Discrepancy between FET and RET maps

  • 23 Replies
  • 2206 Views
Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« on: June 09, 2013, 10:46:41 PM »
Hello everyone!  Long time reader, first time poster here.  I've been spending a lot of time learning about FET out of curiosity, and must say I am intrigued by the idea behind the theory.  Being a long-time believer in RET, I've approached this forum with much skepticism, but was surprised to find myself thinking long and hard about the presentation of the idea of a flat earth.

That being said, there's one thing that's been bugging me, and that's the apparent discrepancy between the maps presented by each theory with respect to navigation.  In other words, there doesn't yet seem to be a consistent model of FET that wholly agrees with observed, empirical evidence gathered from navigational endeavours.  I'm not saying it's not achievable, but I'm concerned about its absence thus far in the whole of FET.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11218
Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2013, 05:48:29 PM »
Hello everyone!  Long time reader, first time poster here.  I've been spending a lot of time learning about FET out of curiosity, and must say I am intrigued by the idea behind the theory.  Being a long-time believer in RET, I've approached this forum with much skepticism, but was surprised to find myself thinking long and hard about the presentation of the idea of a flat earth.

That being said, there's one thing that's been bugging me, and that's the apparent discrepancy between the maps presented by each theory with respect to navigation.  In other words, there doesn't yet seem to be a consistent model of FET that wholly agrees with observed, empirical evidence gathered from navigational endeavours.  I'm not saying it's not achievable, but I'm concerned about its absence thus far in the whole of FET.
This link shows FE map in world wide use at the present time. TFES is not the only organization using it

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/2/2f/20060102204320%21Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_Nations_(1945-1947).svg
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2013, 06:23:27 PM »
the UN map does not show the 150 ft uniform Ice Wall that holds back the worlds oceans,
so it can be true.

Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2013, 08:51:28 PM »
This has been covered on another thread.

The FE Map is simply a copy of the Polar Projection centered on the North Pole. This is a representation made from the globe. As with any attempt to make a flat map of the globe there is distortion, and in this case sizes and distances in the southern hemisphere are greatly distorted. Notice the size and shape of Australia.

The well known Mercator Projection also has its distortion.

Of course FE has simply added the Ice Wall around the edges to the Polar Projection map.

There is also a Bi-Polar FE Map which shows Antarctica as a continent,  but it is even weirder and more useless for navigation. The Ice Ring is also missing. There must be an explanation as to what is holding in the water around the edge .  ???
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2013, 09:58:43 PM »
The FE Map is simply a copy of the Polar Projection centered on the North Pole. This is a representation made from the globe. As with any attempt to make a flat map of the globe there is distortion, and in this case sizes and distances in the southern hemisphere are greatly distorted.

That's what I'm trying to address.  The current FE map is obviously incorrect, as it is based on a projection of the RE onto a planar surface.

Let's look at a globe - the globe is a scaled projection of the round earth onto a physical medium; since RET holds that the earth is a sphere, and is therefore 3-dimensional, then it makes sense to have its true representation also be 3-dimensional.  Trying to project a round earth on to a flat surface is always going to result in distortion, as with the Mercator projection, as you brought up.  Similarly, FET states the earth is 2-dimensional*, therefore it makes sense to project it onto a 2-dimensional medium, yet we still see a significant amount of distortion out of the FE model.

This is because the FE model of the earth is based on the RE model, so my proposition is this; why doesn't FET free itself completely from the polar-projection map and create a new one from scratch?  There has to be a better way to represent a proper flat earth that doesn't make Australia look half as tall as it really is, and barely recognizable.  I mean, I know it's Australia because that's where Australia ought to be on any map, but it looks nothing like what you would see from a top-down perspective.  A 'true' model of a flat earth can't have any distortion, like RET's globe.

*I know the earth isn't definitively 2-dimensional, since most of us can agree we all live in a 3-dimensional reality, but I have so stated for the sake of simple comparison.

Of course FE has simply added the Ice Wall around the edges to the Polar Projection map... The Ice Ring is also missing.

the UN map does not show the 150 ft uniform Ice Wall that holds back the worlds oceans,
so it can be true.

I'm not trying to brush your contributions aside, but for simplicity's sake let's pretend the Ice Wall is of no importance to this discussion.  It only serves to complicate things more.  One thing at a time, I always say  ;)

Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2013, 03:06:24 PM »
The real shape of the earth is a figure 8. There is no evidence it is a disc. Nil. Nada. Zippity.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2013, 09:50:03 AM »
The FE Map is simply a copy of the Polar Projection centered on the North Pole. This is a representation made from the globe. As with any attempt to make a flat map of the globe there is distortion, and in this case sizes and distances in the southern hemisphere are greatly distorted.

That's what I'm trying to address.  The current FE map is obviously incorrect, as it is based on a projection of the RE onto a planar surface.

Let's look at a globe - the globe is a scaled projection of the round earth onto a physical medium; since RET holds that the earth is a sphere, and is therefore 3-dimensional, then it makes sense to have its true representation also be 3-dimensional.  Trying to project a round earth on to a flat surface is always going to result in distortion, as with the Mercator projection, as you brought up.  Similarly, FET states the earth is 2-dimensional*, therefore it makes sense to project it onto a 2-dimensional medium, yet we still see a significant amount of distortion out of the FE model.

This is because the FE model of the earth is based on the RE model, so my proposition is this; why doesn't FET free itself completely from the polar-projection map and create a new one from scratch?  There has to be a better way to represent a proper flat earth that doesn't make Australia look half as tall as it really is, and barely recognizable.  I mean, I know it's Australia because that's where Australia ought to be on any map, but it looks nothing like what you would see from a top-down perspective.  A 'true' model of a flat earth can't have any distortion, like RET's globe.

*I know the earth isn't definitively 2-dimensional, since most of us can agree we all live in a 3-dimensional reality, but I have so stated for the sake of simple comparison.

Of course FE has simply added the Ice Wall around the edges to the Polar Projection map... The Ice Ring is also missing.

the UN map does not show the 150 ft uniform Ice Wall that holds back the worlds oceans,
so it can be true.

I'm not trying to brush your contributions aside, but for simplicity's sake let's pretend the Ice Wall is of no importance to this discussion.  It only serves to complicate things more.  One thing at a time, I always say  ;)

I think a lot of us "Round Earthers" are in agreement with you, Squarepeg on a flat earth .
I, too, have been wondering why FE doesn't have a better FE Map than just  the one they one they always use which is simply the well known projection centered on the North Pole ?

This website has some explanations on the problems in trying to make "flat maps" from a globe.
http://geokov.com/education/map-projection.aspx

If the earth isn't a globe (or if you want to get technical, an "Oblate Spheroid') why hasn't some FE come up with an accurate Flat Earth Map rather than just going with the North Polar Projection, which is obviously inaccurate ? That's my question, too.  ???

If there really is an accurate Flat Earth Map why haven't the great minds of the Flat Earth Society come up with a truly believable and accurate Flat Earth Map ? They would have to completely  throw out any globes in the process ?  ???

The Ice Ring or Ice Wall was just mentioned since it seems to be a main part of FE Theory.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2013, 03:07:22 PM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2013, 03:02:04 PM »
The FE Map is simply a copy of the Polar Projection centered on the North Pole. This is a representation made from the globe. As with any attempt to make a flat map of the globe there is distortion, and in this case sizes and distances in the southern hemisphere are greatly distorted.

That's what I'm trying to address.  The current FE map is obviously incorrect, as it is based on a projection of the RE onto a planar surface.

Let's look at a globe - the globe is a scaled projection of the round earth onto a physical medium; since RET holds that the earth is a sphere, and is therefore 3-dimensional, then it makes sense to have its true representation also be 3-dimensional.  Trying to project a round earth on to a flat surface is always going to result in distortion, as with the Mercator projection, as you brought up.  Similarly, FET states the earth is 2-dimensional*, therefore it makes sense to project it onto a 2-dimensional medium, yet we still see a significant amount of distortion out of the FE model.

This is because the FE model of the earth is based on the RE model, so my proposition is this; why doesn't FET free itself completely from the polar-projection map and create a new one from scratch?  There has to be a better way to represent a proper flat earth that doesn't make Australia look half as tall as it really is, and barely recognizable.  I mean, I know it's Australia because that's where Australia ought to be on any map, but it looks nothing like what you would see from a top-down perspective.  A 'true' model of a flat earth can't have any distortion, like RET's globe.

*I know the earth isn't definitively 2-dimensional, since most of us can agree we all live in a 3-dimensional reality, but I have so stated for the sake of simple comparison.

Of course FE has simply added the Ice Wall around the edges to the Polar Projection map... The Ice Ring is also missing.

the UN map does not show the 150 ft uniform Ice Wall that holds back the worlds oceans,
so it can be true.

I'm not trying to brush your contributions aside, but for simplicity's sake let's pretend the Ice Wall is of no importance to this discussion.  It only serves to complicate things more.  One thing at a time, I always say  ;)

How about a square flat earth ? This map looks a bit more believable than the disc shaped flat earth map. Also it does have four corners. Australia comes off a little better . Just a suggestion for the FES. ;D
All it needs is the Ice Ring.
Only problem is that it looks as if  there would be a problem  in getting from California to Japan by the shortest distance.
http://store.mapsofworld.com/digital-maps/world-maps-1-2/world-digital-relief-map
« Last Edit: June 14, 2013, 03:13:19 PM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2013, 04:02:22 PM »
Hello everyone!  Long time reader, first time poster here.  I've been spending a lot of time learning about FET out of curiosity, and must say I am intrigued by the idea behind the theory.  Being a long-time believer in RET, I've approached this forum with much skepticism, but was surprised to find myself thinking long and hard about the presentation of the idea of a flat earth.

That being said, there's one thing that's been bugging me, and that's the apparent discrepancy between the maps presented by each theory with respect to navigation.  In other words, there doesn't yet seem to be a consistent model of FET that wholly agrees with observed, empirical evidence gathered from navigational endeavours.  I'm not saying it's not achievable, but I'm concerned about its absence thus far in the whole of FET.
This link shows FE map in world wide use at the present time. TFES is not the only organization using it

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/2/2f/20060102204320%21Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_Nations_(1945-1947).svg

"map in world wide use"  In use? it's a logo.  You use a map to get somewhere.  No one is using the UN logo as a map.
Quote from: Heiwa
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #9 on: June 14, 2013, 04:32:32 PM »
Hello everyone!  Long time reader, first time poster here.  I've been spending a lot of time learning about FET out of curiosity, and must say I am intrigued by the idea behind the theory.  Being a long-time believer in RET, I've approached this forum with much skepticism, but was surprised to find myself thinking long and hard about the presentation of the idea of a flat earth.

That being said, there's one thing that's been bugging me, and that's the apparent discrepancy between the maps presented by each theory with respect to navigation.  In other words, there doesn't yet seem to be a consistent model of FET that wholly agrees with observed, empirical evidence gathered from navigational endeavours.  I'm not saying it's not achievable, but I'm concerned about its absence thus far in the whole of FET.

Most flat-earthers feel that navigation does agree with the flat-earth model but most navigators and cartographers use and draw maps on an erroneous sphere. If we had the resources to map the world we would apply it to a flat surface and undoubtedly discover new and faster shipping lanes.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2013, 04:39:37 PM »
Hello everyone!  Long time reader, first time poster here.  I've been spending a lot of time learning about FET out of curiosity, and must say I am intrigued by the idea behind the theory.  Being a long-time believer in RET, I've approached this forum with much skepticism, but was surprised to find myself thinking long and hard about the presentation of the idea of a flat earth.

That being said, there's one thing that's been bugging me, and that's the apparent discrepancy between the maps presented by each theory with respect to navigation.  In other words, there doesn't yet seem to be a consistent model of FET that wholly agrees with observed, empirical evidence gathered from navigational endeavours.  I'm not saying it's not achievable, but I'm concerned about its absence thus far in the whole of FET.

Most flat-earthers feel that navigation does agree with the flat-earth model but most navigators and cartographers use and draw maps on an erroneous sphere. If we had the resources to map the world we would apply it to a flat surface and undoubtedly discover new and faster shipping lanes.

Never heard this one before.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5057
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #11 on: June 14, 2013, 04:42:00 PM »
Hello everyone!  Long time reader, first time poster here.  I've been spending a lot of time learning about FET out of curiosity, and must say I am intrigued by the idea behind the theory.  Being a long-time believer in RET, I've approached this forum with much skepticism, but was surprised to find myself thinking long and hard about the presentation of the idea of a flat earth.

That being said, there's one thing that's been bugging me, and that's the apparent discrepancy between the maps presented by each theory with respect to navigation.  In other words, there doesn't yet seem to be a consistent model of FET that wholly agrees with observed, empirical evidence gathered from navigational endeavours.  I'm not saying it's not achievable, but I'm concerned about its absence thus far in the whole of FET.

Most flat-earthers feel that navigation does agree with the flat-earth model but most navigators and cartographers use and draw maps on an erroneous sphere. If we had the resources to map the world we would apply it to a flat surface and undoubtedly discover new and faster shipping lanes.

I'm sure that companies would pay large amounts for faster shipping lanes which would save them money.  You should get on that.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #12 on: June 14, 2013, 05:50:41 PM »
Hello everyone!  Long time reader, first time poster here.  I've been spending a lot of time learning about FET out of curiosity, and must say I am intrigued by the idea behind the theory.  Being a long-time believer in RET, I've approached this forum with much skepticism, but was surprised to find myself thinking long and hard about the presentation of the idea of a flat earth.

That being said, there's one thing that's been bugging me, and that's the apparent discrepancy between the maps presented by each theory with respect to navigation.  In other words, there doesn't yet seem to be a consistent model of FET that wholly agrees with observed, empirical evidence gathered from navigational endeavours.  I'm not saying it's not achievable, but I'm concerned about its absence thus far in the whole of FET.

Most flat-earthers feel that navigation does agree with the flat-earth model but most navigators and cartographers use and draw maps on an erroneous sphere. If we had the resources to map the world we would apply it to a flat surface and undoubtedly discover new and faster shipping lanes.

And I am sure that if  flat earthers had the resources they would fire all the scientists , engineers, government agencies, etc. and especially NASA, that are all part of "The Round Earth Conspiracy." ;D And if they had the resources they would change the whole earth to the flat earth.
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #13 on: June 14, 2013, 07:54:27 PM »
Hello everyone!  Long time reader, first time poster here.  I've been spending a lot of time learning about FET out of curiosity, and must say I am intrigued by the idea behind the theory.  Being a long-time believer in RET, I've approached this forum with much skepticism, but was surprised to find myself thinking long and hard about the presentation of the idea of a flat earth.

That being said, there's one thing that's been bugging me, and that's the apparent discrepancy between the maps presented by each theory with respect to navigation.  In other words, there doesn't yet seem to be a consistent model of FET that wholly agrees with observed, empirical evidence gathered from navigational endeavours.  I'm not saying it's not achievable, but I'm concerned about its absence thus far in the whole of FET.

Most flat-earthers feel that navigation does agree with the flat-earth model but most navigators and cartographers use and draw maps on an erroneous sphere. If we had the resources to map the world we would apply it to a flat surface and undoubtedly discover new and faster shipping lanes.

I'm sure that companies would pay large amounts for faster shipping lanes which would save them money.  You should get on that.

And round-earthers tell me that creating a space elevator will usher in a new era of space travel and speak untold wealth for the builder. I assume you are working diligently on making it a reality?

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5057
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #14 on: June 14, 2013, 08:00:28 PM »
Hello everyone!  Long time reader, first time poster here.  I've been spending a lot of time learning about FET out of curiosity, and must say I am intrigued by the idea behind the theory.  Being a long-time believer in RET, I've approached this forum with much skepticism, but was surprised to find myself thinking long and hard about the presentation of the idea of a flat earth.

That being said, there's one thing that's been bugging me, and that's the apparent discrepancy between the maps presented by each theory with respect to navigation.  In other words, there doesn't yet seem to be a consistent model of FET that wholly agrees with observed, empirical evidence gathered from navigational endeavours.  I'm not saying it's not achievable, but I'm concerned about its absence thus far in the whole of FET.

Most flat-earthers feel that navigation does agree with the flat-earth model but most navigators and cartographers use and draw maps on an erroneous sphere. If we had the resources to map the world we would apply it to a flat surface and undoubtedly discover new and faster shipping lanes.

I'm sure that companies would pay large amounts for faster shipping lanes which would save them money.  You should get on that.

And round-earthers tell me that creating a space elevator will usher in a new era of space travel and speak untold wealth for the builder. I assume you are working diligently on making it a reality?

1.  I wasn't speaking of you specifically, but more of FE'ers in general.
2.  Creating a map is incredibly easy when compared to creating a space elevator.

I was mainly making a point that a company would probably support the quest to find faster shipping lanes to save them money, hence they would fund the creation of a FE map.  That is assuming someone could pitch the FE sufficiently to convince them.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #15 on: June 14, 2013, 08:08:54 PM »
Flying 100 miles sounds incredibly easier than flying 500, yet each are equally as impossible without the proper tools or funding.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5057
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #16 on: June 14, 2013, 09:00:58 PM »
Flying 100 miles sounds incredibly easier than flying 500, yet each are equally as impossible without the proper tools or funding.

That is an incredibly misleading statement considering that the 100 miles is vertically and the 500 miles is horizontally.  And in terms of the tools and funding, I'm still certain that if a FEer could convince a company that FET is correct, they would be willing to fund the research into the faster shipping lanes to save them money in the long run and give them a major leg up on the shipping competition.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #17 on: June 19, 2013, 11:06:40 AM »
And round-earthers tell me that creating a space elevator will usher in a new era of space travel and speak untold wealth for the builder. I assume you are working diligently on making it a reality?

Hah, funny thing is, I actually am, as much as I can. Research on carbon nanotube composite materials. Since it's one of the possible materials that would make a space elevator possible. Of course, it has millions of other applications too, but I'm in it for the elevator! :)

Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #18 on: June 19, 2013, 11:24:38 AM »
Flying 100 miles sounds incredibly easier than flying 500, yet each are equally as impossible without the proper tools or funding.

That is an incredibly misleading statement considering that the 100 miles is vertically and the 500 miles is horizontally.  And in terms of the tools and funding, I'm still certain that if a FEer could convince a company that FET is correct, they would be willing to fund the research into the faster shipping lanes to save them money in the long run and give them a major leg up on the shipping competition.

Unless every shipping company is in on the conspiracy and they're getting money from NASA to offset the losses they suffer from longer shipping routes. Boy, NASA sure has a lot of money to give away, their budget must be huge, since they're also in on the conspiracy because of wanting to steal money from the government budget... oh wait, they barely get any...

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #19 on: June 24, 2013, 03:59:15 PM »
Flying 100 miles sounds incredibly easier than flying 500, yet each are equally as impossible without the proper tools or funding.

That is an incredibly misleading statement considering that the 100 miles is vertically and the 500 miles is horizontally.  And in terms of the tools and funding, I'm still certain that if a FEer could convince a company that FET is correct, they would be willing to fund the research into the faster shipping lanes to save them money in the long run and give them a major leg up on the shipping competition.

There are many things in the world that people take as facts.  Some of the things that they could take as facts are statements like, "The sky is blue," or, "There is only one God and his name is Allah," or "The planet we live on is a spheroid." Most people on the planet will stake their lives on the truth of these statements -- with the substitution of their god(s) of course -- yet when questioned each of them fail to stand to scrutiny.  Is the sky really blue or does it just diffuse other colors?  What is the definition of "blue"?  Is there a god in the sky?  Almost certainly not.  Is the planet round?  There isn't a shred of proof in favor.

Now, being as a round-earth is what many take as an immutable fact, asking for a shipping company to fund a cartography expedition would be like walking into Mecca and asking a large mosque to fund a fact finding mission to prove the non-existence of Allah (Shut it Markjo, I'm drawing a point) and then explaining to them how much money they would save by not having to tithe!!!

Do you think that they would be throwing money at you or freeing your shoulders the burden of carrying your head?

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5057
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2013, 04:42:08 PM »
Flying 100 miles sounds incredibly easier than flying 500, yet each are equally as impossible without the proper tools or funding.

That is an incredibly misleading statement considering that the 100 miles is vertically and the 500 miles is horizontally.  And in terms of the tools and funding, I'm still certain that if a FEer could convince a company that FET is correct, they would be willing to fund the research into the faster shipping lanes to save them money in the long run and give them a major leg up on the shipping competition.

There are many things in the world that people take as facts.  Some of the things that they could take as facts are statements like, "The sky is blue," or, "There is only one God and his name is Allah," or "The planet we live on is a spheroid." Most people on the planet will stake their lives on the truth of these statements -- with the substitution of their god(s) of course -- yet when questioned each of them fail to stand to scrutiny.  Is the sky really blue or does it just diffuse other colors?  What is the definition of "blue"?  Is there a god in the sky?  Almost certainly not.  Is the planet round?  There isn't a shred of proof in favor.

Now, being as a round-earth is what many take as an immutable fact, asking for a shipping company to fund a cartography expedition would be like walking into Mecca and asking a large mosque to fund a fact finding mission to prove the non-existence of Allah (Shut it Markjo, I'm drawing a point) and then explaining to them how much money they would save by not having to tithe!!!

Do you think that they would be throwing money at you or freeing your shoulders the burden of carrying your head?
A round earth is not a faith based view though.  If you can make your point precisely to the shipping company that they have been wasting money and there is a much faster and more efficient way to navigate their ships to save them money, they would surely be interested in trying this.  The problem is that they would need a considerable amount of evidence to cause them to do this.  But surely if the earth is flat, then it would be possible to provide the evidence needed to convince them, right?
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2013, 06:27:58 PM »
I feel that it is a faith based view.  Round-earthers take almost everything on the words of others.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5057
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2013, 06:49:01 PM »
I feel that it is a faith based view.  Round-earthers take almost everything on the words of others.
The word of others who have experimental capabilities superior to our own.  The same people who publish their results in peer reviewed journals in order for their findings to stand up to scrutiny.  The same people who's experiments could be duplicated with the right equipment.
However, I don't need to be told that the Earth is round when I can just look at the Sun and realize that it is.  I can look across a lake and not see the other shoreline if it is large enough.  I can feel myself falling and I can observe other objects falling.  Just from my very basic senses I can tell the earth is not flat, but could be stationary.
And what is the flat earth based on?  Looking out a window?  Not feeling a very strong wind all the time?  A book written by a person who had some very serious misconceptions?  Just looking at the flat earth map alone you can see that international travels don't match up with the routes that are used.  This same map is even given a caveat that it isn't representative of landmass, but just of position.  The fact that a two dimensional world cannot be mapped accurately on a two dimensional surface speaks absolute wonders of its invalidity.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38460
Re: Discrepancy between FET and RET maps
« Reply #23 on: June 24, 2013, 07:30:31 PM »
(Shut it Markjo, I'm drawing a point)
What makes you think that I care?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.