What is common to both Flat and Globe model?

Quote from: wise on June 17, 2019, 04:33:44 AM

Quote from: Macarios on June 17, 2019, 04:18:23 AM

Quote from: wise on June 17, 2019, 03:49:18 AM

I've measured it as 2.568 kms. I believe its being acceptable difference considering both cities have many airports cause some mistakes.

The 68 km of the difference is all the way from Istanbul to Gölcük.
Or from London all the way to Cambridge.
The error is "just" 2.7%, but very far from acceptable if you are aiming intercontinental ballistic missile at London.
Using Globe map ballistic projecties can have accuracy within meters.

Ok, let me ask you this simple question:
How far is from North Pole to Equator?
(How far is it in real world?)

Sorry, I can not deal all your questions. Because autocad is eating RAM device hardly. It doesn't mean my maps being wrong if there is 2,7% mistake between Istanbul and London. It is because globularist map is wrong. I don't think anybody tried to use a ballistic missile between Istanbul and London. Perhaps they will miss. Do you know more than half, even 70% of American rockets could not hit Syrian military bases because of map mistakes, not because of S300 air defence existance.

Hitler was using Globe map to send his V1 and V2 to London, and he would be pretty accurate if RAF wasn't kicking lot of them off the sky.

EDIT: He was also hitting many other sites all over the England.

I saw a map he is using flat on a photo.

Because autocad is eating RAM device hardly.

Then just provide the file(s) for others to use and measure.

It doesn't mean my maps being wrong if there is 2,7% mistake between Istanbul and London.

That isn't the key thing being discussed here. What is being discussed is if the FE model and RE model agree.
If you are saying it doesn't agree because the RE model is wrong, you are still saying it doesn't agree.

Quote from: wise on June 17, 2019, 04:33:44 AM

Because autocad is eating RAM device hardly.

Then just provide the file(s) for others to use and measure.

Quote from: wise on June 17, 2019, 04:33:44 AM

It doesn't mean my maps being wrong if there is 2,7% mistake between Istanbul and London.

That isn't the key thing being discussed here. What is being discussed is if the FE model and RE model agree.
If you are saying it doesn't agree because the RE model is wrong, you are still saying it doesn't agree.

Our discussing with macarios is our discussing. Allow us to decide what we are discussing. If we are discussing out of the issue so use the report option instead of crying.

We have to use a map I accept as a flat earth map, not yours. Because I am the flat earther here, not you are. I am using most true flat earth map ever. I accept other maps but not distances on them.

You stated that FE and RE maps agree for Europe. That is a FALSE statement.   I proved that you cannot take established RE distance measurements between 4 European cities and lay them out on a flat map and have the distances between them all agree with the RE measurement.

It does not matter what your rubbish map shows or any other FE map shows. Your statement is still FALSE

Wise dossnt have a map.
Wise has a table of flight TIMES that he has then attempted to turn into distances between major cities.
Hes way off the grid in terms of wackoness.

I saw a map he is using flat on a photo.

Do you think he calculated trajectories himself? LOL

People who were launching rockets weren't on photographs.
Rocket bases were military secret and taking pictures there was prohibited.

Quote from: wise on June 17, 2019, 01:00:23 AM

We have to use a map I accept as a flat earth map, not yours. Because I am the flat earther here, not you are. I am using most true flat earth map ever. I accept other maps but not distances on them.

You stated that FE and RE maps agree for Europe. That is a FALSE statement.   I proved that you cannot take established RE distance measurements between 4 European cities and lay them out on a flat map and have the distances between them all agree with the RE measurement.

It does not matter what your rubbish map shows or any other FE map shows. Your statement is still FALSE

Nope. It is true statement. There is a term in phrase as acceptable error. Just because you're an ignorant unaware of the knowledge doesn't mean that the argument here is wrong. It shows that you do not have enough information to understand this argument.

Wise dossnt have a map.
Wise has a table of flight TIMES that he has then attempted to turn into distances between major cities.
Hes way off the grid in terms of wackoness.

It sounds like a map to me. I've just not added the coastal lines because of imcapablity of organizing the images with map. It is easy for somebody have experience in photoshop, but this is not for me. Because we flat earthers are far to use photoshop oppositely globularists have used to use it.

Quote from: wise on June 17, 2019, 05:10:59 AM

I saw a map he is using flat on a photo.

Do you think he calculated trajectories himself? LOL

He were using maps exist thousands of years then corrected its most accurate version. Take your lol to yourself, I'm not playing lol but you can play it with your friends of kindergarden in lol cafes.

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 17, 2019, 09:50:41 AM

Wise dossnt have a map.
Wise has a table of flight TIMES that he has then attempted to turn into distances between major cities.
Hes way off the grid in terms of wackoness.

It sounds like a map to me. I've just not added the coastal lines because of imcapablity of organizing the images with map. It is easy for somebody have experience in photoshop, but this is not for me. Because we flat earthers are far to use photoshop oppositely globularists have used to use it.

riiiiight
what would make more sense

measure distances with distances?
or measuring distances using velocities that vary due to wind conditions, throttle used, etcetc.
not forgetting the all most important fact that NOT everywhere is an airport.
stay on the meds man.

Nope. It is true statement. There is a term in phrase as acceptable error.

No, it is a false statement. You repeating it means you are lying.
I have shown it isn't an acceptable error.
It is well beyond the limit of uncertainty and thus does not constitute an acceptable error.

You said 20 km. That means that in order for it to be "acceptable error" the maximum variation can be 20 km.

In reality, we don't need that as we can clearly show that FE and RE CANNOT agree upon the distances, even in Europe, as they are fundamentally incompatible.

More childish BS

You repeating a lie, means you are lying. There is no way out of that.
You have clearly proven that the distances do not match.
You have clearly shown that the distances on the RE model do not match the distances on your map.

You have stated your uncertainty is 20 km. Even expanding it to 40 km doesn't help. You have a difference in the distance of 87 km.
This is well beyond your uncertainty.
This means it isn't an "acceptable error" where the 2 values agree within uncertainty.
Instead it means the 2 values are actually different.

The distances you have provided prove your own claim to be false.
Repeating this false claim of yours is lying.

Quote from: Platonius21 on June 17, 2019, 09:14:07 AM

Quote from: wise on June 17, 2019, 01:00:23 AM

We have to use a map I accept as a flat earth map, not yours. Because I am the flat earther here, not you are. I am using most true flat earth map ever. I accept other maps but not distances on them.

You stated that FE and RE maps agree for Europe. That is a FALSE statement.   I proved that you cannot take established RE distance measurements between 4 European cities and lay them out on a flat map and have the distances between them all agree with the RE measurement.

It does not matter what your rubbish map shows or any other FE map shows. Your statement is still FALSE

Nope. It is true statement. There is a term in phrase as acceptable error. Just because you're an ignorant unaware of the knowledge doesn't mean that the argument here is wrong. It shows that you do not have enough information to understand this argument.

It shows you are a liar, or ignorant, or a troll, or maybe all three.

There is no "argument", no "acceptable error" in the proof I provided. You cannot take accepted RE distances between Ankara, Lisbon, Dublin, and Helsinki and lay them out on a flat sheet of paper. There is no agreement between RE distances in Europe and alleged "FE distances" in Europe.

Your statement is FALSE. 

Try it yourself. It's impossible. You can't create even a rudimentary map on a sheet of paper with just those four cities and proper RE distances between them.

And, one might note (as I have in previous threads), that the inability to create a map on a flat sheet of paper that has the proper distances between cities and continents, and proper relative sizes of continents is, all by itself, definitive proof the earth is not flat.

And, one might note (as I have in previous threads), that the inability to create a map on a flat sheet of paper that has the proper distances between cities and continents, and proper relative sizes of continents is, all by itself, definitive proof the earth is not flat.

Your claiming without an exact proof by claiming its existance with a wrong behave is not an evidence its not being flat. The only definitive proof here only can be the earth is flat, because it is so. There isn't any definitive or non definitive proof against it.

Quote from: wise on June 18, 2019, 01:26:56 AM

Quote from: Platonius21 on June 17, 2019, 09:14:07 AM

Quote from: wise on June 17, 2019, 01:00:23 AM

We have to use a map I accept as a flat earth map, not yours. Because I am the flat earther here, not you are. I am using most true flat earth map ever. I accept other maps but not distances on them.

You stated that FE and RE maps agree for Europe. That is a FALSE statement.   I proved that you cannot take established RE distance measurements between 4 European cities and lay them out on a flat map and have the distances between them all agree with the RE measurement.

It does not matter what your rubbish map shows or any other FE map shows. Your statement is still FALSE

Nope. It is true statement. There is a term in phrase as acceptable error. Just because you're an ignorant unaware of the knowledge doesn't mean that the argument here is wrong. It shows that you do not have enough information to understand this argument.

It shows you are a liar, or ignorant, or a troll, or maybe all three.

There is no "argument", no "acceptable error" in the proof I provided. You cannot take accepted RE distances between Ankara, Lisbon, Dublin, and Helsinki and lay them out on a flat sheet of paper. There is no agreement between RE distances in Europe and alleged "FE distances" in Europe.

Your statement is FALSE. 

Try it yourself. It's impossible. You can't create even a rudimentary map on a sheet of paper with just those four cities and proper RE distances between them.

Again, I've showed they are overlapping. You are free to close your eyes because of your belief on globularist theory.

Quote from: wise on June 18, 2019, 04:28:17 AM

More childish BS

You repeating a lie, means you are lying. There is no way out of that.
You have clearly proven that the distances do not match.
You have clearly shown that the distances on the RE model do not match the distances on your map.

You have stated your uncertainty is 20 km. Even expanding it to 40 km doesn't help. You have a difference in the distance of 87 km.
This is well beyond your uncertainty.
This means it isn't an "acceptable error" where the 2 values agree within uncertainty.
Instead it means the 2 values are actually different.

The distances you have provided prove your own claim to be false.
Repeating this false claim of yours is lying.

This is not childish BS but statement that you can not reply. Since you can not reply them you are calling them as BS.

No, something you have not courage to reply can not be BS, but yourself be. Now, be a man and reply all the statements, or you've agreed the earth's being flat and afraiding admit it to yourself. Just a bit remind.



What do you think circle of the cities I've mentioned in above image? Can you think anything or do you need a reboot your system? If you need please tell me then I'll call rabinoz to call him to push your reset button.

Now, be a man and reply all the statements

If you want me to reply to all your statments, then stop with the childish BS and actually address what has been said.
If you spam irrelevant crap, don't be surprised if I don't respond to it.
If you just repeat the same refuted nonsense without addressing what I have said at all, don't be surprised if I don't respond to it.

Your claiming without an exact proof

He has a proof which someone provided (I forget who and can't be bothered to check).
It is literally impossible for measurements on a round surface to match those on a flat surface, in general.
You can find some that match (or scale one to have it match the other), but other measurements will be wrong.

You acting like a god and claiming that because you say something it is true and can't be denied/refuted is just more childish BS.

Again, even using your numbers, you have shown that your FE does not agree with a RE.
It isn't a simple case of uncertainty in your numbers. It is that there is actual disagreement.
87 km cannot be accounted for by an uncertainty of 40 km.

So either discard your map and don't claim it represents a FE, say there is much larger error (may I suggest 40 000 km?) or admit that FE distances don't match RE distances, even just for Europe.

Quote from: Platonius21 on June 18, 2019, 05:58:47 AM

Quote from: wise on June 18, 2019, 01:26:56 AM

Quote from: Platonius21 on June 17, 2019, 09:14:07 AM

Quote from: wise on June 17, 2019, 01:00:23 AM

We have to use a map I accept as a flat earth map, not yours. Because I am the flat earther here, not you are. I am using most true flat earth map ever. I accept other maps but not distances on them.

You stated that FE and RE maps agree for Europe. That is a FALSE statement.   I proved that you cannot take established RE distance measurements between 4 European cities and lay them out on a flat map and have the distances between them all agree with the RE measurement.

It does not matter what your rubbish map shows or any other FE map shows. Your statement is still FALSE

Nope. It is true statement. There is a term in phrase as acceptable error. Just because you're an ignorant unaware of the knowledge doesn't mean that the argument here is wrong. It shows that you do not have enough information to understand this argument.

It shows you are a liar, or ignorant, or a troll, or maybe all three.

There is no "argument", no "acceptable error" in the proof I provided. You cannot take accepted RE distances between Ankara, Lisbon, Dublin, and Helsinki and lay them out on a flat sheet of paper. There is no agreement between RE distances in Europe and alleged "FE distances" in Europe.

Your statement is FALSE. 

Try it yourself. It's impossible. You can't create even a rudimentary map on a sheet of paper with just those four cities and proper RE distances between them.

Again, I've showed they are overlapping. You are free to close your eyes because of your belief on globularist theory.

Stop talking rubbish.  The RE distances between Ankara, Lisbon, Dublin, and Helsinki are well established. Get a piece of paper and a ruler. Choose a scale and make a simple map on that piece of paper showing just those cities and the distances between them.

Then post an image of your map to prove it can be done.  Put up or shut up.

Quote from: wise on June 18, 2019, 01:21:41 PM

Quote from: Platonius21 on June 18, 2019, 05:58:47 AM

Quote from: wise on June 18, 2019, 01:26:56 AM

Quote from: Platonius21 on June 17, 2019, 09:14:07 AM

Quote from: wise on June 17, 2019, 01:00:23 AM

We have to use a map I accept as a flat earth map, not yours. Because I am the flat earther here, not you are. I am using most true flat earth map ever. I accept other maps but not distances on them.

You stated that FE and RE maps agree for Europe. That is a FALSE statement.   I proved that you cannot take established RE distance measurements between 4 European cities and lay them out on a flat map and have the distances between them all agree with the RE measurement.

It does not matter what your rubbish map shows or any other FE map shows. Your statement is still FALSE

Nope. It is true statement. There is a term in phrase as acceptable error. Just because you're an ignorant unaware of the knowledge doesn't mean that the argument here is wrong. It shows that you do not have enough information to understand this argument.

It shows you are a liar, or ignorant, or a troll, or maybe all three.

There is no "argument", no "acceptable error" in the proof I provided. You cannot take accepted RE distances between Ankara, Lisbon, Dublin, and Helsinki and lay them out on a flat sheet of paper. There is no agreement between RE distances in Europe and alleged "FE distances" in Europe.

Your statement is FALSE. 

Try it yourself. It's impossible. You can't create even a rudimentary map on a sheet of paper with just those four cities and proper RE distances between them.

Again, I've showed they are overlapping. You are free to close your eyes because of your belief on globularist theory.

Stop talking rubbish.  The RE distances between Ankara, Lisbon, Dublin, and Helsinki are well established. Get a piece of paper and a ruler. Choose a scale and make a simple map on that piece of paper showing just those cities and the distances between them.

Then post an image of your map to prove it can be done.  Put up or shut up.

It is established in globe map, not in my map. My established cities are different. I've posted an image of my map already. Chose cities have green or yellow color in upper image then I can do it.

Either suggest cities from flat map, or shut up.

It is established in globe map, not in my map. My established cities are different. I've posted an image of my map already. Chose cities have green or yellow color in upper image then I can do it.

Either suggest cities from flat map, or shut up.

The point he is making is that it doesn't matter.
It is literally impossible to draw these cities with the same distances on a flat map.

It isn't a case of your particular map disagreeing.
It is a case of it being mathematically impossible to map a curved surface like Earth onto a flat surface.
Any attempt to do so will have distortion and result in the distances changing.
With the accuracy of known locations of these cities the distances are known accurately enough to cause problems even for Europe.

Yes, you can make a map and say the distances are only known to within 40 000 km and use that to pretend they match.
But you will never be able to make a map to the same accuracy and have them match.

This means it is IMPOSSIBLE for accurately known distances to match on a RE and FE.

Saying you don't know the distance on a FE accurately enough to see if they match is not a valid rebuttal.

Yes, depending on the location you pick for each city, the distance may vary, but using the same locations from each city that excuse doesn't work.
The easiest way to show they don't work is what he has already done.
If you use 3 cities, you can construct a triangle. There is only one option for this triangle.
Then if you add another city you can construct a triangle from either set of the locations. (technically there are 2 options for these however it is typically fairly obvious which one is correct. Picking the other one below won't help).
The problem is it doesn't match for RE and FE.

Again, using the 4 cities he has chosen (Ankara, Dublin, Helsinki & Lisbon) you get the following pairs of distances:

City	City	Distance/km
Ankara	Dublin	3283
Ankara	Helsinki	2318
Ankara	Lisbon	3581
Dublin	Helsinki	2024
Dublin	Lisbon	1640
Helsinki	Lisbon	3360

From that we can construct our triangles.
Our base triangle will be Ankara, Dublin, Helsinki.
Then we will make a triangle to Lisbon from all 3 locations.
If we assume Earth is flat, and use the RE distances we get this:

And a zoomed in version of "Lisbon":

Notice that instead of being a single point we end up with 3 points.
These form a triangle with distances of 36, 51 and 74 km.

Again, this is not an issue with your specific map, or any specific FE map. It is a problem with trying to take distances from a RE and applying them to a FE map. They simply cannot work.

If you wish to disagree then show us a map where these distances match.
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.

 Globe earth says earth is Orbiting around the sun and the moon is Orbiting around the Globe earth.
And there  are known distances from the earth and the sizes for both the sun and the moon.
And there is agreement in definite figures for each and all of these.

Flat earth says both the sun and the moon are Orbiting over the flat earth.
But the FE's seem to be in wide  disagreement over the distances from the earth and the sizes of the sun and the moon.
FE is indefinite about distances and sizes.

Quote from: wise on June 21, 2019, 01:21:05 PM

It is established in globe map, not in my map. My established cities are different. I've posted an image of my map already. Chose cities have green or yellow color in upper image then I can do it.

Either suggest cities from flat map, or shut up.

The point he is making is that it doesn't matter.
It is literally impossible to draw these cities with the same distances on a flat map.

It isn't a case of your particular map disagreeing.
It is a case of it being mathematically impossible to map a curved surface like Earth onto a flat surface.
Any attempt to do so will have distortion and result in the distances changing.
With the accuracy of known locations of these cities the distances are known accurately enough to cause problems even for Europe.

Yes, you can make a map and say the distances are only known to within 40 000 km and use that to pretend they match.
But you will never be able to make a map to the same accuracy and have them match.

This means it is IMPOSSIBLE for accurately known distances to match on a RE and FE.

Saying you don't know the distance on a FE accurately enough to see if they match is not a valid rebuttal.

Yes, depending on the location you pick for each city, the distance may vary, but using the same locations from each city that excuse doesn't work.
The easiest way to show they don't work is what he has already done.
If you use 3 cities, you can construct a triangle. There is only one option for this triangle.
Then if you add another city you can construct a triangle from either set of the locations. (technically there are 2 options for these however it is typically fairly obvious which one is correct. Picking the other one below won't help).
The problem is it doesn't match for RE and FE.

Again, using the 4 cities he has chosen (Ankara, Dublin, Helsinki & Lisbon) you get the following pairs of distances:

City	City	Distance/km
Ankara	Dublin	3283
Ankara	Helsinki	2318
Ankara	Lisbon	3581
Dublin	Helsinki	2024
Dublin	Lisbon	1640
Helsinki	Lisbon	3360

From that we can construct our triangles.
Our base triangle will be Ankara, Dublin, Helsinki.
Then we will make a triangle to Lisbon from all 3 locations.
If we assume Earth is flat, and use the RE distances we get this:

And a zoomed in version of "Lisbon":

Notice that instead of being a single point we end up with 3 points.
These form a triangle with distances of 36, 51 and 74 km.

Again, this is not an issue with your specific map, or any specific FE map. It is a problem with trying to take distances from a RE and applying them to a FE map. They simply cannot work.

If you wish to disagree then show us a map where these distances match.
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.

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

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.

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.

I googled it for you.

https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html

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.

Do you mean how they have been derived historically? Within what time frames are you asking for? Surveying and cartography are pretty old technical endeavors that have gotten increasing more exacting throughout the centuries. Can you be more specific?

Well they certainly werent derived by using flight TIMES and calcating distance using an approximated knots while not taking into effect wind vectors and landing delays.

Either suggest cities from flat map, or shut up.

There is no accepted flat map to choose cities from.

YOU claimed FE and RE measurements in Europe are equal. I posted the accepted RE distances between four European cities.

Show me even a rudimentary flat map with just those 4 cities with the accepted RE distances between them. Pick any fixed scale you want.

It's a simple request. If you can't do it, admit it. Otherwise, shut up.