WHY would the government trick us?

But you guys are not mapping the floor.

Yes we are.
By geometry.

You're noticing that the sky has a curve to it in terms of your perspective

No, we aren't.
We are noticing that the GROUND has a curve to it, as that is the only way to make it work.

"Because I can see off to the horizon (the sky), and the sky appears to dip, the land must be curved." Or, "Because I see midnight sun (theoretically) in the southern hemisphere, the land must be curved." Or even, "Because the moon is a sphere, the Earth must be a sphere."

No. we aren't saying any of that.
Try actually responding to what we have been saying.
Again, you continually ignore it because it so trivially shows you are wrong.
Such simple arguments you need to continually flee from because they destroy your fantasy.

Again, to sum up the simple version:
Every one on Earth sees the constellations appear the same whenever they can see them.
Everyone on Earth who can see the moon, sees basically the same moon.
e.g. for a quarter moon, everyone on Earth who can see the moon, for that entire 24 hour period all see roughly this or some rotation:


We don't see things like this:
or
with different people seeing a 3D object from different angles.

Likewise we don't see things like this:
or
with different people seeing a 2D object from different angles.

This shows beyond any sane doubt that we are all viewing the moon from the same direction.
This provides a reference.
And then we can measure the surface of Earth relative to that reference.
And this angle being different demonstrates beyond any sane doubt that the orientation of the surface of Earth is different in these different locations, conclusively demonstrating Earth is round.

And none of that relies on the moon being a sphere. If the moon was a flat disc, it would still have the same argument above apply.
The only difference is what is the expected view of the moon from different locations/times if it was close.

Likewise, it is not simply that we can see the midnight sun in Antarctica.
It is the regions of Earth which are illuminated and how that changes over time.
It matches a hemisphere being illuminated in the RE model. And by that I mean half a sphere, not the northern or southern hemisphere.
Likewise, axial tilt explains how this changes over a year.
For any FE model, you instead need the region of light to change dramatically over a year, with it making no sense at all, and for the most part not being a circle.
For plenty of time, regardless of which broken FE model you pick, there is some two points where the point closer to the sun is in darkness and the sun can't be observed; while the further away point can still see the sun.

And likewise, it is NOT that the sky appears to dip. It is that objects ON THE SURFACE of earth appear to dip. Objects with a known elevation appear to drop down more than expected due to curvature. They drop so much that they drop below the horizon, with Earth obstructing the view.
Again, this only makes sense on a round Earth unless you want to appeal to magic bendy light.

The moon is not a sphere first of all, or we should be able to see sides and back of it. But second, nothing looking upward has anything at all to do with what lies downward.

You keep telling yourself that, but it wont make it true.
Why should we be able to see the sides and back of it (from Earth I am assuming you mean)?
It is tidally locked so there is minimal change in what can be seen (but again, it does change, and you can test this yourself).
And it is so far away, you are seeing it from basically the same angle.

Again, the issue is not if it is round or flat, the issue is if it is close or far.
If it was close and flat, then looking at it from different directions will appear to squash it. Again, you can try this yourself.
Go get a flat surface, draw a circle, and then take pictures from directly away from that surface, and see the circle, then at different angles and see how it gets squashed into an ellipse.
If it was close and 3D, then looking at it from different directions will show different parts of it. Again, you can try this yourself.

So what this conclusive shows is that the moon is VERY far away.

And that means it then provides a reference point which you can use to measure the ground.
Everyone can then measure the angle between this reference point and the ground to determine the angle of the ground.
And that means it DOES tell you quite a lot about the ground.

And this is effectively what is used for celestial navigation.
Measurement of the angle to various celestial objects, to determine your position on the ground.

If you want to dismiss that, and appear honest at all, you need more than just dismissal.
You need an argument for why this shouldn't work.

And surveyors have measured thousands of miles of land and sea over the centuries.

And have measured that it is round.
But because that doesn't match you fantasy you arrogantly assume they must be wrong and must have deluded themselves.

it would be impossible to build roads, bridges, and so on without constant adjustment for curvature.

It has been explained to you what that is not the case.
This has been explained to you repeatedly.
You are yet to show a single fault in that explanation, nor have you been able to justify your claim.

Again, most structures are too small for curvature to be significant.
For roads, if you just lay it level along the ground, it will naturally compensate for the curvature.

And in the rare few cases where curvature is important, it is factored in, as already shown. But you just ignore that.

Unlike the stupid claim that flat Earth affects technology or military application, it very much does affect architecture.

You couldn't be further from the truth.
For military applications where you calculate the trajectory and fire and aim to hit your target first go, the drop due to curvature is quite significant over long ranges.
Meanwhile, when laying a road, you just naturally compensate.

Solar panels tend to generate a small amount of power, even under ideal circumstances (forget rain or snow).
How small? 2 KWh per solar cell during perfectly sunny weather.

Great job yet again demonstrating a complete lack of understanding.
Firstly you mix up power and energy (and also get the SI prefix for k wrong).
Power is measured in W, energy is measured in Wh, so if you want to use that, you need a measure of time as well.
And equally important, you need a size.
Is this a tiny 1 cm by 1 cm cell, or is it a cell that is 100 m by 100 m?
Without that your number is entirely meaningless. You may as well have said it is sjhfujkdfhgiekthbn per solar cell. It would make just as much sense.

This means it takes 1000 solar plants just to match the energy of 1 ton of coal.

No, it takes 1000 solar PANELS, specifically 400 W panels, to match a burn rate of 1 ton of coal PER DAY.
And that latter part is a big difference.
Once you have that 1 ton of coal burnt, it is gone. You need to get more coal for more energy.
But that solar panel continues working.
After 10 years, those solar panels would have put out an amount of energy equal to 3652 ton of coal.

Now, keep in mind, they are cheating here. They are adding in the use of mines to land size for things like coal, but not adding mined silicon/cadmium/other potential solar materials to land size, which is also uses land.
So this graph doesn't mention all the mines you need to get all the different materials to build your clean (looking) energy.

You truly are a lying POS.
Did you bother reading the top of the image?
Here it is again:

Notice how it says it DOES account for any mining associated with the construction of the device, and also the waste management?
We can even read further down where it directly says "This figure is not zero because some land is still needed for the mining of materials used to produce these panels.

You either found an image you think supports your crap, so you just posted it without even reading it; or you did read it, and then chose to blatantly lie about it.

Which is it? Did you use a source without bothering to check, or did you intentionally lie to everyone?

with solar and wind over land highly inefficient.

Not substantially more so than coal power.
And that is not the only metric.
Other big ones are things like pollution.

You also entirely misrepresent wind.
Look at its tiny area of 0.4 m^2 per MWh.
The land between the turbines can be used. But you just ignore that.

In other words, the only way to make solar work is if you build it in city rooftops to supply cities.

That would be ideal, but solar farms work as well.

And since you are talking about taking food from people's table and air from their lungs, seriously fuck you.

No, we aren't.
Conversely, you are talking about continuing to burn fossils fuels which is taking away breathable air and destroying the world. So fuck you.

The highest among these uses 55 billion KWh (55,000,000 MWh). Trying to supply power by solar panels... let's see 19 m² per MWh, means 1,045,000,000 m² or 649,332.9 mi² for one city, not counting surrounding towns. You cannot reasonably supply this power, even if you cut down forest after forest to make room for solar panels.
You haven't done the research or the math.

You either haven't done the research, or you did and then decided to lie to everyone about it.
And while it appears you have tried the math, you entirely failed at it.
That would be correct if you were converting from m to miles. But you aren't.
If you do it correctly, you end up with 400 miles squared. That is a square with each side being 20 miles.
Compare that to the size of New York, 472 square miles, or 300 square miles for land.

And also note what else your link says. It produces roughly 6.5 million metric tonnes of CO2. That is roughly 4.7 million metric tonnes of oxygen being consumed.
And how much area would that take?
Well, according to this paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228633757_Oxygen_Production_by_Urban_Trees_in_the_United_States the urban forests of New York produce 55 000 metric tonnes of O2 per year.
And if we look at the area they have for that, it comes from several major parks and some smaller ones totalling roughly 113 km^2 or 44 miles^2.
To get the 4.7 million metric tones, you need to multiply that by 85 to get roughly 3760 miles squared.

So if you also include the amount of area needed to produce the oxygen required for the combustion of those fossil fuels, it uses a lot more.

So why don't you try to do the research honestly, and do the math correctly. Then you might reach a completely different conclusion.

Notice how it says it DOES account for any mining associated with the construction of the device, and also the waste management?

That's all very nice. But I have trouble buying that only a tiny portion of land is used to mine materials for a solar panel.

Currently researching that.

The graph says 1.2 to 3m² per MWh when talking about rooftop placement and just mining costs. But I think they are lowballing that in a major way. Which is why I'm looking into what materials are needed to build a solar panel.

Oh, and if you think solar panels leave you off the hook for coal use, here's a nice rude awakening for you to chew on while I look it up.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/charlie-hoffs/mining-raw-materials-for-solar-panels-problems-and-solutions/

According to the US Department of Energy (DOE), about 12% of all silicon metal produced worldwide (also known as “metallurgical-grade silicon” or MGS) is turned into polysilicon for solar panel production. China produces about 70% of the world’s MGS and 77% of the world’s polysilicon. Converting silicon to polysilicon requires very high temperatures, and in China it’s coal that largely fuels these plants. Xinjiang—a region in China of abundant coal and low electricity prices—produces 45% of the world’s polysilicon.

Also, apparently in addition to silicon mining, we also have to talk about the other materials used.

Ten percent of the world’s silver is used for solar panels today, and that brings its own share of problems to the supply chain. By 2050, in a 100% renewable energy scenario that assumes current solar technology and current recycling rates, solar power’s demand for silver could be more than 50% of world reserves. Silver mining, based mainly in Mexico, China, Peru, Chile, Australia, Russia, and Poland, can sometimes cause heavy metal contamination and community displacement. 

While silicon and silver are the materials for which solar represents a substantial slice of the market, it’s critical to ensure sustainable, ethical sourcing of the other materials, even if only a fraction of global usage. For example, solar panels use a small amount of aluminum, which is sourced from bauxite found near the Earth’s surface. Mining it requires lots of land, often encroaching on Indigenous land, as in Australia, where 28% of the world’s bauxite is produced, and smallholder farmland, as in Guinea, where 22% of it is produced. China produces 22% of the world’s bauxite, and processes 56% of global bauxite into aluminum via a very energy-intensive process.

Boron, copper, and phosphorus are also mentioned here.  Then there is the metal for the framing (probably steel alloys), the materials to plug this stuff all up. You're looking at a lot of small scale mining all over the place. Maybe not huge mines (I checked, they never disclosed how big the mines are for this), but a little here with copper, a little boron, a little phosphorus, a little silver, a bit of silicon, all of that adds up to a real Swiss cheese model of the terrain getting mined.

They are definitely downplaying the fact that each of these mines uses a good portion of land. Indeed coal power mines a lot of coal, but some of those are underground mines, so no land gets torn up, unlike the strip mines (there is risk of black lung, but silicon has a similar risk for their open-air strip mines).

That would be ideal, but solar farms work as well.

You and I have very different definitions of the word "works". If the amount of space involved in mining the material cannot be controlled, and the amount of space involved in placing the finished product is enormous, and the land cannot be reclaimed (as is true after mining some of these materials), I call that "fails." It fails completely to be sustainable, ecologically efficient in terms of land use, and making these damned things means using coal to melt the materials. If you think you can generate enough heat and energy using wind or solar to make wind or solar, you are dreaming. For one thing, that would be a bit like having robots build other robots without building the first ones. For another, while solar can heat water, it is quite another thing to generate heat energy in excess of 600 degrees, let alone the melting point of some of these materials. And since these panels often don't last (having used some for lighting), you have to keep mining so it doesn't make any difference over getting tons of coal. Large tracts of land, poor recycling, then re-mining.

You also entirely misrepresent wind.
Look at its tiny area of 0.4 m^2 per MWh.
The land between the turbines can be used. But you just ignore that.

Because "can" and "actually happens" are two different things. That land is at risk for mineral leaching.  And usually what happens is the most they plant is grass (because nobody wants the liability of the solar panels maybe being the cheaper cadmium ones (and there is no easy way to know), and having vegetables that cause cancer).

Also, no, I did not.

The space btwn turbines winds up being enormous land usage, with the turbines averaging high at over 99 m².  The other one clearly mentions the area directly affected by excavation and placement, not the spaces between turbines. But that space matters, because to get good wind, it must be cleared. Ditto with forests and farms for solar. There is a real limit to what you can plant, even if you are 100% sure it's nontoxic, because (1) you can't exactly drive a combine through a solar farm, and (2) tall plants produce shade that interferes with solar panel function.
You cannot plant corn, wheat, or rice, unless you want to manually use a sickle to harvest. You cannot plant tomatoes even though they are more manual picking (too tall). Ditto for things like grape vines. About all you could plant is maybe onions or some sort of greens. And (3) you have to stomp around that area when checking if the panels are all working, assuming you care about how much energy it's producing. So mainly grass.

Once again, you are trying to weasel out of admitting there is even a problem here.

:
    can you provide us with a working model of triangles and circles that can hlep us see pirates?


or are pirates part of the conspiracy?





[/quote]

Quote

Would mapping your floor help to determine if it's flat or curved?  You know, like measuring where things on the floor are and seeing what shape the floor would have to be to for the distances to make sense?

But you guys are not mapping the floor.

But we have mapped the floor, quite extensively.   If you measure the distance from Perth in Australia, Cape Town in South Africa and Buenos Aires in South America, you will find that they won’t work on any FE map presented so far.

Quote

Are you saying that solar panels are made out of trees?

Round Earthism is destroying your brain. Please try to keep up.
Let's explain this a bit at a time.
Solar panels tend to generate a small amount of power, even under ideal circumstances (forget rain or snow).
How small? 2 KWh per solar cell during perfectly sunny weather.
https://nrgcleanpower.com/learning-center/how-much-energy-does-a-solar-panel-produce/
A ton of coal (which takes up 64 cu ft) produces 2000 KWh, and you can mine more coal. 
https://www.answers.com/chemistry/How_much_energy_is_produced_when_you_burn_coal
This means it takes 1000 solar plants just to match the energy of 1 ton of coal.

Wow.  How much energy does that solar cell produce over its lifetime?  That one ton of coal will only ever produce 2000 KWh, but a solar panel will continue to produce electricity for many years after that initial 2 KWh.  Meanwhile, how much pollution did that ton of coal produce?

Even so, as you can clearly see, in terms of land bulldozed to make power plants nuclear is most efficient (gonna nip that in the bud though, as you haven't talked about radiation or fallout)…

Fun fact, coal plants generate more radioactive waste than nuclear plants.   Have you ever heard of Carbon14?

…then gas plants and rooftop solar plants, with solar and wind over land highly inefficient. In other words, the only way to make solar work is if you build it in city rooftops to supply cities.

Good idea.   Thank goodness they’ve already been doing it for years.

BTW, when did I ever suggest that solar is the only green energy option that we should consider?  There are a lot of green energy options that are already available or in the works.  You really should look into a diverse combination of green energy sources could go a long way to reduce the damage to the environment.

Trying to have "solar farms" means getting rid of actual space for farms and forests for something that only works in ideal conditions. And since you are talking about taking food from people's table and air from their lungs, seriously fuck you.

I really have no idea why you think that you’re the first person to think about this.  I have already pointed out that there is ongoing research into agriculture friendly solar power.   Maybe you should look into that rather than just bitch about it.

Quote

Notice how it says it DOES account for any mining associated with the construction of the device, and also the waste management?

That's all very nice. But I have trouble buying that only a tiny portion of land is used to mine materials for a solar panel.

i.e. you don't like reality so you reject it.
That isn't doing your research.
That is doing research, having it show you are wrong, you not liking it, so you reject it out of hand.
That is already having a conclusion and rejecting anything that shows that conclusion is wrong.

Oh, and if you think solar panels leave you off the hook for coal use, here's a nice rude awakening for you to chew on while I look it up.

You mean here is a link which doesn't really help your case at all which you will throw out to deflect.
All you are doing with that is showing that companies are still using fossil fuel based power sources.
And with that you provide no numbers at all.
You don't even try to make a comparison for how much coal is used to produce the panels.

all of that adds up to a real Swiss cheese model of the terrain getting mined.

As opposed to coal, which continually mines it just to burn it.
You have no numbers.
You have no indication of how much needs to be mined

They are definitely downplaying the fact that each of these mines uses a good portion of land.

Based upon what? Your desperate need to reject reality and pretend solar is evil and coal is the future?

You and I have very different definitions of the word "works".

Yes. I based it on being better than the alternatives, all things considered.
You instead base it on not being perfect if it is renewable energy while giving fossil fuels a free pass.

If

And that is a hell of a lot of ifs that you haven't substantiated at all.

making these damned things means using coal to melt the materials.

No it doesn't.
Making them in China with them loving coal so much does.
But there is nothing preventing them using other energy sources.

If you think you can generate enough heat and energy using wind or solar to make wind or solar, you are dreaming.

Why?

For one thing, that would be a bit like having robots build other robots without building the first ones.

No it isn't.
In an ideal world, you start with using a bit of fossil fuels, or even just charcoal, to start producing the renewable energy sources, and replacing the energy source for them with that.

For another, while solar can heat water, it is quite another thing to generate heat energy in excess of 600 degrees, let alone the melting point of some of these materials.

And yet again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of thermodynamics.
Not only can solar heat water, it can also boil it.
And the energy required just to boil water is roughly 2256.4 kJ/kg.
The heat capacity of silicon is roughly 0.8 kJ/kg/K.
That means with the same energy required to boil 1 kg of water, you can heat up silicon by 2820 degrees.

But even that isn't required.
Your own source shows comparable land use for solar and coal.
So if they can use coal, what magic is stopping them using solar power?

since these panels often don't last (having used some for lighting), you have to keep mining so it doesn't make any difference over getting tons of coal.

Your cheap crap doesn't last.
And they can be recycled.
But again a big difference is the pollution and the amount of land you need to offset that pollution.

Because "can" and "actually happens" are two different things.

And in most cases, that land isn't just left barren.

That land is at risk for mineral leaching.

Why? Remember, this is wind, yet here you are BSing about solar panels.

there is no easy way to know

Already explained how trivial it is.

Also, no, I did not.

Yes, you did.
You blatantly lied about it, acting like the wind MUST use the entire project site, rather than even considering the 0.4 m^2 per MWh, which would make it more efficient than even gas.

The space btwn turbines

Would not be included by honest people because they recognise that land can still be used for other purposes.

you can't exactly drive a combine through a solar farm

Again with the dishonest appeals to solar.
Again, this is talking about wind.
And you certainly can farm under it and drive combines through it.

Once again, you are trying to weasel out of admitting there is even a problem here.

And there you go projecting again.

You were shown to be lying to everyone, and you just dismiss it as not believing the numbers.
You were shown to be lying about wind, and you try to dismiss it by continually appealing to solar.
You were shown to be lying to everyone about the use of air, where if you include the area required to generate the oxygen for fossil fuels you end up with far more space being required, but you just entirely ignored that.
You were entirely wrong about the math for what area would need to be covered for solar panel for New York city, and entirely ignored the refutation of that.

You are ignoring so much that shows you are wrong, and cherry picking and lying to everyone about renewables to pretend they can't be used; when your own "evidence" shows that they can be used.

And likewise, you entirely ignored a post which shows just how wrong you are.
It is quite clear who is trying to weasel out of things here.
You are desperate to pretend your fantasy is true, so you use whatever dishonest BS you can.

Again, care to address how by measuring Earth relative to the sky we can conclusively demonstrate Earth is round?
Care to provide anything more than pathetic dismissal or ignoring it?

But we have mapped the floor, quite extensively.   If you measure the distance from Perth in Australia, Cape Town in South Africa and Buenos Aires in South America, you will find that they won’t work on any FE map presented so far.

Correction: you have mapped the world with extreme biaS, only drawing the conclusions you wanted to.

The average airline does this correction for curvature garbage where they make a big circle. Perth to Cape Town in nautical miles is 4701.9 nautical miles. Okay, so why then does it take 5410 miles (or seven hundred extra miles) by plane?
https://www.airmilescalculator.com/distance/per-to-cpt/
They make these two miles different lengrhs (nautical miles are 6076 ft instead of 5086 ft) as a way of fudging physical space so that people don't sit in think about why the hell you need to make an enormous circle when latitude is already a circle and a far straighter line.

Here's what I mean by bias. You and I both know 70% of Earth is water, same as the human body (the human body is a microcosm of Earth and demonstrates that no amount of "gravity" can contain water, which is why it needs to be inside something). You an I also know that all water is at zero elevation or is completely flat, rising only to pitch up and down as waves. Already, you have 70% of the Earth as flat. But Kansas (despite having hills) averages at flatter than a pancake. Florida is even worse, despite having manmade hills for water control. Mountains account for 27% (of the remaining 30% that is) land. Plateaus (a mountain having a flat top) account for 18% of Earth's land surface. This means the remaining 55% of Earth's land.

Yeah, Earth is not somewhat flat but extremely flat. It is impossible then, to bend this to fit a curve. That would be like taking a bar of metal, bending it like Superman, and then telling people that you can't notice this because you stand on a tiny point.

Complete and utter horseshit.

do circles and triangels have bias?

how does your parabola factor into seafairing vision?

can you provide us with a working model of triangles and circles that can hlep us see pirates?

are pirates part of the conspiracy?

Correction: you have mapped the world with extreme biaS, only drawing the conclusions you wanted to.

No, that is your BS fantasy.

The average airline does this correction for curvature garbage where they make a big circle. Perth to Cape Town in nautical miles is 4701.9 nautical miles. Okay, so why then does it take 5410 miles (or seven hundred extra miles) by plane?

You may as well ask why it takes 8708 km.
That isn't any extra.
That is just a different unit.

the human body is a microcosm of Earth and demonstrates that no amount of "gravity" can contain water

No it doesn't, for the same reason your tiny balls don't.
But there you go repeating the same dishonest BS.

You an I also know that all water is at zero elevation or is completely flat

No, we don't.

You desperately believe that because you need it to be true for your delusional fantasy to be true.
Simple observations clearly demonstrate it isn't, and I know it isn't.

So you can skip that BS.
You do not have 70% of Earth as flat, you just lie to everyone by pretending you do.

Kansas (despite having hills) averages at flatter than a pancake

Flatter, or more level?

Yeah, Earth is not somewhat flat but extremely flat.

No, it isn't.
It isn't flat at all.
All the evidence which can tell one way or another clearly demonstrates it is round.
That is why you need to keep appealing to BS, rather than dealing with the simple arguments that show it is round.

Again, care to address celestial observations of things like the moon?
Care to be honest for once in your life?

Complete and utter horseshit.

That certainly sums up your post.

Quote

But we have mapped the floor, quite extensively.   If you measure the distance from Perth in Australia, Cape Town in South Africa and Buenos Aires in South America, you will find that they won’t work on any FE map presented so far.

Correction: you have mapped the world with extreme biaS, only drawing the conclusions you wanted to.

The average airline does this correction for curvature garbage where they make a big circle. Perth to Cape Town in nautical miles is 4701.9 nautical miles. Okay, so why then does it take 5410 miles (or seven hundred extra miles) by plane?
https://www.airmilescalculator.com/distance/per-to-cpt/
They make these two miles different lengrhs (nautical miles are 6076 ft instead of 5086 ft) as a way of fudging physical space so that people don't sit in think about why the hell you need to make an enormous circle when latitude is already a circle and a far straighter line.

One nautical mile is equal to one minute of one degree of latitude and, because of the oblateness of the earth's shape, can vary slightly depending on the latitude.  This makes celestial navigation at sea a little easier because you're constantly using the stars to determine your latitude.  Otherwise, the physical distance from Perth to Cape Town is the same regardless of the unit of measure.  What does it matter if you use nautical miles, statue miles, kilometers or furlongs as the units? 

Because these aren't conversions, they are actual different distances.

Why use a different measurement for nautical miles and miles overland?
So it is possible to tell people that the distance is due to a different amount, when actually they are different distances.

In other words, we define nautical miles as this distance. But if that's a defined distance (that is, a lie), then you have vastly different distances from your adjusting for the curvature.

Can you prove that that definition isn't a lie?

Btw, they wouldn't be the same distance to start with. Lemme show you why.

"The shortest distance between two points is a straight line."
But is it always?
https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/is-a-straight-line-always-the-shortest-distance-between-two-points.html

No, a straight line isn’t always the shortest distance between two points. The shortest distance between two points depends on the geometry of the object/surface in question. For flat surfaces, a line is indeed the shortest distance, but for spherical surfaces, like Earth, great-circle distances actually represent the true shortest distance.

So, you asked me about military advantages and had all this nonsense about battleships firing their pathetic peashooters having something to do with with the curvature, and not just not having the effective range. But here's a real advantage. Two fighter planes from different countries in Africa race to get a weapon from a country's arsenal. Which one gets there faster? The one who heads directly from point A to point B? Or the one who keeps losing speed and distance adjusting?

In a trip to a destination, the hypotenuse, the diagonal line, is longer than either the distance up or across. In a 3-4-5 triangle, the hypotenuse is 5. So if the distance is an arc, this is an up and down hypothenuse.
Again. "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line."

So when a ship sails directly due east, and a plane uses the great circle distance, they would not be the same measurement. It's not a conversion thing. They using apples and oranges distance units to disguise an actual difference in measurement.
 

Because these aren't conversions, they are actual different distances.

No, they are conversions.
You can even test it with a boat. Boats also use nautical miles.

Why use a different measurement for nautical miles and miles overland?

For the same reason the US and England use miles while the vast majority of the world use km.
Different groups had different standards which get used.
So it is possible to tell people that the distance is due to a different amount, when actually they are different distances.

You have already had it explained why people used nautical miles. Because of arbitrarily using 1 minute of latitude as a base length.

Can you prove that that definition isn't a lie?

So you bring up complete crap, entirely unsubstantiated, to try to pretend there is a massive conspiracy, and then demand others prove it isn't a lie.

But yes, we can.
Go get a boat. Go find a stretch of water when you can measure the distance between 2 points separately (a long straight channel would be ideal).
Then go test it.
You can also take the option of flying to a location vs driving to it. Again, try to get a nice straight stretch.

More importantly, consider the real implications. You would have a single linear scale for the distance.
But depending on where they are, you would need a different scale.
e.g. near the north pole, for your typical FE monopole map, the scale should be 1:1.
But going away from the north pole that scale needs to increase dramatically.

Btw, they wouldn't be the same distance to start with. Lemme show you why.

By drawing in completely useless lines with no basis.

"The shortest distance between two points is a straight line."
But is it always?

Yes, but that doesn't mean you can actually travel that straight line, nor that it is the fastest.
For example, if your straight line requires you to go through Earth you aren't going to be able to do that unless you have a tunnel.
A simple example of this is a mountain you want to cross.
You can use a straight line of a tunnel, or you can go around or over.

For large scale distances on Earth, you generally go for great circles, because you can't take the straight line through Earth.

Two fighter planes from different countries in Africa race to get a weapon from a country's arsenal. Which one gets there faster? The one who heads directly from point A to point B? Or the one who keeps losing speed and distance adjusting?

The one who heads directly in a straight lines dies as they crash into Earth.
The one who follows the great circle gets there first.

In a trip to a destination, the hypotenuse, the diagonal line, is longer than either the distance up or across. In a 3-4-5 triangle, the hypotenuse is 5. So if the distance is an arc, this is an up and down hypothenuse.
Again. "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line."

Try saying that once you have planes which can fly through solid Earth.

And still avoiding the simple evidence YOU raised which clearly shows Earth is round.

Planes which fly through solid earth? Are you serious?!?

At 30,000 ft this doesn't happen. Nor is the reason for the great circle movement to avoid flying through earth. You just confused a(n unnecessary) horizontal turn for a vertical one.

 If I am in a car and I make a very wide arc turn near the base of a mountain, will it get me up the mountain? No, I'll slam into a rock wall. If I want to get up a mountain path, I go up the slope of a road directly across, and stop fucking around.

This is not to avoid vertical obstacles.
https://gisgeography.com/great-circle-geodesic-line-shortest-flight-path/
It's because of an assumed longer trip because of curved space in latitude.

In a flat Earth model, this would conceivably be true, as you can see here.

But it's also a complete waste of time to try to correct or adjust. This is because turning tends to lose speed. The curved space appears straight as we travel it, so we basically say that in the absence of knowing whether  going straight along the latitude line, deciding to correct is probably going to add miles to the trip. Again.


Deciding we have made a shortcut without proof is just stupid.

But let's test this. Two planes race each other to the same terminal. Whichever gets there first lands first. On goes straight, one uses the great circle path. And we put this myth to bed.

It probably wasn't even tested. The pilot perceives they are moving faster, but if they turn wrong in response to this latitude curve, they risk making the trip longer than just going east.

Planes which fly through solid earth? Are you serious?!?

Yes. If you want them to fly in a straight line, they need to go through Earth.
Otherwise, they are not flying in a straight line.

If you want them to follow the surface as the shortest path, they are flying in a great circle.

Depending on which map is used, that is typically not going to appear as a straight line.

You just confused a(n unnecessary) horizontal turn for a vertical one.

No, I haven't.
You have confused a curved line on a map projection with a curved line on the surface of a sphere.
That curve on a map is entirely the result of the projection used.

It's because of an assumed longer trip because of curved space in latitude.

There is nothing assumed about it.
Your wilful rejection of reality does not change it.

In a flat Earth model, this would conceivably be true, as you can see here.

And given such a model is completely wrong, who cares?

But it's also a complete waste of time to try to correct or adjust. This is because turning tends to lose speed.

They aren't turning for it.
But no, it isn't necessarily a waste of time.
If the corrections save a lot of time due to a much shorter path, it is worth it.

going straight along the latitude line

The only time they would be going "straight" along the latitude line is if they are going alone the equator, and Earth is round.
Otherwise, following a line of latitude will result in them curving. And in your fantasy, following any line of latitude is a curve.

Deciding we have made a shortcut without proof is just stupid.

Good thing there is plenty of proof for it.

But let's test this. Two planes race each other to the same terminal. Whichever gets there first lands first. On goes straight, one uses the great circle path. And we put this myth to bed.

Go ahead.
But before you do, first define what you mean by "goes straight".

Again, on Earth, the great circle path is the closest you get to going straight unless you are planning on going through Earth.
Do you mean one follows the most direct path possible, travelling "straight" along a great circle path, while the other does a completely pointless detour by following a line of latitude?

It probably wasn't even tested.

Because your test is stupid and entirely unneeded.
They know the distance of the route, and it matches.
And even your own model has the route following a line of latitude not be straight.

We have been over this before, with you fleeing before, after your BS was refuted and simple questions were asked which show you are spouting pure BS.
Remember all the way back here:

Since you seem intent on repeating the dishonest BS, here are some more images for you, this time showing all three lines, on all three images.
First, the standard Web-Mercator projection from Google:


Now, this shown in globe view (Route C, the FE route, is so utterly ridiculous, that it goes onto the other side of Earth and isn't entirely visible in this view):


And finally, the FE garbage:


Notice that A, the line with a constant latitude, only appears to be straight on the Mercator projection. But in reality, it is curved. Regardless of if you accept reality with a RE, or cling to a fantasy of a FE.
The straight line, shortest path for a FE (C) goes over the US, which on the RE image is so ridiculously long it isn't funny.
And the shortest path for a RE (B) appears as a straight line when looking at a globe model of Earth with it passing through the centre, and shows it is the shortest path on the RE, and appears so ridiculously long for the FE.

If Earth was flat, in the way commonly presented by FEers (north pole centred disc), pilots would fly over the US going from Sydney to Santiago.
If Earth was flat, as you appear to pretend the RE should be, then they would fly a line of constant latitude.
If Earth was round, then pilots would fly south east, passing south of NZ, and approach Santiago from the south east.

And guess which one is observed? Flying south.
So this route is evidence that Earth is a globe.

Now care to stop with all the dishonest BS, and answer these trivial questions which get right to the heart of the issue:

Assume Earth is a perfect sphere, with a circumference of 40 000 km. You want to fly from 0 degrees east on the equator to 180 degrees east on the equator.
What is the shortest path, and is there single shortest path, or multiple?

What is the length of a path directly along the equator?
What is the length of a path going via the north pole?
What is the length of a path going via the south pole?
What is the length of a path going via a point 45 degrees north at 90 degrees east?
What is the length of a path going via a point 45 degrees south at 90 degrees east?
What is the length of a path going via a point 45 degrees south at 90 degrees west?
What is the length of a path going via a point 61 degrees south at 90 degrees east?

haha you showed three 2D drawings with line distances to a guy who can't spacially picture what a sphere looks like.
i predict his response will be spectacular.

Since you seem intent on repeating the dishonest BS, here are some more images for you, this time showing all three lines, on all three images.
First, the standard Web-Mercator projection from Google:


Now, this shown in globe view (Route C, the FE route, is so utterly ridiculous, that it goes onto the other side of Earth and isn't entirely visible in this view):
https://i.imgur.com/DCDvfVq.png

And finally, the FE garbage:

Wow, quoting a post from 120 days ago. 

Shoot, I'll bite.

We'll label these pictures #1, #2, and #3. Picture #2, I would agree is garbage, which is why I'm scratching it out.

You indeed are exaggerating this curve. Which is part of the problem. How in the hell do you know how much to make this great circle so that it is not in fact too great? You don't.

In #2, A would realistically go slightly down arced over the line of latitude, but you can see from #3, that B actually dips so far it almost touches the Antarctic! On the other hand, while in #3, C is a straight line, but it goes more than double the arc that I depicted here.

Look. Yellow is the along the latitude A line, consistent with #1 and #3. And probably even #2. Blue is the arc line I drew, which might even be a reasonable adjustment (though tbh, that's like a 30 degree arc). Green is the line you projected, which is about 30 degrees up to the equator then almost 45 degrees past it.

Yes, you are free to use this great circle if you want if you think it'll work. I won't oppose you (though I think it's stupid).

But both of us can see that this is far too big an arc.

Wow, quoting a post from 120 days ago.

Yes, because you are bringing up the same refuted BS.
The BS you fled from last time after it was refuted.

Picture #2, I would agree is garbage, which is why I'm scratching it out.

That isn't you agreeing it is garbage. That is you baselessly asserting it is garbage to dismiss reality.
So no, lets not scratch it out.

Picture 2 is a view of a globe, positioned so the path B runs along the middle of the view.
It shows the B is a "straight line" on the surface of the sphere, i.e. a great circle.

You lying wont change that.

You indeed are exaggerating this curve. Which is part of the problem. How in the hell do you know how much to make this great circle so that it is not in fact too great? You don't.

Simple math, or if you want to do it physically, get a string, and hold it tight between the 2 points on a physical globe.
Not hard at all.
And no, I', not exaggerating this curve at all.

In #2, A would realistically go slightly down arced over the line of latitude

Why would it go down?
It is following the line of latitude.
That makes it go up in the image.

but you can see from #3, that B actually dips so far it almost touches the Antarctic!

Yes, just how ridiculous the FE map is.

On the other hand, while in #3, C is a straight line, but it goes more than double the arc that I depicted here.

Yes, it follows the path that is expected if Earth was flat.
It is so long it is ridiculous.

Look. Yellow is the along the latitude A line

Yes. It is the line shown as A in the diagram.
This is only straight in image 1.
Image 1 is not a representation of your fantasy FE, and it distorts line for the RE.

Blue is the arc line I drew

Which you drew based on nothing.
That is NOT a great circle.
The easy way to tell is that it is in the south, yet curves to the north.
That isn't how it works at all.
It didn't even match up with the black line.

Yes, you are free to use this great circle if you want if you think it'll work. I won't oppose you (though I think it's stupid).

The great circle is the line labelled B, not C.
But thanks for agreeing that the FE is stupid, because that C is the shortest path on a FE, as shown by the third diagram.
And that green lie you drew didn't even make it up high enough for that path.
So thanks for saying the FE is stupid.

Meanwhile, if Earth was flat, both A and B would be stupid paths.
Yet A is the path you are advocating for, and B is the path that planes actually take (approximately).

Why do you keep trying to use an equirectangular projection?
REers know that distorts the straightest and shortest path.
FEers reject it as well.

If you want to argue and appear in any way intelligent, you need to use a model which you are actually trying to discuss. That is the globe for the RE, and whatever fantasy model you want for your FE, likely a north pole monopole model.

Wow, the Book of Things I Found Out You Don't Know is growing in length.

It is C, if your intent (as #3) is to save time by moving across the Earth.

From here.
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/flight-paths-and-great-circles-why-are-great-circles-the-shortest-flight-path/
On any curve, if you are being honest, converting the straight map to a disc or sphere shows the latitude lines as curves, so to cut across involves curving against it.

However, since we do not actually know the among of curve you would need to render this straight, and you risk moving more distance, to say nothing of the fact that latitude distortion cannot actually be felt, and the Earth doesn't orbit so you don't have to do that either, you are making people dizzy and sick (while they call it "jet lag") by performing this path.

This is why people fucking hate flying. They don't test time, so if it delays, they blame it on "turbulence" and not "I'm a crappy pilot who thinks it's justified flying an indirect course."

Wow, the Book of Things I Found Out You Don't Know is growing in length.

You mean the book of things you continually spout pure BS about without understanding, or just intentionally lying to everyone?

Because you haven't shown that I don't know at all.

It is C, if your intent (as #3) is to save time by moving across the Earth.

No, that would be if Earth is flat.
I stick to reality, where B is the shortest path.
Note that the image you provided is not of path C.
You have instead decided to move to the north where path B and C are similar.

On any curve, if you are being honest, converting the straight map to a disc or sphere shows the latitude lines as curves, so to cut across involves curving against it.

No, cutting across is going "straight" not curving against it.
The latitude lines are the curve (with the exception of the equator).

However, since we do not actually know the among of curve you would need to render this straight

No, YOU don't know.
Fortunately, these days it is trivial with flight computers.
In the past, it was also quite easy by using landmarks or celestial navigation.

Trying to fly the entire route on nothing more that dead reckoning would likely get you killed.
Like Amelia Earhart.

This also means you can't just fly a constant bearing.
Especially not using a compass given that you would need to factor in the changing magnetic declination.

And also fortunately, map makers had mapped out the world well enough by then and you could make a variety of different map projections.
This includes ones like an azimuthal equidistant projection centred on the location of airports.
And otherwise, there were formulas you could use.
And if you had a globe, you could use a piece of string.

and you risk moving more distance

So to avoid adding a tiny bit more distance, you add a massive amount of extra distance for no reason?
Your argument makes no sense at all.

latitude distortion cannot actually be felt

Just how are you expecting to "feel" it?
This distortion is simply a result of projecting a sphere onto a flat surface.

Earth doesn't orbit

Your wilful rejection of reality does not change it.
But the orbit has nothing to do with this.

you are making people dizzy and sick (while they call it "jet lag") by performing this path.

How?
Again, you spout pure BS with no justification at all.

They don't test time

Given the massive differences in distances, this isn't a matter of not testing times.
This is a matter of if Earth was flat the plane would run out of fuel mid-flight and crash into the ocean.

"I'm a crappy pilot who thinks it's justified flying an indirect course."

That would be YOU!
You would be the incredibly crappy pilot choosing to fly an indirect course because you think it is better to fly along the lines of latitude instead of a more direct path.
You are literally here arguing against them taking a more direct path.

Do you not realise the delusional crap you are spouting? Do you even understand what you are arguing for?

Anime knows what's what.









So, you are certain that I don't know what I can clearly see as the model for great circle, instead telling me that it's the lowest curve (which would actually fuck up the latitude curve even more). And when I say that even if it does straighten the line, it's an overkill adjustment that relies on information about how but curve to apply that you probably don't have, in order to combat the latitude (is it 15 degree arc? 30 degree arc? 60 degree arc? And how would you even know?) then you call me a liar, what's the point in talking with you?

This is why I've fundamentally stopped talking to you, Jack.
You can't even agree with me on things that you can see right in from of you.

Anime knows what's what.

It sure works to describe you.
You don't care for us, because you don't care about the truth.

So, you are certain that I don't know what I can clearly see as the model for great circle, instead telling me that it's the lowest curve

Yes.
If you don't believe me, go and get a physical globe, get a piece of string, and hold it as tight as possible between the 2 points.

For the southern hemisphere the great circle goes further south than either the starting or ending location.
For the northern hemisphere it goes north of both the start and end point.
This is pretty simple to understand.

This is all addressed by simple questions which you fled from in the previous thread.

Assume Earth is a perfect sphere, with a circumference of 40 000 km. You want to fly from 0 degrees east on the equator to 180 degrees east on the equator.
What is the shortest path, and is there single shortest path, or multiple?

What is the length of a path directly along the equator?
What is the length of a path going via the north pole?
What is the length of a path going via the south pole?
What is the length of a path going via a point 45 degrees north at 90 degrees east?
What is the length of a path going via a point 45 degrees south at 90 degrees east?
What is the length of a path going via a point 45 degrees south at 90 degrees west?
What is the length of a path going via a point 61 degrees south at 90 degrees east?


If you honestly understood the model, and could answer those questions, you would realise that all these paths are equal in length, 20 000 km.
And that they are the shortest paths between any 2 locations along the lines.
These are the great circles.
All great circles will pass through the equator twice, 180 degrees apart from each point; or it is the equator.

And when I say that even if it does straighten the line, it's an overkill adjustment that relies on information about how but curve to apply that you probably don't have, in order to combat the latitude

Again, people do have it.
Your wilful ignorance doesn't mean everyone is wilfully ignorant.

then you call me a liar

Because you repeatedly lie to everyone.

This is why I've fundamentally stopped talking to you, Jack.

Because I can so easily demonstrate you are lying to everyone?
And that I call you out when you blatantly lie to everyone, including about things which are blatantly obvious.

The question is why do you keep doing so?
What do you hope to gain by repeatedly lying to everyone, with lies which are so obvious?

Again, anyone with half a brain (which might exclude you) can recognise the Mercator projection and other similar equi-rectangular projections will necessarily distort the RE, so a straight line on it will not necessarily be a straight line on a round Earth; likewise, those familiar with FE with half a brain also know the common model is the north pole centred monopole model.

You are appealing to a map which neither side claims to be an accurate, non-distorted representation.
All so you can pretend your fantasy of travelling along a line of latitude is the shortest path.
In both reality and your FE model, travelling along a line of latitude is a curve and not the shortest, with the sole exception of the equator in reality.

And anyone who has ever tried it understands that dead reckoning does not work. Not without precise computers to accurately measure every change in motion.
If you tried to fly a plane by just setting your compass to go east and heading there, you would likely crash.
That is why planes typically fly either using GPS to monitor position, or to specific points which broadcast a signal allowing you to head towards the source of the signal.

So again, do you actually understand what it is you are arguing for and against?

Anime knows what's what.









So, you are certain that I don't know what I can clearly see as the model for great circle, instead telling me that it's the lowest curve (which would actually fuck up the latitude curve even more). And when I say that even if it does straighten the line, it's an overkill adjustment that relies on information about how but curve to apply that you probably don't have, in order to combat the latitude (is it 15 degree arc? 30 degree arc? 60 degree arc? And how would you even know?) then you call me a liar, what's the point in talking with you?

This is why I've fundamentally stopped talking to you, Jack.
You can't even agree with me on things that you can see right in from of you.

Can Luffy and the gang explain why the pirates crows nest can see further than whats right in front of them?

Can Luffy and the gang explain why the pirates crows nest can see further than whats right in front of them?

Actually they can. Or rather, I can, watching the show. Along with some of the strange wave patterns.

As a flat Earther, I have successfully figured out what they mean by the announcement that that the world is flooding. We are shown a map of the world of One Piece at the start of the show.

And as you are globe Earthers, you accept it blindly. But around the Egghead Arc, they drop a major bombshell. Water is coming out of places like Enies Lobby (which is causing the area around Water 7 to rise). With Lulusia likewise removed, massive water is coming out from there too.

Now, this seems impossible. How can water come out rather than go in when you remove something? After all, when you pull a plug from a bath, the water goes into the drain.

Unlike you guys, I decided to think about this. One Piece perspective is not based on a globe. It's an inverted globe. Or rather, they are inside a hollow Earth. Water is draining from the outside of the Earth, and emptying into the world of One Piece. They need to get on their ships and try to make it topside.

You know there are some things that maybe you shouldn’t put too much thought into, like maybe the mechanics of a cartoon having much bearing on reality.

I mean we have a host of pantheons with various earth shapes and creation myths if you want to play the “intellectual”, drifting off into complete fantasy. Yes it fits your MO, I get that but it’s aimed at kids and the perpetual teen and therefore cod philosophy for the cerebrally adolescent, it’s not real.

well it's a good question that h'es been avoiding and continues to avoid


the ball earth uses circles and triangles to explain how climbing the birds nest allows a sailor pirate to see further.
if circles and triangles are wrong, how does the parabola do it?

Now, this seems impossible. How can water come out rather than go in when you remove something?

Do you know what else seems impossible? A rubber person.
A work of fiction isn't a good basis.

Now again, care to tell everyone why you keep using an equirectangular projection, rather than a globe or your own FE model?

Now, this seems impossible. How can water come out rather than go in when you remove something? After all, when you pull a plug from a bath, the water goes into the drain.

How, indeed.

You know there are some things that maybe you shouldn’t put too much thought into, like maybe the mechanics of a cartoon having much bearing on reality.

I mean we have a host of pantheons with various earth shapes and creation myths if you want to play the “intellectual”, drifting off into complete fantasy. Yes it fits your MO, I get that but it’s aimed at kids and the perpetual teen and therefore cod philosophy for the cerebrally adolescent, it’s not real.

The "anime is cartoons for kiddos" myth.

See behind Alphonse?
https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/27686/what-is-depicted-on-the-gate-shown-in-episode-63-of-brotherhood

The gate you are looking for is the second gate (Al's), which is the European Alchemical scheme depicted in George Ripley's Marrow of Alchemy, based off the Kabbalah's Tree of Life and Kundalini's chakra system, which is probably derived from Samuel Norton's Catholicon Physicorum.

https://i.sstatic.net/9kGFr.jpg
Do you as an adult know this?

No, you likely do not.

Anime can convey high level ideas. But sure. "Cartoons."

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 09, 2025, 05:56:42 AM

Now, this seems impossible. How can water come out rather than go in when you remove something? After all, when you pull a plug from a bath, the water goes into the drain.

How, indeed.

This is a geyser.  It is water pressured through a narrow system. Heat is also sometimes involved.

On the other hand, we you to remove a large body of land, the gap would create a sinkhole.

The "anime is cartoons for kiddos" myth.

No, the "It's fiction with magic so anything can happen, even the impossible" fact.
Appealing to anime to pretend that something happening there must much reality doesn't help your case at all.

Now care to tell us why you are using an equirectangular projection and claiming a clearly not straight line is the shortest path?