Earthly distances conform to RE model, not FE

This does not mean I'm uneducated or stupid.

I'll say one more time, there is no official universal FE map.

Quote from: charles bloomington on April 20, 2014, 11:04:23 PM

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).

This does not mean I'm uneducated or stupid.

No, you are just pretending.

I'll say one more time, there is no official universal FE map.

The words "official" and "universal" are completely redundant.

Quote from: Donk3y on April 21, 2014, 12:07:27 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on April 20, 2014, 11:04:23 PM

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).

The equator is an Imaginary line, make believe , I think you need to conform to reality.

Quote from: Donk3y on April 20, 2014, 12:11:50 PM

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...

Quote from: sandokhan on April 14, 2014, 05:26:02 AM

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.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 20, 2014, 12:15:12 PM

Quote from: Donk3y on April 20, 2014, 12:11:50 PM

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...

Quote from: sandokhan on April 14, 2014, 05:26:02 AM

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.

Is this supposed to be the official FE map ? It is even more distorted than the original.

Quote from: Googleotomy on April 21, 2014, 04:10:58 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 20, 2014, 12:15:12 PM

Quote from: Donk3y on April 20, 2014, 12:11:50 PM

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...

Quote from: sandokhan on April 14, 2014, 05:26:02 AM

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.

Is this supposed to be the official FE map ? It is even more distorted than the original.

One more time: There is no official universal FE map.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 21, 2014, 04:46:32 PM

Quote from: Googleotomy on April 21, 2014, 04:10:58 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 20, 2014, 12:15:12 PM

Quote from: Donk3y on April 20, 2014, 12:11:50 PM

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...

Quote from: sandokhan on April 14, 2014, 05:26:02 AM

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.

Is this supposed to be the official FE map ? It is even more distorted than the original.

One more time: There is no official universal FE map.

One more time. There is no FE map because there is no FE !

Are you in kindergarten?  You can't make an argument, so your only recourse is to insult someone?

Who mapped the entire Earth?