Maps?

I would like to see a map of the so called FET that shows with some degree of accuracy how time zones are possible. Does one exist?  I searched 'time zones' but did not see any references to maps describing this potential dilemma for this FET. Anxiously awaiting a response!!

The sun revolves in a circular pattern above the disc, changing positions above the disc to compensate for seasons.

...

The sun revolves in a circular pattern above the disc, changing positions above the disc to compensate for seasons.

What force accounts for the circular pattern and the changing positions?

Why is Australia (2400 miles in reality) in your map roughly six (2400/760 = 3.2) times as large as Greenland (760 miles in reality) measuring each at their widest east to west?

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 29, 2011, 08:09:49 AM

...

The sun revolves in a circular pattern above the disc, changing positions above the disc to compensate for seasons.

What force accounts for the circular pattern and the changing positions?

My theory on the mechanics behind this phenomenon.

I'll have another posted in the next couple days.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 29, 2011, 01:25:00 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 29, 2011, 08:09:49 AM

...

The sun revolves in a circular pattern above the disc, changing positions above the disc to compensate for seasons.

What force accounts for the circular pattern and the changing positions?

My theory on the mechanics behind this phenomenon.

I'll have another posted in the next couple days.

Where's the math to support this theory?

Master Lord Willmire has the best map
Can someone please link it?

I would like to see a map of the so called FET that shows with some degree of accuracy how time zones are possible. Does one exist?  I searched 'time zones' but did not see any references to maps describing this potential dilemma for this FET. Anxiously awaiting a response!!

Why don't you go ahead and petition any and every world government and ask if they are willing to fund such a Flat Earth charting?

None of them will. Thus bothering with an FET map is a waste of thought.

Just go with the easiest explanation, and that's the one you have for FET. Easier is always more realistic.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 29, 2011, 08:09:49 AM

...

The sun revolves in a circular pattern above the disc, changing positions above the disc to compensate for seasons.

What force accounts for the circular pattern and the changing positions?

Why is Australia (2400 miles in reality) in your map roughly six (2400/760 = 3.2) times as large as Greenland (760 miles in reality) measuring each at their widest east to west?

Why are you actively derailling threads? 

Crock Tower is a self declared Round Earth Troll.

Answer to derailing threads is self obvious.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 29, 2011, 01:25:00 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 29, 2011, 08:09:49 AM

...

The sun revolves in a circular pattern above the disc, changing positions above the disc to compensate for seasons.

What force accounts for the circular pattern and the changing positions?

Why is Australia (2400 miles in reality) in your map roughly six (2400/760 = 3.2) times as large as Greenland (760 miles in reality) measuring each at their widest east to west?

Why are you actively derailling threads?

I've challenged FEers to support their claims, including the relative sizes of Australia and Greenland in the map provided. I've challenged the provided 'diagram' about its supporting physics and math. That's much more on target than you lame post that contributed nothing to the thread.

land masses on a roundy map are not to scale either

land masses on a roundy map are not to scale either

Uhh.. Yes, on most RE maps they are. You do understand that projections report their distortions by the lines of meridians and parallels. The lines are equally distorted with the projection providing enough data to maintain the scale. I think I posted this link to assist FEers before: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MercatorProjection.html.

i do realise that. but im jsut saying on a roundy map continents do appear the wrong size. there is no excuse for the flat map but i thought it was worth mentioning before the flat finger demanded an explanation

Use this one instead of Mercator. It has the least distortion overall.

Why is Australia (2400 miles in reality) in your map roughly six (2400/760 = 3.2) times as large as Greenland (760 miles in reality) measuring each at their widest east to west?

It's not.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 29, 2011, 01:25:00 PM

Why is Australia (2400 miles in reality) in your map roughly six (2400/760 = 3.2) times as large as Greenland (760 miles in reality) measuring each at their widest east to west?

It's not.

Oh, I forgot about your claim that there are two Australias. Sorry, I just can't allow for every wild FET variation in every post.

Oh, I forgot about your claim that there are two Australias.

Do try not to request an explanation of the same thing more often than once a day:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52439.msg1285950#msg1285950

By the way, I've once made a thread about the Earth being, in fact, a pizza (it's in the name). It was in Random Musings, but you can always pretend it wasn't. You're welcome.

Sorry, I just can't allow for every wild FET variation in every post.

Of course. The keywords "in your map" make it very clear that you were referring to the map we're currently discussing. It just so happens that, in this particular map, Australia is not roughly six (2400/760=3.2) times as large as Greenland [sic].

Do try not to request an explanation of the same thing more often than once a day:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52439.msg1285950#msg1285950

Quote from: ClockTower on January 01, 2012, 01:00:12 AM

Sorry, I just can't allow for every wild FET variation in every post.

Of course. The keywords "in your map" make it very clear that you were referring to the map we're currently discussing. It just so happens that, in this particular map, Australia is not roughly six (2400/760=3.2) times as large as Greenland [sic].

1) Do tell me where I asked for an explanation twice in one day. Referring to your mistake is not a request, is it?
2) Do tell me how you determined that Australia is not roughly six times larger in width than Greenland in that map.

(Lines are slanted and offset in Australia for clarity, ensuring that it's clearly six segments.)

no clearly frustrated that the picture is on the bloody screen yet its still denied i suspect

1) Do tell me where I asked for an explanation twice in one day. Referring to your mistake is not a request, is it?

What mistake? It was a thread in the Lounge. The very same forum where you claimed that I know the dimensions of your penis, among other things. Was that a mistake, too?

2) Do tell me how you determined that Australia is not roughly six times larger in width than Greenland in that map.

(Lines are slanted and offset in Australia for clarity, ensuring that it's clearly six segments.)

Of course, if you ignore the mechanical scaling rules of this purely optical map, you are correct.

In terms of natural deduction:

If falsity is true, any given proposition (C) is also true.

Similarly, I can say RET claims that the South Pole's circumference is fairly close to the length of the Equator, courtesy of Mercator.

Or, since you like Greenland and Australia so much, here:

Clearly, Greenland appears larger than Australia, but this is not the case. If I ignore the scaling rules of a Mercator projection, I have disproved RET.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 01, 2012, 04:56:05 AM

1) Do tell me where I asked for an explanation twice in one day. Referring to your mistake is not a request, is it?

What mistake? It was a thread in the Lounge. The very same forum where you claimed that I know the dimensions of your penis, among other things. Was that a mistake, too?

Quote from: ClockTower on January 01, 2012, 04:56:05 AM

2) Do tell me how you determined that Australia is not roughly six times larger in width than Greenland in that map.

(Lines are slanted and offset in Australia for clarity, ensuring that it's clearly six segments.)

Of course, if you ignore the mechanical scaling rules of this purely optical map, you are correct.

In terms of natural deduction:

If falsity is true, any given proposition (C) is also true.

Similarly, I can say RET claims that the South Pole's circumference is fairly close to the length of the Equator, courtesy of Mercator.

So you can't tell me where else I asked for that explanation. You fail.

Do tell us where you see any mechanical scaling rules on that map.

Do tell us how you determined that the map was 'purely optical' and what 'purely optical' mean to you. To me, it means I can see it, but not otherwise get information from it.

Do tell us how you determined that the map was 'purely optical' and what 'purely optical' mean to you.

Basically, PizzaPlanet takes the spherical transformation formula for the RET map and calls it an optical distance transformation. See here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51550.msg1264404#msg1264404

He glosses over the fact that, when you calculate what physical shape the Earth would be based on these distance transformations, the only possible result is a sphere. He is content to simply say "these are all maps of how your eyes play tricks on you" so he never has to address any of the problems raised by the idea that they are physical 1:1 scale maps of a flat Earth, which is what every other FE'er claims.

He has never provided his own version of a physical 1:1 scale map based on his claims, presumably because he knows it would be a globe.

Arguing with PizzaPlanet is an utter waste of time because his only tactic is to pretend to have a better understanding of the subject than his opponent without ever coherently describing his own beliefs (which consistently contradict all accepted FET claims).


edit: Correction: I don't mean 1:1 scale, I mean 1:1 x-y ratio.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 03, 2012, 02:19:18 PM

Do tell us how you determined that the map was 'purely optical' and what 'purely optical' mean to you.

Basically, PizzaPlanet takes the spherical transformation formula for the RET map and calls it an optical distance transformation. See here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51550.msg1264404#msg1264404

He glosses over the fact that, when you calculate what physical shape the Earth would be based on these distance transformations, the only possible result is a sphere. He is content to simply say "these are all maps of how your eyes play tricks on you" so he never has to address any of the problems raised by the idea that they are physical 1:1 scale maps of a flat Earth, which is what every other FE'er claims.

He has never provided his own version of a physical 1:1 scale map based on his claims, presumably because he knows it would be a globe.

Arguing with PizzaPlanet is an utter waste of time because his only tactic is to pretend to have a better understanding of the subject than his opponent without ever coherently describing his own beliefs (which consistently contradict all accepted FET claims).


edit: Correction: I don't mean 1:1 scale, I mean 1:1 x-y ratio.

Awesome post. Thanks.

Disregarding zarg's derailments (who only read several posts of the thread, causing massive confusion and disinformation. For shame!), a difference between distances perceived by the eye and actual distances is a direct implication of EAT.

He is, of course, correct in the fact that thanks to this phenomenon I don't have to state that distances are not what they are. I believe it's a good thing. Why would I claim that one kilometre is, in fact, five kilometres? It would be either dishonest or extremely delusional.

I have never provided a physical 1:1 scale map, yes. I think zarg doesn't understand what a 1:1 scale map would be, as requesting something like that is utter insanity. To clarify, a 1:1 scale model of the Earth would be a copy of the Earth. If I had the resources and capabilities of building things the size of celestial objects, I believe I could make large amounts of money on it. Just think about it - making a "second moon" with a Coca-Cola logo on it; such global... excuse me, planar... advertisement would be worth a fortune!
Alas, I don't know how to how to do it. If you have any ideas - please let me know. I'll offer a fair share of the profits.

The map does, however, maintain a 1:1 x:y ratio. I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Of course, it changes nothing, since in our arguments (in which I was supposedly incoherent and inane) you (and other FE'ers) constantly kept requesting a 1:1 scale map. Now you're saying that by "1:1 scale" you meant "not 1:1 scale". It may be so that your coherence needs work too.

On several occasions have I admitted that a globe is a valid map of the Earth, so I'm not certain why you felt it was necessary to say that my knowledge of this would stop me from providing a map. Perhaps it has to do with you making things up on the spot and not having paid much attention to the thread. A globe maintains a fairly good representation of distances while introducing a distortion in shape. It is an excellent map for many purposes.

Disregarding zarg's derailments (who only read several posts of the thread, causing massive confusion and disinformation. For shame!), a difference between distances perceived by the eye and actual distances is a direct implication of EAT.

Nope. EAT has no math to make any such implication, especially not a direct one. Nice fake-out though.

Disregarding zarg's derailments (who only read several posts of the thread, causing massive confusion and disinformation. For shame!), a difference between distances perceived by the eye and actual distances is a direct implication of EAT.

It's not a derailment. It's the explanation of what you meant, just as ClockTower requested. I linked directly to your own words. There is no disinformation. I've read all of your posts in that thread, and I've also seen your completely fantasy-based diagram. It is all exactly as I described, as is this post of yours. Nothing you've said here or in that thread has contradicted what I described of your position. You continue to exemplify what I've said about your "debating" tactic by claiming "disinformation" while refusing to provide any corrections.

I have never provided a physical 1:1 scale map, yes. I think zarg doesn't understand what a 1:1 scale map would be, as requesting something like that is utter insanity. To clarify, a 1:1 scale model of the Earth would be a copy of the Earth. If I had the resources and capabilities of building things the size of celestial objects, I believe I could make large amounts of money on it. Just think about it - making a "second moon" with a Coca-Cola logo on it; such global... excuse me, planar... advertisement would be worth a fortune!
Alas, I don't know how to how to do it. If you have any ideas - please let me know. I'll offer a fair share of the profits.

The map does, however, maintain a 1:1 x:y ratio. I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Of course, it changes nothing, since in our arguments (in which I was supposedly incoherent and inane) you (and other FE'ers) constantly kept requesting a 1:1 scale map. Now you're saying that by "1:1 scale" you meant "not 1:1 scale". It may be so that your coherence needs work too.

How much clearer can I make the fact that I did not mean 1:1 scale than by saying "I did not mean 1:1 scale", which I did? It was a simple mistake for which I clarified. You wasted 2 thirds of your needlessly verbose post blatantly attacking something that you know full well is not what I meant to say.

The only relevant part of your useless rant is the part I've highlighted, which is utterly false. If x-y ratios were maintained, all of your circles' diameters would measure the same vertically as horizontally. You have presented distorted geometry, pretending that the distortion is the result of EA. To remove the distortion, you would need to shrink the east-west distances as you approach the south, which would be impossible to do while maintaining a 2D shape because the south is farther from the center than the north and must have a wider circumference.

What you refuse to provide is a map which has a uniformly equal x-y ratio as on the physical (not optical) Earth. You have not, and cannot, answer the challenge I posted in that thread: Imagine that there is a probe above Earth sending perfectly perpendicular beams, immune to the effects of EA, down to the flat surface to scan it, and provide a map that approximates what it would detect. On such a map, we should be able to compare relative distances between any two points at any angle using a ruler without adjustment calculations.

And now instead of addressing this, you will continue to dance around it with more meaningless statements like "a globe is an excellent map for many purposes" or "Earth is a fractal".

The sun revolves in a circular pattern above the disc, changing positions above the disc to compensate for seasons.

This is a RE map, not a FE map, for the umpteenth time.

This is a RE map, not a FE map, for the umpteenth time.

You are stood on a FE, not a RE for the umpteenth time. I guess we are at an impasse.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on January 05, 2012, 01:11:11 PM

This is a RE map, not a FE map, for the umpteenth time.

You are stood on a FE, not a RE for the umpteenth time. I guess we are at an impasse.

Yep. You don't understand cartography and projections.

Quote from: Thork on January 05, 2012, 01:22:09 PM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on January 05, 2012, 01:11:11 PM

This is a RE map, not a FE map, for the umpteenth time.

You are stood on a FE, not a RE for the umpteenth time. I guess we are at an impasse.

Yep. You don't understand cartography and projections.

You do not understand the shape of the earth.

This could be a very long game.