Is Flat earth "theory" good for a fantasy setting ? (examining star navigation)

  • 58 Replies
  • 10552 Views
*

aisantaros

  • 462
  • +0/-0
All the guys bragged around here that i have to take FE seriously and all sciency, if I post a challange,good joke if you ask me.

FE is not even good for fantasy, geeks love fantasy cause its have consistent internal logic and fairly good explanations for all the magic in their oh and a MAP :D

So if somebody not just talk about it but takes FE real serious, could do these simple tasks. After that maybe I will consider to repost my 100 000 usd challenge with the required legal documents and terms.

1 Imagine a guy sailing FE, without any modern instrument he have to use celestial navigation, explain how could that work ?

2 Show me the star map of FE world

Reminder :In reality people mapping stars for thousands of years and using their celestial coordinates corresponding to terrain coordinates in a SPHERICAL geometry  for navigation successfully.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2016, 04:53:36 AM by aisantaros »

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Is Flat earth "theory" good for a fantasy setting ?
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2016, 04:41:06 AM »
Why would you not be able to navigate using the celestial bodies on a flat Earth? 

*

aisantaros

  • 462
  • +0/-0
Re: Is Flat earth "theory" good for a fantasy setting ?
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2016, 04:45:02 AM »
Why would you not be able to navigate using the celestial bodies on a flat Earth?

Well I am sure not able to do that :D but that dont mean that Flat Earthers cant, I ask for the underlying principle of celestial navigation applied to FE OR in a fantasy setting where the earth is flat with stars close (3000-6000 miles up) above it.

*

aisantaros

  • 462
  • +0/-0
Re: Is Flat earth "theory" good for a fantasy setting ?
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2016, 04:51:37 AM »
But off course you can use fo example Polaris to determine you position on a flat plane, its just trigonometry.... the problem is its not really match reality as you can see.


*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
So, then, you admit that it is possible to navigate on a flat Earth using the celestial bodies?  Great!  We are making progress with you.  :)

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Is Flat earth "theory" good for a fantasy setting ?
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2016, 06:09:07 AM »
Why would you not be able to navigate using the celestial bodies on a flat Earth?

So you are prepared to assert that o the Flat Earth
                each degree north or south of the equator represents very close to 111.2 km in distance and
                each degree east or west of the Greenwich at the equator represents very close to 111.3 km in distance.

Otherwise, those navigators would get very confused.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Why would you not be able to navigate using the celestial bodies on a flat Earth?

So you are prepared to assert that o the Flat Earth
                each degree north or south of the equator represents very close to 111.2 km in distance and
                each degree east or west of the Greenwich at the equator represents very close to 111.3 km in distance.

Otherwise, those navigators would get very confused.

They did not get very confused, so I can only assume that you are, once again, full of it. 

*

aisantaros

  • 462
  • +0/-0
So, then, you admit that it is possible to navigate on a flat Earth using the celestial bodies?  Great!  We are making progress with you.  :)


Exactly, thats the point ! It is is possible in a FANTASY SETTING , as I showed you on the polaris diagram.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
I see no problem, then.  I am marking this thread as "Resolved" in order to make room for more pressing issues.  Thanks. 

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
All the guys bragged around here that i have to take FE seriously and all sciency, if I post a challange,good joke if you ask me.

FE is not even good for fantasy, geeks love fantasy cause its have consistent internal logic and fairly good explanations for all the magic in their oh and a MAP :D
Oh, right, totally comparable.

Look, I've got an FE map!


Quote
So if somebody not just talk about it but takes FE real serious, could do these simple tasks. After that maybe I will consider to repost my 100 000 usd challenge with the required legal documents and terms.

1 Imagine a guy sailing FE, without any modern instrument he have to use celestial navigation, explain how could that work ?

2 Show me the star map of FE world

Reminder :In reality people mapping stars for thousands of years and using their celestial coordinates corresponding to terrain coordinates in a SPHERICAL geometry  for navigation successfully.
1. Easy: the difference between the stars over a FE and the stars over a RE is too small to cause any major errors, especially given the difficulties in navigating carefully oversea anyway.
2. If you want an approximation, google 'star map.' If you want a detailed one, sure, once you agree to pay for a worldwide sailing voyage to map the stars (and pay someone else to do it, I get seasick).
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

aisantaros

  • 462
  • +0/-0
I see no problem, then.  I am marking this thread as "Resolved" in order to make room for more pressing issues.  Thanks.


Yes, totally agree , we reached an agreement where FE model totally could work if we adjusted it to be consistent with a proper flat plane , where polaris is visible from the south pole for example.

Isnt that strange ? Flat earth model starts working as soon as we apply it to a flat world unlike ours, which is a sphere ? :D

?

Cartog

  • 538
  • +0/-0
Flat Earth is a good universe for a fantasy such as finding The Edge, clambering over The Edge and finding that on the Side there's an entire different world with different life forms, just as if it were a different planet.  And maybe the top of the evolutionary ladder on the Side is scheming to storm over The Edge and invade our surface, etc.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • 17037
  • +5/-4
  • He who walks away from Omelas
A flat earth is actually pretty nice for a fantasy setting. The biggest advantage being that the map becomes very straightforward. You also get the edge of the earth which is a great place to get creative with.

Fun fact, Arda, the world that the Lord of the rings is set in, used to be flat. It's detailed in the silmarillion I think.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Why would you not be able to navigate using the celestial bodies on a flat Earth?

So you are prepared to assert that o the Flat Earth
                each degree north or south of the equator represents very close to 111.2 km in distance and
                each degree east or west of the Greenwich at the equator represents very close to 111.3 km in distance.

Otherwise, those navigators would get very confused.

They did not get very confused, so I can only assume that you are, once again, full of it.
Yes, but all those navigators knew that they were navigating a globe where
                each degree north or south of the equator represents very close to 111.2 km in distance and
                each degree east or west of the Greenwich at the equator represents very close to 111.3 km in distance.

Even "the Wiki" agrees with the first part.
Quote from: the Wiki
Latitude
To locate your latitude on the Flat Earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the Earth's Latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.

That's why 0˚ N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90˚ N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45˚ in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.

Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
From Finding your Latitude and Longitude

Now, 69.5 miles is not exactly 111.2 km, but it is close and 111.2 km is a bit more accurate.
As to "each degree east or west of the Greenwich at the equator" representing "very close to 111.3 km in distance" we do have
Quote
Longitude
To find your longitude you just need to know how many hours apart you are from Greenwich, UK and a vertical stick to know when the sun is at its zenith over your present location.
Now "the Wiki" does not explicitly say that each degree of longitude is 111.3 km in distance, so we have to look to other sources.
Quote from: Wikipedia
Geographical mile
The geographical mile is a unit of length determined by 1 minute of arc along the Earth's equator. For the 1924 International Spheroid this equalled 1855.4 metres.
. . . . . . . .
In any standard, the length of a degree of longitude at the equator is thus exactly 60 geographical miles.
From

So one degree of longitude at the equator is 60 x 1855.4 metres or 111.3 km.

Do you want to reconsider who is confused?

*

aisantaros

  • 462
  • +0/-0
Thanks for the elaboration ! So If I getting things right in a fantasy setting using flat earth the horizon would be dark and hazy and ever changing because of atmospheric conditions, with very evident spectacular view distances.

And people use the ever visible polaris to navigate by trigonometry, and the stars doing long circles around it like a big clock.

Am I missed something ?

?

IonSpen

  • 1209
  • +0/-0
From what I have gathered, most FE'rs will say the reason why Polaris appears lower on the horizon the farther south you go is because you are moving farther away from it. And when below the equator the reason you cannot see it anymore is because it's just simply too far away.

*

aisantaros

  • 462
  • +0/-0
From what I have gathered, most FE'rs will say the reason why Polaris appears lower on the horizon the farther south you go is because you are moving farther away from it. And when below the equator the reason you cannot see it anymore is because it's just simply too far away.

According to geometry and perspective to see polaris at the equator 0.1 degree above the horizon, you will need polaris to be at around just 18 km up, pretty unrealistic, considering just the reach of helium balloons alone ...


*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
According to geometry and perspective to see polaris at the equator 0.1 degree above the horizon, you will need polaris to be at around just 18 km up, pretty unrealistic, considering just the reach of helium balloons alone ...



You do realize that besides height, we also have distance as a dimension, right?  ???

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
You do realize that besides height, we also have distance as a dimension, right?  ???
Are you claiming that height is not a distance?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

aisantaros

  • 462
  • +0/-0
According to geometry and perspective to see polaris at the equator 0.1 degree above the horizon, you will need polaris to be at around just 18 km up, pretty unrealistic, considering just the reach of helium balloons alone ...



You do realize that besides height, we also have distance as a dimension, right?  ???

yes and thats 10000 km in this example, from polaris to the equator

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
You do realize that besides height, we also have distance as a dimension, right?  ???
Are you claiming that height is not a distance?

No, height is a length. 

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
You do realize that besides height, we also have distance as a dimension, right?  ???
Are you claiming that height is not a distance?

No, height is a length.
How can you have length without distance?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
You do realize that besides height, we also have distance as a dimension, right?  ???
Are you claiming that height is not a distance?

No, height is a length.
How can you have length without distance?

In 3 dimensions. 

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
You do realize that besides height, we also have distance as a dimension, right?  ???
Are you claiming that height is not a distance?

No, height is a length.
How can you have length without distance?

In 3 dimensions.
Are you saying distance can't exist in three dimensions?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
You do realize that besides height, we also have distance as a dimension, right?  ???
Are you claiming that height is not a distance?

No, height is a length.
How can you have length without distance?

In 3 dimensions.
Are you saying distance can't exist in three dimensions?

No, the opposite. 

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
No, height is a length.
How can you have length without distance?

In 3 dimensions.
Are you saying distance can't exist in three dimensions?

No, the opposite.
So, if distance can exist, how do you have a length without it?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
No, height is a length.
How can you have length without distance?

In 3 dimensions.
Are you saying distance can't exist in three dimensions?

No, the opposite.
So, if distance can exist, how do you have a length without it?

No, you are assuming the wrong opposite. 

Ok. Soo serious question. If the corryelous effect is in fact causeing bullet and or slash target to rise or drop because of rotation of the heliocentric model. Well under that understanding if i make a shot twards north or south on the quote  unquote equator then i should hypotheticaly have to compensate like 100 ft to 200 ft the left of right to make the shot on a 1 mile shot or more. I would realy like an actual fact based response with at least one reference point. Perferably not some back yard chump that could be bribbed 10 g`S to be a coconspirators. So a renoun sciencetist should not be to hard or too much to ask for._. After all you are suppost to be defending a scientific fact we teach children.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Ok. Soo serious question. If the corryelous effect is in fact causeing bullet and or slash target to rise or drop because of rotation of the heliocentric model. Well under that understanding if i make a shot twards north or south on the quote  unquote equator then i should hypotheticaly have to compensate like 100 ft to 200 ft the left of right to make the shot on a 1 mile shot or more. I would realy like an actual fact based response with at least one reference point. Perferably not some back yard chump that could be bribbed 10 g`S to be a coconspirators. So a renoun sciencetist should not be to hard or too much to ask for._. After all you are suppost to be defending a scientific fact we teach children.

You want facts?  Well, here is a fact; no matter what calculations a sniper crunches before making a shot, he still needs a spotter to tell him how far off his shot is when he misses.  Kind of throws a monkey wrench into your little plan to destroy the FET with the Coriolis nonsense, does it not?

?

IonSpen

  • 1209
  • +0/-0
What are the wind conditions? What is the temperature? What caliber round -  .338 Lapua or  .50BMG?