What is common to both Flat and Globe model?

Quote from: rabinoz on June 21, 2019, 04:03:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 21, 2019, 03:26:31 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on June 21, 2019, 02:43:14 PM

If you can't produce such a map then don't claim that FE distances can match RE distances.

How were those distances derived? Were they estimated or did someone take a measuring wheel between those points?

If you claim that they are incorrect then please post your own distances.

Ah, so you don't actually know how the distances were derived.

You were going to give us your proposals for mapping the earth.

Distances were determined by measuring them.
Ever heard of Geodesy?
At least you know what "triangulation" is.
It is enough to measure one distance and two angles and to know complete data about the triangle.
From one side measure two more angles toward fourth point outside and you will have two known triangles connected.
Then you go on connecting more and more until you cover the whole country.
From time to time you measure more distances along the way for checkouts.
Now add GPS data to it and compare.
How big an error can be then?

How were those distances derived? Were they estimated or did someone take a measuring wheel between those points?

This thread has nothing to do with which model is correct.
All it is discussing is what is in common.
The simple fact is that it is impossible for distances to be common between the models. Even if Earth was a flat Torus, it still wouldn't share distances with a RE.

So, in Globe model Quito is at the Equator.
(We know it because at solar noon for Equinox Sun is directly overhead.)
In Flat model at equinoctial solar noon Sun in Quito is still directly overhead.
Does it mean that Quito is at the Equator in Flat model too?

Solar noon in Quito is exactly 5h 14min after solar noon in London (Greenwich).
Does it mean that in both models Quito is equally at 78.5 degrees west?

Are coordinates of Quito same in both models?

For equinoctial solar noon in Greenwich Sun is not directly overhead.
It is 38.5 degrees above southern horizon at the azimuth of 180 degrees.
It doesn't depend on model, it is real time local observation.
Regardless of the model Greenwich is at 90 - 38.5 = 51.5 degrees north.
It is at longitude Zero because starting meridian was set there by default.

Looks like geographic coordinates don't depend on model at all.
Is this wrong?

Are coordinates of Quito same in both models?

I would say before we go into the coordinates we need to ask if they make sense.

For the NP and SP centred maps, the longitude works fine.
But latitude makes no sense at all.
There is no angle for it to measure.

Or alternatively, there are multiple angles for it to measure.
You use the sun, an alternative (which I believe was more commonly used) is Polaris or the celestial pole.
On a RE, the angle to the sun at the equinox at solar noon and the angle to the celestial pole add to 90 degrees and is simply based upon the angle subtended at the centre of Earth.
But for a FE, they shouldn't necessarily add to 90 degrees and they aren't based upon where you are on Earth.

So sure, the coordinates agree, but only because FEers are just taking the RE coordinates. Not because these coordinates actually mean anything. I would say it is more akin to saying city names agree.

What about a simple obvious answer: "The horizon looks flat." And it really does:

Quote from: Macarios on June 22, 2019, 09:52:51 AM

Are coordinates of Quito same in both models?

I would say before we go into the coordinates we need to ask if they make sense.

For the NP and SP centred maps, the longitude works fine.
But latitude makes no sense at all.
There is no angle for it to measure.

Or alternatively, there are multiple angles for it to measure.
You use the sun, an alternative (which I believe was more commonly used) is Polaris or the celestial pole.
On a RE, the angle to the sun at the equinox at solar noon and the angle to the celestial pole add to 90 degrees and is simply based upon the angle subtended at the centre of Earth.
But for a FE, they shouldn't necessarily add to 90 degrees and they aren't based upon where you are on Earth.

So sure, the coordinates agree, but only because FEers are just taking the RE coordinates. Not because these coordinates actually mean anything. I would say it is more akin to saying city names agree.

For equinoctial solar noon at the Equator Sun's elevation is 90 degrees (0 degrees away from the local vertical - Equator is at 0 degrees latitude).
For equinoctial solar noon at the North pole Sun's elevation is 0 degrees (90 degrees away from the local vertical - North pole is at 90 degrees latitude).

And now:
For equinoctial solar noon in Madrid Sun's elevation is 49.59 degrees (40.41 degrees away from the local vertical - Madrid is at 40.41 degrees latitude).
For e.s.n. in Perth Sun's elevation is -58.07 degrees, this time from north (-31.93 degrees away from the local vertical - Perth is at -31.93 degrees latitude).
For e.s.n. in Helsinki Sun's elevation is 29.84 degrees (60.16 degrees away from the local vertical - Helsinki is at 60.16 degrees latitude).

These elevation angles are just real time local observations.
Repeatable for every e.s.n., twice per year.
Simple to measure using sextant.
This doesn't depend on model.

Sun can show you latitude wherever you are, and you measure Sun's elevation in degrees.
And in real life latitudes are in use regardless the model.
Sun could have these angles there even if the rest of Earth out of these cities "didn't exist at all".

Sun is only used to give latitudes in the ball earth model and longitude must be known for this method . It is entirely based on the unproven assumption that the sun is so distant that the suns rays are parallel .

Latitude in the North is just the angle of elevation to the north star as recorded at point of observation .That is how we were taught -no longitude needed . These are true latitudes since the pole star is stationary . Southern latitudes and distances between subsequent degrees are just calculated on the assumption that earth is a sphere and as such are not representative of reality.

A straightforward survey along an arc of longitude from south to north measuring elevation to Polaris will reveal the shape of the the earth - no calculation needed. If we are on a perfect sphere then degrees of latitude will be equidistant . If we are one an oblate sphere then degrees of latitude will lengthen to the north since curvarure decreases northward. If degrees of latitude were found to shorten Northward then consequently the earth must be flat and the pole star must be at a calculabe distance and the sun must be local .

I don't think there there is any common ground between FE and the globe model which is based on unproven assumptions  of rotation and sphericity .

Sun is only used to give latitudes in the ball earth model and longitude must be known for this method . It is entirely based on the unproven assumption that the sun is so distant that the suns rays are parallel .

Latitude in the North is just the angle of elevation to the north star as recorded at point of observation .That is how we were taught -no longitude needed . These are true latitudes since the pole star is stationary . Southern latitudes and distances between subsequent degrees are just calculated on the assumption that earth is a sphere and as such are not representative of reality.

Polaris is not quite over the North Pole but is 0.73° away but that's close enough for finding approximate latitude.

Have you seen this entry in the Wiki?

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.

That is not as simple as using Polaris but, according to the Wiki applies to both hemispheres and the 69.5 miles is only approximate.
The requirement of only being at an equinox can be removed if you accept that the declination of the sun (the degrees the sub-solar point is north or south) can be calculated for any date.
The same declination of the sun applies to either the Globe or the usual North Pole centred model.

Finding your Latitude and Longitude
Longitude
To find your longitude you just need to know how many hours apart you are from Greenwich, UK and a vertical stick to know when the sun is at its zenith over your present location.

This also applies to both the Globe and the usual North Pole centred model but can be a few degrees out.
Determining "when the sun is at its zenith" accurately, however, is not easy unless due South or North is known.
And "know how many hours apart you are from Greenwich, UK" requires that further knowledge.

A straightforward survey along an arc of longitude from south to north measuring elevation to Polaris will reveal the shape of the the earth - no calculation needed. If we are on a perfect sphere then degrees of latitude will be equidistant . If we are one an oblate sphere then degrees of latitude will lengthen to the north since curvarure decreases northward. If degrees of latitude were found to shorten Northward then consequently the earth must be flat and the pole star must be at a calculable distance and the sun must be local .

I don't think there there is any common ground between FE and the globe model which is based on unproven assumptions of rotation and sphericity .

It is entirely based on the unproven assumption that the sun is so distant that the suns rays are parallel .

You mean the established fact that the sun is so distant that the rays are basically parallel, just like those from the north star.
There is plenty of evidence supporting it, and none to challenge it.

These are true latitudes since the pole star is stationary

Not really, as there is no basis to use that as a measurement for position on a flat Earth. For a FE you should have a length, not an angular measurement.

Even if you want to assert that the pole star is stationary and above Earth, there is still no justification to use that as the reference and have that be at 90 degrees north. That only makes sense if Earth is round.
It also makes no sense for why the sun can't be used as well, other than for a FE it gives results which make no sense at all.

Southern latitudes and distances between subsequent degrees are just calculated on the assumption that earth is a sphere and as such are not representative of reality.

Again, you mean the FACT that Earth is round, and various other angles that can be measured.
If Earth was flat, southern latitudes would make no sense.
You would need to be infinitely far from Polaris to have the angle of elevation (and thus latitude) reach 0 (the equator).
You would need to be more than infinitely far away to have the angle of elevation drop below 0.

A straightforward survey along an arc of longitude from south to north measuring elevation to Polaris will reveal the shape of the the earth - no calculation needed.

Or even simpler, finding the north pole star from the south pole.
If Earth was flat, it should be visible everywhere.
As it isn't, Earth clearly isn't flat.

I don't think there there is any common ground between FE and the globe model which is based on unproven assumptions  of rotation and sphericity .

You mean based upon the rejection of reality by FEers.

Latitude in the North is just the angle of elevation to the north star as recorded at point of observation.

Agreed. And those latitudes don't depend on the shape of the Earth.
The elevation of Polaris at any given place will not be affected by the shape of the Earth.

A straightforward survey along an arc of longitude from south to north measuring elevation to Polaris will reveal the shape of the the earth - no calculation needed. If we are on a perfect sphere then degrees of latitude will be equidistant . If we are one an oblate sphere then degrees of latitude will lengthen to the north since curvarure decreases northward. If degrees of latitude were found to shorten Northward then consequently the earth must be flat and the pole star must be at a calculabe distance and the sun must be local .

The "arc of longitude" is actually meridian.
It is arc in Globe model and straight line in Flat model, but whatever it is
the same one is equally going through the same set of places in both models.
Those places all have solar noon at the same moment.

I don't think there there is any common ground between FE and the globe model which is based on unproven assumptions  of rotation and sphericity .

Rotation and sphericity are not the ground for any common element, but the relative movement between ground and Sun is.

Sun is not traveling 15 degrees per hour in some model.
Sun is traveling 15 degrees per hour in every day's observations out of models (before we assign any).
Those 15 degrees show 15 degree-meridians of difference in longitudes between two corresponding points.
For example between the beginning and the end of a one hour long travel of subsolatr point.

(Subsolar point also doesn't depend on model. We simply see it "there" at the moment of Lahaina Noon.)

Your "established fact" of parallel sun rays falls apart at solar eclipse time since the shadow cast on earth would be far greater than around seventy miles .

Latitude is based simply on angular observation of Polaris - not on sun position . That is all you need .

The simple survey point stands.

Your "established fact" of parallel sun rays falls apart at solar eclipse time since the shadow cast on earth would be far greater than around seventy miles .

Latitude is based simply on angular observation of Polaris - not on sun position . That is all you need .

The simple survey point stands.

Aaahaha
Eclipses are one of the many banes in the fe world.
The predictablitiy of RE eclipses and your lack of explanation means your "model" is incorrect.

Are suns rays parallel or not ?

The elevation of Polaris at any given place will not be affected by the shape of the Earth.

That depends on just what you mean.
If you mean reality wont change based upon what people think, then sure, people believing Earth is flat wont change reality.

But the angle would be different for FE vs RE.
A RE with Polaris very far away above the north pole has Polaris with an angle of elevation of 0 degrees at the equator.
A FE with Polaris a mere 5000 km above the surface has Polaris with an angle of elevation of 26.6 degrees at the equator.

Your "established fact" of parallel sun rays

Care to actually address what I said rather than your strawman?
Here, let me point it out for you:

You mean the established fact that the sun is so distant that the rays are basically parallel

Notice how I say they are basically parallel.
To make that more complex:
The sun's rays come in very close to parallel, nor perfectly parallel.
For a single location, the sun's rays come in from various points on the sun separated by an angle of roughly 0.5 degrees.
But what is actually measured is the position of the centre of the sun, which would be the parallax.
For Earth, going from the equator to the north pole is a parallax of 0.0025 degrees.

Latitude is based simply on angular observation of Polaris - not on sun position . That is all you need .

No, latitude is based simply upon the angle subtended at the centre of Earth.
It makes no sense for a FE.
Again, it isn't based upon Polaris, as Polaris isn't directly above the north pole, and it "moves" just like the sun, just around a much smaller circle.
If you want you can try to use the north celestial pole and south celestial pole, but that is just appealing to a RE still, as it is looking at the change in angle between level and Earth's axis.

The simple survey point stands.

And the southern region point still stands.
By your definition of latitude, it shouldn't exist for a FE.

Are suns rays parallel or not ?

Put it this way.
On the Globe, the sun's rays arrive at every point on earth from extremely close to the same direction, a difference of no more than 20 seconds or arc - if it could be measured.
But the sun is a finite diameter and every point on the sun emits light in every direction so the sun's rays are not quite parallel but diverge slightly.
Since the sun is roughly 100 times (107 to be more accurate) as far away as its diameter this divergence is roughly 0.5°.

The Flat Earth sun is said to be about 50 km in diameter and 5000 km above the earth and the Globe sun is about 1.4 million km in diameter and averages 149 million kilometres distant.

This divergence of about 1 in 100 can be easily checked by observing the width of the blurred edge of shadows (the penumbra) or
by making a pin-hole in a card and making an image of the sun on a surface a metre or two away.
This sort of thing:

The diameter of the spot should be close to 1/100 of distance from the card to the "screen".

So the answer to "Are sun's rays parallel or not?" is not quite "yes" or "no" but saying "yes" is not far off.

Are suns rays parallel or not ?

From any given point, Sun rays fly out in all directions.
This is what eek had issue with.
For the purpose of the disucssion and simplifying the analysis they only consider the parallel rays for establishing approx heating of summer vs winter.
For purpose of eclipses they use the edges of the sun to show the max umbras.

Rabinoz - I would like to point out that the moon is not thought to be a hole in the sky .

 Casting a 70 mile shadow of a 2000 mile moon on to earth's surface whilst light from the sun propagates according to the inverse square law is too ridiculous to entertain . Unless of course the sun is a spotlight , then maybe .

Can't see anything in common between  the imaginary globe theory and the reality of the stationary plane we live upon .

For calculation purposes the sun’s rays can be though of as parallel.

Casting a 70 mile shadow of a 2000 mile moon on to earth's surface whilst light from the sun propagates according to the inverse square law is too ridiculous to entertain.

Why?
Note, the 70 archaic unit shadow is only the umbra. The penumbra is much larger.

Do you know what is more ridiculous?
An allegedly 50 km wide moon casting a shadow such that sometimes we get an annular solar eclipse such that the size of the umbra is negative so we are in the antumbra, while sometimes casting an umbra that is over 100 km wide.
This is literally impossible.
The annular solar eclipse necessitates that the sun is larger than the moon, but the total solar eclipses that cover an area larger than the moon necessitates that the moon is larger than the sun.
This is a direct contradiction.

Can't see anything in common between  the imaginary globe theory and the reality of the stationary plane we live upon .

Perhaps because there is no reality of a stationary plane, nor an imaginary globe. Instead we have the very real globe.

For calculation purposes the sun’s rays can be though of as parallel.

But like i said.
Depends on what you are calculating.
Is it the shadows? Eclipses? Summer?

Rabinoz - I would like to point out that the moon is not thought to be a hole in the sky .

Who suggested that it was?

Casting a 70 mile shadow of a 2000 mile moon on to earth's surface whilst light from the sun propagates according to the inverse square law is too ridiculous to entertain .

Really?
And why is a shadow smaller than the object casting the shadow, the moon "too ridiculous to entertain", when the moon is only 3474 km in diameter and the light source, the sun is 1,391,000 km in diameter?

I can't see where "the inverse square law" comes into it.

Unless of course the sun is a spotlight , then maybe .

Not the sun I see!

Can't see anything in common between the imaginary globe theory and the reality of the stationary plane we live upon .

If Flat Earth Theory can't explain solar eclipses that's not my problem but I was simply answering a question asked as simply as I could.

i.e. show us a map where you have the following distances:

City	City	Distance/km
Ankara	Dublin	3283

   

Ankara	Helsinki	2318
Ankara	Lisbon	3581
Dublin	Helsinki	2024

 

Dublin

Lisbon

1640

 

Helsinki

Lisbon

3360

If you can't produce such a map then don't claim that FE distances can match RE distances.

Again, again and again, some of these cities aren't in my map. I can place them, but it will reduce the reliablity of map. I can check distances you chose from the following map:



Again and again, grow up and chose cities from this map.

Quote from: JackBlack on June 21, 2019, 02:43:14 PM

i.e. show us a map where you have the following distances:

City	City	Distance/km
Ankara	Dublin	3283

   

Ankara	Helsinki	2318
Ankara	Lisbon	3581
Dublin	Helsinki	2024

 

Dublin

Lisbon

1640

 

Helsinki

Lisbon

3360

If you can't produce such a map then don't claim that FE distances can match RE distances.

Again, again and again, some of these cities aren't in my map. I can place them, but it will reduce the reliablity of map. I can check distances you chose from the following map:



Again and again, grow up and chose cities from this map.

At this map Moscow looks closer to the North Pole than St. Petersburg.

In reality St. Petersburg is 478 km closer to the North Pole than Moscow.

How do I know?

Polaris is directly over North Pole.
If you are at the North Pole, the Polaris elevation is 90 degrees.
As you are going away from the North Pole in any direction, the farther you go, the Polaris elevation is lower.

Elevation of the Polaris from St. Petersburg is 60 degrees.
Elevation of the Polaris from Moscow is 55.7 degrees.
Which means you are farther from the North Pole in Moscow.

Quote from: wise on July 01, 2019, 11:50:09 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on June 21, 2019, 02:43:14 PM

i.e. show us a map where you have the following distances:

City	City	Distance/km
Ankara	Dublin	3283

   

Ankara	Helsinki	2318
Ankara	Lisbon	3581
Dublin	Helsinki	2024

 

Dublin

Lisbon

1640

 

Helsinki

Lisbon

3360

If you can't produce such a map then don't claim that FE distances can match RE distances.

Again, again and again, some of these cities aren't in my map. I can place them, but it will reduce the reliablity of map. I can check distances you chose from the following map:



Again and again, grow up and chose cities from this map.

At this map Moscow looks closer to the North Pole than St. Petersburg.

In reality St. Petersburg is 478 km closer to the North Pole than Moscow.

How do I know?

Polaris is directly over North Pole.
If you are at the North Pole, the Polaris elevation is 90 degrees.
As you are going away from the North Pole in any direction, the farther you go, the Polaris elevation is lower.

Elevation of the Polaris from St. Petersburg is 60 degrees.
Elevation of the Polaris from Moscow is 55.7 degrees.
Which means you are farther from the North Pole in Moscow.

It does not make the Europe map different. because the globularist map in center is completely wrong. They are already closer to center of the earth than shown in globularist hoax. This is not relevant with it.

In short, your objection is null because the center of the earth isn't in Europe.

Again, again and again, some of these cities aren't in my map.

Again and again, YOUR MAP DOESN'T MATTER!
It is physically impossible to place these locations on a flat map and have the same distances as for a RE.

As such, FE and RE doesn't agree, even for Europe.

Quote from: wise on July 01, 2019, 11:50:09 PM

Again, again and again, some of these cities aren't in my map.

Again and again, YOUR MAP DOESN'T MATTER!
It is physically impossible to place these locations on a flat map and have the same distances as for a RE.

As such, FE and RE doesn't agree, even for Europe.

Nope. They are same. Because the globularist fake map is flat in Europe. All distances are flat. For example, if you draw a rectangle has four cities at each corners, so you'll find the distance of real hypotenuse as globularist hypotenuse. I made it somewhere here. If you want, so I can do it again. But if I do it so you should accept the earth's being flat then. So, give up childish appeals, grow up and accept the earth's being flat and you were defending a BS with fake, childish, null arguments.

You've got Moscow further north than Helsinki and it certainly is not!
And you have Yekaterinburg far further north than even Helsinki and it certainly is not!

Then half of the earth (more than that if you think that the usual Flat Earth map is correct) is in the Southern Hemisphere.
A world map without the Southern Hemisphere is useless!

Where is Sydney,  Melbourne, Perth, Cape Town, Johannesburg, Buenos Aries, Sao Paolo or Santiago.

The topic is "What is common to both Flat and Globe model?" and those are quite important cities on the Globe.
Where are country boundaries and oceans? How do ships know where they can sail?

You've got Moscow further north than Helsinki and it certainly is not!

Again, I am talking about distances. The map may be facing different directions. this does not indicate that the maps are different, such things are usual because the global map is fabricated in the polar region. again, talk about the distances between cities in Europe. Give up childish behave.