Maps?

Tom, you're confused. A Mercator map and an azimuthal equidistant map are both projections of a sphere. One isn't turned into the other.

Anyway, document your claim that FES published the first north polar azimuthal equidistant map.

Read Earth Not a Globe. My time here is done.

The one in Earth Not a Globe is not a north polar azimuthal equidistant map.

Document your claim that FES published the first north polar azimuthal equidistant map.

I can make a mathematical formula to draw swastikas on graphic calculators. It doesn't mean that I invented the swastika.

You seem to be having a hard time grasping why the fact that "your" map perfectly matches this formula is such a ridiculous coincidence.  So let's ignore the math itself for now and look at the practical application of it:

I measure the distance from the center of that map to any other point on it; for example, let's say the southeastern corner of Australia. Now if I take a globe which has a circumference equal to the diameter of your map, and wrap a string from the north pole of that globe to the southeastern corner of Australia, the length of the string will be exactly the same measurement. This will work for a line from the north pole to anywhere else on the map. How do you explain this phenomenon?

Read Earth Not a Globe. My time here is done. I have been defeated yet again, curses. Damn my crapness.

Fi'ed.

A Mercator map can be turned into a Northern Azimuthal map, and it doesn't matter. It's our map. We came up with it. We published it. We popularized it. End of story.

Except for the part where you forgot to mention that the map that you published and popularized is based on RET measurements so your really can't say that "you came up with it".

I'm right on the "Flat Earther" subject, and I'm right on this one. My time here is done.

Are you saying that being an FE'er automatically makes you a member of the FES, whether you want to be a member or not?

The point is that the Flat Earth Society is the direct root of the term Flat Earther.

So it follows that when someone describes something as "astronomical", they are ultimately referring to the The Royal Astronomical Society.  Yes, I see what you mean. 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 09, 2012, 10:55:47 AM

The point is that the Flat Earth Society is the direct root of the term Flat Earther.

So it follows that when someone describes something as "astronomical", they are ultimately referring to the The Royal Astronomical Society.  Yes, I see what you mean. 

No, that does not follow at all. Calling something astronomical has nothing to do specifically with the Royal Astronomical Society. If you called someone a "Royal Astronomer," it might be a different story.

There have been Flat Earthers besides the members of the Flat Earth Society, but the metaphor "Flat Earther" isn't referencing the Ancient Egyptians or other ancient societies who believed that the earth was flat in times when it was accepted. The metaphor is referencing the FES, who believed in a Flat Earth in times when the notion was not accepted. "Flat Earther" is used to describe someone who believes something contrary to accepted truth. The only Flat Earthers which fit this description are members of the Flat Earth Society.

It is painfully, painfully, obvious that the term Flat Earther is in reference to the Flat Earth Society. There is nothing to debate, really. Kindly cease posting.

It is painfully, painfully, obvious that the term Flat Earther is in reference to the Flat Earth Society.

The only thing that is painfully, painfully obvious is your ability to jump to unsupported conclusions.

There is nothing to debate, really.

If you're unwilling to listen to any point of view other than your own, then you're right, there is nothing to debate.

tom never accepts another posters opinion. its his style. argueing with him is pointless

tom never accepts another posters opinion. its his style. argueing with him is pointless

He agrees with me all the time. I have even on occasion, corrected him on matters of FET. He is rarely wrong, but humble and open-minded when shown to be mistaken.

However he isn't going to apologise just because he didn't bend to your will.

The Flat Earth Society came up with that map, not the UN.

Nope.

History

While it may have been used by ancient Egyptians for star maps in some holy books,^[1] the earliest text describing the azimuthal equidistant projection is an 11th-century work by al-Biruni.^[2]
In some countries this projection is named "Postel projection" after Guillaume Postel, who used it for a map in 1581.^[1]

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 09, 2012, 08:38:11 AM

The Flat Earth Society came up with that map, not the UN.

Nope.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection

History

While it may have been used by ancient Egyptians for star maps in some holy books,^[1] the earliest text describing the azimuthal equidistant projection is an 11th-century work by al-Biruni.^[2]
In some countries this projection is named "Postel projection" after Guillaume Postel, who used it for a map in 1581.^[1]

No one was using that map in the 11th century. North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica weren't even discovered yet.

And ancient egyptians thought the world looked like this.

He is rarely wrong, but humble and open-minded when shown to be mistaken.

Here are some examples of Tom Bishop being absolutely wrong:

none of these amateurs are doing these experiments near nightfall

All of the phases were influenced by NASA.

it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away near the lighthouse.

It's either a wide angle lens or barrel distortion.

Anything which claims to get into orbit is going to be classified. The US or Russian government isn't going to let other countries have access to ICBM-like technologies.

I have to build a Cubesat or otherwise partner with a university if I want to see Cubesat Telemetry data.

Each of these were easily falsifiable statements. In each case, when he was shown to be mistaken, Tom Bishop either ran away from the thread or fell into denial. If that is your definition of humility and open-mindedness, I suppose you're right.

No one was using that map in the 11th century. North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica weren't even discovered yet.

You're right that they weren't using the north polar aspect that covered the entire world; however, they were still using the same projection formula, which you implied was invented by some guy screwing around with a graphing calculator to produce "your" map.

Now Tom, please respond to this post.

I see a bunch of things you disagree with. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.

Tom does not run away from threads. However you will appreciate that there are far more RErs than FErs stalking the boards. By virtue of sheer numbers you cannot expect an FE response to every RE post that is made. Once a point has been made it's often better (time efficient and interesting) to move to a new thread to make more interesting points on other subjects than to flog a dead horse repeating the same thing in 20 different ways to someone who is probably just trolling us anyway.

you know who the trolls are, just ignore them

I see a bunch of things you disagree with. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.

That's why the links are included.

I chose statements that can be disproved straightforwardly. Most of Tom's statements are absolutes ("none of these", "all of these", "this can't happen unless...") so they can be invalidated simply by showing an exception. Others, such as his lies about the capabilities and limitations of telescopes and cameras, can be straightforwardly disproved by demonstrating the actual properties of the specific devices in question.

Tom does not run away from threads. However you will appreciate that there are far more RErs than FErs stalking the boards. By virtue of sheer numbers you cannot expect an FE response to every RE post that is made.

That may explain one or two instances, but when there becomes an ongoing pattern of Tom suddenly disappearing entirely from a thread where he was previously active right after his statement gets undeniably disproved, I get suspicious. You understand.

none of these amateurs are doing these experiments near nightfall

That was a factual statement at the time I made that. To my knowledge no one did the balloon experiment at nightfall.

All of the phases were influenced by NASA.

Seeing as NASA was funding the development and directing the research of the project in question, everything about the project was influenced by NASA.

it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away near the lighthouse.

No one has looked into a telescope and demonstrated otherwise.

It's either a wide angle lens or barrel distortion.

This is an accurate statement. The curvature in those photos is clearly distorted by the lens. In other pictures from the apex of the same balloon flight the horizon is completely flat. The horizon can't be both flat and curved at the same time.

Anything which claims to get into orbit is going to be classified. The US or Russian government isn't going to let other countries have access to ICBM-like technologies.

This is a true statement. The US Government doesn't let anyone get into orbit. Military airspace starts at 60,000 feet. The public can't go above that altitude legally. Only the government and government contractors can breach that altitude. The Concord had to fly at 59,000 feet just to stay legal.

Sending a rocket into Military airspace is considered an act of war/terrorist threat. Rocket technologies which can reach very high altitudes are restricted.

I have to build a Cubesat or otherwise partner with a university if I want to see Cubesat Telemetry data.

The suggestion made in that thread was that I can buy an antenna and somehow decipher and decode cubesat communications which I have no knowledge of. That is absurd. My assessment of my options was accurate.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 09, 2012, 04:11:41 PM

No one was using that map in the 11th century. North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica weren't even discovered yet.

You're right that they weren't using the north polar aspect that covered the entire world; however, they were still using the same projection formula, which you implied was invented by some guy screwing around with a graphing calculator to produce "your" map.

Sorry, but just because someone later comes up with a projection formula to turn a Mercator map into Rowboatham's map doesn't mean that it's not Rowbotham's map.

No, NASA did not influence every phase. Yes, others have looked through the same type of telescope and confirmed you're a liar. No, lens distortion cannot account for the curvature.  Yes, other countries have access to "ICBM-like" technologies. No, the CubeSat data is not in an obscure format that outsiders can't "decode".

You're merely repeating the statements which have been disproved and ignoring the disproof. This is what you do. You make claims, get crushed, run away, then go back to square one a month or so later making the same claims and hoping everyone forgot that they're bullshit. I'm not going to reenact all those threads for you here. Anyone can click the links themselves and see how your statements were disproved in no uncertain terms.

That was a factual statement at the time I made that. To my knowledge no one did the balloon experiment at nightfall.

Tom Bishop caught in yet another lie. No, that was not factual to your knowledge at that time. You posted that on January 23rd. You had already posted in my thread, What causes the circle of darkness, on January 17th, in reply to a website dedicated to balloon experiments at nightfall. Nice try.

Quote

Quote

No one was using that map in the 11th century. North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica weren't even discovered yet.

You're right that they weren't using the north polar aspect that covered the entire world; however, they were still using the same projection formula, which you implied was invented by some guy screwing around with a graphing calculator to produce "your" map.

Sorry, but just because someone later comes up with a projection formula to turn a Mercator map into Rowboatham's map doesn't mean that it's not Rowbotham's map.

Nope.  Try again.

Please respond to this post:

I measure the distance from the center of that map to any other point on it; for example, let's say the southeastern corner of Australia. Now if I take a globe which has a circumference equal to the diameter of your map, and wrap a string from the north pole of that globe to the southeastern corner of Australia, the length of the string will be exactly the same measurement. This will work for a line from the north pole to anywhere else on the map. How do you explain this phenomenon?

No, that does not follow at all. Calling something astronomical has nothing to do specifically with the Royal Astronomical Society. If you called someone a "Royal Astronomer," it might be a different story.

So why don't people say "he's a bit of a flat earth society member of the subject of global warming" ?

"Flat Earther" is used to describe someone who believes something contrary to accepted truth.  The only Flat Earthers which fit this description are members of the Flat Earth Society.

This has now reduced to absurdity:  You have assumed that all flat earth believers are card-carrying members of the FES.  That is quite a claim. 

Please cease.

Quote from: squevil on February 09, 2012, 03:13:29 PM

tom never accepts another posters opinion. its his style. argueing with him is pointless

He agrees with me all the time. I have even on occasion, corrected him on matters of FET. He is rarely wrong, but humble and open-minded when shown to be mistaken.

However he isn't going to apologise just because he didn't bend to your will.

We need A Child Of Five to arbitrate for us.

Please respond to this post:

Quote from: zarg on February 09, 2012, 12:10:22 PM

I measure the distance from the center of that map to any other point on it; for example, let's say the southeastern corner of Australia. Now if I take a globe which has a circumference equal to the diameter of your map, and wrap a string from the north pole of that globe to the southeastern corner of Australia, the length of the string will be exactly the same measurement. This will work for a line from the north pole to anywhere else on the map. How do you explain this phenomenon?

I see Tom ran away again.

Quote from: ClockTower on February 09, 2012, 03:49:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 09, 2012, 08:38:11 AM

The Flat Earth Society came up with that map, not the UN.

Nope.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection

History

While it may have been used by ancient Egyptians for star maps in some holy books,^[1] the earliest text describing the azimuthal equidistant projection is an 11th-century work by al-Biruni.^[2]
In some countries this projection is named "Postel projection" after Guillaume Postel, who used it for a map in 1581.^[1]

No one was using that map in the 11th century. North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica weren't even discovered yet.

And ancient egyptians thought the world looked like this.

Ancient people actually did not think that the earth looked liked that. They actually had very accurate maps of the world based on, you guessed it, a round earth. See the Piri Reis map at this link: http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm

Ancient people actually did not think that the earth looked liked that. They actually had very accurate maps of the world based on, you guessed it, a round earth. See the Piri Reis map at this link: http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm

While the Piri Reis is amazingly consistent with current RE maps, it also is completely socially irreconcilable with the environment in 4000BC as some claim. It's much more likely to be a recent addition to his compendium during the period of naval exploration in the 16th century. You'll notice Tom Bishop was referring to maps in the 11th century.

Quote from: areyouguysserious on February 15, 2012, 12:48:51 PM

Ancient people actually did not think that the earth looked liked that. They actually had very accurate maps of the world based on, you guessed it, a round earth. See the Piri Reis map at this link: http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm

While the Piri Reis is amazingly consistent with current RE maps, it also is completely socially irreconcilable with the environment in 4000BC as some claim. It's much more likely to be a recent addition to his compendium during the period of naval exploration in the 16th century. You'll notice Tom Bishop was referring to maps in the 11th century.

Speculation. As has been noted, civilization during the Dark to Middle Ages didn't have the capability of producing such an accurate map of unknown landmasses at the time. The Piri Reis map was produced off of previous maps that existed from thousands of years back, see the possible source from the Great Library of Alexandria before its tragic burning. It was obviously an addition to his compendium, but it was added and compiled based on ancient charts.

Speculation.

Of course it was. So is your assertion. He who asserts, proves, yet your speculation is as good as mine.