When will RE Community Accept Defeat?

The Gleason’s Map is “Scientifically and Practically Correct.”

There's being misguided, and then there is flat out lying.  This is a flat out lie.  Returning the paradox of the Southern Cross, you do realize that every latitudinal line on the Gleason map is a north/south azimuth, right?  That means anyone standing on one of those lines, if they look north in the northern hemisphere at night, they'd see Polaris.  In the southern hemisphere, they'd see Sigma Octantis.  Do you see the problem Plat?  At the end of every one of those lines, in Antarctica, there would need to be a Sigma Octantis for a viewer to have due south of them.  Every. Single. One.

Scientifically correct?  Based on what science?  Based on what research?  Verifiable via what experiments?  Confirmed by who? 

And WTF does "practically" correct mean?  Riddle me this Plat, what would you call a data point that is both true and false?  Is it practically true?  If that's the case then it would also be practically false, right?  You can't claim one if it is comprised of both; the true statement in this case is that it is not true and not false. 

The following video proves this with verifying distance from one location to another and also verifies longitude and latitude. The video includes details on how to measure longitude, latitude and distance correctly according to the Gleason’s map.

This is 94 minutes of absolute rubbish.  You know what I really think is neat?  How you need to do all these funky conversions to make this map sort of work (because the flight paths are still not what the actual aircraft fly).  Interestingly, if I use a globe, or a map based on WGS84, I don't need to do conversions.  Why is that?

The opposition have a big problem with our map being correct and they want it to be known as incorrect. 

I don't have a problem if you like to use unproven conjecture to get around.  In fact, I'd love to see you hop in a sailboat and try a transoceanic crossing with your Gleason map.  Make sure you've got the Coast Guard on speed dial!

So, don’t believe what the professional deniers say. It is their job to lie and discredit us and the Gleason’s map in any way they can.

Plat, we don't need to discredit the map, it does that on its own.  I've asked multiple FE proponents to explain this very simple issue; if your map is superior in all these ways, as you claim it is, then why haven't airlines and commercial shipping abandoned their GPS systems in favor of the Gleason map and its comical conversions?  Why do pilots not fly over North America on their way from Sydney to Santiago? 

https://www.geogebra.org/m/CMZMru7g

That link shows you the actual flight path of an aircraft between Sydney and Santiago on both the Gleason map and a sphere.  Realize for a moment that, the actual flight isn't possible if the Earth is flat.  More to the point, it is but would require stopping and refueling along with the length of time being much longer than what we observe in reality.  A straight line over North America is another option, except in reality that is a longer distance.  If the Gleason map is correct, don't you think airlines, in the business of making money, would use the shortest distance between two points?

Did you know the opposition cannot provide proof of curvature bulge over the center of the USA?  That’s right, they can’t yet, but can only claim there is. After all these decades they still are incapable. Why? Don’t they have any real evidence instead of resorting to maps and flight plans?

Did you know the opposition cannot provide proof of curvature bulge over the center of the USA?  That’s right, they can’t yet, but can only claim there is. After all these decades they still are incapable. Why? Don’t they have any real evidence instead of resorting to maps and flight plans?

What's this "bulge" you speak of?

How all goods and humans are navigated and transported all around the globe predicated and aligned with a spherical earth you wouldn't consider real evidence?

Did you know the opposition cannot provide proof of curvature bulge over the center of the USA?  That’s right, they can’t yet, but can only claim there is. After all these decades they still are incapable. Why? Don’t they have any real evidence instead of resorting to maps and flight plans?

You do realize WGS84 takes fully into account the curvature of the Earth's surface and is recognized as the most accurate map of the world, inclusive of the USA, in human history.  So, your statement above is yet another ignorant falsehood.  Plat, answer the question I presented above please.  Why is every mode of travel based on a system you claim is incorrect?  Why are companies wasting both time and money using a system that, as you assert, is incorrect?  If Qantas is flying the wrong way between Santiago and Sydney, why?  Why would they waste time and fuel flying a path that is twice the distance rather than take a path over North America?  Why?

The Gleason’s Map is “Scientifically and Practically Correct.”

Sure it is “Scientifically and Practically Correct” for what it claims to be and to find that just read the material at the top of the map again:

Note the bit, "ON THE PROJECTION OF J. S. CHRISTOPHER"! If it is a "projection" it must be a projection of something and the only possibility is the Globe.

The following video proves this with verifying distance from one location to another and also verifies longitude and latitude. The video includes details on how to measure longitude, latitude and distance correctly according to the Gleason’s map.

No, it doesn't! A degree of longitude simply cannot be a fixed 60 Nm and all latitudes and I went into that in: When will RE Community Accept Defeat? « Reply #1942 »

But if you want more convincing, find the width of Greenland at Latitude 75° N. Here is Greenland from the Gleason's map with the width in degrees:


Now your video claims that each degree of longitude is 60 Nm wide so, with Greenland being 36.5° of longitude wide that would make Greenland 2,190‬ Nm or 4,055.9 km wide.

You've got to be joking Mr Plat Terra!

At 75° N, one degree of longitude is only about 28.8 km wide making Greenland about 1052 km wide.

The opposition have a big problem with our map being correct and they want it to be known as incorrect.  So, don’t believe what the professional deniers say. It is their job to lie and discredit us and the Gleason’s map in any way they can.

No, we have no problem at all but you have a massive problem! That video is so wrong it is useless for calculating distances!

Look at the width it gave for Greenland!

Please toss that video in the scrap-heap where it belongs!

Just remember that YOU are trying to convince US! If you expect the "RE Community" to accept defeat from crap like that you are sorely mistaken!

Let’s have another serious discussion about what is most important, CURVATURE.

To the opposition here, please tell the readers here, why you nor anyone else can prove the curvature bulge over the center of USA? A near 200 mile high curvature bulge over the USA would indeed be measurable by today’s technology. In fact, there would be established curvature charts of all landmass and showing how they relate to Eratosthenes measurements and these charts would be used to shut down a Flat Earth argument. But, NO, NO, NO.
Please tell the readers why.

Arguments that pertain to Sunrises and Sunset and all other lame arguments do not apply here because it does not prove what you see proves the USA has the miles of curvature bulge over center as dictated by a 3959 mile radius earth. Prove Earth’s radius today and show how it relates to curvature charts.

Let’s have another serious discussion about what is most important, CURVATURE.

To the opposition here, please tell the readers here, why you nor anyone else can prove the curvature bulge over the center of USA? A near 200 mile high curvature bulge over the USA would indeed be measurable by today’s technology. In fact, there would be established curvature charts of all landmass and showing how they relate to Eratosthenes measurements and these charts would be used to shut down a Flat Earth argument. But, NO, NO, NO.
Please tell the readers why.

Arguments that pertain to Sunrises and Sunset and all other lame arguments do not apply here because it does not prove what you see proves the USA has the miles of curvature bulge over center as dictated by a 3959 mile radius earth. Prove Earth’s radius today and show how it relates to curvature charts.

Are you brain damaged??  How many times does this need to be explained to you??  There are multiple pages, in this thread alone where your conflation of a flat and curved Earth have been explained.  You are mixing the two on purpose, or are so damn ignorant that you don't realize your own mistake but still have the absurdity to challenge us because you decided to skip geography in primary school???

Plat, the EARTH itself is curve, the land, the water, all of it.  The water is held to the surface by GRAVITY.  There is no magical bulge of water that swallows everything.  Good grief you are more dense than a neutron star...

Did you know the opposition cannot provide proof of curvature bulge over the center of the USA? 

That's because there is no such bulge.  The curvature of the earth is not a bulge any more than the curvature of a bowling ball is a bulge.

Hahaha
Fully refuted the inaccuracy of the gleason.
Result?
Jump back to a ridiculous other topic.
Keep running away.

Let’s have another serious discussion about what is most important, CURVATURE.

Since you seemingly have never seen anything spherical before, here's a visual primer for you:

Are you brain damaged??  How many times does this need to be explained to you??  There are multiple pages, in this thread alone where your conflation of a flat and curved Earth have been explained.  You are mixing the two on purpose, or are so damn ignorant that you don't realize your own mistake but still have the absurdity to challenge us because you decided to skip geography in primary school???

I'm under the assumption that he is indeed mixing the two on purpose, because he is a troll.

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 14, 2019, 04:16:22 PM

Let’s have another serious discussion about what is most important, CURVATURE.

Since you seemingly have never seen anything spherical before, here's a visual primer for you:

Maybe you should try getting some real data proving the alleged curve over the USA. Current maps with real data show no curve, only elevation.

REAL DATA PLEASE!

Quote from: Gumwars on September 14, 2019, 04:21:20 PM

Are you brain damaged??  How many times does this need to be explained to you??  There are multiple pages, in this thread alone where your conflation of a flat and curved Earth have been explained.  You are mixing the two on purpose, or are so damn ignorant that you don't realize your own mistake but still have the absurdity to challenge us because you decided to skip geography in primary school???

I'm under the assumption that he is indeed mixing the two on purpose, because he is a troll.

Me, a Flat Earther, on a Flat Earth Forum, a Troll? Hahahaha

Fun fact: The Pacific and Atlantic Ocean do NOT have the same water level. On average, the Pacific is 20 cm higher than the Atlantic.

Quote from: Yes on September 14, 2019, 06:08:07 PM

Quote from: Gumwars on September 14, 2019, 04:21:20 PM

Are you brain damaged??  How many times does this need to be explained to you??  There are multiple pages, in this thread alone where your conflation of a flat and curved Earth have been explained.  You are mixing the two on purpose, or are so damn ignorant that you don't realize your own mistake but still have the absurdity to challenge us because you decided to skip geography in primary school???

I'm under the assumption that he is indeed mixing the two on purpose, because he is a troll.

Me, a Flat Earther, on a Flat Earth Forum, a Troll? Hahahaha

The reason this continues to come up Plat, is due to the FACT you continue to conflate two mutually exclusive notions; that the Earth is flat and that it is curved.

Your depiction of the contiguous United States underwater is only true if the oceans of Earth are held to the reality that the surface is curved while the landmass isn't.  See the problem there?  BOTH the landmass and its oceans reside on a curved surface.  Therefore, there is no magical swell of water to consume the US. 

Now, do you understand this, or do we need to find some other way to communicate this to you (other than the 60+ pages we've wasted thus far).

Quote from: Stash on September 14, 2019, 05:48:59 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 14, 2019, 04:16:22 PM

Let’s have another serious discussion about what is most important, CURVATURE.

Since you seemingly have never seen anything spherical before, here's a visual primer for you:

Maybe you should try getting some real data proving the alleged curve over the USA. Current maps with real data show no curve, only elevation.

REAL DATA PLEASE!

Why are you using the USGS elevation data map that is derived from the ellipsoid model of a spherical earth in your meme? I thought you were a flat earther?

Curvature and topography are not the same thing.

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 14, 2019, 06:31:10 PM

Curvature and topography are not the same thing.

Sherlock, topographical maps show earth’s surface shape derived from “Mean Sea Level” (a horizontal plane) and there is no damn curve.

Where are those curvature charts that prove curvature over the USA?  Shut me down with facts!

Quote from: markjo on September 14, 2019, 06:48:54 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 14, 2019, 06:31:10 PM

Curvature and topography are not the same thing.

Sherlock, topographical maps show earth’s surface shape derived from “Mean Sea Level” (a horizontal plane) and there is no damn curve.

Where are those curvature charts that prove curvature over the USA?  Shut me down with facts!

"USGS map elevations are based on a vertical datum tied to the geoid...about 95% of the published USGS maps are referenced to the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27); the remaining 5% are set to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83), which is virtually identical to WGS84."

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/why-dont-elevations-your-maps-agree-those-provided-my-gps-system-which-ones-are-correct?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products

WGS84:
The WGS 84 datum surface is an oblate spheroid with equatorial radius a = 6378137 m at the equator and flattening f = 1/298.257223563. The refined value of the WGS 84 gravitational constant (mass of Earth’s atmosphere included) is GM = 3986004.418×108 m³/s². The angular velocity of the Earth is defined to be ω = 72.92115×10−6 rad/s.[7]

Let’s have another serious discussion about what is most important, CURVATURE.

Why, I ask is curvature most important?

To the opposition here, please tell the readers here, why you nor anyone else can prove the curvature bulge over the center of USA? A near 200 mile high curvature bulge over the USA would indeed be measurable by today’s technology. In fact, there would be established curvature charts of all landmass and showing how they relate to Eratosthenes measurements and these charts would be used to shut down a Flat Earth argument. But, NO, NO, NO.
Please tell the readers why.

Arguments that pertain to Sunrises and Sunset and all other lame arguments do not apply here,

Arguments that pertain to Sunrises and Sunset are just as important and if you cannot explain those to OUR satisfaction toy have lost your case.

because it does not prove what you see proves the USA has the miles of curvature bulge over center as dictated by a 3959 mile radius earth. Prove Earth’s radius today and show how it relates to curvature charts.

And what would convince you "the USA has the miles of curvature bulge over center as dictated by a 3959 mile radius earth"?
Besides I do not live there, so I cannot do it!

There is no way of observing such a distance from the surface of the earth so, since the Globe fits all evidence from Geodetic measurement to astronomical observations, YOU prove that there is no curvature over the USA.

But there is plenty of evidence of curvature to be had for mountain peaks, such as:

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth[/color]]Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth

North Sister and South Sister are 4.3 miles apart. South Sister summit is 278' higher than North Sister. Sightline from S peak to N peak is -0.7° declined from "eye-level"

Adams and Ranier are below that even. Though higher than the viewer, they fall below eye-level, even if I give you -0.7° of error.

But the inclinometer gauge and the geometry work out to support 0° is where the gauge says it is. And I threw Peakfinder in there too, to corroborate. There's no way "eye level is so low as to be below the summit of Ranier in the distance. That would cut through the summit of North Sister, which is below the elevation of South Sister. Can't work.



Work it out. Think for yourself.

And there is any number in like vein!

Surely even YOU could not post so ridiculous a meme!

Obviously if the oceans are formed into a sphere of about 3959 mile radius then land base level ("mean seal level") would follow the same curve and not like this:


So run away and make that base level of the land follow the same curve as the oceans you have shown.

Quote from: markjo on September 14, 2019, 06:48:54 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 14, 2019, 06:31:10 PM

Curvature and topography are not the same thing.

Sherlock, topographical maps show earth’s surface shape derived from “Mean Sea Level” (a horizontal plane) and there is no damn curve.

For the umpteenth time, mean sea level is not a horizontal plane.  Mean sea level follows the curvature of the geoid earth.

Where are those curvature charts that prove curvature over the USA?  Shut me down with facts!

The curvature is shown quite clearly on a globe.

Quote from: markjo on September 14, 2019, 06:48:54 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 14, 2019, 06:31:10 PM

Curvature and topography are not the same thing.

Sherlock, topographical maps show earth’s surface shape derived from “Mean Sea Level” (a horizontal plane) and there is no damn curve.

Where are those curvature charts that prove curvature over the USA?  Shut me down with facts!

As shown
You are too stupid to be shutdown.
As dsscribed over and over to you -
Sea level, on a ball, is the mean distance from the center of the ball.
It is not a plane.
It is a concentric circle in which to relatively measure other circles.
Please repeat it back in your own words so we have some idea of your rreading comprehension level.

Quote from: markjo on September 14, 2019, 06:48:54 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra link=topic=82582.msg2204119#msg2204119
[img

https://i.imgur.com/PSfyPpT.jpg[/img]

Curvature and topography are not the same thing.

Sherlock, topographical maps show earth’s surface shape derived from “Mean Sea Level” (a horizontal plane) and there is no damn curve.

Where are those curvature charts that prove curvature over the USA?  Shut me down with facts!

Those curvature charts these days are called "globes of the earth". Ever thought of buying one for yourself with a known scale? That way you could sit there all week long with your string and calculator and test whether the distances match distances as they are known in geography books, etc.

I'm actually having trouble believing you are a real person, plat tera. Such heightened stupidity should render you unable to tie your own shoe laces.

Do you look for "bulges" everywhere you go? If you see a bulge, does it mean someone is happy to see you? 

You know what, perhaps I'll get myself a ticket and come and visit Boston after all....

imagined the maps were a projection of a sphere.

No imagining is required.
As previously shown (and ignored by you), these maps are not an accurate FE map. They have distances massively incorrect. They are only accurate as projections of a globe.

Also, if Earth was flat, we wouldn't have countless different flat representations.
All these different maps are fundamentally incompatible with one another if they are viewed as flat maps of a flat Earth. They would directly contradict one another.
But they are consistent when accepted as projections of the globe.

I have already answered the flight miles from Sydney to Santiago, Chile. Now answer my question.

No, you repeatedly dodged it.
Again, if it was a flat map of a flat Earth, all those calculations based upon triangles are completely unnecessary.
All you need to do is measure the distance on the map and then apply a scale.
Doing that you end up with a much larger distance than in reality.

If you wish to appeal to the nonsense in the picture, provide the derivation in full (without a bunch of other nonsense in the video, like claiming 1 degree of longitude is 60 nautical miles regardless of if you are at the north pole, the equator or the south pole), and justify it. Justify why you can't just measure a distance on the map.

The Gleason’s Map is “Scientifically and Practically Correct.”

Only as a projection of the round Earth.
It is scientifically and practically completely wrong as a flat map of a flat Earth.

The following video

Spouts pure nonsense and shows that the person making it either has no idea how maps work, or is intentionally lying to people.

Let’s have another serious discussion about what is most important, CURVATURE.

You mean now that you have been refuted yet again and can see no way forward in defending your nonsense about Gleason you will run to yet another topic.

Why not decide what you think is really important and stick to it?

To the opposition here, please tell the readers here, why you nor anyone else can prove the curvature bulge over the center of USA?

It has been proven. All the topographic maps use a reference curve. If USA was flat, then it would have an extremely low elevation in the centre.

We even have pictures:
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/natural/2019/06/27/png/epic_1b_20190627011358.png

Now why you can't you or any other flat Earther prove that USA is flat?
Why do you instead appeal to measurements based upon a RE, referenced to sea level, which follows a curve, and pretend that they are referenced to an imaginary flat line?

In fact, there would be established curvature charts of all landmass

Do you mean topographic maps relative to the curve, or do you mean the reference geoids which have already been provided?

They do nothing to shut down FE arguments as FEers will happily just ignore them, as you have.

Those elevation were measured from the Datum, not from some imaginary flat surface.

You still didn't learn what Datum is.

Quote from: markjo on September 14, 2019, 06:48:54 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 14, 2019, 06:31:10 PM

Curvature and topography are not the same thing.

Sherlock, topographical maps show earth’s surface shape derived from “Mean Sea Level” (a horizontal plane) and there is no damn curve.

Where are those curvature charts that prove curvature over the USA?  Shut me down with facts!

Macarios is valiantly trying to get you to grasp datum so I will leave that there.

The top plan is not a topographical map its an elevations plan, minor point but hey.

The bottom is a section which are commonly used, in long and cross form, in engineering and architectural drawings.

Its a drawing, its not a map, its a schematic of known points.

Your section is a long section, your data is horizontal distance (x*) and elevation (y). To make the section you take a flat plain, from a fixed known point, x₀=0 and for arguments sake y₀=0. so to build your section at point x₁=10m and take a reading on the elevation data to give you the y₁position.

Draw a line between xy₀ and xy₁ and repeat.

* x and y being standard graph axis representations.

Heard it a few times around here 'Earth is flat as Engineers dont take into account of curvature in their plans!!!!'

As an engineer I can say yes we do, in the topographical survey we use as a minimum X,Y and Z where X and Y are easting and northing and z is the ellipsoid height (ie elevation above datum)

So all of the data takes into account the curvature of the earth.

I used to design roads, so I would create long sections, based on the centre line of the proposed road, to design the vertical curves for the design and cross sections from back of verge to back of verge to show the road construction.

As stated above these are drawings/schematics, they do not visually show curvature, most of the time the surveys are too small for it to be perceptible, even on the largest of surveys. Why, the curvature is in the numbers not the visual representation. It makes it simpler so we can show these drawings to non engineers in a clear easily read format.

It makes it simpler so we can show these drawings to non engineers in a clear easily read format.

So there IS a conspiracy! :O


 

How can this take so long?

Imagine a ball with a strong magnet in the center. The ball is bumpy: with mountains and valleys. Dust the ball with iron filings. The filings will be pulled to the center.

That's how the globe works, where you can substitute magnetism with gravity, and in this case iron filings with water.

Why is this difficult?