Why is there no definitive map that the FE group can agree upon?

Quote from: John Davis on July 28, 2017, 10:56:36 AM

The distances work fine on many flat earth models, such as my non-euclidean flat earth.

Do you know what I like about you... even though we disagree, you state your point without getting angry... Why are so many FE believers angry?

You state your point without mincing words or twisting what other people say.

Anyways, can you give me a link to this non-Euclidean flat earth map so I can do some calculations?

Certainly.

The base thought experiment is here.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat

Ignore the title as it is admittedly inaccurate.

From it you should be able to see that the distances would match those measured on a round earth. There has been more work done on it; some will be in my ever-upcoming book. Some can be found here on the forums or in interviews I've conducted.

In short: space curves, not the surface of the earth. This can be discovered by noting that satellites, assuming they exist as we are told, are in free fall; free falling objects are either motionless or traveling a constant velocity. This can be shown by recognizing the equivalence principle. From there, we see that since a perfect orbit remains at a constant altitude above the earth, not only are the satellites traveling straight lines (as coherence with relativity and Newton's laws requires) but also that the surface of the earth is flat.

Jane has provided another great description of this model:

Non-Euclidean Space

Euclidean space, how we conventionally think of space, can be defined a number of ways. Perhaps the most intuitive is to think of it as the space in which Pythagoras’ theorem holds. If you have x and y axis and you choose two coordinates (for simplicity, let’s say (0,0) and (3,4)) then to find the distance between those points you note that you can form a triangle, and the distance between them is the length of the hypotenuse, easily found by Pythagoras’ theorem. Here, it gives 5. Thus, Pythagoras gives us the distance between any two points.
Non-Euclidean space may simply be thought of as one that calculates distance in another way. This would allow for, for example, a surface that exhibits no curvature to also have a triangle with three right angles, despite the impossibility of that in Euclidean space.

More technically, we can look at Euclid’s postulates. One states that any line segment may be extended infinitely into a straight line. If we alter this we can create a non-Euclidean space where any line segment can be extended in a straight line to intersect itself; that is, walk far enough in one direction and you’ll end up where you started.

Typically, this is all the model states; that in non-Euclidean space you can easily get the distances to explain flight times, and even have two distinct poles.

I should emphasize the following is not inherently the model, but it proves a convenient way for an REer to see how this could work. If you accept RET, then an easy way to create a non-Euclidean FE model is with a mathematical mapping. There are a number of mathematical ways to project the surface of a sphere onto a plane, or a plane onto a sphere. To extend that, you can map all of RET to a flat disc in non-Euclidean space, essentially by ‘unpeeling’ the Earth, and allowing for sufficient travel in one direction to bring you back where you started. It would similarly warp space. This mathematical mapping, as it follows on directly from a model you believe to be accurate, would in turn perfectly explain how light moves, how the moon and planets move…

However, it is not right to say that this model is just RET. It is a flat disc, in non-Euclidean space, not a globe in Euclidean space (although technically space isn’t Euclidean under RET, but we’ll get to that).
A good analogy here is the difference between heliocentrism and geocentrism. Ultimately it is just a choice of reference frame; choose one in which the Earth is stationary, and you can mathematically describe everything just fine. The model works. The reason RET favours heliocentrism now is explanatory power; heliocentrism can explain why the Earth goes around the Sun, and explain retrograde motion, while the geocentric explanation is questionable.
With the non-Euclidean model, it is the same. Mathematically it all works, the only real questions are why anything behaves the way it does. The path of light depends on the space it’s in, so that isn’t an issue. Celestial objects, such as the Sun, however are said to move at a constant speed in a straight line. In the non-Euclidean space defined, this will take the form of an orbit, an object ending up where it started. As it is not altering velocity, no new force is required to maintain it.

Theoretically the non-Euclidean model can also allow for space travel. The moon is still the moon, orbits are perfectly possible, and due to the path light takes it is more than possible to view a globe from space. As I said, it is possible to create a non-Euclidean model where everything would look the same as in RET.
It is worth emphasizing again that the non-Euclidean model will not necessarily line up with RET. Many might still disagree with distances, or disagree that space travel occurs, or have any number of other departures.

The last question would be why space behaves like this. However, space is not necessarily going to be Euclidean; we simply assume that because it works that way on small scales. In fact, the space we live in under RET is Minkowski space; its properties are rather different to Euclidean space, and there is no reason to treat Euclidean as the default except for the fact we are used to doing so.

One thing you mention strikes me - you say that you wouldn't expect someone to know all of computer programming without knowledge of it, but they are indeed to assume that programming works as they have heard. This to me seems like a faith based view.

I too am a software engineer, yet I don't take these things (like cartography) as granted; instead, I reserve opinion until I have gathered enough information to make a decision myself. To simply state 'cartographers have mapped this, but I can't support it' is fallacy. More than this, it is actively against the pursuit of reason and even in some cases advance (as cartographers, like most men, are often incorrect in their assumptions and their conclusions.)

I have no doubt that cartographers have a system that works internal to their assumptions; I do doubt that this is the only said system that can describe the situation. Most scientific revolutions come from a shift in paradigm - and there is no doubt that if the earth is indeed flat it is the grounds for a scientific revolution.

Above, I disprove this idea of yours that cartographers must be right by example in showing one such paradigm shift - one already based strongly in mainstream science and common sense, yet outside of it.


In fact, often my rule of not taking information for granted helps me engineer better software; Robert C. Martin one wrote 'Truth can only be found in one place: the code.' Like this, truth can only be found in one place: in first hand observation.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on July 28, 2017, 11:04:42 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 28, 2017, 10:55:28 AM

The specific property that I'm looking for is the ability to reference specific locations on your dual earth using polar coordinates relative to either pole.

Certainly can be done. I don't think they'd line up 100% with the distance from the poles under the RE model, but they'd mostly be pretty close.

Then that means that you already have the capability to calculate the distance from New York to Paris under your model.

How? Sokarul's seems to be assuming a 100% perfect transfer of coordinates, which I never said. And I'd love to know how he got the corcumference.

Quote from: markjo on July 28, 2017, 11:36:13 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on July 28, 2017, 11:04:42 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 28, 2017, 10:55:28 AM

The specific property that I'm looking for is the ability to reference specific locations on your dual earth using polar coordinates relative to either pole.

Certainly can be done. I don't think they'd line up 100% with the distance from the poles under the RE model, but they'd mostly be pretty close.

Then that means that you already have the capability to calculate the distance from New York to Paris under your model.

How? Sokarul's seems to be assuming a 100% perfect transfer of coordinates, which I never said. And I'd love to know how he got the corcumference.

How would RET latitude and longitude coordinates differ from polar coordinates in DET?

Quote from: pesadilla143 on July 28, 2017, 11:03:14 AM

Quote from: John Davis on July 28, 2017, 10:56:36 AM

The distances work fine on many flat earth models, such as my non-euclidean flat earth.

Do you know what I like about you... even though we disagree, you state your point without getting angry... Why are so many FE believers angry?

You state your point without mincing words or twisting what other people say.

Anyways, can you give me a link to this non-Euclidean flat earth map so I can do some calculations?

Certainly.

The base thought experiment is here.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat

Ignore the title as it is admittedly inaccurate.

From it you should be able to see that the distances would match those measured on a round earth. There has been more work done on it; some will be in my ever-upcoming book. Some can be found here on the forums or in interviews I've conducted.

In short: space curves, not the surface of the earth. This can be discovered by noting that satellites, assuming they exist as we are told, are in free fall; free falling objects are either motionless or traveling a constant velocity. This can be shown by recognizing the equivalence principle. From there, we see that since a perfect orbit remains at a constant altitude above the earth, not only are the satellites traveling straight lines (as coherence with relativity and Newton's laws requires) but also that the surface of the earth is flat.

Jane has provided another great description of this model:

Quote from: Jane on June 21, 2017, 04:09:37 PM

Non-Euclidean Space

Euclidean space, how we conventionally think of space, can be defined a number of ways. Perhaps the most intuitive is to think of it as the space in which Pythagoras’ theorem holds. If you have x and y axis and you choose two coordinates (for simplicity, let’s say (0,0) and (3,4)) then to find the distance between those points you note that you can form a triangle, and the distance between them is the length of the hypotenuse, easily found by Pythagoras’ theorem. Here, it gives 5. Thus, Pythagoras gives us the distance between any two points.
Non-Euclidean space may simply be thought of as one that calculates distance in another way. This would allow for, for example, a surface that exhibits no curvature to also have a triangle with three right angles, despite the impossibility of that in Euclidean space.

More technically, we can look at Euclid’s postulates. One states that any line segment may be extended infinitely into a straight line. If we alter this we can create a non-Euclidean space where any line segment can be extended in a straight line to intersect itself; that is, walk far enough in one direction and you’ll end up where you started.

Typically, this is all the model states; that in non-Euclidean space you can easily get the distances to explain flight times, and even have two distinct poles.

I should emphasize the following is not inherently the model, but it proves a convenient way for an REer to see how this could work. If you accept RET, then an easy way to create a non-Euclidean FE model is with a mathematical mapping. There are a number of mathematical ways to project the surface of a sphere onto a plane, or a plane onto a sphere. To extend that, you can map all of RET to a flat disc in non-Euclidean space, essentially by ‘unpeeling’ the Earth, and allowing for sufficient travel in one direction to bring you back where you started. It would similarly warp space. This mathematical mapping, as it follows on directly from a model you believe to be accurate, would in turn perfectly explain how light moves, how the moon and planets move…

However, it is not right to say that this model is just RET. It is a flat disc, in non-Euclidean space, not a globe in Euclidean space (although technically space isn’t Euclidean under RET, but we’ll get to that).
A good analogy here is the difference between heliocentrism and geocentrism. Ultimately it is just a choice of reference frame; choose one in which the Earth is stationary, and you can mathematically describe everything just fine. The model works. The reason RET favours heliocentrism now is explanatory power; heliocentrism can explain why the Earth goes around the Sun, and explain retrograde motion, while the geocentric explanation is questionable.
With the non-Euclidean model, it is the same. Mathematically it all works, the only real questions are why anything behaves the way it does. The path of light depends on the space it’s in, so that isn’t an issue. Celestial objects, such as the Sun, however are said to move at a constant speed in a straight line. In the non-Euclidean space defined, this will take the form of an orbit, an object ending up where it started. As it is not altering velocity, no new force is required to maintain it.

Theoretically the non-Euclidean model can also allow for space travel. The moon is still the moon, orbits are perfectly possible, and due to the path light takes it is more than possible to view a globe from space. As I said, it is possible to create a non-Euclidean model where everything would look the same as in RET.
It is worth emphasizing again that the non-Euclidean model will not necessarily line up with RET. Many might still disagree with distances, or disagree that space travel occurs, or have any number of other departures.

The last question would be why space behaves like this. However, space is not necessarily going to be Euclidean; we simply assume that because it works that way on small scales. In fact, the space we live in under RET is Minkowski space; its properties are rather different to Euclidean space, and there is no reason to treat Euclidean as the default except for the fact we are used to doing so.

One thing you mention strikes me - you say that you wouldn't expect someone to know all of computer programming without knowledge of it, but they are indeed to assume that programming works as they have heard. This to me seems like a faith based view.

I too am a software engineer, yet I don't take these things (like cartography) as granted; instead, I reserve opinion until I have gathered enough information to make a decision myself. To simply state 'cartographers have mapped this, but I can't support it' is fallacy. More than this, it is actively against the pursuit of reason and even in some cases advance (as cartographers, like most men, are often incorrect in their assumptions and their conclusions.)

I have no doubt that cartographers have a system that works internal to their assumptions; I do doubt that this is the only said system that can describe the situation. Most scientific revolutions come from a shift in paradigm - and there is no doubt that if the earth is indeed flat it is the grounds for a scientific revolution.

Above, I disprove this idea of yours that cartographers must be right by example in showing one such paradigm shift - one already based strongly in mainstream science and common sense, yet outside of it.


In fact, often my rule of not taking information for granted helps me engineer better software; Robert C. Martin one wrote 'Truth can only be found in one place: the code.' Like this, truth can only be found in one place: in first hand observation.

Quick question John...what's the best code you have ever produced? Are you a SQL man or do you prefer C++, Java or the snake that is Python?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on July 28, 2017, 12:19:37 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 28, 2017, 11:36:13 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on July 28, 2017, 11:04:42 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 28, 2017, 10:55:28 AM

The specific property that I'm looking for is the ability to reference specific locations on your dual earth using polar coordinates relative to either pole.

Certainly can be done. I don't think they'd line up 100% with the distance from the poles under the RE model, but they'd mostly be pretty close.

Then that means that you already have the capability to calculate the distance from New York to Paris under your model.

How? Sokarul's seems to be assuming a 100% perfect transfer of coordinates, which I never said. And I'd love to know how he got the corcumference.

How would RET latitude and longitude coordinates differ from polar coordinates in DET?

It's not a perfect mapping. I don't think the RE map is completely accurate, I'd hope that's clear from context, there's always going to be error seeping in when dealing with such huge distances. RE lat/long coordinates are going to be accurate to within a thousand km or so (upper echelon, exact error clearly varies) if directly transferred.

Quote from: pesadilla143 on July 28, 2017, 11:03:14 AM

Quote from: John Davis on July 28, 2017, 10:56:36 AM

The distances work fine on many flat earth models, such as my non-euclidean flat earth.

Do you know what I like about you... even though we disagree, you state your point without getting angry... Why are so many FE believers angry?
You state your point without mincing words or twisting what other people say.

Anyways, can you give me a link to this non-Euclidean flat earth map so I can do some calculations?

Certainly.

The base thought experiment is here.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat

Ignore the title as it is admittedly inaccurate.
From it you should be able to see that the distances would match those measured on a round earth. There has been more work done on it; some will be in my ever-upcoming book. Some can be found here on the forums or in interviews I've conducted.

In short: space curves, not the surface of the earth. This can be discovered by noting that satellites, assuming they exist as we are told, are in free fall; free falling objects are either motionless or traveling a constant velocity. This can be shown by recognizing the equivalence principle. From there, we see that since a perfect orbit remains at a constant altitude above the earth, not only are the satellites traveling straight lines (as coherence with relativity and Newton's laws requires) but also that the surface of the earth is flat.

Your non-Euclidean earth is nothing more than a "thought experiment".
There is no experimental basis to it nor the slightest basis for even associating  Einstein's name to it, other than to try to give it an air of false respectability.

Sure, in Einstein's GR spacetime "bends", but nowhere, except in the vicinity of extreme masses such as the extreme concentrations of black holes or whole galaxies, is the "bending" of the spacelike components (our 3-D space) at all significant.

In the vicinity of earth, this "bending" amounts to nothing more than a change of abouy 0.4 centimetre in a diameter of over 12,700 km and even near the sun, only about a 1.4 metre in diameter of almost 1.4 million km.

And here you come on the basis of a mere thought experiment proposing a bending of space that rolls some nebulous flat earth up into the ball that we observe. Total Piffle!

Come up with some experimental evidence or theoretical basis for this massive "rolling-up" of space and it might be a different matter.

Sure Einstein used "thought experiments", but also the experimental work of many others to refine his theories.

But what I cannot follow is that you appear, to my simple mind at least, as though you are now trying to claim that the earth really is flat, but due to the Ferrari Effect it appears is all aspects to look and behave like a Globe.

This would seems completely at odds with your claims of there being massive evidence

I might be barking up the wrong tree somewhere but it seems to me that:
All you are trying to do is to obfuscate the whole issue so that any ordinary person will see the whole thing as too deep and complicated to question.
You seem to be trying to emulate Bunthorne from Iolanthe

And ev'ry one will say,
As you walk your mystic way,
"If this young man expresses himself in terms too deep for me,
Why, what a very singularly deep young man
this deep young man must be!"

Seems to fit

. . . . . . I am not a failed man, but the leading Zetetic scientist of our time. I have advanced our knowledge of the universe more so than any one other person since Rowbotham himself. When the veil is lifted from the eyes of the world, they will sing songs to laud the sacrifices that have led to what we know about the flat earth.
. . . . . . . .

I'm a bit more practical. If the earthThe earth really is a Globe.

<< Updated a bit >>

Quote from: pesadilla143 on July 28, 2017, 11:03:14 AM

Quote from: John Davis on July 28, 2017, 10:56:36 AM

The distances work fine on many flat earth models, such as my non-euclidean flat earth.

Do you know what I like about you... even though we disagree, you state your point without getting angry... Why are so many FE believers angry?

You state your point without mincing words or twisting what other people say.

Anyways, can you give me a link to this non-Euclidean flat earth map so I can do some calculations?

Certainly.

The base thought experiment is here.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat

Ignore the title as it is admittedly inaccurate.

From it you should be able to see that the distances would match those measured on a round earth. There has been more work done on it; some will be in my ever-upcoming book. Some can be found here on the forums or in interviews I've conducted.

In short: space curves, not the surface of the earth. This can be discovered by noting that satellites, assuming they exist as we are told, are in free fall; free falling objects are either motionless or traveling a constant velocity. This can be shown by recognizing the equivalence principle. From there, we see that since a perfect orbit remains at a constant altitude above the earth, not only are the satellites traveling straight lines (as coherence with relativity and Newton's laws requires) but also that the surface of the earth is flat.

Jane has provided another great description of this model:

Quote from: Jane on June 21, 2017, 04:09:37 PM

Non-Euclidean Space

Euclidean space, how we conventionally think of space, can be defined a number of ways. Perhaps the most intuitive is to think of it as the space in which Pythagoras’ theorem holds. If you have x and y axis and you choose two coordinates (for simplicity, let’s say (0,0) and (3,4)) then to find the distance between those points you note that you can form a triangle, and the distance between them is the length of the hypotenuse, easily found by Pythagoras’ theorem. Here, it gives 5. Thus, Pythagoras gives us the distance between any two points.
Non-Euclidean space may simply be thought of as one that calculates distance in another way. This would allow for, for example, a surface that exhibits no curvature to also have a triangle with three right angles, despite the impossibility of that in Euclidean space.

More technically, we can look at Euclid’s postulates. One states that any line segment may be extended infinitely into a straight line. If we alter this we can create a non-Euclidean space where any line segment can be extended in a straight line to intersect itself; that is, walk far enough in one direction and you’ll end up where you started.

Typically, this is all the model states; that in non-Euclidean space you can easily get the distances to explain flight times, and even have two distinct poles.

I should emphasize the following is not inherently the model, but it proves a convenient way for an REer to see how this could work. If you accept RET, then an easy way to create a non-Euclidean FE model is with a mathematical mapping. There are a number of mathematical ways to project the surface of a sphere onto a plane, or a plane onto a sphere. To extend that, you can map all of RET to a flat disc in non-Euclidean space, essentially by ‘unpeeling’ the Earth, and allowing for sufficient travel in one direction to bring you back where you started. It would similarly warp space. This mathematical mapping, as it follows on directly from a model you believe to be accurate, would in turn perfectly explain how light moves, how the moon and planets move…

However, it is not right to say that this model is just RET. It is a flat disc, in non-Euclidean space, not a globe in Euclidean space (although technically space isn’t Euclidean under RET, but we’ll get to that).
A good analogy here is the difference between heliocentrism and geocentrism. Ultimately it is just a choice of reference frame; choose one in which the Earth is stationary, and you can mathematically describe everything just fine. The model works. The reason RET favours heliocentrism now is explanatory power; heliocentrism can explain why the Earth goes around the Sun, and explain retrograde motion, while the geocentric explanation is questionable.
With the non-Euclidean model, it is the same. Mathematically it all works, the only real questions are why anything behaves the way it does. The path of light depends on the space it’s in, so that isn’t an issue. Celestial objects, such as the Sun, however are said to move at a constant speed in a straight line. In the non-Euclidean space defined, this will take the form of an orbit, an object ending up where it started. As it is not altering velocity, no new force is required to maintain it.

Theoretically the non-Euclidean model can also allow for space travel. The moon is still the moon, orbits are perfectly possible, and due to the path light takes it is more than possible to view a globe from space. As I said, it is possible to create a non-Euclidean model where everything would look the same as in RET.
It is worth emphasizing again that the non-Euclidean model will not necessarily line up with RET. Many might still disagree with distances, or disagree that space travel occurs, or have any number of other departures.

The last question would be why space behaves like this. However, space is not necessarily going to be Euclidean; we simply assume that because it works that way on small scales. In fact, the space we live in under RET is Minkowski space; its properties are rather different to Euclidean space, and there is no reason to treat Euclidean as the default except for the fact we are used to doing so.

One thing you mention strikes me - you say that you wouldn't expect someone to know all of computer programming without knowledge of it, but they are indeed to assume that programming works as they have heard. This to me seems like a faith based view.

I too am a software engineer, yet I don't take these things (like cartography) as granted; instead, I reserve opinion until I have gathered enough information to make a decision myself. To simply state 'cartographers have mapped this, but I can't support it' is fallacy. More than this, it is actively against the pursuit of reason and even in some cases advance (as cartographers, like most men, are often incorrect in their assumptions and their conclusions.)

I have no doubt that cartographers have a system that works internal to their assumptions; I do doubt that this is the only said system that can describe the situation. Most scientific revolutions come from a shift in paradigm - and there is no doubt that if the earth is indeed flat it is the grounds for a scientific revolution.

Above, I disprove this idea of yours that cartographers must be right by example in showing one such paradigm shift - one already based strongly in mainstream science and common sense, yet outside of it.


In fact, often my rule of not taking information for granted helps me engineer better software; Robert C. Martin one wrote 'Truth can only be found in one place: the code.' Like this, truth can only be found in one place: in first hand observation.

Interesting read John... What would the Flat Earth map look like using non-Euclidean.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on July 28, 2017, 03:21:15 AM

Quote

The example I gave (from Auckland, New Zealand to Buenos Aires, Argentina) has been travelled by millions of people, but because I have not travelled it, or it wasn't measured by walking it - that distance is suspect?  Really?

What the fuck are you talking about?
See if you can get this into your head: when people travel by plane, it doesn't matter how grand and reliable the estimates are, they only know the time the flight takes, not the distance. The time the flight takes depends on its speed and its speed depends on route and wind and direction...
The distance is not 'suspect' because THERE IS NO DISTANCE GIVEN. THERE IS JUST FLIGHT TIME.

Did you know that if you take the speed of the plane and multiply it by flight time, then you can get a pretty good idea of the distance traveled?

Also, many flight tracker web applications include distances between airports.

Makes too much sense.  Distance = Rate * Time.  Basic math.

It's not a perfect mapping. I don't think the RE map is completely accurate, I'd hope that's clear from context, there's always going to be error seeping in when dealing with such huge distances.

You might argue about RE maps, but you can be certain that the Latitude/Longitude coordinates for all major points are very precise.
This includes, of course, major airports. It is quite literally true than a plane can fly from say Sydney, Australia to Honolulu, Hawaii, above the clouds all the way and land all from GPS Latitude/Longitude coordinates.
That does not prove distances, though that cannot be very far out or the fuel used by the aircraft would indicate that.

RE lat/long coordinates are going to be accurate to within a thousand km or so (upper echelon, exact error clearly varies) if directly transferred.

There are a couple of small villages in Australia almost exactly on 30°S latitude,
          one on the West Coast, Green Head at -30.069°S 114.968°E and the other
          one on the East Coast, Red Rock -29.985°S 153.227°E.
The distance between them, along 30°S latitude is
          scaled from an 1855 survey map is 3,659 km,
          calculated from Lat/Long on a spherical Globe is 3,683 km and
          from Google Earth is 3,689 km.
Considering that the 1855 distance is scaled from a scanned map, these are in very good agreement.
The distance between each degree on longitude (from the Google Earth distance) is 96.4 km/°.

Are you suggesting that the distance between each degree of longitude at this latitude might be magically different when over water?

The only maps I have seen that might suggest this are the "bipolar" maps of Tom Bishop and Sandokhan and they seem to get little support.

Your "place-holder" and the usual "Ice-Wall Continental" do not seem to suggest this possibility.

         

JRoweSkeptic,

You have done an excellent job of explaining the difficulties of "making a map" of the Flat Earth. We were talking about this recently on the other forum. It must be communicated that not only is it impractical to "make a map," as you have described, but that Round Earthers must also not be allowed to declare that any Flat Earth map is impossible without having first conducted the proper investigation.

From the other site:

Not all map possibilities have been considered. There is no accepted Flat Earth map. There are only proposals which have been made by a few people, with no attempts at accuracy except to show basic features of the model.

In order to prove a Flat Earth wrong you will need to show that it is impossible to make a Flat Earth map. You will need to find logs of all airline flights, map all continental distance and layout possibilities under mono-pole and bi-polar models, consider that there are many airports which do not have direct nonstop routes between each other, look into jet streams, and study flight delays which are said to happen to 25% of flights. And only then, once thoroughly investigated, can you claim that there is no possible Flat Earth map. I expect nothing less from someone who declares any map to be impossible.

It's not a perfect mapping. I don't think the RE map is completely accurate...

Oh?  The international transportation industry relies heavily on those RE maps being very accurate.  Lives literally (not figuratively) depend on those maps being accurate.  Can you point out some errors in the RE map that should be a cause for concern?

... I'd hope that's clear from context, there's always going to be error seeping in when dealing with such huge distances. RE lat/long coordinates are going to be accurate to within a thousand km or so (upper echelon, exact error clearly varies) if directly transferred.

Are you under the impression that RE latitude and longitude coordinates are measured from point to point?  I'm pretty sure that isn't how it's done.

JRoweSkeptic,

You have done an excellent job of explaining the difficulties of "making a map" of the Flat Earth. We were talking about this recently on the other forum. It must be communicated that not only is it impractical to "make a map," as you have described, but that Round Earthers must also not be allowed to declare that any Flat Earth map is impossible without having first conducted the proper investigation.

From the other site:

Quote from: Tom Bishop

Not all map possibilities have been considered. There is no accepted Flat Earth map. There are only proposals which have been made by a few people, with no attempts at accuracy except to show basic features of the model.

In order to prove a Flat Earth wrong you will need to show that it is impossible to make a Flat Earth map. You will need to find logs of all airline flights, map all continental distance and layout possibilities under mono-pole and bi-polar models, consider that there are many airports which do not have direct nonstop routes between each other, look into jet streams, and study flight delays which are said to happen to 25% of flights. And only then, once thoroughly investigated, can you claim that there is no possible Flat Earth map. I expect nothing less from someone who declares any map to be impossible.

Before worrying too much about the layout of the continents, I would contend that developing a workable coordinate system would be a good first step.  After all, if you know the coordinates of 2 locations, you don't need to measure the distance, you can just calculate the distance.

If anything, it would seem that a simple polar coordinate system centered on the relevant geographic pole should be ideal for a flat earth, especially JRowe's dual earth model.  I'm just not sure ho well it would work for your proposed bi-polar flat earth model.

JRoweSkeptic,

You have done an excellent job of explaining the difficulties of "making a map" of the Flat Earth. We were talking about this recently on the other forum. It must be communicated that not only is it impractical to "make a map," as you have described, but that Round Earthers must also not be allowed to declare that any Flat Earth map is impossible without having first conducted the proper investigation.

From the other site:

Quote from: Tom Bishop

Not all map possibilities have been considered. There is no accepted Flat Earth map. There are only proposals which have been made by a few people, with no attempts at accuracy except to show basic features of the model.

In order to prove a Flat Earth wrong you will need to show that it is impossible to make a Flat Earth map. You will need to find logs of all airline flights, map all continental distance and layout possibilities under mono-pole and bi-polar models, consider that there are many airports which do not have direct nonstop routes between each other, look into jet streams, and study flight delays which are said to happen to 25% of flights. And only then, once thoroughly investigated, can you claim that there is no possible Flat Earth map. I expect nothing less from someone who declares any map to be impossible.

You are talking about making a map of the earth, whatever shape it is.  We have the distances between many points, what shape do they make?

'Round Earthers must also not be allowed...' - how?

Quick question John...what's the best code you have ever produced? Are you a SQL man or do you prefer C++, Java or the snake that is Python?

I'm fairly language agnostic. Some of the most complicated code I've written has been in C, such as a skeletal animation engine.

I've also written in Java, C++,  and a small amount in C#.

Professionally, the last 5 or so years, it has been mostly server side javascript or php with bits of ios and java and a splash of c when I need an apache extension.

The best code I've written is a hard question; since I have been writing in languages like php and server side js, I have moved more towards a Clean Code mentality rather than the efficiency you can find in C. While my latest projects are solving certainly less complicated problems, they in general certainly more readable and more maintainable than many of the solutions to harder problems I have had to deal with.

Your non-Euclidean earth is nothing more than a "thought experiment".
There is no experimental basis to it nor the slightest basis for even associating  Einstein's name to it, other than to try to give it an air of false respectability.

I said in the above post to ignore the name. The experimental basis for it is simple enough to see - in both the basis for Newton's laws as well as the equivalence principle. It should be noted, that most times a view is usurped in a revolutionary context in science, it is done so first from a position with less experimental validity.[nb]Against Method, Feyerabend[/nb]

Sure, in Einstein's GR spacetime "bends", but nowhere, except in the vicinity of extreme masses such as the extreme concentrations of black holes or whole galaxies, is the "bending" of the space-like components (our 3-D space) at all significant.

In the vicinity of earth, this "bending" amounts to nothing more than a change of a centimetre or so in diameter of over 12,700 km and even near the sun, only about a metre in diameter of almost 1.4 million km.

And here you come on the basis of a mere thought experiment proposing a bending of space that rolls some nebulous flat earth up into the ball that we observe. Total Piffle!

Come up with some experimental evidence or theoretical basis for this massive "rolling-up" of space and it might be a different matter.

The fact that satellites experience free-fall is the experimental basis that shows gravity to be a pseudo-force.

Sure Einstein used "thought experiments", but also the experimental work of many others to refine his theories.

While Einstein, Galileo, et al did use thought experiments, it can be shown that they did so from empirically less founded ground than the view that was popular before their advent. This has to be the case - you are judging a theory that has had hundreds of years of empirical arguments for it against one that hasn't even had a chance to have been studied.

But what I cannot follow is that you appear, to my simple mind at least, as though you are now trying to claim that the earth really is flat, but due to the Ferrari Effect it appears is all aspects to look and behave like a Globe.

This would seems completely at odds with your claims of there being massive evidence for the earth being flat, looking flat and behaving as if it is flat, as in Evidences Of The Flat Earth (On Going @142) « on: September 04, 2016, 03:09:00 PM ».

As explained multiple times in that thread, that is a list of evidences - not necessary evidences I hold. It is meant as reference that there is evidence that the earth is flat, in spite of those who claim there is 'no evidence.'

I must be barking up the wrong tree somewhere but it seems to me that:
All you are trying to do is to obfuscate the whole issue so that any ordinary person will see the whole thing as too deep and complicated to question.
You seem to be trying to emulate Bunthorne from Iolanthe

Quote from: W.S. Gilbert

And ev'ry one will say,
As you walk your mystic way,
"If this young man expresses himself in terms too deep for me,
Why, what a very singularly deep young man
this deep young man must be!"

Seems to fit

Quote from: John Davis on December 17, 2016, 11:53:35 AM

. . . . . . I am not a failed man, but the leading Zetetic scientist of our time. I have advanced our knowledge of the universe more so than any one other person since Rowbotham himself. When the veil is lifted from the eyes of the world, they will sing songs to laud the sacrifices that have led to what we know about the flat earth.
. . . . . . . .

I'm a bit more practical. If the earth

looks like a Globe, measures like a Globe, supports satellites like a Globe, measures like a Globe and if all respects, behaves like a Globe

The earth is a Globe.

Yes, I am the most influential man of our time.

Yes, I am the most influential man of our time.

Then show it by providing a working flat Earth map and become immortal in the process.

I think "the most irresponsible man of our time" fits better.

You are doing humanity no favors by promoting this flat earth BS. There are far too many highly gullible individuals who buy into this crap without a shred of empirical evidence.

Quote from: Lonegranger on July 28, 2017, 01:40:12 PM

Quick question John...what's the best code you have ever produced? Are you a SQL man or do you prefer C++, Java or the snake that is Python?

I'm fairly language agnostic. Some of the most complicated code I've written has been in C, such as a skeletal animation engine.

I've also written in Java, C++,  and a small amount in C#.

Professionally, the last 5 or so years, it has been mostly server side javascript or php with bits of ios and java and a splash of c when I need an apache extension.

The best code I've written is a hard question; since I have been writing in languages like php and server side js, I have moved more towards a Clean Code mentality rather than the efficiency you can find in C. While my latest projects are solving certainly less complicated problems, they in general certainly more readable and more maintainable than many of the solutions to harder problems I have had to deal with.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 28, 2017, 03:13:15 PM

Your non-Euclidean earth is nothing more than a "thought experiment".
There is no experimental basis to it nor the slightest basis for even associating  Einstein's name to it, other than to try to give it an air of false respectability.

I said in the above post to ignore the name. The experimental basis for it is simple enough to see - in both the basis for Newton's laws as well as the equivalence principle. It should be noted, that most times a view is usurped in a revolutionary context in science, it is done so first from a position with less experimental validity.[nb]Against Method, Feyerabend[/nb]

Quote

Sure, in Einstein's GR spacetime "bends", but nowhere, except in the vicinity of extreme masses such as the extreme concentrations of black holes or whole galaxies, is the "bending" of the space-like components (our 3-D space) at all significant.

In the vicinity of earth, this "bending" amounts to nothing more than a change of a centimetre or so in diameter of over 12,700 km and even near the sun, only about a metre in diameter of almost 1.4 million km.

And here you come on the basis of a mere thought experiment proposing a bending of space that rolls some nebulous flat earth up into the ball that we observe. Total Piffle!

Come up with some experimental evidence or theoretical basis for this massive "rolling-up" of space and it might be a different matter.

The fact that satellites experience free-fall is the experimental basis that shows gravity to be a pseudo-force.

Quote

Sure Einstein used "thought experiments", but also the experimental work of many others to refine his theories.

While Einstein, Galileo, et al did use thought experiments, it can be shown that they did so from empirically less founded ground than the view that was popular before their advent. This has to be the case - you are judging a theory that has had hundreds of years of empirical arguments for it against one that hasn't even had a chance to have been studied.

Quote

But what I cannot follow is that you appear, to my simple mind at least, as though you are now trying to claim that the earth really is flat, but due to the Ferrari Effect it appears is all aspects to look and behave like a Globe.

This would seems completely at odds with your claims of there being massive evidence for the earth being flat, looking flat and behaving as if it is flat, as in Evidences Of The Flat Earth (On Going @142) « on: September 04, 2016, 03:09:00 PM ».

As explained multiple times in that thread, that is a list of evidences - not necessary evidences I hold. It is meant as reference that there is evidence that the earth is flat, in spite of those who claim there is 'no evidence.'

Quote

I must be barking up the wrong tree somewhere but it seems to me that:
All you are trying to do is to obfuscate the whole issue so that any ordinary person will see the whole thing as too deep and complicated to question.
You seem to be trying to emulate Bunthorne from Iolanthe

Quote from: W.S. Gilbert

And ev'ry one will say,
As you walk your mystic way,
"If this young man expresses himself in terms too deep for me,
Why, what a very singularly deep young man
this deep young man must be!"

Seems to fit

Quote from: John Davis on December 17, 2016, 11:53:35 AM

. . . . . . I am not a failed man, but the leading Zetetic scientist of our time. I have advanced our knowledge of the universe more so than any one other person since Rowbotham himself. When the veil is lifted from the eyes of the world, they will sing songs to laud the sacrifices that have led to what we know about the flat earth.
. . . . . . . .

I'm a bit more practical. If the earth

looks like a Globe, measures like a Globe, supports satellites like a Globe, measures like a Globe and if all respects, behaves like a Globe

The earth is a Globe.

Yes, I am the most influential man of our time.

😂😂😂
Wait?  Are you serious?  Most influential man of our time? 
Just wow.  And that list of evidence?  I'm no scientist or mathematician but without looking stuff up I can see that like half that list is simply bogus.  And most of the rest is, people have reported, type nonsense.
Just wow. 

Yes, I am the most influential man of our time.

Yes, one cannot but admire these self-made men,

I think "the most irresponsible man of our time" fits better.

You are doing humanity no favors by promoting this flat earth BS. There are far too many highly gullible individuals who buy into this crap without a shred of empirical evidence.

You are highly gullible.

Quote from: John Davis on July 30, 2017, 09:13:08 AM

Yes, I am the most influential man of our time.

Yes, one cannot but admire these self-made men,

Holy shit are you agreeing with a flat Earther rabinmenopause?

Quote from: rabinoz on July 30, 2017, 05:20:56 PM

Quote from: John Davis on July 30, 2017, 09:13:08 AM

Yes, I am the most influential man of our time.

Yes, one cannot but admire these self-made men,

Holy shit are you agreeing with a flat Earther rabinmenopause?

John Davis might be a Flat earther, but apart from the likes of totallackey, InFlatEarth and Resistance.is.Futile he's our best weapon!

Quote from: John Davis on July 30, 2017, 09:13:08 AM

Yes, I am the most influential man of our time.

Then show it by providing a working flat Earth map and become immortal in the process.

I already have. Its non-euclidean. Just because its flat, doesn't mean you can draw it on a flat piece of paper. Take a globe and do the proper thing - smash it to bits.

You will find they are usually printed on an inner globe and the outside is much like an orange. Take the orange slice shaped peelings and place them next to one another. Now if each edge of these connected, this would be the flat earth map. Since the scale of the globe is too small, you will be unable to do this practically. Given a large enough globe (think earth sized) this method will work and the edges will connect. In the absence of such a nonsensical thing as a globe the size of the earth, we are left with a projection of what the non-euclidean flat earth looks like in euclidean space.

Quote from: Sentinel on July 30, 2017, 09:29:31 AM

Quote from: John Davis on July 30, 2017, 09:13:08 AM

Yes, I am the most influential man of our time.

Then show it by providing a working flat Earth map and become immortal in the process.

I already have. Its non-euclidean. Just because its flat, doesn't mean you can draw it on a flat piece of paper. Take a globe and do the proper thing - smash it to bits.

You will find they are usually printed on an inner globe and the outside is much like an orange. Take the orange slice shaped peelings and place them next to one another. Now if each edge of these connected, this would be the flat earth map. Since the scale of the globe is too small, you will be unable to do this practically. Given a large enough globe (think earth sized) this method will work and the edges will connect. In the absence of such a nonsensical thing as a globe the size of the earth, we are left with a projection of what the non-euclidean flat earth looks like in euclidean space.

Completely wrong, we know that measured distances prove the shape.

Quote from: John Davis on July 31, 2017, 08:47:59 AM

Quote from: Sentinel on July 30, 2017, 09:29:31 AM

Quote from: John Davis on July 30, 2017, 09:13:08 AM

Yes, I am the most influential man of our time.

Then show it by providing a working flat Earth map and become immortal in the process.

I already have. Its non-euclidean. Just because its flat, doesn't mean you can draw it on a flat piece of paper. Take a globe and do the proper thing - smash it to bits.

You will find they are usually printed on an inner globe and the outside is much like an orange. Take the orange slice shaped peelings and place them next to one another. Now if each edge of these connected, this would be the flat earth map. Since the scale of the globe is too small, you will be unable to do this practically. Given a large enough globe (think earth sized) this method will work and the edges will connect. In the absence of such a nonsensical thing as a globe the size of the earth, we are left with a projection of what the non-euclidean flat earth looks like in euclidean space.

Completely wrong, we know that measured distances prove the shape.

This should be fun. Ok, show me how. How do you propose we measure the distances? By what metric? And what method?

Quote from: Sentinel on July 30, 2017, 09:29:31 AM

Quote from: John Davis on July 30, 2017, 09:13:08 AM

Yes, I am the most influential man of our time.

Then show it by providing a working flat Earth map and become immortal in the process.

I already have. Its non-euclidean. Just because its flat, doesn't mean you can draw it on a flat piece of paper.

Interesting.  I always though that's exactly what "being flat" means.  Just like I always thought that "non-euclidean" means "not flat".

Euclidean refers to a set of postulates, credited to Euclid and his Elements, upon which a geometry is then built. One of these is the definition of a straight line. Loosening or changing any of the base postulates gives you a new set of postulates upon which a Non-Euclidean geometry could be built.

The argument you are making is a bit of a circular one;

Euclidean geometry says non-euclidean geometries are round; why are they round? Because Euclidean geometry says so.

In reality, its more like in Euclidean geometry this line would have to be round; in non-euclidean geometry it very well could be straight.

Quote from: Sentinel on July 30, 2017, 09:29:31 AM

Quote from: John Davis on July 30, 2017, 09:13:08 AM

Yes, I am the most influential man of our time.

Then show it by providing a working flat Earth map and become immortal in the process.

I already have. Its non-euclidean. Just because its flat, doesn't mean you can draw it on a flat piece of paper. Take a globe and do the proper thing - smash it to bits.

You will find they are usually printed on an inner globe and the outside is much like an orange. Take the orange slice shaped peelings and place them next to one another. Now if each edge of these connected, this would be the flat earth map. Since the scale of the globe is too small, you will be unable to do this practically. Given a large enough globe (think earth sized) this method will work and the edges will connect. In the absence of such a nonsensical thing as a globe the size of the earth, we are left with a projection of what the non-euclidean flat earth looks like in euclidean space.

 

You do understand though that your model has to have a starting point in form of a map to ultimately appear as the true shape of our Earth when apllying all of your claims on it, so how would it look like?

In reality, its more like in Euclidean geometry this line would have to be round; in non-euclidean geometry it very well could be straight.

How does one tell the difference between a Euclidean round earth and non-Euclidean flat earth?

Quote from: Sentinel on July 30, 2017, 09:29:31 AM

Quote from: John Davis on July 30, 2017, 09:13:08 AM

Yes, I am the most influential man of our time.

Then show it by providing a working flat Earth map and become immortal in the process.

I already have. Its non-euclidean. Just because its flat, doesn't mean you can draw it on a flat piece of paper. Take a globe and do the proper thing - smash it to bits.

You will find they are usually printed on an inner globe and the outside is much like an orange.

What of earth do you mean by "printed on an inner globe"? You'll end up with a flipped map that way.

Take the orange slice shaped peelings and place them next to one another.

Do you think that we're all totally ignorant of map projections?
All you are doing is making a very crude "Interrupted Sinusoidal Projection". This sort of thing: It does need quite afew segments to keep errors down.

Now if each edge of these connected, this would be the flat earth map.

But you cannot connect the edges and keep it on a flat surface, so you have just reconstructed a rough a globe.

Since the scale of the globe is too small, you will be unable to do this practically. Given a large enough globe (think earth sized) this method will work and the edges will connect. In the absence of such a nonsensical thing as a globe the size of the earth, we are left with a projection of what the non-euclidean flat earth looks like in euclidean space.

So you've ended up with a Globe.  Big deal!  So your non-Euclidean Earth looks like a Globe.
As I said earlier, "If it looks like a . . . . ", let's just  all it the Globe!

If you are going to cut globes up, this on looks interesting:
John, run away and play with your toy non-Euclidean Earth. I'd rather stick to reality.

Since the scale of the globe is too small, you will be unable to do this practically. Given a large enough globe (think earth sized) this method will work and the edges will connect. In the absence of such a nonsensical thing as a globe the size of the earth, we are left with a projection of what the non-euclidean flat earth looks like in euclidean space.
Bella Canvas B6050 T-shirt

Euclidean refers to a set of postulates, credited to Euclid and his Elements, upon which a geometry is then built. One of these is the definition of a straight line. Loosening or changing any of the base postulates gives you a new set of postulates upon which a Non-Euclidean geometry could be built.

The argument you are making is a bit of a circular one;

Euclidean geometry says non-euclidean geometries are round; why are they round? Because Euclidean geometry says so.

In reality, its more like in Euclidean geometry this line would have to be round; in non-euclidean geometry it very well could be straight.

Yes, but when all is said and done, all the evidence proves the earth is a sphere. The problem you will continue to have John, along with all your flat earth sidekicks is that you have, and never will, any evidence that can be used to prove conclusively the earth is flat.
Due to that all you are left with is to mince with words and make statements that say very little and in reality prove nothing.