Does Flying Around the World in 1 Direction Prove the Earth is Round?

Link to the flat map please.

Quote from: inquisitive on March 12, 2014, 11:21:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 11:15:43 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on March 12, 2014, 11:13:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 11:00:33 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on March 12, 2014, 10:56:18 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 10:41:27 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on March 12, 2014, 10:38:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 10:34:53 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on March 12, 2014, 10:31:45 AM

Given that we have documented distances between places on earth and their locations it is not possible to put those on a flat earth model and maintain the distances and relative positions.

It is if the flat Earth model has been transferred onto a globe map, which I believe it has.

Distances on a globe earth have been proven to be correct.  There is no flat earth map.

They may have been proven to be correct but there's nothing to say that they aren't derived from a flat Earth standpoint and simply put out as globe distances. After all, you don't navigate using a globe map, it's a flat map.

Flat and globe distances would have to different.

Flat maps use projections, as you know.

If the map was derived from a flat Earth perspective and put into a globe form, then it's all done for them. They can simply use that and have anyone believe they are navigating a globe instead of the truth.

So you have details of the location of places in a flat earth perspective?  eg Sydney and Santiago.

Yep, every place that you have, I have. It's on the map I mentioned a few posts back. You know...the flat map of Earth that has been made into a globe effigy.

Link to the flat map please.

Just look at any map that depicts a globe and there you have it. It's the very same one you look at regularly.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 11:35:56 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on March 12, 2014, 11:21:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 11:15:43 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on March 12, 2014, 11:13:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 11:00:33 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on March 12, 2014, 10:56:18 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 10:41:27 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on March 12, 2014, 10:38:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 10:34:53 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on March 12, 2014, 10:31:45 AM

Given that we have documented distances between places on earth and their locations it is not possible to put those on a flat earth model and maintain the distances and relative positions.

It is if the flat Earth model has been transferred onto a globe map, which I believe it has.

Distances on a globe earth have been proven to be correct.  There is no flat earth map.

They may have been proven to be correct but there's nothing to say that they aren't derived from a flat Earth standpoint and simply put out as globe distances. After all, you don't navigate using a globe map, it's a flat map.

Flat and globe distances would have to different.

Flat maps use projections, as you know.

If the map was derived from a flat Earth perspective and put into a globe form, then it's all done for them. They can simply use that and have anyone believe they are navigating a globe instead of the truth.

So you have details of the location of places in a flat earth perspective?  eg Sydney and Santiago.

Yep, every place that you have, I have. It's on the map I mentioned a few posts back. You know...the flat map of Earth that has been made into a globe effigy.

Link to the flat map please.

Just look at any map that depicts a globe and there you have it. It's the very same one you look at regularly.

As you know they are projections, please supply a link to a flat earth map which will not need projections.

Paper maps may be 2D projections of the globe, but modern computer based navigation uses a 3D globe model. 

Google Earth for example

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on March 12, 2014, 12:09:40 PM

Paper maps may be 2D projections of the globe, but modern computer based navigation uses a 3D globe model. 

Google Earth for example

A computer can easily turn a flat map into the 3d projection, it's still the same thing.

Why not use Sceptimatic's very own flat earth map?

[/br][/br]And remember in his own words it is not to scale and / or accurate
Hehehhohoho!!! He has Canada at the south pole.

 

[/br][/br]
Hehehhohoho!!! He has Canada at the south pole.

Yeah to be fair we do need to use your updated version with south and east markers.

You remembered to work in the denpressure variables, right?

So to go from Noway to Greenland head towards Africa...

Quote from: Starman on March 12, 2014, 01:08:52 PM

 

[/br][/br]
Hehehhohoho!!! He has Canada at the south pole.

That's because I flipped the global map. I peeled it from the north pole so the north pole becomes the ice rim and the south pole becomes the real centre.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 01:17:39 PM

Quote from: Starman on March 12, 2014, 01:08:52 PM

 

[/br][/br]
Hehehhohoho!!! He has Canada at the south pole.

That's because I flipped the global map. I peeled it from the north pole so the north pole becomes the ice rim and the south pole becomes the real centre.

It absolutely makes no sense.

Quote from: Starman on March 12, 2014, 02:28:02 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 01:17:39 PM

Quote from: Starman on March 12, 2014, 01:08:52 PM

 

[/br][/br]
Hehehhohoho!!! He has Canada at the south pole.

That's because I flipped the global map. I peeled it from the north pole so the north pole becomes the ice rim and the south pole becomes the real centre.

It absolutely makes no sense.

Tell me why it makes no sense. I didn't put it up to shout, " this is the one, this is the real map." I put it up ...if you look at the topic I put it in...to be played with.
For the record, apart from obvious tinkering of land mass...what makes no sense? If you can explain what doesn't add up.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 02:32:31 PM

Quote from: Starman on March 12, 2014, 02:28:02 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 01:17:39 PM

Quote from: Starman on March 12, 2014, 01:08:52 PM

 

[/br][/br]
Hehehhohoho!!! He has Canada at the south pole.

That's because I flipped the global map. I peeled it from the north pole so the north pole becomes the ice rim and the south pole becomes the real centre.

It absolutely makes no sense.

Tell me why it makes no sense. I didn't put it up to shout, " this is the one, this is the real map." I put it up ...if you look at the topic I put it in...to be played with.
For the record, apart from obvious tinkering of land mass...what makes no sense? If you can explain what doesn't add up.

The original map has the Antarctica as a great wall of ice where no one has never been there. Now you flip it around and claim it will justify traveling from point A to point
B. You can't have it both ways. By the way where is the sun and moon on your map?

Quote from: Starman on March 12, 2014, 02:41:08 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 02:32:31 PM

Quote from: Starman on March 12, 2014, 02:28:02 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 01:17:39 PM

Quote from: Starman on March 12, 2014, 01:08:52 PM

 

[/br][/br]
Hehehhohoho!!! He has Canada at the south pole.

That's because I flipped the global map. I peeled it from the north pole so the north pole becomes the ice rim and the south pole becomes the real centre.

It absolutely makes no sense.

Tell me why it makes no sense. I didn't put it up to shout, " this is the one, this is the real map." I put it up ...if you look at the topic I put it in...to be played with.
For the record, apart from obvious tinkering of land mass...what makes no sense? If you can explain what doesn't add up.

The original map has the Antarctica as a great wall of ice where no one has never been there. Now you flip it around and claim it will justify traveling from point A to point
B. You can't have it both ways. By the way where is the sun and moon on your map?

The sun is the moon. The sun is in the centre of that map inside the Earth. It's domed and slightly concave. This is my hypothesis or thought, just so we are clear on the fact that I'm not claiming it's a certainty.

Now you are really out of it but if you believe that is fine. I am curious to know if other FE'ers agree with you.

One or two are on very similar lines. Not with the map though, I mean that needs work to fit and may not fit. I still have to play with other ideas...but in essence, tehre are a few that believe in a Earth centred sun and dome, etc...they just differ slightly than mine.
I certainly don't profess to know it's correct; all I can do is keep adding and taking away bits of it until it makes more sense each time. I'm well aware of how silly it may look to many people....but I'm sticking with the basics of it all because I genuinely believe I'm on the right track.

Quote from: Starman on March 12, 2014, 02:49:02 PM

Now you are really out of it but if you believe that is fine. I am curious to know if other FE'ers agree with you.

You'll be surprised to know that most of us don't subscribe to that theory. The Sun is not the Moon, or vice versa. They are two separate bodies hovering above the earth, as I'm sure you're aware.

Quote from: Starman on March 12, 2014, 02:41:08 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 02:32:31 PM

Quote from: Starman on March 12, 2014, 02:28:02 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 01:17:39 PM

Quote from: Starman on March 12, 2014, 01:08:52 PM

 

[/br][/br]
Hehehhohoho!!! He has Canada at the south pole.

That's because I flipped the global map. I peeled it from the north pole so the north pole becomes the ice rim and the south pole becomes the real centre.

It absolutely makes no sense.

Tell me why it makes no sense. I didn't put it up to shout, " this is the one, this is the real map." I put it up ...if you look at the topic I put it in...to be played with.
For the record, apart from obvious tinkering of land mass...what makes no sense? If you can explain what doesn't add up.

The original map has the Antarctica as a great wall of ice where no one has never been there. Now you flip it around and claim it will justify traveling from point A to point
B. You can't have it both ways. By the way where is the sun and moon on your map?

The sun is the moon. The sun is in the centre of that map inside the Earth. It's domed and slightly concave. This is my hypothesis or thought, just so we are clear on the fact that I'm not claiming it's a certainty.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 02:59:37 PM

One or two are on very similar lines. Not with the map though, I mean that needs work to fit and may not fit. I still have to play with other ideas...but in essence, tehre are a few that believe in a Earth centred sun and dome, etc...they just differ slightly than mine.
I certainly don't profess to know it's correct; all I can do is keep adding and taking away bits of it until it makes more sense each time. I'm well aware of how silly it may look to many people....but I'm sticking with the basics of it all because I genuinely believe I'm on the right track.

You're a true scientist and a credit to us all.

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 12, 2014, 03:01:04 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 02:59:37 PM

One or two are on very similar lines. Not with the map though, I mean that needs work to fit and may not fit. I still have to play with other ideas...but in essence, tehre are a few that believe in a Earth centred sun and dome, etc...they just differ slightly than mine.
I certainly don't profess to know it's correct; all I can do is keep adding and taking away bits of it until it makes more sense each time. I'm well aware of how silly it may look to many people....but I'm sticking with the basics of it all because I genuinely believe I'm on the right track.

You're a true scientist and a credit to us all.

At the end of the day, you cannot say for absolute certain that I'm wrong. You can say it...but it doesn't mean you are correct, so I'm not really interested what you think. It's what I think that counts.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 02:46:43 PM

Quote from: Starman on March 12, 2014, 02:41:08 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 02:32:31 PM

Quote from: Starman on March 12, 2014, 02:28:02 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 01:17:39 PM

Quote from: Starman on March 12, 2014, 01:08:52 PM

 

[/br][/br]
Hehehhohoho!!! He has Canada at the south pole.

That's because I flipped the global map. I peeled it from the north pole so the north pole becomes the ice rim and the south pole becomes the real centre.

It absolutely makes no sense.

Tell me why it makes no sense. I didn't put it up to shout, " this is the one, this is the real map." I put it up ...if you look at the topic I put it in...to be played with.
For the record, apart from obvious tinkering of land mass...what makes no sense? If you can explain what doesn't add up.

The original map has the Antarctica as a great wall of ice where no one has never been there. Now you flip it around and claim it will justify traveling from point A to point
B. You can't have it both ways. By the way where is the sun and moon on your map?

The sun is the moon. The sun is in the centre of that map inside the Earth. It's domed and slightly concave. This is my hypothesis or thought, just so we are clear on the fact that I'm not claiming it's a certainty.

I'm curious as to why you think your concave / flat earth you can't map with the sun inside the earth / no gravity / air pressure model is more likely than the accepted round earth model? It just seems your number 1 priority is not believing a round earth no matter what. Even if the body of work un back up your model is a hand drawn map and the words "The sun is the moon. The sun is in the
centre of that map inside the Earth." Hardly the most compelling argument is it?

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 12, 2014, 03:01:04 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 12, 2014, 02:59:37 PM

One or two are on very similar lines. Not with the map though, I mean that needs work to fit and may not fit. I still have to play with other ideas...but in essence, tehre are a few that believe in a Earth centred sun and dome, etc...they just differ slightly than mine.
I certainly don't profess to know it's correct; all I can do is keep adding and taking away bits of it until it makes more sense each time. I'm well aware of how silly it may look to many people....but I'm sticking with the basics of it all because I genuinely believe I'm on the right track.

You're a true scientist and a credit to us all.

At the end of the day, you cannot say for absolute certain that I'm wrong. You can say it...but it doesn't mean you are correct, so I'm not really interested what you think. It's what I think that counts.