Earthly distances conform to RE model, not FE

This is based on the assumption that the RE map is correct. An arbitrary point, the magnetic north pole, and ,or the area of floating ice, has had circles drawn round it round it. This does not mean that the 'North Pole' is necessarily central. Also there are 'anomalies' in the 'southern hemisphere' ( and elsewhere), where relying on a compass would be hopeless, ( ie. heading 'south' with a compass telling you you are heading north).

This is based on the assumption that the RE map is correct. An arbitrary point, the magnetic north pole, and ,or the area of floating ice, has had circles drawn round it round it. This does not mean that the 'North Pole' is necessarily central. Also there are 'anomalies' in the 'southern hemisphere' ( and elsewhere), where relying on a compass would be hopeless, ( ie. heading 'south' with a compass telling you you are heading north).

When is the north pole is not central?

This is based on the assumption that the RE map is correct. An arbitrary point, the magnetic north pole, and ,or the area of floating ice, has had circles drawn round it round it. This does not mean that the 'North Pole' is necessarily central. Also there are 'anomalies' in the 'southern hemisphere' ( and elsewhere), where relying on a compass would be hopeless, ( ie. heading 'south' with a compass telling you you are heading north).

Irrelevant, the distances between the cities proves the point. On a flat earth, the distance between the longitudinals above the equator (near the north pole) is less than that of the equator, and the ones below the equator is more than the one at the equator.
This is CLEARLY not the case in realty. Reality conforms with the predictions of the spheroid earth. The equator has the biggest longitudinal distance, it's getting less with latitude, regardless if it's north or south.
The distances between the cities proves it.

Also it's not assuming anything, if I were assuming, I wouldn't put real life distances there... *facepalm*

It's just arbitrary lines drawn on our flat Earth to make it look round. Most of the area further south is mind bogglingly un-navigable/measureable.

It's just arbitrary lines drawn on our flat Earth to make it look round. Most of the area further south is mind bogglingly un-navigable/measureable.

lol you didn't get it.
Those "arbitrary lines" are just the way the earth was split into 360 lines to help navigation and localization and mapmaking. What is true, though, is the fact that between each of them there is a distance. That distance is very small at the north pole (0 at lat 90 because they originate there), they get bigger until they get to the equator (where 1degree is about 111km) and then they get lower again.
Another fact is that these distances fit the distances of cities, as I've demonstrated in my post.

This is a nail in the coffin for the flat earth myth, unless you invoke some spatial anomaly bullshit xD

It's just arbitrary lines drawn on our flat Earth to make it look round. Most of the area further south is mind bogglingly un-navigable/measureable.

Which parts, from where?

Quote from: ELINT on April 17, 2014, 01:57:48 PM

It's just arbitrary lines drawn on our flat Earth to make it look round. Most of the area further south is mind bogglingly un-navigable/measureable.

Which parts, from where?

See 'scalar magnetic anomalies of the earth' picture. http://www.iugg.org/

Quote from: inquisitive on April 17, 2014, 02:17:00 PM

Quote from: ELINT on April 17, 2014, 01:57:48 PM

It's just arbitrary lines drawn on our flat Earth to make it look round. Most of the area further south is mind bogglingly un-navigable/measureable.

Which parts, from where?

See 'scalar magnetic anomalies of the earth' picture. http://www.iugg.org/

That has nothing to do with actual measured distances.
Tell us when you're done with irrelevancies.

It's just arbitrary lines drawn on our flat Earth to make it look round. Most of the area further south is mind bogglingly un-navigable/measureable.

Why do you want your flat earth model to "look round"?  Why do you bother showing the "arbitrary" lines of longitude—which are an angular measurement—if, according to you, they can't be used to measure distances on the earth's surface?
 

Quote from: ELINT on April 17, 2014, 01:57:48 PM

It's just arbitrary lines drawn on our flat Earth to make it look round. Most of the area further south is mind bogglingly un-navigable/measureable.

Why do you want your flat earth model to "look round"?  Why do you bother showing the "arbitrary" lines of longitude—which are an angular measurement—if, according to you, they can't be used to measure distances on the earth's surface?

Even without the lines, the distances between the cities on their map would be bigger than in reality. The longitudes are just lines (360 if talking about degrees) with an equal angle between them to better help navigation and cartography. For example the distance between 1 degree at the equator is ~111km, and that distance gets lower with latitude, regardless if north or south. On a flat earth you would expect it to get bigger as you go souther from the equator. It's obviously not the case, as I evidenced with real life distances.

Even without the lines, the distances between the cities on their map would be bigger than in reality. The longitudes are just lines (360 if talking about degrees) with an equal angle between them to better help navigation and cartography. For example the distance between 1 degree at the equator is ~111km, and that distance gets lower with latitude, regardless if north or south. On a flat earth you would expect it to get bigger as you go souther from the equator. It's obviously not the case, as I evidenced with real life distances.

Australia is so distorted in its east-west direction it's almost unrecognisable on the proposed flat earth map LOL.  And it's twice the width of North America!

Don't any of these flat earthers have odometers in their cars?  Have none of them ever driven from San Francisco to New York?  Or Perth to Sydney?  Apparently not.
 

...As you can see, reality conforms to the RE model, NOT the FE model.

The map in your OP is not absolute.
There is no official universal flat Earth map.
Contrary to popular RE belief, most of us FE enthusiasts have slightly to drastically differing ideas.
Also, the map in your OP seems to be largely based on the equidistant conic projection.

Then, it's not much of a scientific theory if there's next to no consensus, is it?

Quote from: Donk3y on April 17, 2014, 04:37:28 AM

...As you can see, reality conforms to the RE model, NOT the FE model.

The map in your OP is not absolute.
There is no official universal flat Earth map.
Contrary to popular RE belief, most of us FE enthusiasts have slightly to drastically differing ideas.
Also, the map in your OP seems to be largely based on the equidistant conic projection.

As you just said: "As you can see, reality conforms to the RE model, NOT the FE model" So what you are saying is that FE model is not reality.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 20, 2014, 12:03:07 AM

Quote from: Donk3y on April 17, 2014, 04:37:28 AM

...As you can see, reality conforms to the RE model, NOT the FE model.

The map in your OP is not absolute.
There is no official universal flat Earth map.
Contrary to popular RE belief, most of us FE enthusiasts have slightly to drastically differing ideas.
Also, the map in your OP seems to be largely based on the equidistant conic projection.

As you just said: "As you can see, reality conforms to the RE model, NOT the FE model" So what you are saying is that FE model is not reality.

No. What I'm saying is that there is no official universal FE map.
Sandokhan posted a fairly accurate FE map once. Maybe you can do a search on the topic?
Anyway,

Contrary to popular RE belief, most of us FE enthusiasts have slightly to drastically differing ideas.

and

Also, the map in your OP seems to be largely based on the equidistant conic projection.

Read my posts or don't, but don't pretend to read my posts.

Also, RandomREalist, are you saying that the general consensus is always correct?
Are you saying that the majority of people can't be wrong?

Quote from: Starman on April 20, 2014, 06:17:02 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 20, 2014, 12:03:07 AM

Quote from: Donk3y on April 17, 2014, 04:37:28 AM

...As you can see, reality conforms to the RE model, NOT the FE model.

The map in your OP is not absolute.
There is no official universal flat Earth map.
Contrary to popular RE belief, most of us FE enthusiasts have slightly to drastically differing ideas.
Also, the map in your OP seems to be largely based on the equidistant conic projection.

As you just said: "As you can see, reality conforms to the RE model, NOT the FE model" So what you are saying is that FE model is not reality.

No. What I'm saying is that there is no official universal FE map.
Sandokhan posted a fairly accurate FE map once. Maybe you can do a search on the topic?
Anyway,

Quote

Contrary to popular RE belief, most of us FE enthusiasts have slightly to drastically differing ideas.

and

Quote

Also, the map in your OP seems to be largely based on the equidistant conic projection.

Read my posts or don't, but don't pretend to read my posts.

Also, RandomREalist, are you saying that the general consensus is always correct?
Are you saying that the majority of people can't be wrong?

No, I'm saying that for there to be a scientific theory, there needs to at least be some sort of baseline consensus amongst its proponents. Seemingly every single person on this forum that believes it, has their own idea.

The only part of "Flat Earth Theory" that's agreed on is "flat earth"

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 20, 2014, 08:23:02 AM

Quote from: Starman on April 20, 2014, 06:17:02 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 20, 2014, 12:03:07 AM

Quote from: Donk3y on April 17, 2014, 04:37:28 AM

...As you can see, reality conforms to the RE model, NOT the FE model.

The map in your OP is not absolute.
There is no official universal flat Earth map.
Contrary to popular RE belief, most of us FE enthusiasts have slightly to drastically differing ideas.
Also, the map in your OP seems to be largely based on the equidistant conic projection.

As you just said: "As you can see, reality conforms to the RE model, NOT the FE model" So what you are saying is that FE model is not reality.

No. What I'm saying is that there is no official universal FE map.
Sandokhan posted a fairly accurate FE map once. Maybe you can do a search on the topic?
Anyway,

Quote

Contrary to popular RE belief, most of us FE enthusiasts have slightly to drastically differing ideas.

and

Quote

Also, the map in your OP seems to be largely based on the equidistant conic projection.

Read my posts or don't, but don't pretend to read my posts.

Also, RandomREalist, are you saying that the general consensus is always correct?
Are you saying that the majority of people can't be wrong?

No, I'm saying that for there to be a scientific theory, there needs to at least be some sort of baseline consensus amongst its proponents. Seemingly every single person on this forum that believes it, has their own idea.

The only part of "Flat Earth Theory" that's agreed on is "flat earth"

Does this picture mean anything to you?

Quote from: Donk3y on April 17, 2014, 04:37:28 AM

...As you can see, reality conforms to the RE model, NOT the FE model.

The map in your OP is not absolute.
There is no official universal flat Earth map.
Contrary to popular RE belief, most of us FE enthusiasts have slightly to drastically differing ideas.
Also, the map in your OP seems to be largely based on the equidistant conic projection.

The stupidity of this post is amazing... Even this post shows discrepancies in the distances... If you try to make the continents and the land masses fit, you've got a whole lot of water to account for...
And even on that map, the distances and the longitudinal distances grow below the equator...

FAIL

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 20, 2014, 12:03:07 AM

Quote from: Donk3y on April 17, 2014, 04:37:28 AM

...As you can see, reality conforms to the RE model, NOT the FE model.

The map in your OP is not absolute.
There is no official universal flat Earth map.
Contrary to popular RE belief, most of us FE enthusiasts have slightly to drastically differing ideas.
Also, the map in your OP seems to be largely based on the equidistant conic projection.

The stupidity of this post is amazing... Even this post shows discrepancies in the distances... If you try to make the continents and the land masses fit, you've got a whole lot of water to account for...
And even on that map, the distances and the longitudinal distances grow below the equator...

FAIL

I didn't make the map.
Consult the round Earth cartographer who came up with this type of map projection.

Equidistant conic projection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The equidistant conic projection is a conic map projection. It has the useful property that distances along the meridians are proportionately correct.

How is it at all a fail on my behalf?

Because you're using it as proof for a flat earth... How stupid are you?

Because you're using it as proof for a flat earth... How stupid are you?

When did I ever use it as proof for a flat Earth?
Stop with the ad-hominem, please.

It's not ad hominem, it's giving credit where it's due. Ad hominem is when you insult the opponent and not address the issue, I did both.

And use your brain, without some spatial distortions (which of course none of your lot can ever explain, because, you know, you all denied gravity  ), a flat earth map doesn't make sense. You need to stretch the map as it goes south for it to not have "missing space". I think you can tell how stupid this is and why it does not conform to reality.

Both maps obviously strecth, but it's not a real representation of reality. And saying that nobody has ever made a realistic flat earth map only goes to show how little education it's proponents have...

It's not ad hominem, it's giving credit where it's due. Ad hominem is when you insult the opponent and not address the issue, I did both.

And use your brain, without some spatial distortions (which of course none of your lot can ever explain, because, you know, you all denied gravity  ), a flat earth map doesn't make sense. You need to stretch the map as it goes south for it to not have "missing space". I think you can tell how stupid this is and why it does not conform to reality.

Both maps obviously strecth, but it's not a real representation of reality. And saying that nobody has ever made a realistic flat earth map only goes to show how little education it's proponents have...

There is only one FE map: the one I posted here years ago.

It has been debated again and again, successfully, in each and every way possible.

I was the first to point out that the official FE map is wrong: there are northern circumpolar constellations, BUT ALSO southern circumpolar constellations, a fact which S. Rowbotham did not understand or perceive.

I'm not a cartographer. This does not mean I'm uneducated or stupid.
I'll say one more time, there is no official universal FE map.

When I say uneducated, I mean relevantly uneducated. As in, you claim that plants live on methane, but you aren't a biochemist to substantiate your claim or to bring a mere mechanism.

What I meant was that there's not one single relevantly educated individual in this lot. You all make "maps", make claims about gravity, about the sun, about the earth, but none of you have the relevant education or proof (mathematical or physical) to back it up.

That map doesn't conform to reality either. Going on a perpendicular direction to the tangent of the american continent, in reality you get somewhere (asia), on this map you're get to the edge. It also doesn't conform to your own "sun is a spotlight" notion.

When I say uneducated, I mean relevantly uneducated. As in, you claim that plants live on methane, but you aren't a biochemist to substantiate your claim or to bring a mere mechanism.

I've never said anything like this. I realize it's an example, but one does not have to be a biochemist to make a differing claim about plants. If they have sufficient evidence, credentials shouldn't matter.

What I meant was that there's not one single relevantly educated individual in this lot. You all make "maps", make claims about gravity, about the sun, about the earth, but none of you have the relevant education or proof (mathematical or physical) to back it up.

I admitted I am not a cartographer. I did the opposite of what you're saying.

That map doesn't conform to reality either. Going on a perpendicular direction to the tangent of the american continent, in reality you get somewhere (asia), on this map you're get to the edge. It also doesn't conform to your own "sun is a spotlight" notion.

You're making a few assumptions to draw this conclusion.

What are these assumptions?

Quote from: Donk3y on April 20, 2014, 12:35:01 PM

When I say uneducated, I mean relevantly uneducated. As in, you claim that plants live on methane, but you aren't a biochemist to substantiate your claim or to bring a mere mechanism.

I've never said anything like this. I realize it's an example, but one does not have to be a biochemist to make a differing claim about plants. If they have sufficient evidence, credentials shouldn't matter.

Quote from: Donk3y on April 20, 2014, 12:35:01 PM

What I meant was that there's not one single relevantly educated individual in this lot. You all make "maps", make claims about gravity, about the sun, about the earth, but none of you have the relevant education or proof (mathematical or physical) to back it up.

I admitted I am not a cartographer. I did the opposite of what you're saying.

Quote from: Donk3y on April 20, 2014, 12:35:01 PM

That map doesn't conform to reality either. Going on a perpendicular direction to the tangent of the american continent, in reality you get somewhere (asia), on this map you're get to the edge. It also doesn't conform to your own "sun is a spotlight" notion.

You're making a few assumptions to draw this conclusion.

You're right, you don't need credentials as long as you've got good evidence, but they're a pretty good indicator of how much people know about a subject. Most of the time the "evidence" presented by somebody who knows nothing about it is either flawed or pure BS.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 20, 2014, 12:44:04 PM

Quote from: Donk3y on April 20, 2014, 12:35:01 PM

When I say uneducated, I mean relevantly uneducated. As in, you claim that plants live on methane, but you aren't a biochemist to substantiate your claim or to bring a mere mechanism.

I've never said anything like this. I realize it's an example, but one does not have to be a biochemist to make a differing claim about plants. If they have sufficient evidence, credentials shouldn't matter.

Quote from: Donk3y on April 20, 2014, 12:35:01 PM

What I meant was that there's not one single relevantly educated individual in this lot. You all make "maps", make claims about gravity, about the sun, about the earth, but none of you have the relevant education or proof (mathematical or physical) to back it up.

I admitted I am not a cartographer. I did the opposite of what you're saying.

Quote from: Donk3y on April 20, 2014, 12:35:01 PM

That map doesn't conform to reality either. Going on a perpendicular direction to the tangent of the american continent, in reality you get somewhere (asia), on this map you're get to the edge. It also doesn't conform to your own "sun is a spotlight" notion.

You're making a few assumptions to draw this conclusion.

You're right, you don't need credentials as long as you've got good evidence, but they're a pretty good indicator of how much people know about a subject. Most of the time the "evidence" presented by somebody who knows nothing about it is either flawed or pure BS.

I suppose in your pathetic little mined  the garbage NASA  churns out is credible. LOL The karman line, look it up & then wake up to who's BS who. 

Quote from: Donk3y on April 20, 2014, 05:25:55 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 20, 2014, 12:44:04 PM

Quote from: Donk3y on April 20, 2014, 12:35:01 PM

When I say uneducated, I mean relevantly uneducated. As in, you claim that plants live on methane, but you aren't a biochemist to substantiate your claim or to bring a mere mechanism.

I've never said anything like this. I realize it's an example, but one does not have to be a biochemist to make a differing claim about plants. If they have sufficient evidence, credentials shouldn't matter.

Quote from: Donk3y on April 20, 2014, 12:35:01 PM

What I meant was that there's not one single relevantly educated individual in this lot. You all make "maps", make claims about gravity, about the sun, about the earth, but none of you have the relevant education or proof (mathematical or physical) to back it up.

I admitted I am not a cartographer. I did the opposite of what you're saying.

Quote from: Donk3y on April 20, 2014, 12:35:01 PM

That map doesn't conform to reality either. Going on a perpendicular direction to the tangent of the american continent, in reality you get somewhere (asia), on this map you're get to the edge. It also doesn't conform to your own "sun is a spotlight" notion.

You're making a few assumptions to draw this conclusion.

You're right, you don't need credentials as long as you've got good evidence, but they're a pretty good indicator of how much people know about a subject. Most of the time the "evidence" presented by somebody who knows nothing about it is either flawed or pure BS.

I suppose in your pathetic little mined  the garbage NASA  churns out is credible. LOL The karman line, look it up & then wake up to who's BS who.

Math doesn't lie, neither does chemistry nor physics.

Funny how only one attempt was made at a rebuttal in this thread, and even that failed because of mis-comprehension xD
It's really funny because the one thing you have to do to refute this is to show that the longitudinal distance below the equator is less than at the equator on the flat earth model (in order for it to conform to reality).