Lack of a distance preserving FE map.

Markjo, there is only one distance scale on that map too. Please find a map of a large region of the earth with different scales for different parts of the map, as a Round Earth map would need.

If there is only one scale for the map, then it must be a Flat Earth map.

Markjo, there is only one distance scale on that map too. Please find a map of a large region with different scales for different parts of the map, as a Round Earth map would need.

If there is only one scale for the map, then it must be a Flat Earth map.

Provide us then a map of FE (all of it) with a scale.

God damnit Tom. you are still retarded. You have no understanding of charts or navigation. Go back to your hole and stay away from talking about anything navigational related.

I cannot even take you seriously anymore. Thinking that a chart should have multiple scales is just stupid. You are laughed at by every person that has any common sense and by every person that has any experience in navigation.

you really do not know why charts only have one scale? I mean really... is it that hard.

god you are dumb as shit.

Quote from: Megaman on August 15, 2012, 01:33:18 AM

"Perhaps the reason they can navigate with flat maps is because the earth is flat."

I honestly don't see how you can be this bad at understanding things....

I'm not particularly talking about Mercator maps. Navigators don't use a world Mercator map to travel the nuances of the British coast -- they use a big map of Europe -- maps specifically tailored to show the detailed areas of a region. It's these region specific maps which more closely match how the region would look on a flat earth model.

The types of maps which show a single region are flat with a single scale in the corner which show that one inch=xxx miles or so. They give a strong impression that the scale is applicable to anywehere on the page.

Consider this map for instance:



There is only one scale in the corner-- which gives the reader the impression that the scale is applicable across the entire map. Any region specific map you'll find has a single scale like this.

If the earth were a globe, there should be scales all over this map to account for the checkerboard of the longitude and latitude lines that grow and shrink on that map depending on where it is. However, there is only one scale on any region-specific map you look at. This suggests that it is a flat earth map.

Any atlas a navigator buys has only one scale in the corner like that. If a navigator traveling across Europe is using that one scale to judge his distances, and regularly reaches his destination with precision as claimed on this forum, then it can only be because the earth is flat.

Oh... so navigators don't use Mercator projection maps for navigation....

Me: "Hey Encyclopedia, could you verify that fact for me"

Encyclopedia: "Sure thing bro. I got your back. Here:

Mercator projection: globe of the Earth type of map projection introduced in 1569 by Gerardus Mercator. It is often described as a cylindrical projection, but it must be derived mathematically. The meridians are equally spaced, parallel vertical lines, and the parallels of latitude are parallel, horizontal straight lines, spaced farther and farther apart as their distance from the Equator increases. This projection is widely used for navigation charts, because any straight line on a Mercator-projection map is a line of constant true bearing that enables a navigator to plot a straight-line course. It is less practical for world maps because the scale....

 [Credit: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.]"

Me: "Hold on encyclopedia, what was that about navigation and world maps?"

Encyclopedia: "Well, the projection is widely used for navigation charts, because any straight line on a Mercator-projection map is a line of constant true bearing that enables a navigator to plot a straight-line course. It is less practical for world maps because the scale..."

Me: "I see. So you're saying that the Mercator projection is used primarily for accurate navigation of local areas?"

Encyclopedia: "You got it."

Me: "*Gasp*, but if that's true, that would mean that Tom has absolutely no idea what he is talking about."

Encyclopedia: "Facts are facts."

Me: "Wow, thanks Encyclopedia! I'm suprised more people (like Tom) don't use you to check facts. You're so easy to use and awesome."

Encyclopedia: "No Megaman, you're awesome!"

Me: "Oh you..."

Markjo, there is only one distance scale on that map too. Please find a map of a large region of the earth with different scales for different parts of the map, as a Round Earth map would need.

If there is only one scale for the map, then it must be a Flat Earth map.

Check this out: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Pieni_2_0791.jpg

God damnit Tom. you are still retarded. You have no understanding of charts or navigation. Go back to your hole and stay away from talking about anything navigational related.

I cannot even take you seriously anymore. Thinking that a chart should have multiple scales is just stupid. You are laughed at by every person that has any common sense and by every person that has any experience in navigation.

you really do not know why charts only have one scale? I mean really... is it that hard.

god you are dumb as shit.

Do not use insulting or denigrating personal attacks against other members. Harassment or bullying of other members is forbidden.

Tom where are you?

You seem to disappear when people raise points that you can't refute with faulty logic.

Please, please prove me or markjo wrong.
 

Megaman,

Where did I say that navigators don't use Mercator maps? I said that they don't use 'world Mercator maps' (that's the term I used) to navigate the intracies of the British coast.

Markjo,

Good on you. What you posted in a Round Earth map. It's the first I've seen.  Navigators should be using a map like that with various scales on it to navigate. The fact that they're able to navigate with a single scale is quite telling as to what shape the world really is.

Megaman,

Where did I say that navigators don't use Mercator maps? I said that they don't use 'world Mercator maps' (that's the term I used) to navigate the intracies of the British coast.

Markjo,

Good on you. What you posted in a Round Earth map. It's the first I've seen.  Navigators should be using a map like that with various scales on it to navigate. The fact that they're able to navigate with a single scale is quite telling as to what shape the world really is.

I apologize. You used the word Mercator when referring to the world map but neglected to use it when referring to smaller, local maps that navigators actually use.

That, coupled with the fact that the smaller, local map you posted does not use the Mercator projection would imply that you believe navigational maps do not use Mercator.

My mistake for assuming.

Now. Regarding your response to Markjo,

"Navigators should be using a map like that with various scales on it to navigate. The fact that they're able to navigate with a single scale is quite telling as to what shape the world really is."

The Mercator maps used to navigate all have a single scale.

Here's a database of navigation maps:

http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/mcd/OnLineViewer.html

That's what navigation maps look like.


The thing is, the scale of the map is only accurate along latitude lines.

Here's how you read the charts.

http://www.coastalnavigation.com/samples/sec_1/1_pages/1_3.htm

Note the section on measuring distance.

Guess what Tom?

Vertical scale on Mercator navigation charts varies along longitudinal lines.

Learn how navigation maps work. You once again argue about something you don't actually understand.

These are the charts used for navigation and navigators must account for the projection (distortion) that occurs when you try to represent a curved surface as being flat.

Your assertion that they are navigating with a single scale on the map is correct but the scale does not apply to North-South direction.

They must adjust for curvature in their calculations. The fact that they must do this is quite telling as to what shape the world really is.

Refute that Tom.

The fact that they're able to navigate with a single scale is quite telling as to what shape the world really is.

No Tom, it's quite telling as to how small of a region many navigational charts represent.

Your assertion that they are navigating with a single scale on the map is correct but the scale does not apply to North-South direction.

You have that backwards. East-West is distorted on a Mercator map. For example, Australia is three times longer than it is. From your link:

Lines of latitude, while still parallel, are no longer equidistant but wider apart further north. This causes distortion in the shape and size of land and ocean masses as these features are enlarged closer to the poles.

Anyway, your posts are a pain to to read. Please format your sentences properly and try to express your thoughts in paragraphs. Maybe we'll actually read your posts if they're not an assault to our eyes.

Monster fail, Tom.  If latitude lines are no longer equidistant that's a distortion along north-south lines.

Quote from: Megaman on August 16, 2012, 05:43:20 PM

Your assertion that they are navigating with a single scale on the map is correct but the scale does not apply to North-South direction.

You have that backwards. East-West is distorted on a Mercator map. For example, Australia is three times longer than it is. From your link:

Quote

Lines of latitude, while still parallel, are no longer equidistant but wider apart further north. This causes distortion in the shape and size of land and ocean masses as these features are enlarged closer to the poles.

Anyway, your posts are a pain to to read. Please format your sentences properly and try to express your thoughts in paragraphs. Maybe we'll actually read your posts if they're not an assault to our eyes.

Thank you also for implying that the form of my responses somehow renders the facts in those responses invalid. That was a great cop out. You are unable to refute the things I say. You either take them out of context or make up a reason for them not to be worth your time. If you had integrity you would actually attempt to refute the points made instead of dodging them.

Once again, I challenge that you are mentally incapable of refuting the 3 flaws I brought up in Rowbotham's work. I surmise that you are also incapable of refuting the point I brought up about acceleration and rotating bodies. Finally I submit that the reason you nitpicked my example is because the points I raised have proven you wrong on the point of debate and you aren't capable of handling that.

Monster fail, Tom.  If latitude lines are no longer equidistant that's a distortion along north-south lines.

The poster said that east-west is correct on a Mercator map, but north-south is not correct. This is false.

Thank you also for implying that the form of my responses somehow renders the facts in those responses invalid. That was a great cop out. You are unable to refute the things I say. You either take them out of context or make up a reason for them not to be worth your time. If you had integrity you would actually attempt to refute the points made instead of dodging them.

Once again, I challenge that you are mentally incapable of refuting the 3 flaws I brought up in Rowbotham's work. I surmise that you are also incapable of refuting the point I brought up about acceleration and rotating bodies. Finally I submit that the reason you nitpicked my example is because the points I raised have proven you wrong on the point of debate and you aren't capable of handling that.

Honestly, the first two of your points came across as unintelligible to me, which is why I only replied to the last one in that thread, and is likely why Ski only replied to the last one as well. I suggest you start another thread and rephrase your thoughts

The poster said that east-west is correct on a Mercator map, but north-south is not correct. This is false.

Neither one is "correct" as they're both distorted.  The east-west scale, used to find longitude, doesn't stretch.  The same distance on the map will always show the same difference in longitude.

The north-south scale, on the other hand, does stretch.  The same distance on the map going north-south can show different differences in latitude depending on how north or south you are on the map.

You use the latitude scale for all your measurements because it is accurate. the longitude is somewhat distorted because it had to be to represent a semi spherical Earth on a flat chart, but not so much distorted that it causes inaccuracy's in fix locations and land/ocean representation.

Are we really still on this topic? Tom already has no clue what he is talking about, let's just leave him living in his ignorance.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on August 16, 2012, 09:30:05 PM

Monster fail, Tom.  If latitude lines are no longer equidistant that's a distortion along north-south lines.

The poster said that east-west is correct on a Mercator map, but north-south is not correct. This is false.

Tom, you used the phrase "You have that backwards", which implies that you think that north-south is preserved.  This is why you failed most monsterly.

Tom, you keep arguing about cardinal directions while conveniently dodging what's been shown in this thread. Navigators base their navigation on the idea that the earth is round.

I have said that before Mega. I let them all know that navigating using the tools and calculations on charts for a round Earth I can accurately give travel times, correct headings, and distances. Now if the world was actually flat, then my travel times, distances, and headings would be wrong.

Cannot navigate on a flat Earth using a round Earth chart... I would run into shit.

Boatsey, you also believe that you can travel at a constant exact heading with out ever turning.  You lost your credibility there.

This is silly.

I mean, don't let me stop you from discussing the options, but you're missing something important. Here, let me have a go:

- Distances work as if the earth is round. This is amply documented, and I have personal experience in the matter.
- But the earth is actually flat.

Okay, so how do we reconcile these two facts?

The answer is simple enough: It's embedded in a highly curved, non-euclidian spacetime. That's not something you could see up close - like the supposed curvature of a round earth, curved spacetime looks flat at small scales - but it has dramatic consequences over larger scales.

For instance, when you think you're going straight, you actually get pulled into a curve, eventually forming a circle. That's why even with the best navigation, going straight ahead in any direction will lead you back to your point of origin. That effect is, as observation shows, stronger when you're closer to the pole.

Conversely, as you go further from the pole, distances get distorted. Although a hypothetical observer in space would agree that you're covering a far larger distance when you're skirting the edge of the ice wall than when you're circling the pole, from your own personal point of view both space and time (the two being inherently linked) get distorted so that they can appear to be the same distance.

Hypothetically, this distortion could get strong enough to shrink the apparent distance to zero outside of the ice wall. Although this is a purely mathematical abstraction, such a singularity - I won't call it a pole, since that means something different in geography and math - could explain why the wall exists in the first place.

A future goal for the Society should be to discover how the distortion works, and apply it technologically. This will at once gain us massive leverage, and as most of the world would not even comprehend the basic principle, there's no risk of someone else accomplishing it first, so we can do this openly.

Boatsey, you also believe that you can travel at a constant exact heading with out ever turning.  You lost your credibility there.

Why would he need to turn if he's sailing due north or south?

Boatsey, you also believe that you can travel at a constant exact heading with out ever turning.  You lost your credibility there.

Are you trying to tell me that following a heading of 300, my ship's rudder angle has to be at left standard?

Are you trying to tell me that I cannot follow a latitude line? Or a longitude line?

I think you do not fully understand how a ship travels on the ocean.

Quote from: jroa on August 20, 2012, 05:23:10 AM

Boatsey, you also believe that you can travel at a constant exact heading with out ever turning.  You lost your credibility there.

Why would he need to turn if he's sailing due north or south?

You know that is the exception.  Well, that and following the equator on a sphere.  Any other heading and you have to constantly turn slightly.

Are you trying to tell me that following a heading of 300, my ship's rudder angle has to be at left standard?

Yes.  It is such a slight curve that you would not notice it compared to the other corrections that are being made.

Are you trying to tell me that I cannot follow a latitude line? Or a longitude line?

See my reply to markjo above.

I think you do not fully understand how a ship travels on the ocean.

I think you have a hard time grasping 3 dimensional space.

Quote from: markjo on August 20, 2012, 10:51:47 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 20, 2012, 05:23:10 AM

Boatsey, you also believe that you can travel at a constant exact heading with out ever turning.  You lost your credibility there.

Why would he need to turn if he's sailing due north or south?

You know that is the exception.  Well, that and following the equator on a sphere.  Any other heading and you have to constantly turn slightly.

You would probably have to adjust more for ocean currents and wind than for the earth's curvature.

Quote from: jroa on August 20, 2012, 02:36:07 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 20, 2012, 10:51:47 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 20, 2012, 05:23:10 AM

Boatsey, you also believe that you can travel at a constant exact heading with out ever turning.  You lost your credibility there.

Why would he need to turn if he's sailing due north or south?

You know that is the exception.  Well, that and following the equator on a sphere.  Any other heading and you have to constantly turn slightly.

You would probably have to adjust more for ocean currents and wind than for the earth's curvature.

I agree, but that does not make it completely irrelevant.

Quote from: markjo on August 20, 2012, 03:15:37 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 20, 2012, 02:36:07 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 20, 2012, 10:51:47 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 20, 2012, 05:23:10 AM

Boatsey, you also believe that you can travel at a constant exact heading with out ever turning.  You lost your credibility there.

Why would he need to turn if he's sailing due north or south?

You know that is the exception.  Well, that and following the equator on a sphere.  Any other heading and you have to constantly turn slightly.

You would probably have to adjust more for ocean currents and wind than for the earth's curvature.

I agree, but that does not make it completely irrelevant.

No, just mostly irrelevant.

Funny how the only corrections to my heading I need to make are for set and drift. Care to explain how I can follow my trackline perfectly no matter what heading it is?

I mean come on dude, I do not need to head north to get south or anything. So Do you honestly believe that if I mean going 085 I am not actually going 085? My gyro says so, after deviation and variation my magnetic says so. So How am I not actually doing 085?

Boatsey, even markjo, the biggest RE'er here, agrees that you have to turn slightly.  It is such a small amount that he claims it is mostly irrelevant, but still true.  You can not travel on a sphere in any direction other than north/south or along the equator with out turning if you are following a constant heading.

Boatsey, even markjo, the biggest RE'er here, agrees that you have to turn slightly. 

Whether or not you need to turn depends on what sort of course you're trying to follow.