How do FE'ers "know" (within a mile) the distance the sun is from the earth...

How on the rhombicuboctahedrol Earth do you get from the layout of the continents to sunrises and sunsets?

By finding out how countries, certain areas and continents relate to each other, you can more or less determine the shape of the earth.
with that determined...you have a basis and you can then move on to the next step how the sun and moon and stars fit in this new shape.
if it turns out to be rhombicuboctahedrol...then so be it. but right now you have nothing.

Quote from: Jane on August 01, 2017, 07:04:10 AM

How on the rhombicuboctahedrol Earth do you get from the layout of the continents to sunrises and sunsets?

By finding out how countries, certain areas and continents relate to each other, you can more or less determine the shape of the earth.
with that determined...you have a basis and you can then move on to the next step how the sun and moon and stars fit in this new shape.
if it turns out to be rhombicuboctahedrol...then so be it. but right now you have nothing.

So in fact the map of the Earth is just used to directly try to determine its shape rather than actually provide anything relevant to what you said.
There are a whole host of other ways to compare models for the shape of the Earth, and they're all dramatically more feasible than this silliness.

What is rombi...whatever supposed to mean anyway?

What is rombi...whatever supposed to mean anyway?

İt is the name of an even 3D shape. Jane mentioned it to show us her intelligence.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on July 31, 2017, 02:47:34 PM

Quote from: Jane on July 31, 2017, 02:45:22 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on July 31, 2017, 02:32:26 PM

I understand DET well enough to know that it doesn't just violate the laws of physics as we know them, it rapes them to death. Regardless of what properties it gives its version of Magic Aether, it relies on matter being instantaneously transported from one point in space to another with no time interval and no expenditure of energy.

Nope.

OK, well if I'm incorrect, please explain it to me, because that was the impression I got from reading the summary in your section explaining the models.

How on earth did you get transportation from one point in space to another from the summary? The whole basic point of the definition is that never happens.

From bits like this:

Firstly, if an object is and has never been under any force, then it is stationary. This means it occupies a fixed point in space; it takes a force for the object to gain speed. However, DET allows space to flow, so an object may appear to move with reference to another object without requiring forces; this is because the objects themselves remain occupying the same points in space, it is just those points that move.

Let's start here. The statement that objects can move with reference to each other without requiring forces because space itself is moving is self contradictory. Either objects are stationary relative to each other or they are moving, and to go from one state to another requires expenditure of energy. If a point in space moves, then everything at that point in space would move together, resulting in objects that don't appear to move - the opposite of what this claims. This is simply a feeble re-writing of the laws of physics in order to shore up the garbage to follow.
Furthermore, it's not possible to say this object is moving and that is stationary - under relativity there is no difference. There is only relative movement. So trying to say the observer doesn't really move does not get round the need that something has to.

Under DET, the Earth is composed essentially of two discs.

Each side of the disc basically reflects the other.

Huh? Is it two discs, or one disc with both sides active?

The rim of the disc is the equator. It may easily be crossed however. If you stand with one foot on either side of the equator, one would be on, say, the top right hand side of the Earth, while the other would be on the bottom left. Each side is joined by the low concentration of aether through the Earth; there is no space in which to notice any discontinuity.

Leaving no explanation for tunnelling underground, etc. Is the disc/s meant to be infinitely thin?

...when you reach the edge of the disc you would be pulled inside, and you would follow that direction on to the far side (and through the Earth, again due to the direction of the flow). Due to the low concentration you move through however, you notice nothing. It happens essentially instantaneously.

There you are, an admission of instantaneous movement through space (attempting to use the "space itself moves" argument as a weak cop out, but as I've shown, that is a pile of dung.)
 

An object right in the middle, however, would appear to be both above and below the Earth at the same time. It occupies the same kind of location as a person with a foot on either side of the equator.

So an object has half its particles at one point in space, and half at another. How are the electrostatic forces which operate between these particles able to continually function at these distances? The inverse square law is demonstrable in all cases, why does it cease to happen here? I suppose Jrowe will need to add yet more handy properties to his Magic Aether - although unfortunately if he's going to claim that Magic Aether can act as a conduit for electromagnetic fields then he's going to be rather stuck with how light and radio waves manage to travel in straight lines through his endless bloody whirlpools.

Quote from: Sentinel on August 01, 2017, 08:24:44 AM

What is rombi...whatever supposed to mean anyway?

İt is the name of an even 3D shape. Jane mentioned it to show us her intelligence.

Probably supposed to be the plural form of rhombus.

Quote from: napoleon on August 01, 2017, 07:18:16 AM

Quote from: Jane on August 01, 2017, 07:04:10 AM

How on the rhombicuboctahedrol Earth do you get from the layout of the continents to sunrises and sunsets?

By finding out how countries, certain areas and continents relate to each other, you can more or less determine the shape of the earth.
with that determined...you have a basis and you can then move on to the next step how the sun and moon and stars fit in this new shape.
if it turns out to be rhombicuboctahedrol...then so be it. but right now you have nothing.

So in fact the map of the Earth is just used to directly try to determine its shape rather than actually provide anything relevant to what you said.
There are a whole host of other ways to compare models for the shape of the Earth, and they're all dramatically more feasible than this silliness.

İf there are dramatically more feasible methods to compare models...why is the outcome still zero then? İ think that is the only dramatical part of those methods then...
One thing İ do agree with you...this FE thing is nothing but silliness

Congratulations Neil, you made me bang my head on my desk.

İf there are dramatically more feasible methods to compare models...why is the outcome still zero then?

What is that meant to mean?

Congratulations Neil, you made me bang my head on my desk.

Quote from: napoleon on August 01, 2017, 01:37:38 PM

İf there are dramatically more feasible methods to compare models...why is the outcome still zero then?

What is that meant to mean?

You tell me

Quote from: Jane on August 01, 2017, 01:40:19 PM

Congratulations Neil, you made me bang my head on my desk.

Quote from: napoleon on August 01, 2017, 01:37:38 PM

İf there are dramatically more feasible methods to compare models...why is the outcome still zero then?

What is that meant to mean?

You tell me

Why do I now have to explain your own posts to you?

Quote from: napoleon on August 01, 2017, 05:21:08 AM

the only task is here to map out how different countries or continents relate to each other...
by doing this, you can immediately answer questions like how sunrises and sunsets work in this model...how the night sky changes looks like from certain locations...how the sun and moon travel around earth, coriolis effect...how tides work...etc.
but it all starts with a good FE-map.

...just what. How on the rhombicuboctahedrol rhombicuboctahedral Earth do you get from the layout of the continents to sunrises and sunsets?

Do we really have to spell out every last detail to someone like yourself? It does get so tedious!  

Only a little more information is needed "get from the layout of the continents to sunrises and sunsets":
          All flat earth models seem to assume sun, moon and "little lights in the sky" circle about 5,000 km above the earth.
          All flat earthers seem to accept that at "solar noon"
This information combined with the "continental layout", pretty well defines the motion of the sun and its azimuth and elevation angles.
This information defines the direction and elevation of the "flat earth sun" at the time of sunset and hence how much magical perspective, upside down refraction, faerie dust or a simple denying of facts will be needed to explain the sunsets we really see.
In case you have never seen a sunset from  your ivory tower , they can look like this!Where the sun certainly seems to disappear behind the horizon.
Now, I hope you realise one reason why I see great significance in the "continental layout" and sunrises/sunsets.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 01, 2017, 05:43:09 AM

You can pretend to be an ignorant Flat Earther if you wish and claim "I know nuttin'".
But the plain simple fact is that all these distances and directions are known.

I'm not a FEer, I'm not pretending to be one, I'm just pointing out an awful argument when I see it. You can completely ignore every word I say if you want, just try to make decent arguments in future.

Of course, I know that you are not a "Flat Earther". I said, "pretend to be an ignorant Flat Earther"!

Quote from: Goldie on August 01, 2017, 06:26:30 AM

The absence of a working map is a logical case against FET all by itself

No. Once again, it is a logical case against a group's ability to map out the entire world. Stop acting like that's just some small little thing we can expect any group to have done. When you can prove that FEers even have the capability to map out the entire world, given the timespan and resources and cost that it took for REers to do the same, then you have an argument. Until then, this is stupid.

Quote

It isn't good enough to say that cross ocean distances can't be measured accurately, either: any decent skipper can place himself and his ship on a chart. Each time he uses a chart to cross an ocean, he checks and verifies the information it contains.

Pretty sure any sailor would admit that they need to do more than pick a direction and wait, they need to constantly be aware of the currents and winds, use landmarks like stars or, more recently, GPS to keep track of their location... A map that's off by a few km really isn't going to have a huge impact on top of everything else (plus good old fashioned human error when it comes to, say, angles) because there is no way, even with a perfect map, that they could keep perfectly to a preplanned route. They've always got to adjust and react. An imperfect map isn't going to particularly bother a sailor because it's just one of a whole host of tools.

Stop talking balderdash! We are not talking about a slightly imperfect map. The problems are gross errors in direction and distance.
On the common FE Ice-Wall map distances in the Southern Hemisphere can be in error by a factor of two and even three.
Gross errors like that make all the difference between an air-route being possible of not possible.
But it's not only these massive distance errors but very severe direction errors the can make a ±90° error in initial heading direction for a flight.

Just take one of the worst cases, the flight QANTAS QF27 a real flight that flies non-stop from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile:
Just look at the initial flight directions when leaving Sydney for the shortest route on each map:

• On the Ice-Wall map: Depart Sydney on a course close to North East.
• On the Bi-Polar map: Depart Sydney on a course close to South West.
• On the Globe great circle route: Depart Sydney on a course close to South East.

And you claim that "an imperfect map isn't going to particularly bother a sailor" or pilot! Piffle, as John Davis is wont to say!

Now, in case you try to claim that JRowe's DET solves all this. It does not! That model still has the East-West distances at the equator 57% too large.
And I have always claime that a "workable Flat Earth Model" for the whole earth is simply not mpossible, because the earth is not flat.

Once the overall layout has been determined,

Do we really have to spell out every last detail to someone like yourself? It does get so tedious!  

No, you don't have to spell out every detail. It'd be much nicer if you thought about what I wrote instead of treating this like some match with points to be won. The only connection you were able to draw between maps and sunsets was that the Sun travels over the tropics, but you don't need a map to mount arguments from that, you just need geometry (it has to turn around at some point, etc), and how does contintental layout affect the Sun going behind the horizon? Anyone could tell you those arguments could be made without a map, and it really doesn't seem as though a map has any serious impact.

Quote from: Jane

I'm not a FEer, I'm not pretending to be one,

Of course, I know that you are not a "Flat Earther". I said, "pretend to be an ignorant Flat Earther"!

...

Stop talking balderdash! We are not talking about a slightly imperfect map. The problems are gross errors in direction and distance.
On the common FE Ice-Wall map distances in the Southern Hemisphere can be in error by a factor of two and even three.
Gross errors like that make all the difference between an air-route being possible of not possible.
But it's not only these massive distance errors but very severe direction errors the can make a ±90° error in initial heading direction for a flight.

Now don't you dare say that is a minor imperfection!

Great. Then make that argument, with justification, rather than demanding a map. I've seen plenty of extensions of that argument, for example giving flights that travel a full circle around the southern hemisphere and comparing the times to similar flights in the northern. No map required.

Now, in case you try to claim that JRowe's DET solves all this. It does not! That model still has the East-West distances at the equator 57% too large.

Or has the area within the equator a bit smaller, which can reduce that percentage a fair bit. It's a balancing act. What percentage would be acceptable error, to you, given how often flights/sailing trips rely on landmarks and GPS over just rote using a map, how many external factors there are to any such journey especially on such huge distances, and how it's incredibly rare for someone to just travel the whole equator at once so usually we'd just get snippets on a smaller scale?

And once again, it does not matter how useful something would be when it is a stupid thing to ask for.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 01, 2017, 03:30:31 PM

Now, in case you try to claim that JRowe's DET solves all this. It does not! That model still has the East-West distances at the equator 57% too large.

Or has the area within the equator a bit smaller, which can reduce that percentage a fair bit. It's a balancing act. What percentage would be acceptable error, to you, given how often flights/sailing trips rely on landmarks and GPS over just rote using a map, how many external factors there are to any such journey especially on such huge distances, and how it's incredibly rare for someone to just travel the whole equator at once so usually we'd just get snippets on a smaller scale?

And once again, it does not matter how useful something would be when it is a stupid thing to ask for.

You say "Or has the area within the equator a bit smaller, which can reduce that percentage a fair bit."
We do have "maps" that can predict distances of thousands of kilometres to within a small fraction of 1% and you are asking us to accept a compromise that would be more like 28%.

Come on! The maps we have are far more accurate than that!

Just stop pretending that we do not know these distances accurately - we do know.
It's flat earthers that all the time use this argumentum ad ignorantiam all the time.

I have only seen two flat earthers (Tom Bishop and Sandokhan) support a map that does not have rotational symmetry about the North Pole of both North and South Poles.
To me, this implies that the number of kilometres/degree of longitude at a given latitude is the same all around the Globe, whether over land or sea!

You and the flat earthers need to get over it,

Quote from: pesadilla143 on July 31, 2017, 12:15:47 PM

uummm... Yes, it is impossible under ANY model that is not a globe.  Please, show me what your version of a non-Euclidean map looks like.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921457#msg1921457
Check the links, DET and non-Euclidean. Why are you asking for maps? They're not needed to define a basic model that makes the southern hemisphere function better.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on July 31, 2017, 01:03:36 PM

Quote from: Jane on July 31, 2017, 11:32:14 AM

Also, side note, not impossible at all under DE maps, non-Euclidean maps...

To clarify: not impossible under maps which violate the laws of thermodynamics, make gravity act in two ways simultaneously and allow faster than light travel, and maps which don't explain anything because we are within the geometry.

I'm not sure whether you understand DET, and the last point is pretty silly.

If this debate is going to be carried in a moderately sensible manner I think it's best if you stop quoting DET as though it is something to be taken seriously. You wield it like some big flat earth stick, yet it has no more substance that lukewarm air.  it cannot be treated in the same way as real scientific theories so asking people to try and understand it is just futile and a complete waste of time. It has been gone through and shown to be be rubbish, yet you ask people to understand it......why?

Come on! The maps we have are far more accurate than that!

Maps alone are useless. You need to be able to apply them to the real world. It's great if you have a map that's accurate to within 1% overall, but that doesn't mean anything if your means of measuring the distances is 2%; how do you conform the error? All an FEer has to claim is that our means of measuring distances over seas/through the air has significant room for error, and only works because of reliance on landmarks.

If this debate is going to be carried in a moderately sensible manner I think it's best if you stop quoting DET as though it is something to be taken seriously. You wield it like some big flat earth stick, yet it has no more substance that lukewarm air.  it cannot be treated in the same way as real scientific theories so asking people to try and understand it is just futile and a complete waste of time. It has been gone through and shown to be be rubbish, yet you ask people to understand it......why?

How is it you've shown it to be rubbish if you don't understand what it claims? That's a pretty impressive feat. I haven't seen anyone manage a good proof by contradiction when they don't know what they're contradicting.

Quote from: Goldie on August 01, 2017, 06:26:30 AM

The absence of a working map is a logical case against FET all by itself

No. Once again, it is a logical case against a group's ability to map out the entire world. Stop acting like that's just some small little thing we can expect any group to have done. When you can prove that FEers even have the capability to map out the entire world, given the timespan and resources and cost that it took for REers to do the same, then you have an argument. Until then, this is stupid.

You're right to say that mapping the globe from scratch would be a huge task for flat earthers. But you don't need to feel sorry for them on that count. They've made this giant claim about the shape of the earth. If they want it to be anything more than something diverting on an internet forum, then they're going to need a working map. You only need to find yourself in the cockpit of a small boat, out of sight of land, to bring home the utter uselessness of FET in the real world.

But it isn't just lack of manpower that's stopping flat earthers from producing a map, is it? It's the fact that any honest attempt to map the earth would confirm that it's a globe. That's why flat earthers can't agree on the shape of the world, and it's why - although they are happy to suggest that current maps and charts are not completely accurate - they are unable to go much beyond that. And I'd guess that it's one of the reasons that some of the more complicated flat earth theories - like J.Rowe's - give their version of the Earth some of the characteristics of the real world (two poles, roughly symmetrical northern and southern halves, in the case of DET) that are lacking from the old idea of the Earth as a big, flat disc. Which brings me back to my original point. The fact that flat earthers couldn't - even given unlimited time and resource - map the earth without concluding it's a globe is a flaw in their belief in a flat earth.

Hi Jane

What some of the REs around here ask is not for an actual map, but for a representation of the flat world FE speak of that goes in line with actual observations and experiences. Just a proper representation to get the fuel started, but FE haven't decided and came out with a model like this.

You're right to say that mapping the globe from scratch would be a huge task for flat earthers. But you don't need to feel sorry for them on that count. They've made this giant claim about the shape of the earth. If they want it to be anything more than something diverting on an internet forum, then they're going to need a working map.

This is still a completely nonsensical claim. It doesn't follow in the slightest. There's a whole host of things that are way more important than a map; I'd much rather hear how FET explains star trails and gravity than know how to take a trip to Australia.

But it isn't just lack of manpower that's stopping flat earthers from producing a map, is it?

Great, come up with the means for them with their lack of manpower to produce a map and maybe you'll have a point. It doesn't matter what motivation you want to speculate when you are asking for something ludicrous. One of them could just as easily say the fact you haven't personally been to space (whether by building your own rocket or becoming an astronaut) is because you know it'd disprove RET and not because you don't have the time, money or interest to dedicate years to that one topic, and it would be just as meaningful an argument.

if you are asking for the impossible, that is the end of the discussion. No amount of speculation or statements will change that.

A map is a stupid thing to ask for. Stop acting as though it's anything else.

Hi Jane

What some of the REs around here ask is not for an actual map, but for a representation of the flat world FE speak of that goes in line with actual observations and experiences. Just a proper representation to get the fuel started, but FE haven't decided and came out with a model like this.

What qualifies as a proper representation? You're either just asking for a map without calling it a map, or you're asking for the rest of an FE model, of which there are plenty. Pick your favourite.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.0

[

Quote from: Goldie on August 01, 2017, 06:26:30 AM

It isn't good enough to say that cross ocean distances can't be measured accurately, either: any decent skipper can place himself and his ship on a chart. Each time he uses a chart to cross an ocean, he checks and verifies the information it contains.

Pretty sure any sailor would admit that they need to do more than pick a direction and wait, they need to constantly be aware of the currents and winds, use landmarks like stars or, more recently, GPS to keep track of their location... A map that's off by a few km really isn't going to have a huge impact on top of everything else (plus good old fashioned human error when it comes to, say, angles) because there is no way, even with a perfect map, that they could keep perfectly to a preplanned route. They've always got to adjust and react. An imperfect map isn't going to particularly bother a sailor because it's just one of a whole host of tools.

Well, I am a sailor. And for the avoidance of doubt, a map that's off by a few km could be the difference between toasting your success in the yacht club or ending up cold, wet and dead. By all means run the "RET maps aren't that accurate" argument with people who don't have to rely on accurate charts and maps. But it doesn't really have a place in our conversation.

You're right to suggest that navigational errors happen. But you're entirely wrong to say that as a result, we can say that current maps and charts can't be trusted. As I said above, any decent skipper can locate himself and his ship on a chart. Doing that frequently means that errors get corrected, Using GPS increases accuracy still further. I was in the yacht club last weekend with a couple who'd just got back from the Azores. Half way across the Bay of Biscay, their alternator packed up and their batteries died, so they had to navigate the old fashioned way. Have a look at the Azores on a map, and explain how they could have managed to do so without accurate charts.

Quote from: Goldie on August 02, 2017, 06:58:36 AM

You're right to say that mapping the globe from scratch would be a huge task for flat earthers. But you don't need to feel sorry for them on that count. They've made this giant claim about the shape of the earth. If they want it to be anything more than something diverting on an internet forum, then they're going to need a working map.

This is still a completely nonsensical claim. It doesn't follow in the slightest. There's a whole host of things that are way more important than a map; I'd much rather hear how FET explains star trails and gravity than know how to take a trip to Australia.

That's because - if you'll excuse my making a few assumptions about you - you aren't a skipper, or a yachtsman, or a pilot. You don't work in the offshore industries, you've never volunteered on a lifeboat and you aren't a hydrographer. In short, your limited life experience has lead you to conclude that a reliable map of the earth is not that important. Whereas I'm telling you from my direct personal experience that an accurate map of the world is extremely important. By all means pursue your own interests. But don't make the mistake of believing that they are all that matter.

You're right to suggest that navigational errors happen. But you're entirely wrong to say that as a result, we can say that current maps and charts can't be trusted. As I said above, any decent skipper can locate himself and his ship on a chart. Doing that frequently means that errors get corrected, Using GPS increases accuracy still further. I was in the yacht club last weekend with a couple who'd just got back from the Azores. Half way across the Bay of Biscay, their alternator packed up and their batteries died, so they had to navigate the old fashioned way. Have a look at the Azores on a map, and explain how they could have managed to do so without accurate charts.

Charts of the stars and maps of the Earth are two entirely different things. It's a bit confusing how you seem to be agreeing with everything I said, but phrasing it as though it's a refutation.
Would you agree that the best map in the world is useless if you can't figure out where you are on it? That's all I'm saying.

Quote from: simba on August 02, 2017, 07:06:18 AM

Hi Jane

What some of the REs around here ask is not for an actual map, but for a representation of the flat world FE speak of that goes in line with actual observations and experiences. Just a proper representation to get the fuel started, but FE haven't decided and came out with a model like this.

What qualifies as a proper representation? You're either just asking for a map without calling it a map, or you're asking for the rest of an FE model, of which there are plenty. Pick your favourite.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.0

"Pick your favourite"

That's the problem, too many ideas, none of them get anywhere, as they say: Jack of all trades, master of none.

An unified FE model that goes in line with what's observed.

If FE's keep working alone, they will get nowhere.

Charts of the stars and maps of the Earth are two entirely different things. It's a bit confusing how you seem to be agreeing with everything I said, but phrasing it as though it's a refutation.
Would you agree that the best map in the world is useless if you can't figure out where you are on it? That's all I'm saying.

I wasn't talking about charts of the stars. For the purposes of our discussion, a chart is a nautical map.

I would absolutely agree that the best map in the world is useless if you can't figure out where you are on it - and I'm also making the point that if you're at sea, you can and do routinely figure out where you are on the map. And in doing so, you test and confirm the map's accuracy.

I would absolutely agree that the best map in the world is useless if you can't figure out where you are on it - and I'm also making the point that if you're at sea, you can and do routinely figure out where you are on the map. And in doing so, you test and confirm the map's accuracy.

How? When you consistently have to check your location, that adds tremendous room for error to sneak in. Let's say, with all the currents and wind and good old human error you're knocked a metre off your planned course. Not really all that much, but it's going to add up to a huge amount over the course of the journey. Does that error have any effect on your ability to get to your destination though, when you can use landmarks and the like to figure out where you are on a map with reference to your surroundings?

Quote from: Goldie on August 02, 2017, 09:05:43 AM

I would absolutely agree that the best map in the world is useless if you can't figure out where you are on it - and I'm also making the point that if you're at sea, you can and do routinely figure out where you are on the map. And in doing so, you test and confirm the map's accuracy.

How? When you consistently have to check your location, that adds tremendous room for error to sneak in. Let's say, with all the currents and wind and good old human error you're knocked a metre off your planned course. Not really all that much, but it's going to add up to a huge amount over the course of the journey. Does that error have any effect on your ability to get to your destination though, when you can use landmarks and the like to figure out where you are on a map with reference to your surroundings?

It's called navigation,  you should learn a bit about how to navigate by the stars.   lattitude is easy, you just take a star sighting and determine the elevation, which translates directly to lattitude,  longitude is a bit trickier,  you need an accurate clock to get longitude.   

If you want a good read I'd recommend  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_(book) 

Quote from: Goldie on August 02, 2017, 09:05:43 AM

I would absolutely agree that the best map in the world is useless if you can't figure out where you are on it - and I'm also making the point that if you're at sea, you can and do routinely figure out where you are on the map. And in doing so, you test and confirm the map's accuracy.

How? When you consistently have to check your location, that adds tremendous room for error to sneak in. Let's say, with all the currents and wind and good old human error you're knocked a metre off your planned course. Not really all that much, but it's going to add up to a huge amount over the course of the journey. Does that error have any effect on your ability to get to your destination though, when you can use landmarks and the like to figure out where you are on a map with reference to your surroundings?

You've got it back to front. By repeatedly checking your position, you eliminate error.

Quote from: Goldie on August 02, 2017, 06:58:36 AM

You're right to say that mapping the globe from scratch would be a huge task for flat earthers. But you don't need to feel sorry for them on that count. They've made this giant claim about the shape of the earth. If they want it to be anything more than something diverting on an internet forum, then they're going to need a working map.

This is still a completely nonsensical claim. It doesn't follow in the slightest. There's a whole host of things that are way more important than a map; I'd much rather hear how FET explains star trails and gravity than know how to take a trip to Australia.

I have a feeling that the Australian tourist board would disagree with you.  Well, them any any other Australian who likes imported goodies.  Or wants to export their goodies to the rest of the world.

I think it is fair to say that RE evidence cannot be relied upon for FE arguments. If a FE'r believes that everyone is "in on it" than it is up to them to come up with their own data to reference and source in their arguments...

And I would ask for some actual scientific back yard experiments that we can Peer Review here. Part of the debate is that you have to come up with your own reason that the earth is flat to the point that I cannot refute it...

If the moon light cools things... Show me... If you post a video clip, it needs to stand up to scrutiny and be reproducible....

If a balloon filled up with air is lighter than an empty balloon, show me....

How? When you consistently have to check your location, that adds tremendous room for error to sneak in. Let's say, with all the currents and wind and good old human error you're knocked a metre off your planned course.
Not really all that much, but it's going to add up to a huge amount over the course of the journey.

Before GPS there were essentially two types of navigation:

• Dead reckoning: Based on calculating a bearing and distance to the next "waypoint".
  The actual heading taken always had errors due to compass errors and crosswinds or cross currents and
  the distance had errors due to your own log and to head winds or currents.
  So when you reached the predicted location of the waypoint you then had to determine where you actually were.
  
• Location fix: Before the advent of electronic navigation aids, now GPS, this was a time-consuming task, so was done as rarely as possible.
  There had to be a compromise and it depended on how accurately the celestial navigation could be performed and the estimated dead--reckoning errors.
  One comment I have seen, from a cargo ship navigator, said
  "If you're getting intercepts of 4.5nm, then I think you have got the art of the sextant cracked, congratulations."

But errors in calculating position by "celestial navigatio" are not cumulative.

Does that error have any effect on your ability to get to your destination though, when you can use landmarks and the like to figure out where you are on a map with reference to your surroundings?

There are no landmarks in the open sea! The birds fly around and there ain't much else to see.

Please remind me never to have you navigate my (imaginary) yacht!

But, as I keep saying, WE have accurate maps with accurate distances and directions.
Flat earthers don't and until they do there is not the slightest chance of any flat earth idea catching on, other than with those totally ignorant of these practical matters, like  . . . . . .  who keeps popping out of his cave and asking, "Are we there yet?!

Quote from: Jane on August 02, 2017, 09:12:30 AM

How? When you consistently have to check your location, that adds tremendous room for error to sneak in. Let's say, with all the currents and wind and good old human error you're knocked a metre off your planned course.
Not really all that much, but it's going to add up to a huge amount over the course of the journey.

Before GPS there were essentially two types of navigation:

• Dead reckoning: Based on calculating a bearing and distance to the next "waypoint".
  The actual heading taken always had errors due to compass errors and crosswinds or cross currents and
  the distance had errors due to your own log and to head winds or currents.
  So when you reached the predicted location of the waypoint you then had to determine where you actually were.
  
• Location fix: Before the advent of electronic navigation aids, now GPS, this was a time-consuming task, so was done as rarely as possible.
  There had to be a compromise and it depended on how accurately the celestial navigation could be performed and the estimated dead--reckoning errors.
  One comment I have seen, from a cargo ship navigator, said
  "If you're getting intercepts of 4.5nm, then I think you have got the art of the sextant cracked, congratulations."

But errors in calculating position by "celestial navigatio" are not cumulative.

Quote from: Jane

Does that error have any effect on your ability to get to your destination though, when you can use landmarks and the like to figure out where you are on a map with reference to your surroundings?

There are no landmarks in the open sea! The birds fly around and there ain't much else to see.

Please remind me never to have you navigate my (imaginary) yacht!

But, as I keep saying, WE have accurate maps with accurate distances and directions.
Flat earthers don't and until they do there is not the slightest chance of any flat earth idea catching on, other than with those totally ignorant of these practical matters, like  . . . . . .  who keeps popping out of his cave and asking, "Are we there yet?!

I love egging these FE'ers on.  I ask questions that I KNOW the answer to.  I ask questions that I know that FE'ers will try to dispute and come up with witchcraft answers.  It's fun.