# Straight lines and not so straight lines

• 62 Replies
• 10122 Views

#### Dog

• 1162
• Literally a dog
##### Straight lines and not so straight lines
« on: January 30, 2013, 09:32:43 PM »
Lets say I was trying to get from like Central America to around, let's say, India. As long as it's near the equator. What would happen on a sphere-earth, and what happens in reality and we all know this, is that you can go in a straight line. You can travel in a mostly straight line due west without making any turns and end up on the other side of the world. No argument there. It's impossible to deny.
Edit: And you have to pass through point 'z'

On a FLAT earth, if we headed in a straight line due 'west' we would run into the ice wall. In fact we couldn't take a straight line in ANY direction and end up on the other side of the world, unless we cross the arctic. But you and I both know John Smith from the sphere model stayed near the equator his entire trip around the world in a straight line, plus that doesn't go through point 'z'.

To replicate this on the flat earth model we would have to be continuously be turning right to stay at the equator during our trip. This doesn't happen in reality.

BOOM.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2013, 11:06:56 PM by Dog »

#### Pongo

• Planar Moderator
• 6758
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2013, 09:36:49 PM »
First of all you can't follow a straight line due west on either model, save one place.  Second, this is all theory, no one has ever gotten in a plane, picked a direction, and just flown that way.  People travel to destinations, not in vague cardinal directions.

#### Dog

• 1162
• Literally a dog
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2013, 09:52:49 PM »
First of all you can't follow a straight line due west on either model, save one place.  Second, this is all theory, no one has ever gotten in a plane, picked a direction, and just flown that way.  People travel to destinations, not in vague cardinal directions.

Of course you can, why not? And one place? And yes we're talking about theory, not application, so why bring up people's traveling desires?

#### 29silhouette

• 3369
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2013, 10:01:34 PM »
On a round earth, you can only fly straight due west on the equator.  If you are north of the equator following a due west heading, you must constantly turn right (starboard since we're flying).  If you are south of the equator, you will have to turn left (port) to keep a westerly heading.

Another argument will arise though in that even if you are heading straight west on the equator, you're still not traveling completely straight, as you will have to descend 8" per mile to retain the same altitude (this will vary ever so slightly depending on altitude of course).

Now on the flat earth with Antarctica as the edge, yes, you would have to constantly turn to starboard to keep a westerly heading, regardless of latitude.

Also, regarding 'one place', if I get really nerdy, I can (theoretically)claim an infinite number of places on earth from which one can travel due west in a straight line.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2013, 10:14:57 PM by 29silhouette »

?

#### Lunia

• 30
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2013, 10:10:11 PM »
I am probably gonna regret posting this, but...eh. Oh well.

Instead of using a rectangular graph, use a polar graph.

A polar coordinate system, courtesy of http://www.thefreedictionary.com, states:

Quote
polar coordinate system
A system of coordinates in which the location of a point is determined by its distance from a fixed point at the center of the coordinate space (called the pole) and by the measurement of the angle formed by a fixed line (the polar axis, corresponding to the x-axis in Cartesian coordinates) and a line from the pole through the given point. The polar coordinates of a point are given as (r, ), where r is the distance of the point from the pole, and  is the measure of the angle. Compare Cartesian coordinate system.

Aka, this is calculus stuff.

Now, here are some graphs. Rectangular graph:

That's a straight line. You can't deny it.

Now take the same equation and plug it into a polar graph:

Suddenly, a straight line is a circle.

ta-da!

(Okay, seriously. Even with this, I'm still on the 'earth is round' side. But have fun with this.)

#### Dog

• 1162
• Literally a dog
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2013, 11:04:43 PM »
On a round earth, you can only fly straight due west on the equator.  If you are north of the equator following a due west heading, you must constantly turn right (starboard since we're flying).  If you are south of the equator, you will have to turn left (port) to keep a westerly heading.

Another argument will arise though in that even if you are heading straight west on the equator, you're still not traveling completely straight, as you will have to descend 8" per mile to retain the same altitude (this will vary ever so slightly depending on altitude of course).

Now on the flat earth with Antarctica as the edge, yes, you would have to constantly turn to starboard to keep a westerly heading, regardless of latitude.

Also, regarding 'one place', if I get really nerdy, I can (theoretically)claim an infinite number of places on earth from which one can travel due west in a straight line.

True, I think I subliminally thought that because I mentioned equator a few times, but that and the 8" thing are negligible when you see how much flat-earthers have to turn to go through z and end up on the other side of the world. And for your 3rd point, that's why I added point z, in addition to the start point and end point on the equator.

Blah blah blah

I love calculus(not so much polar graphs), but it's not really related to this.

I guess it's related, because it has lines and circles, but other than that it doesn't aid either side of the argument.

?

#### muggsybogues1

• 591
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2013, 09:24:58 AM »
Wow. How many times is this question going to be asked?

?

#### Lunia

• 30
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2013, 11:58:49 AM »
Quote
I love calculus(not so much polar graphs), but it's not really related to this.

I guess it's related, because it has lines and circles, but other than that it doesn't aid either side of the argument.

Well, you could argue that by some strange unseen force (akin to RE gravity) twists the flat world into following a polar graph...

But with that argument, I don't see why it'd be so far-fetched to say the earth is round..

#### Dog

• 1162
• Literally a dog
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2013, 11:20:42 PM »
So I win?

#### Pongo

• Planar Moderator
• 6758
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2013, 08:53:43 PM »
So I win?

Sure, if you don't mind ignoring the errors in your premise, you can count this as a "win" for yourself.

#### Dog

• 1162
• Literally a dog
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2013, 10:13:46 PM »
So I win?

Sure, if you don't mind ignoring the errors in your premise, you can count this as a "win" for yourself.

Well I don't see any errors and you never answered my questions sooooooooo.....

?

#### illmunati

• 1447
• Nope
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2013, 10:53:48 AM »
Lets say I was trying to get from like Central America to around, let's say, India. As long as it's near the equator. What would happen on a sphere-earth, and what happens in reality and we all know this, is that you can go in a straight line. You can travel in a mostly straight line due west without making any turns and end up on the other side of the world. No argument there. It's impossible to deny.
Edit: And you have to pass through point 'z'

On a FLAT earth, if we headed in a straight line due 'west' we would run into the ice wall. In fact we couldn't take a straight line in ANY direction and end up on the other side of the world, unless we cross the arctic. But you and I both know John Smith from the sphere model stayed near the equator his entire trip around the world in a straight line, plus that doesn't go through point 'z'.

To replicate this on the flat earth model we would have to be continuously be turning right to stay at the equator during our trip. This doesn't happen in reality.

BOOM.

when you travel, you follow a compasses direction, so you would seem to be going in one direction

?

#### Echosystem

• 11
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2013, 03:18:54 PM »
First of all you can't follow a straight line due west on either model, save one place.  Second, this is all theory, no one has ever gotten in a plane, picked a direction, and just flown that way.  People travel to destinations, not in vague cardinal directions.
Are you fucking kidding me? No one has ever flown in one direction with a plane based on North South East or West? How in flat earth's name do you justify making that assertion? We, going over glaciers in Alaska(as a kid on a family fishing trip), picked a direction and found ourselves a nice lake to land on.

#### Pongo

• Planar Moderator
• 6758
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2013, 03:57:30 PM »
They've not flown east or west in one direction unless on the equator according to round-earth models.

?

#### Echosystem

• 11
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2013, 03:58:38 PM »
So I win?

Sure, if you don't mind ignoring the errors in your premise, you can count this as a "win" for yourself.

Well I don't see any errors and you never answered my questions sooooooooo.....
He stops responding once he runs out of bullshit to respond with, and then tries to make himself feel better about it by posting some troll red herring, completely avoiding the entire point of the post.

?

#### Echosystem

• 11
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #15 on: February 04, 2013, 04:05:33 PM »
They've not flown east or west in one direction unless on the equator according to round-earth models.
They've flown east west north and south, if you're talking about all the way around the earth, no I'm sure no one has gone perfect west or east for the full day or so to travel around the earth without faltering.  I still have yet to hear a satisfying answer of how quickly planes can move from Australia to Hawaii, in which, in the flat earth perspective, would take hours more.

#### Pongo

• Planar Moderator
• 6758
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #16 on: February 04, 2013, 04:11:05 PM »
So I win?

Sure, if you don't mind ignoring the errors in your premise, you can count this as a "win" for yourself.

Well I don't see any errors and you never answered my questions sooooooooo.....
He stops responding once he runs out of bullshit to respond with, and then tries to make himself feel better about it by posting some troll red herring, completely avoiding the entire point of the post.

I've addressed his error twice now, whether you are incapable of understanding it, willfully ignoring it, or not interested in reading it I don't know, but I cannot have a meaningful conversation on the topic as the entire premise operates under a point that neither flat-earth or round-earth support.  So do your little victory dances, curse your heads off, and cast damnations to your heart's content, but to everyone else you look like nothing more than gleeful children too ignorant to realize they are wrong.

?

#### Echosystem

• 11
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #17 on: February 04, 2013, 04:20:08 PM »
So I win?

Sure, if you don't mind ignoring the errors in your premise, you can count this as a "win" for yourself.

Well I don't see any errors and you never answered my questions sooooooooo.....
He stops responding once he runs out of bullshit to respond with, and then tries to make himself feel better about it by posting some troll red herring, completely avoiding the entire point of the post.

I've addressed his error twice now, whether you are incapable of understanding it, willfully ignoring it, or not interested in reading it I don't know, but I cannot have a meaningful conversation on the topic as the entire premise operates under a point that neither flat-earth or round-earth support.  So do your little victory dances, curse your heads off, and cast damnations to your heart's content, but to everyone else you look like nothing more than gleeful children too ignorant to realize they are wrong.

In what way is this,

First of all you can't follow a straight line due west on either model, save one place.  Second, this is all theory, no one has ever gotten in a plane, picked a direction, and just flown that way.  People travel to destinations, not in vague cardinal directions.
Addressing his error? You merely said "You can't do that". What justifications do you have for that statement?

#### Pongo

• Planar Moderator
• 6758
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #18 on: February 04, 2013, 04:25:05 PM »
It's common knowledge, it shouldn't have to be justified.

?

#### Echosystem

• 11
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2013, 04:26:30 PM »
It's common knowledge, it shouldn't have to be justified.
Seeing as no one but you seems to know what you're talking about, it does require justification.

#### Pongo

• Planar Moderator
• 6758
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #20 on: February 04, 2013, 04:34:08 PM »
Very well. Imagine your 10ft from the North Pole.  Go due west and follow a straight line and end up back where you started all while maintaining a western heading.  Extrapolate.

#### Dog

• 1162
• Literally a dog
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #21 on: February 04, 2013, 05:44:24 PM »
Ok what's the big deal? Stop ignoring my point. Even if he's just NEAR the equator and heads PRETTY MUCH west, you KNOW that's different than the flat earth model where you will end up looking backwards by the end of your journey.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 11:40:55 PM by Dog »

#### Tausami

• Flat Earth Editor
• 6767
• Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #22 on: February 05, 2013, 06:30:05 AM »
Ok what's the big deal? Stop ignoring my point. Even if he's just NEAR the equator and heads PRETTY MUCH west, you KNOW that's different than the flat earth model where you will end up looking backwards by the end of your journey.

I can TYPE using random CAPITAL LETTERS, too. This is really all pedantism. Unless one of us actually tries THIS, which is all but impossible, it's JUST a game of semantics.

?

#### FlatulencE Theory

• 96
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #23 on: February 05, 2013, 07:11:25 AM »
Very well. Imagine your 10ft from the North Pole.  Go due west and follow a straight line and end up back where you started all while maintaining a western heading.  Extrapolate.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57239.40.html#.UREd0R1kxWI

The point is that FE'ers are fond of confusing heading on a compass and walking in a straight line. The fundamental difference between the two highlights the differences between navigating on a FE and a RE. Here's why.

As I point out in that thread, think of the RE as a rubber band ball. Each rubber band can be traced around the ball and arrive at your starting point by moving in a straight line (some deviations are allowed based on the small size of the ball and its non-perfectly-spherical shape). Just like the rubber band ball, you can (in theory, in actuality you'll have to sometimes use a boat) walk in a straight line in any direction and return to your starting point.

Because the Earth has a magnetic field, your compass heading will change as you make this circumnavigation. So the FE'ers are correct that the only place you can always have your compass heading E or W while circumnavigating is at the equator. However, even 10 feet from the North Pole we can start walking with a compass heading of W, and as long as we stay in a straight line, have enough food, equipment and a boat, we will eventually arrive again 10 feet from the NP. The heading our compass shows will change, and shows us the difference between compass heading and direction of travel.

Contrast this with the FE. If I start with a compass heading of South on the FE, and I walk a straight line, ignoring my compass from then on, I will eventually fall off the FE or arrive at the ice wall. This also assumes I have food, equipment and a boat . Further, South is not the only compass heading that this will happen with. In fact, if I walk in any direction in a straight line I will eventually arrive at FallingofftheFEville, or Icewall Station. Notice, just like in RE we ignore our compass heading, which will also change like it did in RE.

This is the principle problem with FE navigation. By using maths, we can determine how our compass heading needs to change so that we may circumnavigate in a straight line on a RE. We can start with any heading and arrive again at our starting point, just like the rubber band ball. This is not ever possible on a FE.

#### Pongo

• Planar Moderator
• 6758
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #24 on: February 05, 2013, 08:43:18 AM »
I agree with, and have for years, everything you just wrote. We aren't confusing anything when a round-earther comes here and tells us one can head west in a straight line on a round-earth (save the equator), they are. Furthermore, if you'll reread my example, you'll see that I accounted for what you spent three paragraphs trying to explain to me.

What this boils down to, is people coming here and balking at our stupidity while having a poor understanding of the model they support AND each and every one of them insisting that indoctrination has nothing to do with it.

#### 29silhouette

• 3369
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #25 on: February 05, 2013, 10:35:20 AM »
Yeah, I don't know why people seem to have trouble with the whole concept of it.  Makes it obvious who owns a globe and who doesn't I guess.  I should type up a complete explanation of it and keep it saved for a copy and paste when it inevitably comes up again.

Also everyone, don't forget to convert that magnetic azimuth to a grid azimuth throughout the journey.  The magnetic poles and grid poles aren't in the same place.

#### Dinosaur Neil

• 3177
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #26 on: February 05, 2013, 11:09:17 AM »
This is really all pedantism.

I think you mean pedantry.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

?

#### FlatulencE Theory

• 96
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #27 on: February 05, 2013, 12:18:07 PM »
A thought just occurred to me...would a compass even work accurately from 10 feet away from the NP or SP? I don't think it would actually give you a good reading that close to the pole.

#### Genius

• 2180
• Professor of Geniustology
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #28 on: February 05, 2013, 12:50:49 PM »
The earth is round because the space man said so.

#### Dog

• 1162
• Literally a dog
##### Re: Straight lines and not so straight lines
« Reply #29 on: February 05, 2013, 01:56:59 PM »
Ok what's the big deal? Stop ignoring my point. Even if he's just NEAR the equator and heads PRETTY MUCH west, you KNOW that's different than the flat earth model where you will end up looking backwards by the end of your journey.

I can TYPE using random CAPITAL LETTERS, too. This is really all pedantism. Unless one of us actually tries THIS, which is all but impossible, it's JUST a game of semantics.

How the case of letters in the alphabet causes butthurt, I will never know. But ANYWAYS, mine were used for emphasis since he was ignoring my points and beating around the bush.