What IS the official map for FE discussions?

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 03, 2018, 11:20:01 AM

Again, cop out.  Distances are known and verifiable. 
But you are right.  It won't be done because it would prove FE wrong.  And that's why there are no legit FE maps.
It would be easy to make one accurate enough to prove the point.  All you have listed is lame excuses.

No, you're just not thinking about what mapping the entire bloody world entails.
'Distances are known and verifiable.' Great. Except, in case you haven't noticed, the important word there is 'verifiable.' If you are asking them to make a map, they actually have to verify.
You aren't asking them to make a map, you're asking them to fit existing distances to a flat plane. That's not a map, that's a counter-argument. if you want to go that route, it'd make much more sense to give three locations with distances and angles that can't exist on a flat plane; that kind of thing's been done before.

You can't switch between two points to cover one another's weaknesses. Either you want them to make a map, which isn't feasible, or you want them to explain existing distances, which is an argument that's all on you.

FE was abandoned many centuries ago because the world didn’t make sense when people tried to model/map it as flat. Now, we hear, “Let’s scrap a millennium of accumulated knowledge for no reason besides a couple dozen people who cannot shake their delusions.”

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 03, 2018, 11:20:01 AM

Again, cop out.  Distances are known and verifiable. 
But you are right.  It won't be done because it would prove FE wrong.  And that's why there are no legit FE maps.
It would be easy to make one accurate enough to prove the point.  All you have listed is lame excuses.

No, you're just not thinking about what mapping the entire bloody world entails.
'Distances are known and verifiable.' Great. Except, in case you haven't noticed, the important word there is 'verifiable.' If you are asking them to make a map, they actually have to verify.
You aren't asking them to make a map, you're asking them to fit existing distances to a flat plane. That's not a map, that's a counter-argument. if you want to go that route, it'd make much more sense to give three locations with distances and angles that can't exist on a flat plane; that kind of thing's been done before.

You can't switch between two points to cover one another's weaknesses. Either you want them to make a map, which isn't feasible, or you want them to explain existing distances, which is an argument that's all on you.

Are you generally obstinate just for the sake of being so?
It is quite simple you are trying to over complicate it.  Distances are verifiable and easily so.  You only need a few such verifications to know the overall size of continents.  Then just pick your scale and print out said continents.
Now lay them out on a flat surface in such a way that works with known flight times and or distances.
Will it be hyper accurate?  No.  Would it be close enough to prove the model?  Absolutely.
Nobody is saying we should start with a fully accurate detailed map of the world.  The equivalent of a grade school globe would be fine.

Are you generally obstinate just for the sake of being so?
It is quite simple you are trying to over complicate it.  Distances are verifiable and easily so.  You only need a few such verifications to know the overall size of continents.  Then just pick your scale and print out said continents.
Now lay them out on a flat surface in such a way that works with known flight times and or distances.
Will it be hyper accurate?  No.  Would it be close enough to prove the model?  Absolutely.
Nobody is saying we should start with a fully accurate detailed map of the world.  The equivalent of a grade school globe would be fine.

Instead of assuming I'm just being obstinate, take a look at what I am actually saying.
Few verifications for a continent? Ok, let's look at one measurement for one continent, California to Virginia, a simple straight horizontal shot. A simple google tells me that's 39 hours non-stop, and not exacty straight but hey, 'easily' verifiable. One measurement, one continent.

If you want them to measure distances, what you're saying is not feasible.
If you want them to only measure tiny distances or none and just trust existing measurements, that is an argument separate to mapping the world.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 03, 2018, 02:06:39 PM

Are you generally obstinate just for the sake of being so?
It is quite simple you are trying to over complicate it.  Distances are verifiable and easily so.  You only need a few such verifications to know the overall size of continents.  Then just pick your scale and print out said continents.
Now lay them out on a flat surface in such a way that works with known flight times and or distances.
Will it be hyper accurate?  No.  Would it be close enough to prove the model?  Absolutely.
Nobody is saying we should start with a fully accurate detailed map of the world.  The equivalent of a grade school globe would be fine.

Instead of assuming I'm just being obstinate, take a look at what I am actually saying.
Few verifications for a continent? Ok, let's look at one measurement for one continent, California to Virginia, a simple straight horizontal shot. A simple google tells me that's 39 hours non-stop, and not exacty straight but hey, 'easily' verifiable. One measurement, one continent.

If you want them to measure distances, what you're saying is not feasible.
If you want them to only measure tiny distances or none and just trust existing measurements, that is an argument separate to mapping the world.

I am listening to what you are saying.  I stand by my post.  Ask a trucker friend for the distance.  Boom problem solved.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 03, 2018, 11:20:01 AM

Again, cop out.  Distances are known and verifiable. 
But you are right.  It won't be done because it would prove FE wrong.  And that's why there are no legit FE maps.
It would be easy to make one accurate enough to prove the point.  All you have listed is lame excuses.

No, you're just not thinking about what mapping the entire bloody world entails.
'Distances are known and verifiable.' Great. Except, in case you haven't noticed, the important word there is 'verifiable.' If you are asking them to make a map, they actually have to verify.
You aren't asking them to make a map, you're asking them to fit existing distances to a flat plane. That's not a map, that's a counter-argument. if you want to go that route, it'd make much more sense to give three locations with distances and angles that can't exist on a flat plane; that kind of thing's been done before.

You can't switch between two points to cover one another's weaknesses. Either you want them to make a map, which isn't feasible, or you want them to explain existing distances, which is an argument that's all on you.

But surely we can expect flat-earthers to at least have some idea of the basic layout of their flat earth.
This is necessary to describe the paths of the sun, moon, planets and stars and hence explain night and day.

And once they say for example that the North Pole is at the centre, that pretty much defines where everywhere else must be.
If you bothered to look it up you might find in "the FAQ", Jack, Flat Earth FAQ - Please Read! « Reply #2 on: December 13, 2008, 05:20:59 PM » this:

How do you explain day and night cycles?
Day and night cycles are easily explained on a flat earth. The sun moves in circles around the North Pole.

What does the earth look like?
As seen in the diagrams above, the earth is in the form of a disk with the North Pole in the center and Antarctica as a wall around the edge. This is the generally accepted model among members of the society. In this model, circumnavigation is performed by moving in a great circle around the North Pole.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Here is picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, flat earth:

That "map" might not be "definitive", but the FAQ has no ifs or buts about the general layout, nor about that path of the sun!

Then whatever you might say, a fairly good idea of the relative positions of the continents has been known for many centuries.
Early navigators were the first to determine this layout.
Their measurements of distances and longitudes were fairly rough, but that is all that is needed for a start.

Old Map of the World from the 1500's

This is an original map created in 1565 which shows the known world of the day. This old map gives an incredible view of the New World, recently discovered by Christopher Columbus. The map has a lot of interesting artwork, including pictures of period ships sailing the ocean.  The map is titled, "Vniversale descrittione di tvtta la terra conoscivta fin qvi."

From: Explorers of the New World

Deny it all you like, but the relative positions of the continents has been known at least approximately for many hundreds of years.

But now accurate distances are easily determined and many can be verified at least approximately by averaging the flight times of aircraft.
This is exactly what the dyed-in-the-wool flat-earth true-believer brotherhood of the dome is doing right now in Let's make a map by myself depend on flight times.

And, while he makes quite a few silly errors (like ignoring taxiing, take-off and landing times), his longer distances often come quite close the modern "map distances".

So stop your silly pleading ignorance all the time! These things are known on the real earth,
Tough, that's how it is.

I am listening to what you are saying.  I stand by my post.  Ask a trucker friend for the distance.  Boom problem solved.

So, find a trucker, find a trucker that takes a straight route from one end to the other, ask for details, repeat asking for a trucker that travels top to bottom (which seems to be substantially rarer from a quick google), and for them to take a straight route...
And that's just the US. Then do the same for other areas (Canada, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa), even when they're rarer.

Yep. Easy. Sure.

But surely we can expect flat-earthers to at least have some idea of the basic layout of their flat earth.
This is necessary to describe the paths of the sun, moon, planets and stars and hence explain night and day.

I mean, personally I'd describe them with reference to whatever force the FE model in question uses to explain their movement, but sure. If you can use the paths of the Sun, moon, planets and stars to create a map (which is the implication of what you're saying), go right ahead.

Deny it all you like, but the relative positions of the continents has been known at least approximately for many hundreds of years.

Sure. Africa's not in the middle of Europe and Asia, any FEer would agree.

So stop your silly pleading ignorance all the time! These things are known on the real earth,

if the flat-earthers will not accept what is known about the real earth it just proves that their model in not the real earth!

Do you not realise the difference between "Make a map," and "Explain these distances?"

FE has a map convergence going on bringing together different variables that will make up the whole.  This is a better plan than what REers have put forward.

The bird is in the oven.  The recipe, through experience listed as about forever, calls for 4 hours of baking. REers decide that 3 hours is long enough taking out the bird and theorizing how now is the time for consumption.  They are wrong, as it turns out, and get sick in the process.

We have a claim in for truth about Earth shape.  Our map will help our cause.  Let's let the process continue so we can prove us correct and round Earth believers to be proven wrong.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 03, 2018, 02:35:34 PM

I am listening to what you are saying.  I stand by my post.  Ask a trucker friend for the distance.  Boom problem solved.

So, find a trucker, find a trucker that takes a straight route from one end to the other, ask for details, repeat asking for a trucker that travels top to bottom (which seems to be substantially rarer from a quick google), and for them to take a straight route...
And that's just the US. Then do the same for other areas (Canada, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa), even when they're rarer.

Yep. Easy. Sure.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 03, 2018, 02:37:36 PM

But surely we can expect flat-earthers to at least have some idea of the basic layout of their flat earth.
This is necessary to describe the paths of the sun, moon, planets and stars and hence explain night and day.

I mean, personally I'd describe them with reference to whatever force the FE model in question uses to explain their movement, but sure. If you can use the paths of the Sun, moon, planets and stars to create a map (which is the implication of what you're saying), go right ahead.

Quote

Deny it all you like, but the relative positions of the continents has been known at least approximately for many hundreds of years.

Sure. Africa's not in the middle of Europe and Asia, any FEer would agree.

Quote

So stop your silly pleading ignorance all the time! These things are known on the real earth,

if the flat-earthers will not accept what is known about the real earth it just proves that their model in not the real earth!

Do you not realise the difference between "Make a map," and "Explain these distances?"

Again, pure obstinace.  All you need to do is confirm that a map of that continent is basically correct.  If it gives you a route of say 2000 miles for a trip and that is pretty accurate then the size of that continent according to that map is also basically correct.  You are deliberately making it harder than need be.

If you want them to only measure tiny distances or none and just trust existing measurements, that is an argument separate to mapping the world.

Even measuring quite small distances can give an approximate distance per degree of either latitude of longitude.
From what I have seen, nobody has yet suggested that the sun does not move at 15°/hour all the time.
Since this is how longitude is measured, it is comparatively easy to check longitude changes.
Likewise latitude is comparatively easy to check from either sun elevation or, in the Northern Hemisphere, from Polaris elevation.
Read, learn and inwardly digest, Finding your Latitude and Longitude!

Of course, it is soon found that "GPS" lat/long is extremely accurate, so I suspect that even most flat-earthers would accept GPS coordinates.

So any N-S road can be used to check distance/degree of latitude and any E-W road can be used to check distance/degree of longitude to within the accuracy of a car's odometer - and that can be calibrated readily (plenty of real mile-posts around England).

So stop you continual pleading that these poor flat-earthers cannot be expected to know these things.
The can measure them and if they cooperated around the Globe earth they could find these things out for themselves over most parts of the earth.

But they won't because it would readily prove that the earth is not flat.

I have claimed numerous times that "the known dimensions of the earth prove it cannot be flat".

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 03, 2018, 02:06:39 PM

Are you generally obstinate just for the sake of being so?
It is quite simple you are trying to over complicate it.  Distances are verifiable and easily so.  You only need a few such verifications to know the overall size of continents.  Then just pick your scale and print out said continents.
Now lay them out on a flat surface in such a way that works with known flight times and or distances.
Will it be hyper accurate?  No.  Would it be close enough to prove the model?  Absolutely.
Nobody is saying we should start with a fully accurate detailed map of the world.  The equivalent of a grade school globe would be fine.

Instead of assuming I'm just being obstinate, take a look at what I am actually saying.
Few verifications for a continent? Ok, let's look at one measurement for one continent, California to Virginia, a simple straight horizontal shot. A simple google tells me that's 39 hours non-stop, and not exacty straight but hey, 'easily' verifiable. One measurement, one continent.

If you want them to measure distances, what you're saying is not feasible.
If you want them to only measure tiny distances or none and just trust existing measurements, that is an argument separate to mapping the world.

An interesting analogy in American politics: Republicans hollered for years that they were going to replace the Affordable Care Act with something better, “great—best in the world!” They were very careful to never say what they actually were going to do because they knew that it would hurt a lot of people and be politically damaging to them. Their fraud was unmasked this year.

FE won’t put out a map because it would be torn to pieces by the simplest analysis.

Again, pure obstinace.  All you need to do is confirm that a map of that continent is basically correct.  If it gives you a route of say 2000 miles for a trip and that is pretty accurate then the size of that continent according to that map is also basically correct.  You are deliberately making it harder than need be.

No, pointing out exactly what your method entails. Sure, if it gives us a route of that, it's likely accurate, next step is confirming that's the length of the route which is exactly what I was talking about.

I have claimed numerous times that "the known dimensions of the earth prove it cannot be flat".

Then you shouldn't be asking for a map.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 03, 2018, 02:52:38 PM

Again, pure obstinace.  All you need to do is confirm that a map of that continent is basically correct.  If it gives you a route of say 2000 miles for a trip and that is pretty accurate then the size of that continent according to that map is also basically correct.  You are deliberately making it harder than need be.

No, pointing out exactly what your method entails. Sure, if it gives us a route of that, it's likely accurate, next step is confirming that's the length of the route which is exactly what I was talking about.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 03, 2018, 03:01:41 PM

I have claimed numerous times that "the known dimensions of the earth prove it cannot be flat".

Then you shouldn't be asking for a map.

Which involves exactly one conversation. 
Man, you are right.  That is virtually impossible.  There is no way, without weeks of work anyone could verify any long route.  It simply can't be done.  I mean I suppose you could ask someone who has driven or is going to drive the route.  No, it can't done.
You win.

Which involves exactly one conversation. 
Man, you are right.  That is virtually impossible.  There is no way, without weeks of work anyone could verify any long route.  It simply can't be done.  I mean I suppose you could ask someone who has driven or is going to drive the route.  No, it can't done.
You win.

One conversation, if you can find someone that's travelled along the right route, several times over. Hardly trivial. We aren't talking about a generic trucker after all.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 03, 2018, 03:31:19 PM

Which involves exactly one conversation. 
Man, you are right.  That is virtually impossible.  There is no way, without weeks of work anyone could verify any long route.  It simply can't be done.  I mean I suppose you could ask someone who has driven or is going to drive the route.  No, it can't done.
You win.

One conversation, if you can find someone that's travelled along the right route, several times over. Hardly trivial. We aren't talking about a generic trucker after all.

You're right Jane.  It's literally impossible for someone to confirm distances on a map.  My bad.

Quote from: Jane on January 03, 2018, 05:03:28 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 03, 2018, 03:31:19 PM

Which involves exactly one conversation. 
Man, you are right.  That is virtually impossible.  There is no way, without weeks of work anyone could verify any long route.  It simply can't be done.  I mean I suppose you could ask someone who has driven or is going to drive the route.  No, it can't done.
You win.

One conversation, if you can find someone that's travelled along the right route, several times over. Hardly trivial. We aren't talking about a generic trucker after all.

You're right Jane.  It's literally impossible for someone to confirm distances on a map.  My bad.

For them to confirm a decent fraction of the distances in the entire world?
Stop acting like this is simple.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 03, 2018, 05:19:02 PM

Quote from: Jane on January 03, 2018, 05:03:28 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 03, 2018, 03:31:19 PM

Which involves exactly one conversation. 
Man, you are right.  That is virtually impossible.  There is no way, without weeks of work anyone could verify any long route.  It simply can't be done.  I mean I suppose you could ask someone who has driven or is going to drive the route.  No, it can't done.
You win.

One conversation, if you can find someone that's travelled along the right route, several times over. Hardly trivial. We aren't talking about a generic trucker after all.

You're right Jane.  It's literally impossible for someone to confirm distances on a map.  My bad.

For them to confirm a decent fraction of the distances in the entire world?
Stop acting like this is simple.

You’re right. We’ve been thinking, measuring, mapping, experimenting, for over 2,000 years accumulating libraries full of evidence for a spherical Earth. No human on a highway could match the precision of air and space-based lidar and radar, seismography, or GPS systems (all processed by hundreds of millions of dollars worth of computers) that give terabytes upon terabytes of RE data. Don’t forget all the calculus that manages the interactions between the Earth, Sun, Moon, and other celestial bodies. New physical forces and principles of optics would have to be developed, along with the math to support them, along with tens of thousands of experiments that better-explain the things now perfectly explained by RE science and it’s related fields.

You’d better get started.

Instead of assuming I'm just being obstinate, take a look at what I am actually saying.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice?
Look at what others are saying.

Few verifications for a continent? Ok, let's look at one measurement for one continent, California to Virginia, a simple straight horizontal shot. A simple google tells me that's 39 hours non-stop, and not exacty straight but hey, 'easily' verifiable. One measurement, one continent.

And who says they would need to do that as a single measurement?
Why would they not be able to have multiple smaller measurements and tie them together?

If you want them to measure distances, what you're saying is not feasible.

No, just your pathetic strawmen of it.

If you want them to only measure tiny distances or none and just trust existing measurements, that is an argument separate to mapping the world.

No it isn't.
They verify already existing distances to verify that existing maps already work, then try to combine those maps onto a flat surface to map the world.

I mean, personally I'd describe them with reference to whatever force the FE model in question uses to explain their movement

Which you would have no way to compare to observations without knowing their location relative to various things, i.e. needing a map.

If you can use the paths of the Sun, moon, planets and stars to create a map (which is the implication of what you're saying), go right ahead.

The measurements make it impossible to construct a flat map of Earth without distortion. This has already been explained.
This shows that Earth isn't flat.
But it is a very simple way to make a rough map of a hypothetical flat Earth.

FE has a map convergence going on bringing together different variables that will make up the whole.  This is a better plan than what REers have put forward.

Care to elaborate?
So far REers have provided several means to map the world which would be relatively easy.
In fact, REers have produces maps of the world based upon Earth being round.

Meanwhile, FEers have nothing.

We have a claim in for truth about Earth shape.  Our map will help our cause.  Let's let the process continue so we can prove us correct and round Earth believers to be proven wrong.

But that is all you have, a claim.
You have nothing to substantiate that claim.
You have been completely unable to provide a map to help your cause, meanwhile there is a globe model which matches reality.

You’re right. We’ve been thinking, measuring, mapping, experimenting, for over 2,000 years accumulating libraries full of evidence for a spherical Earth. No human on a highway could match the precision of air and space-based lidar and radar, seismography, or GPS systems (all processed by hundreds of millions of dollars worth of computers) that give terabytes upon terabytes of RE data. Don’t forget all the calculus that manages the interactions between the Earth, Sun, Moon, and other celestial bodies. New physical forces and principles of optics would have to be developed, along with the math to support them, along with tens of thousands of experiments that better-explain the things now perfectly explained by RE science and it’s related fields.

You’d better get started.

How does any of that make it reasonable to ask FEers to map out the world?

For them to confirm a decent fraction of the distances in the entire world?

They do not have to! The earth flat or a Globe surely has circular symmetry around the North Pole. The FAQ near enough to explicitly states that!
Jack, Flat Earth FAQ - Please Read! « Reply #2 on: December 13, 2008, 05:20:59 PM » this:

How do you explain day and night cycles?
Day and night cycles are easily explained on a flat earth. The sun moves in circles around the North Pole.

What does the earth look like?
As seen in the diagrams above, the earth is in the form of a disk with the North Pole in the center and Antarctica as a wall around the edge. This is the generally accepted model among members of the society. In this model, circumnavigation is performed by moving in a great circle around the North Pole.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Here is picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, flat earth:

See "The sun moves in circles around the North Pole" and circles have circular symmetry.
And not only is this "the generally accepted model among members of the society" it seems to be almost the universal model argued vehemently by YouTube flat-earthers.

And then in

Finding your Latitude and Longitude
Latitude
To locate your latitude on the Flat Earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the Earth's Latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.

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

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

Finding your Latitude and Longitude

The Wiki is clearly stating that the distance per degree of latitude in the same at all latitudes.
Anything else seems ridiculous especially as approximate values are so easy to measure anywhere to go.

Stop acting like this is simple.

Stoop putting non-existent obstacles in the way all the time!

Why do you have to go way past what the flat-earthers themselves claim?

Stoop putting non-existent obstacles in the way all the time!

Why do you have to go way past what the flat-earthers themselves claim?

I'm presenting the obstacles with the methods presented. Hardly non-existent; you're the only one who proposed this new method.
I don't go past it at all. Most of what I say is something I've either seen said by a FEer, or a pretty clear conclusion. The difference is I've been here longer than you, and searched up a lot of old threads in the days where FEers were more active when making the compendium. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't make it a Jane original.

As far as your method goes, you've established the equator is circular and the Sun exists at an angle in the sky. Sure, you might be able to derive a layout from that, but as you've pointed out plenty of times the Sun can't work that simply under FET.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 03, 2018, 07:00:02 PM

Stoop putting non-existent obstacles in the way all the time!

Why do you have to go way past what the flat-earthers themselves claim?

I'm presenting the obstacles with the methods presented. Hardly non-existent; you're the only one who proposed this new method.
I don't go past it at all. Most of what I say is something I've either seen said by a FEer, or a pretty clear conclusion. The difference is I've been here longer than you, and searched up a lot of old threads in the days where FEers were more active when making the compendium. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't make it a Jane original.

As far as your method goes, you've established the equator is circular and the Sun exists at an angle in the sky. Sure, you might be able to derive a layout from that, but as you've pointed out plenty of times the Sun can't work that simply under FET.

No, you couldn’t. One degree is not equal to 69.5 miles across the surface. Try playing with some basic trigonometry. The longer the base of a triangle gets, the more you have to add to the base to go one more degree. It’s not linear. The Sun would have to be infinitely far away for the Sun to be on the horizon (or 90 degrees from vertical as it is observed from the poles during the equinoxes). Damn! You can’t turn around without bumping into evidence for RE.

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on January 03, 2018, 06:13:36 PM

You’re right. We’ve been thinking, measuring, mapping, experimenting, for over 2,000 years accumulating libraries full of evidence for a spherical Earth. No human on a highway could match the precision of air and space-based lidar and radar, seismography, or GPS systems (all processed by hundreds of millions of dollars worth of computers) that give terabytes upon terabytes of RE data. Don’t forget all the calculus that manages the interactions between the Earth, Sun, Moon, and other celestial bodies. New physical forces and principles of optics would have to be developed, along with the math to support them, along with tens of thousands of experiments that better-explain the things now perfectly explained by RE science and it’s related fields.

You’d better get started.

How does any of that make it reasonable to ask FEers to map out the world?

I just cannot fathom that you can set aside something backed by astonishing amounts of evidence that is mutually reinforcing, mathematically sound, generative and supportive of theories that make remarkably accurate predictions decades in advance, and is largely reproducible and/or verifiable by amateurs with a little science and math skills. When I ask for a map, I’m really looking for what it is you are envisioning when you say, “I know THIS to be true.”

Quote from: rabinoz on January 03, 2018, 07:00:02 PM

Stoop putting non-existent obstacles in the way all the time!

Why do you have to go way past what the flat-earthers themselves claim?

I'm presenting the obstacles with the methods presented. Hardly non-existent; you're the only one who proposed this new method.

I'm presenting no method. I did little more than present information from the FES Wiki and FAQ, plus what seems to me totally inescapable extensions of that material. From what I can see all I presented is quite consistent with the Wiki and the FAQ.

I don't go past it at all. Most of what I say is something I've either seen said by a FEer, or a pretty clear conclusion. The difference is I've been here longer than you, and searched up a lot of old threads in the days where FEers were more active when making the compendium. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't make it a Jane original.

Individual flat-earthers have made all manner of statements,  some quite irrational, but they hardly constitute the basis for a new flat earth model.
Have you studied Danang's claims and his map? Should we include that?
Have you studied th3rm0m3t3r0's model with the whole universe accelerating? Should we include that?
And they get weirder and weirder and Curiosier and Curiosier, but one cannot seriously consider them all!
Some un-named person even hinted at a Rhombicuboctahedral Earth Theory .
Strangely enough, I see some merit in that, though I would prefer a lot more facets. In other words a "locally flat earth" as a teaching aid.

As far as your method goes, you've established the equator is circular and the Sun exists at an angle in the sky. Sure, you might be able to derive a layout from that, but as you've pointed out plenty of times the Sun can't work that simply under FET.

No, I have not "established the equator is circular". I believe that is implicit in the FAQ, in "The sun moves in circles around the North Pole".
And sure, I've "pointed out plenty of times the Sun can't work that simply under FET". So what? I cannot make changes to FE theory.
No flat-eartner takes any notice of me.

I proposed no method, just stated what I believe should be known to any flat-earther based on little more than material in the Society's own Wiki and FAQ.

I did propose simple methods approximately verifying this information by simple local measurements at as many locations across the earth as possible.

It seems to me that you are the one creating all these insurmountable difficulties.

In closing though, I am confident that if all these measurements are made by cooperative flat-earthers around the world, it will be found that they cannot fit onto a flat surface.

Sleuthing through this plethora of replies I STILL do not get the proper answers or links by FE supporters.
So I am assuming that the commercially available '2015' poster map mentioned in my opening entry of this topic *IS* the 'official', unprojected and topographically correct map of Earth, as propagated by the FES.

I will hence use this version for further precise questions.
I'd prefer to see accurate replies by FE BELIEVERS in this ongoing debate, no ranting, name calling etc.
Let's stick to basic facts, basic measurements.
Opposite to projected 3D maps like the USGS versions distances on the FE map are immediately verifiable, no triangulation and spherical calculations are needed.

I will start with Australia on the Southern Hemisphere, my favorite continent. So please continue to my next question, a new topic.

Thank you!

I just cannot fathom that you can set aside something backed by astonishing amounts of evidence that is mutually reinforcing, mathematically sound, generative and supportive of theories that make remarkably accurate predictions decades in advance, and is largely reproducible and/or verifiable by amateurs with a little science and math skills. When I ask for a map, I’m really looking for what it is you are envisioning when you say, “I know THIS to be true.”

I'm not setting it aside; you are. You've gone from a list of objections to FET as a concept, many of which having little to do with a map, to asking for something that isn't really going to help you understand FET.
It's just the basic point. No matter which way you slice it, expecting people to develop a map of the world isn't feasible; it's why this topic always gets shunted into another one whenever people are asked to defend it. You've gone from "Make a map," to "Prove a map is possible given..."
That's not the same thing at all, the only reason it gets treated as such is that most REers seem too lazy to pick a few verifiable distances that only work on a sphere. That much would at least begin to make sense, this demand just doesn't.

Individual flat-earthers have made all manner of statements,  some quite irrational, but they hardly constitute the basis for a new flat earth model.
Have you studied Danang's claims and his map? Should we include that?
Have you studied th3rm0m3t3r0's model with the whole universe accelerating? Should we include that?
And they get weirder and weirder and Curiosier and Curiosier, but one cannot seriously consider them all!

If they stick around, and I have time, sure. Why does it benefit anyone to ignore what FEers have said?
You've said before you're here to dissuade people from thinking FET is reasonable. How do you do that without addressing the models of actual FEers?

And sure, I've "pointed out plenty of times the Sun can't work that simply under FET". So what? I cannot make changes to FE theory.

No one's asking you to, but given the FE responses and issues like bendy light, how do you draw the conclusions you're asking us to?
It's already pretty well established that for FET to work, light (at least from the Sun) has to curve to some extent. Nothing new here.

Sleuthing through this plethora of replies I STILL do not get the proper answers or links by FE supporters.
So I am assuming that the commercially available '2015' poster map mentioned in my opening entry of this topic *IS* the 'official', unprojected and topographically correct map of Earth, as propagated by the FES.

Or alternatively you could pay attention and actually accept there fact there is no consensus, and it is an absurd thing to ask for. All you're going to do by making arguments based on assuming it's 100% accurate is make FEers think you're an idiot.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 03, 2018, 09:55:25 PM

And sure, I've "pointed out plenty of times the Sun can't work that simply under FET". So what? I cannot make changes to FE theory.

No one's asking you to, but given the FE responses and issues like bendy light, how do you draw the conclusions you're asking us to?
It's already pretty well established that for FET to work, light (at least from the Sun) has to curve to some extent. Nothing new here.

Which pretty well proves that FET is incorrect, but whatever!

But I do debate "bendy light" (ie massive refraction) especially with Silicon and the like, but I do expect there to be some reasonable physical basis for any explanation.
It was Ski I believe who claimed that there was no such thing as "Flat Earth Science" and "Globe Earth Science", just "Science".
I have tried to debate on that basis, though it's funny that after claiming that and having long debates about eclipses and light coherence he seems to have left the flat earth behind.
As has TheEngineer after similar debates over the validity of UA in light of some of the finer points of Einstein's Equivalence Principle.

So, maybe there needs to be a different "Flat Earth Science" to prop up the Flat Earth, but that leaves virtually no common ground on which to debate.

PS Maybe JRowe's aether wasn't far wrong !

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on January 03, 2018, 08:59:32 PM

I just cannot fathom that you can set aside something backed by astonishing amounts of evidence that is mutually reinforcing, mathematically sound, generative and supportive of theories that make remarkably accurate predictions decades in advance, and is largely reproducible and/or verifiable by amateurs with a little science and math skills. When I ask for a map, I’m really looking for what it is you are envisioning when you say, “I know THIS to be true.”

I'm not setting it aside; you are. You've gone from a list of objections to FET as a concept, many of which having little to do with a map, to asking for something that isn't really going to help you understand FET.
It's just the basic point. No matter which way you slice it, expecting people to develop a map of the world isn't feasible; it's why this topic always gets shunted into another one whenever people are asked to defend it. You've gone from "Make a map," to "Prove a map is possible given..."
That's not the same thing at all, the only reason it gets treated as such is that most REers seem too lazy to pick a few verifiable distances that only work on a sphere. That much would at least begin to make sense, this demand just doesn't.

I accept that it’s difficult to make a good map, so I offer the simpler task of proving a map is possible. While I haven’t led them, plenty of threads have addressed the ridiculous distances claimed by FE compared to flights between southern continents.

It seems absurd to me that you expect to convince anyone beyond a handful of suckers when you claim to have an explosive new discovery but can’t answer the simplest questions, such as “So what does it look like?”

“I’ve got this revolutionary idea that’s going to change everything. It will change the way everyone thinks about time, space, the nature of facts, and the substances of reality itself!”

“Wow! What’s your idea?”

“Well, I’m not sure. Also, the evidence for it is sketchy, the maths don’t add up, it isn’t based on any known science or even any internally-consistent science, and those of us who support it fight against each other’s ideas as much as the one with all the science behind it.”

“Well can you at least draw a picture of what you’re talking about?”

“Only a pencil sketch, and definitely not to scale. Every time anyone tries to draw it to scale, overwhelming flaws in the idea emerge.”

“So...You’ve got nothing?”

“No! I have a nice story that I like. Want to hear it? Once upon a time...”

It seems absurd to me that you expect to convince anyone beyond a handful of suckers when you claim to have an explosive new discovery but can’t answer the simplest questions, such as “So what does it look like?”

How it works is much more interesting than how it looks. And besides, the same principle holds; you'd get the same issues with practicality regardless of the shape of the Earth.

If you want to go the "It's impossible route," that's fine, plenty of discussion there, but it's entirely different to what's been happening here.

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on January 04, 2018, 05:12:00 AM

It seems absurd to me that you expect to convince anyone beyond a handful of suckers when you claim to have an explosive new discovery but can’t answer the simplest questions, such as “So what does it look like?”

How it works is much more interesting than how it looks. And besides, the same principle holds; you'd get the same issues with practicality regardless of the shape of the Earth.

If you want to go the "It's impossible route," that's fine, plenty of discussion there, but it's entirely different to what's been happening here.

But your “how it works” is just fiction—a product of your imagination with no concrete observations or testable predictions that can be used to verify it. We don’t decide the nature of reality by who is the best story teller. Scientists propose a hypothesis, test it, refine their ideas based on tests, and work toward a theory. You just make stuff up and then pretend that you know something as a result.