempts to disprove any particular map are met with "We never said that map was accurate!!!", which leads to REers requesting an accurate map, which in turn leads to FEers requesting money to launch a mapping expedition. This cycle has been repeated hundreds of times here, don't bother starting it again.

Just to save you some time, no FEer claims to have an accurate map of the world, and all the ones you see posted around this site are (flawed) guesses. Any attempts to attach a scale to them would only further expose the flaws of the map, therefore they are unwilling to do so.

Also, any attempts to disprove any particular map are met with "We never said that map was accurate!!!", which leads to REers requesting an accurate map, which in turn leads to FEers requesting money to launch a mapping expedition. This cycle has been repeated hundreds of times here, don't bother starting it again.

Lmao good times. Also, I wonder what percentage of PizzaPlanet's posts contain comments about grammar, syntax, semantics, definitions, spelling, and other non-arguments, or the phrases "lurk more"/"lurk moar"/"read the FAQ."

Also, I wonder what percentage of PizzaPlanet's posts contain comments about grammar, syntax, semantics, definitions, spelling, and other non-arguments

0%

or the phrases "lurk more"/"lurk moar"/"read the FAQ."

Probably a whole damn lot, but that's because people refuse to lurk or read the FAQ prior to posting.

Please reference:

This cycle has been repeated hundreds of times here, don't bother starting it again.

Quite obviously this means it could have been found out via some epic lurkage.

Just to save you some time, no FEer claims to have an accurate map of the world, and all the ones you see posted around this site are (flawed) guesses. Any attempts to attach a scale to them would only further expose the flaws of the map, therefore they are unwilling to do so.

What part about this argument did you not comprehend? Firstly, you will never translate a map into actual and accurate scale according to the real world on a FE map.. I don't care what your excuses are in terms of not having a map, the flaws will be there regardless of the diameter or circumference you choose to give me as data. And the fact that you don't have this data to begin with really exposes the fact that none of you have any clue as to what you are talking about. This also show's how much of a failure this entire theory is, and how it lacks any real credibility!.. Pizzaplanet brought this on himself, and the math will always show exactly why this is.

Also, any attempts to disprove any particular map are met with "We never said that map was accurate!!!", which leads to REers requesting an accurate map, which in turn leads to FEers requesting money to launch a mapping expedition. This cycle has been repeated hundreds of times here, don't bother starting it again.

This isn't to just disprove a particular map.. This disproves any FE map you can possibly offer me.. This is where you need to pay very close attention to the following. (and it's bad enough that I have to keep repeating this):

I'm not talking about the math. I'm talking about the FAQ numbers.

Really, so now FE can't even agree on numbers LOL.. Let's put it this way, when converting spherical data into circle data, you will screw the pooch on scale and accuracy no matter what you attempt to do here . And the other problem is that you have to use RE Earth's circumference for FE's diameter, because if you don't, you end up with severe shrinkage or way over expansion of land mass, and surface area .. You can attempt to play the numbers game with me and it's not going to work

Feel free however to give me an Official map, or data.. And you do realize that this really show's how poor the FE argument is correct?..

How many times do I have to repeat this very simple little fact before any of you actually comprehend what it means.. I'm being an ass yes, but it's just really sad that I have to lay down some mathematical law that should be common knowledge! Hence, the accuracy of the cartoon map is irrelevant vs the actual math! You can give me a damn flip book of hundreds of FE maps and it will make absolutely no difference!

So I will say this again.. FE will never have a real map, and will never have an accurate map! It's simple easy 7th grade math people. It amazes me how many of you seemingly can't understand 7th grade math.  So please go on about excuses of not having a map, I already understand why you don't.

You can essentially call this thread the official reasons why all FE maps will fail! It's simple fucking math LOL.

Math doesn't matter when you use the wrong numbers to begin with. 

Math doesn't matter when you use the wrong numbers to begin with. 

Hey retarded mod, why don't you closed this derailed thread instead of supporting it?

Math doesn't matter when you use the wrong numbers to begin with. 

Numbers don't matter when you use a failed model, like FET.

Math doesn't matter when you use the wrong numbers to begin with. 

Oh please tell me you are not this fucking dumb..

Can anyone tell me how you get the area of a circle vs the area of a sphere?  Can anyone tell me what happens when you attempt to unfold a sphere into a circle, and why mass area would have to be added to make it a circle?

When you can understand that basic principle, and then understand the scales we are dealing with, you might realize why this comment of yours wasn't the brightest thing to say.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on July 25, 2010, 08:48:45 PM

Math doesn't matter when you use the wrong numbers to begin with. 

Oh please tell me you are not this fucking dumb..

Can anyone tell me how you get the area of a circle vs the area of a sphere?  Can anyone tell me what happen when you attempt to unfold a sphere into a circle, and why mass area would have to be added to make it a circle?

I can square a circle using only a straightedge and a compass.

It's true.

Math doesn't matter when you use the wrong numbers to begin with. 

If the numbers are wrong, we would expect contradictions between predicted RE flight times and actual flight times. We would expect millions of complaints about flights taking about twice as long as expected, and this would happen on every flight to certain places. Therefore RE is consistent and FE is not. The fact that hypotheses as ridiculous as Neptunian-speed jet streams that go in both directions or birds pulling planes have been brought to the table shows how weak the FE doctrine is on this issue.

I can square a circle using only a straightedge and a compass.

It's true.

you might want to visit this first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass_and_straightedge_constructions

However, this has nothing to do with the above

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on July 25, 2010, 08:48:45 PM

Math doesn't matter when you use the wrong numbers to begin with. 

If the numbers are wrong, we would expect contradictions between predicted RE flight times and actual flight times. We would expect millions of complaints about flights taking about twice as long as expected, and this would happen on every flight to certain places. Therefore RE is consistent and FE is not. The fact that hypotheses as ridiculous as Neptunian-speed jet streams that go in both directions or birds pulling planes have been brought to the table shows how weak the FE doctrine is on this issue.

And it aslo wouldn't matter because I gave specific speed of 515mph as average speed.. This is consistent to average flight speeds going east to west from California to Australia relative to traveling around the world   I can translate that into knots and determine how long it will take me to get from California to Australia in a sailboat. And if there were a magical bridge I could determine this by car, or bike, or even on foot! it's all completely accurate to the scale of RE, and I don't think they like being called out on that

Thanks for the supportive input


Now they can add math to the conspiracy and start teaching anti-math, oh wait, they apparently already do this

Quote from: Pseudointellect on July 25, 2010, 09:26:21 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on July 25, 2010, 08:48:45 PM

Math doesn't matter when you use the wrong numbers to begin with. 

If the numbers are wrong, we would expect contradictions between predicted RE flight times and actual flight times. We would expect millions of complaints about flights taking about twice as long as expected, and this would happen on every flight to certain places. Therefore RE is consistent and FE is not. The fact that hypotheses as ridiculous as Neptunian-speed jet streams that go in both directions or birds pulling planes have been brought to the table shows how weak the FE doctrine is on this issue.

And it aslo wouldn't matter because I gave specific speed of 515mph as average speed.. This is consistent to average flight speeds going east to west from California to Australia relative to traveling around the world   I can translate that into knots and determine how long it will take me to get from California to Australia in a sailboat. And if there were a magical bridge I could determine this by car, or bike, or even on foot! it's all completely accurate to the scale of RE, and I don't think they like being called out on that

Thanks for the supportive input


Now they can add math to the conspiracy and start teaching anti-math, oh wait, they apparently already do this

Still assuming RET as default. No progress.

Still assuming RET as default. No progress.

Yeah, your showing your level of stupidity the more you post. The math isn't using RE as default stupid, it's showing it's consistent accuracy LOL. Hence, I can apply this in any direction and remain completely accurate all the way around the world.

Again, you are pleading, and showing your inability to comprehend basic math. for an 11 year old kid, your mathematics is worse than that of my 8 year old nephew. And when you admit to something being consisted pizzaplanet, you inherently contradict yourself.. Circular arguments aren't going to save you from this. Grow up, get educated, and take the time to go and learn basic math skills.

And since you don't have any data on FE pizza, you are in no position to be stating "defaults" when you can't even determine the size of your fallacy to which you call FE. Under this, we can assume that you don't even know where the center of your FE is, since of course you have no data. And that pretty much sums up the total of FET.. FET is nothing more than faith based pseudoscience constructed around an ideological construct.

your showing your level of stupidity

Oh, the irony!

Look, I don't know what you mean by "consisted", but it's not the word you want. Something can consist of something. Nothing is "consisted".

And yes, the numbers don't assume RE, the maths is.

Quote from: TheJackel on July 25, 2010, 09:18:10 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on July 25, 2010, 08:48:45 PM

Math doesn't matter when you use the wrong numbers to begin with. 

Oh please tell me you are not this fucking dumb..

Can anyone tell me how you get the area of a circle vs the area of a sphere?  Can anyone tell me what happen when you attempt to unfold a sphere into a circle, and why mass area would have to be added to make it a circle?

I can square a circle using only a straightedge and a compass.

It's true.

Please stay on the topic. If you'd like your Nobel Prize for that feat, please call Stockholm.

Quote from: TheJackel on July 25, 2010, 10:12:53 PM

your showing your level of stupidity

Oh, the irony!

Look, I don't know what you mean by "consisted", but it's not the word you want. Something can consist of something. Nothing is "consisted".

And yes, the numbers don't assume RE, the maths is.

Are you really going to sit there and bash on a typo? He obviously meant to say consistent...Go outside and play little boy.

Quote from: TheJackel on July 25, 2010, 10:12:53 PM

your showing your level of stupidity

Oh, the irony!

Look, I don't know what you mean by "consisted", but it's not the word you want. Something can consist of something. Nothing is "consisted".

And yes, the numbers don't assume RE, the maths is.

You do realize that your last sentence, and I use the term loosely, has at least three problems in grammar, right?. Please add to the debate, or go back to stocking beef jerky. Thanks.

Quote from: TheJackel on July 25, 2010, 10:12:53 PM

your showing your level of stupidity

Oh, the irony!

Look, I don't know what you mean by "consisted", but it's not the word you want. Something can consist of something. Nothing is "consisted".

And yes, the numbers don't assume RE, the maths is.

wrong, the math only shows it's accuracy to the real world, and exposes inaccuracies . And I used that word "consisted" to quote your own words and nothing more. Hence, the data is consistent to the real world. Your argument here is like saying 10ft is the distance between two points, while trying to deny it is because you think the math is assuming it. Math doesn't assume shit kid lol. The math only shows the numbers to be correct, or incorrect . 

FE = complete fail, inconsistent, inaccurate, and mathematically incorrect, and absent of any data what-so-ever out of convenience of circular argument due to it's inability to achieve all to which is listed here. It requires one to actually be a complete moron in order to be believed.

RE = completely consistent, accurate, and mathematically correct, and actually has real data to back it up.

Keep trying, you might win a prize for the mathematically dumbest 11 year old on the internet :/



 

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 25, 2010, 10:15:19 PM

Quote from: TheJackel on July 25, 2010, 10:12:53 PM

your showing your level of stupidity

Oh, the irony!

Look, I don't know what you mean by "consisted", but it's not the word you want. Something can consist of something. Nothing is "consisted".

And yes, the numbers don't assume RE, the maths is.

wrong, the math only shows it's accuracy to the real world, and exposes inaccuracies . And I used that word "consisted" to quote your own words and nothing more Hence, the data is consistent to the real world. Your argument here is like saying 10ft is the distance between two points, while trying to deny it is because you think the math is assuming it. Math doesn't assume shit kid lol. The math only shows the numbers to be correct, or incorrect . 

FE = complete fail, inconsistent, inaccurate, and mathematically incorrect, and absent of any data what-so-ever out of convenience of circular argument due to it's inability to achieve all to which is listed here. It requires one to actual be a complete moron in order to be believed.

RE = completely consistent, accurate, and mathematically correct, has real data to back it up.

Keep trying, you might win a prize for the mathematically dumbest 11 year old on the internet :/



 

Hey, uh PizzaPlanet, might as well push that big ol' power button on your computer now.

Dumbest 11 year old on the internet is a bit harsh lol; that title would be extremely hard for anyone on FES to earn. But anyway, I agree completely on your comments.

Pizzaplanet, it's like this. If we assume RE numbers for the world's dimensions, we get consistent results with traveling. If we assume FE numbers, we DON'T. Now, given this, would you rather prefer a consistent model or an inconsistent one? You'll see now why "it assumes RE therefore it's circular" is a stupid argument here.

Dumbest 11 year old on the internet is a bit harsh lol; that title would be extremely hard for anyone on FES to earn. But anyway, I agree completely on your comments.

Pizzaplanet, it's like this. If we assume RE numbers for the world's dimensions, we get consistent results with traveling. If we assume FE numbers, we DON'T. Now, given this, would you rather prefer a consistent model or an inconsistent one? You'll see now why "it assumes RE therefore it's circular" is a stupid argument here.

We should give him FE numbers for a trip from Bostin to Los Angeles, see where he ends up

Dumbest 11 year old on the internet is a bit harsh lol; that title would be extremely hard for anyone on FES to earn. But anyway, I agree completely on your comments.

Pizzaplanet, it's like this. If we assume RE numbers for the world's dimensions, we get consistent results with traveling. If we assume FE numbers, we DON'T. Now, given this, would you rather prefer a consistent model or an inconsistent one? You'll see now why "it assumes RE therefore it's circular" is a stupid argument here.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest he was, but rather on his way to earning it .. And yes, it was a bit harsh. So I will try and refrain from doing so in the future Besides, my grammar is indeed horrible.

Quote from: Pseudointellect on July 25, 2010, 11:00:12 PM

Dumbest 11 year old on the internet is a bit harsh lol; that title would be extremely hard for anyone on FES to earn. But anyway, I agree completely on your comments.

Pizzaplanet, it's like this. If we assume RE numbers for the world's dimensions, we get consistent results with traveling. If we assume FE numbers, we DON'T. Now, given this, would you rather prefer a consistent model or an inconsistent one? You'll see now why "it assumes RE therefore it's circular" is a stupid argument here.

We should give him FE numbers for a trip from Bostin to Los Angeles, see where he ends up

LOL, or send him on a sail boat with nothing more than FE maps to plot his course . And we can watch him via GPS tracking! I would love to see that fiasco, and if he get's into trouble, the GPS tracking will allow us to save his ass. 

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest he was, but rather on his way to earning it .. And yes, it was a bit harsh. So I will try and refrain from doing so in the future Besides, my grammar is indeed horrible.

Apology accepted, admission appreciated.

LOL, or send him on a sail boat with nothing more than FE maps to plot his course . And we can watch him via GPS tracking! I would love to see that fiasco, and if he get's into trouble, the GPS tracking will allow us to save his ass. 

I will gladly accept the challenge, as long as you're financing it. That, of course, includes a group of people who could sail a boat.

We should give him FE numbers for a trip from Bostin to Los Angeles, see where he ends up

FE numbers? You mean you actually have them? By all means, let me see!

Dumbest 11 year old on the internet is a bit harsh lol; that title would be extremely hard for anyone on FES to earn. But anyway, I agree completely on your comments.

Pizzaplanet, it's like this. If we assume RE numbers for the world's dimensions, we get consistent results with traveling. If we assume FE numbers, we DON'T. Now, given this, would you rather prefer a consistent model or an inconsistent one? You'll see now why "it assumes RE therefore it's circular" is a stupid argument here.

There are no FE or RE measurements of the Earth. There are measurements of the Earth. The fact that FE maps are, frankly, shit, has been pointed out numerous times. TheJackel's main argument is that in order to prove RE you can verify the GPS using the GPS, but only when assuming a RE, and that is circular logic, in at least two ways.

FE numbers? You mean you actually have them? By all means, let me see!

I've never said this before, but please lurk more and read the FAQ.

I will gladly accept the challenge, as long as you're financing it. That, of course, includes a group of people who could sail a boat.

That's not how that would work If you have to rely on a group of people to get you somewhere, you equal fail. As far as financing goes, get a job and put your foot where your mouth is Hence, I didn't need financing from someone else to do it, or to hold my hand.

FE numbers? You mean you actually have them? By all means, let me see!

If you are going to tell people to lurk more into your FAQ, the numbers are there and you have a map in your FAQ. If you are going to say there are no numbers, then you have proven your own FAQ useless, and irrelevant. Hence, your FE has no base to support itself and is thus self collapsing as a theory.

There are no FE or RE measurements of the Earth. There are measurements of the Earth. The fact that FE maps are, frankly, shit, has been pointed out numerous times. TheJackel's main argument is that in order to prove RE you can verify the GPS using the GPS, but only when assuming a RE, and that is circular logic, in at least two ways.

This of course is entirely false, and all you are doing here is rejecting information and data to support your circular denial of reality. Hence, I  had made measurements more than once for you. And you can do it yourself with a GPS as I had instructed you to do before. Your failure to comprehend the math, a GPS, my measurements, other peoples measurements around the world ect is not winning you brownie points in this discussion. We can do the measurement game all year long Pizzaplanet and I will be correct and accurate 100% of the time.. Hence, you are not going to win that argument, and the sooner you realize this the better. So I will say this again, you will never fit the real world on to an FE map and ever have it be even close to accurate. You will never get an accurate measurement using a FE map of any kind It's really that simple.

Perhaps we should open a measurement thread where I will do a measurement twice a week lol.

Hence, I  had made measurements more than once for you.

You have measured the Earth for me? Like, actually drove a car around and took measurements; all that just for me?
My, a simple flower would suffice.

I will gladly accept the challenge, as long as you're financing it. That, of course, includes a group of people who could sail a boat.

I will gladly call out your hypocrisy: you have the means to make a map of a small part of Earth, using the same techniques as so many people used before GPS. With minimal equipment, using the stars as reference points, (using only stars close to the zenith, in case you are one of the few who have not decried Bendy Light), and using relatively inexpensive equipment, like a small telescope and a lead plumb, and the odometer of your car.

You are ecstatic when people suggest expensive trips, just as the other "FE theorists", because then you can cry out loud about the World's lack of collaboration with you. But even if I want to get financing for non-esoteric research I am the one who has to show I can do the research once I have the money.

So, do not cry about the lack of good FE maps. Make a map of the immediate vicinity of your home, with the precise relative position of a few big landmarks, and you will show you are worthy of consideration for financing towards a bigger map. Use GPS, or do not use it, but just do your homework before asking for financing.

Showing your total lack of capacity to chart anything is not the way to get a grant to chart big parts of the Earth.

Quote from: TheJackel on July 26, 2010, 06:33:19 AM

Hence, I  had made measurements more than once for you.

You have measured the Earth for me? Like, actually drove a car around and took measurements; all that just for me?
My, a simple flower would suffice.

Actually I have, you simply ignore it.. I've been using GPS for over 13 years, and I've been sailing for 25 years. Your problem is your inability to do this yourself. Hence, you actually expect others to provide you information to which you will just simply ignore or deny..  Seriously, why do you think I told you to get off your lazy spoon fed ass to do something interactive and educational. At this point, all you are doing is playing a game of denial while proving your unwillingness to actually do it yourself. Hence, a simple walk to your local mall would suffice.

I can play the measuring game all day PizzaPlanet and win this argument, and that is something you seem to be having a hard time coping with. My calculations will never be inconsistent in this regard .

And as the posts suggests, put your foot where your mouth is and actually do something constructive. A simple visit to your local Peer, or Sports shop might help you grasp why GPS is used by so many people.. It's a Hikers best friend, and a back country hunters guide because it's that damn accurate!

Google Maps, and Google World is also deadly accurate and you can even zoom on to your own street and virtually navigate them. I can put the GPS coordinates from my hand held from where I am standing right now and have it come up exactly where I am online.. There is a ton of things you can do to test the system .