Is Iceland 467 or 734 km wide? How to prove FE-theory with your car.

  • 21 Replies
  • 4813 Views
Depending on how you scale a FE-map, Iceland is either 467 km or 734 km in East-West-direction. (SE-maps claim that it's 490 km.)
Depending on how you scale a FE-map, South-Africa is either 1040 km or 1634 km in East-West-direction. (SE-maps claim that it's 655 km.)
And you can do the same calculations for many more examples.



Isn't that wonderful?

There is a simple, undeniable, unmanipulatable experiment that will prove once and for all whether Earth is flat or spherical!

Anybody can do that experiment at any time and no government, agency or conspiracy will be able to manipulate it or deny the results!

All we have to do is to drive in a car from A to B and measure the distance!

NO TELESCOPES, NO LENSES, NO ATMOSPHERIC DISTURBANCES!

NO GUESS-WORK ABOUT THE SPEED OF AIRPLANES!

NO INFLUENCES WHATSOEVER FROM CELESTIAL BODIES!

JUST HARD, NON-PARTISAN EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE CALLING THE SHOTS!

And best of all: It settles the dispute Flat-Earth-vs-Spherical-Earth forever and ever!

Nobody will ever again argue about the validity of the Flat-Earth-model!

How cool is that?

It's a dream come true!

What are you waiting for?






------------------------------

Calculations:

Iceland
Discworld-geometry #1:
* The Flat-Earth map shall be http://www.3dham.com/blog/Flat_earthrot.jpg
* The distance from the Northpole to Iceland is about 0.4 times the distance from the Northpole to the equator.
* Longitude-wise, Iceland stretches from -24° to -13.5° (ignoring the part to the Northwest). That means, Iceland is 10.5° wide.
* We calibrate our map: The equator shall be a circle, centered around the Northpole, with a circumference of 40,008 km.
=>
* Iceland is lying on a circle, centered around the Northpole, that has a circumference of 0.4*40,008 km = 16,003 km.
=>
* As Iceland is 10.5° wide, Iceland has a length of 10.5°/360° of that: ~466.8 km in East-West-direction

Discworld-geometry #2:
* Basically the same, except we calibrate the map so the distance between Northpole and South"pole" is 20,004 km
=>
* Distance Northpole-equator is 10,002 km, the distance Northpole-Iceland is ~4005 km.
=>
* Iceland is lying on a circle, centered around the Northpole, that has a circumference of 2*pi*4005 = 25,165 km.
=>
* As Iceland is 10.5° wide, Iceland has a length of 10.5°/360° of that: ~734.0 km in East-West-direction


South-Africa
* Same as above, except this time we're doing this with South-Africa, by going from Kapstadt to Port Elizabeth, which is an East-West-travel.
* These two cities are at 18.4° and 25.6° longitude respectively. => Their distance is 7.2°
* According to this map http://www.3dham.com/blog/Flat_earthrot.jpg the distance Northpole-Kapstadt is about 0.6-0.7 times the distance Northpole-South"pole". (Let's assume 0.65)

Discworld-geometry #1:
* We calibrate our map: The equator shall be a circle, centered around the Northpole, with a circumference of 40,008 km.
=>
* Kapstadt is then lying on a circle, centered around the Northpole, with a circumference of 0.65 * 2 * 40,008 km = 52,010.4 km
=>
* As the distance Kapstadt-Port Elizabeth is 7.2°, the distance is 7.2°/360° of that: 1040.2 km

Discworld-geometry #2:
* We calibrate the map so the distance between Northpole and South"pole" is 20,004 km.
=>
* Kapstadt is then lying on a circle, centered around the Northpole, with a circumference of 0.65 * 2 * pi * 20,004 km = 81,698 km
=>
* As the distance Kapstadt-Port Elizabeth is 7.2°, the distance is 7.2°/360° of that: 1634.0 km
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 06:10:01 AM by Pinky »

Re: Is Iceland 467 or 734 km wide? How to prove FE-theory with your car.
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2018, 10:46:36 AM »
South America:

Rowbotham proposes that one could veritably prove a uni-polar flat earth map by measuring one degree longitude along the 45th parallel south. He goes on to assume that the result would be 20 miles longer than that of one degree longitude along the 45th parallel north.  It would be fairly easy to do this experiment, and would require less driving, LOL!

At roughly 46° south there is a small Argentinian town of Las Heras, through which a highway runs substantially east-to-west.  68.935° West longitude is a good starting point, from which one can drive west to an empanada shack at 70.023° west (Paraje el Pluma) with only a slight deviation from a directly western path.  That’s 1.088° over what Google Maps claims to be a 55 mile drive.  We can’t take their word for it, of course, but the empanada shack has positive reviews, as recent as three weeks ago as I write this, I’m sure the locals would know how to get there, and measuring the driving distance using a car odometer gets us away from accusations of “round earth system” errors.  Direct observation of the sun angles would be required to confirm how many degrees have been traveled.  That’s about as “old school” as anyone could ask, short of stringing a calibrated measuring rope along the highway.

Going further south, we can repeat the experiment.  On a globe earth, degrees of longitude get closer together as you approach the south pole, on the north-centered flat earth they should get further apart.  There is a gas station at 68.458° West in San Sebastian, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina from which a highway runs due west.  The spot 55 miles west of there is at 69.750° West, or 1.292° away.  As expected on a globe, degrees are closer together.  Here again, we cannot take Google Maps word for it, but the experiment can be done.

Re: Is Iceland 467 or 734 km wide? How to prove FE-theory with your car.
« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2018, 12:45:38 PM »
Depending on how you scale a FE-map, Iceland is either 467 km or 734 km in East-West-direction. (SE-maps claim that it's 490 km.)
Depending on how you scale a FE-map, South-Africa is either 1040 km or 1634 km in East-West-direction. (SE-maps claim that it's 655 km.)
And you can do the same calculations for many more examples.

Since no cartography of a FE world map has been performed, the maps you want to scale are based on RE maps, altered to fit FE ideas.

Hence no measurement of a real-world distance will do what you are looking for - contradict a FE model map - because no consensus model map exists. The map at http://www.3dham.com/blog/Flat_earthrot.jpg is just one idea.

All of your HYPERBOLIC BOLD ALL-CAPS CONCLUSIONS fail to take this into consideration and are, therefore, invalid.

Sorry.

Re: Is Iceland 467 or 734 km wide? How to prove FE-theory with your car.
« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2018, 01:27:17 PM »
True, but it will serve to call into question the illustrations most commonly associated with FE theory, which appear on their own home page:



and serve as their logo:




and illustrate their explanation for circumnavigation:



and their explanation for seasons:



Bottom line: if they seriously want to disavow the UN logo flat earth map, they have to discard most of FE theory because it all hinges on that map.  Those who propose other maps do so without addressing any of the issues that explode when they discard the UN logo.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Is Iceland 467 or 734 km wide? How to prove FE-theory with your car.
« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2018, 04:59:14 PM »
Since no cartography of a FE world map has been performed, the maps you want to scale are based on RE maps, altered to fit FE ideas.
Hence no measurement of a real-world distance will do what you are looking for - contradict a FE model map - because no consensus model map exists. The map at http://www.3dham.com/blog/Flat_earthrot.jpg is just one idea.
No. That map exists, as part of a FE model map.
As such, it does contradict it.

If you would like, feel free to provide your own FE map.

All it really means is that these specific FE models are shown to be crap, while the RE works fine.

Re: Is Iceland 467 or 734 km wide? How to prove FE-theory with your car.
« Reply #5 on: January 06, 2018, 12:22:38 AM »
No. That map exists, as part of a FE model map.
As such, it does contradict it.

If you would like, feel free to provide your own FE map.

All it really means is that these specific FE models are shown to be crap, while the RE works fine.
There is no consensus among FE, or even a majority position, that the notional representations talked about so far are accurate maps from which distances can be determined.

You may wish that was the case for the sake of your argument, but that does not make it so.

Comparing the OPs distances to that notional representation does nothing to further the argument.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Is Iceland 467 or 734 km wide? How to prove FE-theory with your car.
« Reply #6 on: January 06, 2018, 12:45:22 AM »
You may wish that was the case for the sake of your argument, but that does not make it so.
I'm not making that the case.
The simple fact is these are, at the very least, hypothetical maps of a hypothetical FE.
The real, measured distances, show these maps and thus these hypothetical FE models to be incorrect, while it is entirely consistent with a RE model.
This is evidence that Earth is round.

If you would like something more solid, feel free to provide a FE map to compare with.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Is Iceland 467 or 734 km wide? How to prove FE-theory with your car.
« Reply #7 on: January 06, 2018, 02:35:34 AM »
No. That map exists, as part of a FE model map.
As such, it does contradict it.

If you would like, feel free to provide your own FE map.

All it really means is that these specific FE models are shown to be crap, while the RE works fine.
There is no consensus among FE, or even a majority position, that the notional representations talked about so far are accurate maps from which distances can be determined.

You may wish that was the case for the sake of your argument, but that does not make it so.
Comparing the OPs distances to that notional representation does nothing to further the argument.
So you, like many others claim that we can't disprove the flat earth because even flat earth believers don't know
       what the flat earth looks like (no map), don't know how the sun moves and don't know even the accurate height of the sun or moon.

Thanks, I think you flat earthers have near enough to proved that the earth can't be flat. Looks like time to shut up shop.

But wait, how is that as soon as we talk about visiting the South Pole, we get told there is no South Pole, there's an ice-wall all around the circumference? If that's the case the flat earth has to be at least roughly like the AEP.

Likewise,  as soon as we claim the the stars rotate clockwise around the South Celestial Pole, someone claims there can be no South Celestial Pole as there is no South Pole - so it's the ice-wall map again.

Methinks flat earthers speak with many forked tongue!

Re: Is Iceland 467 or 734 km wide? How to prove FE-theory with your car.
« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2018, 04:01:06 AM »
Depending on how you scale a FE-map, Iceland is either 467 km or 734 km in East-West-direction. (SE-maps claim that it's 490 km.)
Depending on how you scale a FE-map, South-Africa is either 1040 km or 1634 km in East-West-direction. (SE-maps claim that it's 655 km.)
And you can do the same calculations for many more examples.

Since no cartography of a FE world map has been performed, the maps you want to scale are based on RE maps, altered to fit FE ideas.

Hence no measurement of a real-world distance will do what you are looking for - contradict a FE model map - because no consensus model map exists. The map at http://www.3dham.com/blog/Flat_earthrot.jpg is just one idea.

All of your HYPERBOLIC BOLD ALL-CAPS CONCLUSIONS fail to take this into consideration and are, therefore, invalid.

Sorry.

Nice try.

But we don't actually need a FE-map for this experiment. NONE AT ALL. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA.

You see, the nice thing about this experiment is that we don't need absolute values for distances. We only need the ratios of distances.

* North of the equator, distances in East-West-direction are always shorter in an FE-geometry than in an SE-geometry.
* South of the equator, distances in East-West-direction are always shorter in an SE-geometry than in an FE-geometry.

And it doesn't matter AT ALL what we choose for these distances.



The only possible way out for you is now to argue that SE-maps are also wrong when it comes to North-South-distances. But that would render all SE-maps everywhere that have ever been made by anybody useless. And what are the odds of nobody ever realizing that every single SE-map is wrong?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Is Iceland 467 or 734 km wide? How to prove FE-theory with your car.
« Reply #9 on: January 06, 2018, 04:47:31 AM »

There is no consensus among FE, or even a majority position, that the notional representations talked about so far are accurate maps from which distances can be determined.

You may wish that was the case for the sake of your argument, but that does not make it so.

Comparing the OPs distances to that notional representation does nothing to further the argument.
No, but an authority much higher than you might do just that!

So, Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss Curiouser and Curiouser, you in infinite wisdom, with a whole 27 (at last count) posts under your pinafore claim to know more about flat earth theory than Jack, Administrator and one of the most senior flat earther members here.
You really must think a lot of yourself! But look at what the FAQ and Wiki say about this topic:

I assume we can believe Jack when he writes in the FAQ!
Quote from: Jack
Flat Earth FAQ - Please Read!
Geography and Physics

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. When it is over your head, it's day. When it's not, it's night. The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves. The picture below illustrates how the sun moves and also how seasons work on a flat earth:

         

When the sun is further away from the North Pole, it's winter in the northern hemiplain (or hemisphere) and summer in the south.  A more simplistic picture can be found below.

. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .
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.

The earth is surrounded on all sides by an ice wall that holds the oceans back. This ice wall is what explorers have named Antarctica. Beyond the ice wall is a topic of great interest to the Flat Earth Society. To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey. What we do know is that it encircles the earth and serves to hold in our oceans and helps protect us from whatever lies beyond.

Here is picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, flat earth:



So it seems clear, with no ifs and buts, that the earth is in the form of a disk with the North Pole in the center and Antarctica as a wall around the edge, though the map is not definitive.

Then I assume that we can believe this:
Quote from: the Wiki
The Sun
The sun is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

Spotlight effect
The Sun's area of light is limited to a circular area of light upon the earth much like the light of a lighthouse is limited to a finite circular area around it. The rotating light on a lighthouse does not propagate infinitely into the distance. This means that only certain portions of the Earth are lightened at a time. It also describes how night and day arise on the Flat Earth. The apparent view of rising and setting are caused by perspective, just as a flock of birds overhead will descend into the horizon as it flies into the distance.

Rendered picture of the Sun in relation to the Earth

So, Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss Curiouser and Curiouser, how do you like them apples?

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Is Iceland 467 or 734 km wide? How to prove FE-theory with your car.
« Reply #10 on: January 06, 2018, 12:24:29 PM »
* North of the equator, distances in East-West-direction are always shorter in an FE-geometry than in an SE-geometry.
* South of the equator, distances in East-West-direction are always shorter in an SE-geometry than in an FE-geometry.
That depends on which model with what scaling is used.
With the common AEP, distances N-S are correct, and E-W distances in the FE geometry are always greater than in RE geometry.
The E-W distances are quite similar near the north pole, with the FE ones growing more and more incorrect the further south.

Re: Is Iceland 467 or 734 km wide? How to prove FE-theory with your car.
« Reply #11 on: January 06, 2018, 06:39:53 PM »
So many misinterpretations, so little time.

So you, like many others claim that we can't disprove the flat earth because even flat earth believers don't know what the flat earth looks like (no map), don't know how the sun moves and don't know even the accurate height of the sun or moon.

No. I claim that Pinky's assertion that this "...settles the dispute Flat-Earth-vs-Spherical-Earth forever and ever!" is an invalid argument, because Pinky is assuming that one representation is an accurate map. It's not, hence you can't draw that conclusion. I don't assert anything else.

If you would like, feel free to provide your own FE map.
If you would like something more solid, feel free to provide a FE map to compare with.
This is your go-to, isn't it, regardless of the fact that I've already told you no such map exists. I'm calling into question Pinky's assertion of unassailable logic that uses a FE map. He chooses the "map" picture and draws a conclusion. I don't have to provide a different map to show that his logic is flawed.

You see, the nice thing about this experiment is that we don't need absolute values for distances. We only need the ratios of distances.
Yes, but you use the ratios you gleaned from your selection of a "map" you think all FE agree on for its accuracy (especially to the point of making measurements). If you're not familiar with the term, look up "strawman."

So, Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss Curiouser and Curiouser, you in infinite wisdom, with a whole 27 (at last count) posts under your pinafore claim to know more about flat earth theory than Jack, Administrator and one of the most senior flat earther members here.
You think that number of posts equates to understanding of a topic? That's truly adorable!

I assume we can believe Jack when he writes in the FAQ!
Why? That may be your problem. The assumptions you make may not necessarily be true.

Hmmm. Let's see. "Here is picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, flat earth"

Reading is fundamental.

Seems my point is clear.

Perhaps you've missed it.

I am pointing out that Pinky's assertion of a "simple, undeniable, unmanipulatable experiment" that "settles the dispute Flat-Earth-vs-Spherical-Earth forever and ever!" relies on an assumption of the existance of a map that all FE ascribe to and that is accurate enough from which measurements can be made.

All Pinky has shown is that interpretations and measurements of that map are inconsistent with Pinky's other armchair measurements. I'll assume that Pinky hasn't actually done any of the driving suggested in Iceland or South Africa. I apologize in advance if that assumption is incorrect.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Is Iceland 467 or 734 km wide? How to prove FE-theory with your car.
« Reply #12 on: January 06, 2018, 09:45:29 PM »
So, Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss Curiouser and Curiouser, you in infinite wisdom, with a whole 27 (at last count) posts under your pinafore claim to know more about flat earth theory than Jack, Administrator and one of the most senior flat earther members here.
You think that number of posts equates to understanding of a topic? That's truly adorable!
So, Alice you're admitting that you're an "alt" born on 2017-12-07 simply to try to confuse us poor globularists? That's truly illegal!
;) Except to a highly placed Society official. ;) Figures!

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser
I assume we can believe Jack when he writes in the FAQ!
Why? That may be your problem. The assumptions you make may not necessarily be true.

Hmmm. Let's see. "Here is picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, flat earth"
Sure, let's have another look:
There is no consensus among FE, or even a majority position, that the notional representations talked about so far are accurate maps from which distances can be determined.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparing the OPs distances to that notional representation does nothing to further the argument.
No, but an authority much higher than you might do just that!
But look at what the FAQ and Wiki say about this topic:

I assume we can believe Jack when he writes in the FAQ!
Quote from: Jack
Flat Earth FAQ - Please Read!
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.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Here is picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, flat earth:


So it seems clear, with no ifs and buts, that the earth is in the form of a disk with the North Pole in the center and Antarctica as a wall around the edge, though the map is not definitive.
That entry by Jack, an Administrator of the Society and the authority putting his name to the FAQ says rather more than the map is not definitive.
It also says with no ifs and buts, that 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..
Now, with those constraints there may be no definitive map, but there is little choice as to the general continental layout.

If you disagree with "the Wiki" and "the FAQ", why don't you replace most of with, "The FES hasn't a clue on xxxxx, but the earth looks flat, so it must be flat."

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser
Reading is fundamental.
Seems my point is clear. Perhaps you've missed it.
Yes, certainly, "reading is fundamental". Now what was the point I missed again?

By the way I live in Australia and down here it would seem to my limited understand that any flat earth continental layout would indicate east-west distances at least twice the my GPS navigator map distances.

Like to comment?

PS Have you driven in Iceland and South Africa yourself?


*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Is Iceland 467 or 734 km wide? How to prove FE-theory with your car.
« Reply #13 on: January 06, 2018, 10:05:57 PM »
No. I claim that Pinky's assertion that this "...settles the dispute Flat-Earth-vs-Spherical-Earth forever and ever!" is an invalid argument
Which is not what you said at all.


This is your go-to, isn't it, regardless of the fact that I've already told you no such map exists.
And that is your problem, not mine.

The simple fact is producing a map of Earth on a flat surface without distortion is impossible.

I don't have to provide a different map to show that his logic is flawed.
Then perhaps you should have made your argument more clear and less flawed yourself.

The simple fact is these maps are FE models and thus these distances refute these FE models.

Re: Is Iceland 467 or 734 km wide? How to prove FE-theory with your car.
« Reply #14 on: January 07, 2018, 02:08:12 AM »
That entry by Jack, an Administrator of the Society and the authority putting his name to the FAQ says rather more than the map is not definitive.
It also says with no ifs and buts, that 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..
Now, with those constraints there may be no definitive map, but there is little choice as to the general continental layout.

Logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, the "appeal to authority." Strike one.

If you disagree with "the Wiki" and "the FAQ", why don't you replace most of with, "The FES hasn't a clue on xxxxx, but the earth looks flat, so it must be flat."

Logical fallacy of onus probandi, "shifting the burden of proof," and the strawman fallacy. Strikes two and three.

Yes, certainly, "reading is fundamental". Now what was the point I missed again?
"Here is picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, flat earth." You insist the "map" is accepted and accurate. It's not. Therefore Pinky's experiment is logically invalid.

By the way I live in Australia and down here it would seem to my limited understand that any flat earth continental layout would indicate east-west distances at least twice the my GPS navigator map distances.

Like to comment?

Now *you're* chosing a map (call it a continental layout). Strawman, strawman, strawman.

PS Have you driven in Iceland and South Africa yourself?

Again, shifting the burden of proof. Irrelevant because I didn't make the arguments related to driving. Pinky did.

Ill-formed arguments littered with logical fallacies do nothing to support your viewpoint.

Re: Is Iceland 467 or 734 km wide? How to prove FE-theory with your car.
« Reply #15 on: January 07, 2018, 02:17:10 AM »
No. I claim that Pinky's assertion that this "...settles the dispute Flat-Earth-vs-Spherical-Earth forever and ever!" is an invalid argument
Which is not what you said at all.
Have the intellectual honesty to quote me in full "No. I claim that Pinky's assertion that this "...settles the dispute Flat-Earth-vs-Spherical-Earth forever and ever!" is an invalid argument, because Pinky is assuming that one representation is an accurate map. It's not, hence you can't draw that conclusion. I don't assert anything else," and then go back and read my first post. If you can't see that they are equivalent, then we have no further basis for discussion.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Is Iceland 467 or 734 km wide? How to prove FE-theory with your car.
« Reply #16 on: January 07, 2018, 03:17:14 AM »
That entry by Jack, an Administrator of the Society and the authority putting his name to the FAQ says rather more than the map is not definitive.
It also says with no ifs and buts, that 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..
Now, with those constraints there may be no definitive map, but there is little choice as to the general continental layout.
Logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, the "appeal to authority." Strike one.
As if I didn't see that coming! But, Alice, I should remind you that an "appeal to authority" is not necessarily a logical fallacy if said authority is actually an "agreed authority" on the topic. And surely "Jack, an Administrator of the Society and the authority putting his name to the FAQ" is an "agreed authority" on this topic. So let's strike through Strike one!

But let's cut to the chase and look where all where all this started:
Since no cartography of a FE world map has been performed, the maps you want to scale are based on RE maps, altered to fit FE ideas.

Hence no measurement of a real-world distance will do what you are looking for - contradict a FE model map - because no consensus model map exists.

First of all you make the completely unsubstantiated claim, "Since no cartography of a FE world map has been performed".
Who are you to make such a sweeping statement?

You don't even limit your claim to this Society and there are other FE societies than this one.Apart from the "other place" at TFES.org, at the very least there are the IFERS,  the Flat Earth Society of Canada, the Flat Earth Society of Australia and the American Flat Earth Society and probabky societies in many other countries.
In addition there are the many flat earth researchers who may be members of no formal society.

So, everything you have said can be assumed fallacious unless you can prove that "no cartography of a FE world map has been performed" by anyone in the world.

But, even if you prove that, your claim "no consensus model map exists" has no foundation unless you can prove that claim.

On the other hand, I may have made "an appeal to authority", but to a genuine authority on this topic, so that at least is evidence, where you have none.

Bye bye Alice.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 03:20:30 AM by rabinoz »

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Is Iceland 467 or 734 km wide? How to prove FE-theory with your car.
« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2018, 11:59:51 AM »
Have the intellectual honesty to quote me in full
Quoting you in full doesn't change the representation.

You have changed your assertion.
This is what it originally was:
Hence no measurement of a real-world distance will do what you are looking for - contradict a FE model map - because no consensus model map exists. The map at http://www.3dham.com/blog/Flat_earthrot.jpg is just one idea.

You have now changed it.
The simple fact is that original assertions is wrong.
This is a FE model map. It has been presented as such.
As such, these measurements are capable of contradicting it.

I don't assert anything else," and then go back and read my first post.
I suggest you go back and read it, because you did assert something else.

Now *you're* chosing a map (call it a continental layout). Strawman, strawman, strawman.
No, he is using a map which has been presented by the FEers. As such, it is not a strawman.
He is not the one that made up the map and pretended it was what FEers are proposing.
FEers propose this map.

Yes, they try to leave wiggle room such as by claiming it is not definitive, but this does not change the fact that FEers are proposing this as a map of a flat Earth.

So it is not a strawman at all.

Have the intellectual honesty to accurately represent your opponents arguments.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Is Iceland 467 or 734 km wide? How to prove FE-theory with your car.
« Reply #18 on: January 07, 2018, 08:36:47 PM »

All we have to do is to drive in a car from A to B and measure the distance!


Roads tend to go X,Y,Z between A and B.

Re: Is Iceland 467 or 734 km wide? How to prove FE-theory with your car.
« Reply #19 on: January 15, 2018, 11:08:26 AM »

All we have to do is to drive in a car from A to B and measure the distance!


Roads tend to go X,Y,Z between A and B.

And if we travel hundreds of kilometers, a change in height of 1 km will surely make a difference.  ::)
If we travel 100 km and go up 1km, that lengthens our distance by a shocking 5 meters!!!

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Is Iceland 467 or 734 km wide? How to prove FE-theory with your car.
« Reply #20 on: January 17, 2018, 05:08:02 AM »

All we have to do is to drive in a car from A to B and measure the distance!


Roads tend to go X,Y,Z between A and B.

And if we travel hundreds of kilometers, a change in height of 1 km will surely make a difference.  ::)
If we travel 100 km and go up 1km, that lengthens our distance by a shocking 5 meters!!!

And when the road goes around a mountain it can add an extra 5+ meters to the length.

Roads are not straight.  :o

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Is Iceland 467 or 734 km wide? How to prove FE-theory with your car.
« Reply #21 on: January 17, 2018, 01:10:35 PM »

All we have to do is to drive in a car from A to B and measure the distance!


Roads tend to go X,Y,Z between A and B.

And if we travel hundreds of kilometers, a change in height of 1 km will surely make a difference.  ::)
If we travel 100 km and go up 1km, that lengthens our distance by a shocking 5 meters!!!
As an actual practical example, lets say you want to go from Portland to Seattle.
The distance from point to point (for the points I chose) is 234.12 km.
But along the road it is 281 km.
If you go walking, google is even nice and gives an elevation map, with the height varying quite dramatically, indicating that it will likely add significantly more.

As another example, sure going up 1 km over 100 km will add 5 meters.
But that is a 1 in 100 gradient, and only applies if the gradient is constant.
If instead you go 99 km, then in the last km there is a 1 km increase, your distance is instead increased by 500 m.

If you stick to a more likely option, of say a 1 in 10 gradient on average, going both up and down, then for every 1 km you go, your height varies by 100 m, adding 5 m.
This also results in an extra 500 m added to your journey.

This doesn't seem like much, but for small enough areas, it can be enough to make it match a flat and round Earth.