Most of the flat earthers use math and physics to try to prove their point. But do not want to talk about the view from spaceships back at earth.
Most of the flat earthers use math and physics to try to prove their point. But do not want to talk about the view from spaceships back at earth.
rekrunner wrote:
Legit question wrote:
You will see 16 examples of flight routes which make no sense on a ball. However, on a flat earth it does. Several examples with maps to demonstrate here:
Of course all 16 examples make sense on a 3D globe.
What I see is a flat-earther who can’t make sense of how a globe works, but figured out how to write a book.
All of his “globe” lines are drawn on a flat 2D projection of a globe.
They may look “straight” in 2D but hard to tell without orienting the globe properly.
He should buy a globe and then make straight lines between two points, with the aid of a string.
Look at all these Lufthansa flights: on a globe they are all straight lines.
Note in the southern hemisphere, the curves change the direction of their bend. This is not for artistic reasons:
https://www.moneysavingheroes.co.uk/images/route%20map.jpgProblem with the “Gleason’s” map is evident when you look at Australia — it is distorted.
Flat-earthers should first produce a map without obvious distortions.
We know how far apart Darwin is from Adelaide, and how far apart Sydney is from Perth.
On a Gleason map, it makes no sense.
We know how far apart Sydney is from Santiago, and Perth from Cape Town.
No flat-earther has produced a map that can make sense of these distances.
Wrong again. The AE & Gleason's map is not perfect, however, it does do a great job demonstrating flight paths. None of these 16 examples work on a ball earth.
Let's take a deep dive into one of the examples. The (direct) Emirates flight EK225 from San Francisco to Dubai.
1. On page 47 of the pdf, it shows the flight path on a ball earth which goes across the USA, across the Atlantic ocean, across the top of Africa, then ending in Dubai. Stop and look at that map again.
2. The Mercator map is displayed on the top half of page 48. We can both agree that the Mercator map is a projection and does not show the true size of continents either. The Mercator map also shows an almost identical flight path as shown on page 47. Look at both maps on page 47 & 48 again- we agree that the flight paths are virtually identical.
3. The Gleason's map appears on the lower half of page 48. Look at the flight path now. It shows a flight path due North, over Canada, over the North Pole, over Russia, then ending in Dubai. Stop here and look at the map again.
4. Emirates flight EK225 on November 20, 2016 had to make an emergency landing in Moscow, Russia. What?????? Look on pages 47 and top of 48 again. Where is Moscow located on those flight paths????? The ball earth flight route absolutely FAILS here.
5. Quoting the author: "How could
that be possible if the earth is supposed to be a sphere and Google Maps
presents us the exact flight route going eastward? Well, the answer to this
question is that the earth is not a globe! When the reader compares the flight
path on both the Gleason’s Map and on the globe in Google Maps, the reader
will see that the Gleason’s Map route makes more sense showing a straight
line going from San Francisco to Dubai flying over Canada and then over
Russia making Moscow one of the best options for an emergency landing"
6. "The fact is, Google Maps does its best to demonstrate the flight path
and calculate the flight time on a globe. The problem is, since the earth is
not a globe, Google Maps flight paths do not match reality! It’s when
emergency landings happen that we learn the true flight routes of these
flights. This problem is not only found in Google Maps. In fact, all flight
tracker websites are connected with one master program which is created
by NASA. This program converts flat earth data into globe earth data to fit
the heliocentric model. The globe earth exists only in theory and it needs to
be supported by imagery, TV programming, Hollywood programming,
compulsory public school teaching, sophisticated software programming
and paid actors."
7. In each of these 16 examples the author has compared the flight paths on a globe to the Gleason's map and in every case, the emergency landing location makes logical sense on that map. It doesn't even come close to making ANY sense on the ball earth.
8. I encourage everyone to read the entire pdf.
9. The AE map was invented by Al-Biruni about 1,000 years ago and before you globeheads laugh it off, remember that this map is widely used by the USGS (United States Geological Survey) today.
9. I will dig into the Australia map distortion question later.
The earth is flat.
Legit question wrote:
Wrong again. The AE & Gleason's map is not perfect, however, it does do a great job demonstrating flight paths. None of these 16 examples work on a ball earth.
Let's take a deep dive into one of the examples. The (direct) Emirates flight EK225 from San Francisco to Dubai.
1. On page 47 of the pdf, it shows the flight path on a ball earth which goes across the USA, across the Atlantic ocean, across the top of Africa, then ending in Dubai. Stop and look at that map again.
…
All 16 examples work on a ball earth, without exception, when you know how to draw a straight line on a 3D globe. To see the straight lines, you need to look above the cities, and not from the side. Vantage points at the side of the equator will show that straight lines on a globe appearing curved, like the Lufthansa image I provided above.
This link may help show why your deep dive fails. The comments explain several criteria why flight paths make sense, in case the straight line path is not chosen, e.g. safety considerations to say near airports in case emergency landings, like the 16 in your book, are required.
Take special note of the image with a straight line produced on a globe, going over Moscow:
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Emirates-flight-from-SFO-to-DXB-fly-over-off-Greenland-and-North-Pole-then-lands-in-Dubaihttps://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d5872efc456bb106745cb180ce938b92.webpCheck out this map at wolfram alpha:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=dubai+to+los+angelesLegit question wrote:
9. I will dig into the Australia map distortion question later.
You will not succeed because no one ever has or can.
The inability for anyone to produce a complete flat map of the complete flat earth to scale, is the first of many “nail in the coffin” demonstrations that “independent” flat earth “research” fails.
This should be trivial based on publicly available survey data, and yet the army of youtube researchers have failed thus far, relying only on a map known to greatly distort objects in longitude, like Australia, in the Southern hemisphere.
You're both wrong. You three dimensional thinkers don't get it.
Flatness and roundness are both illusions. Everything is multi- dimensional, waves and orbits and even that is a reductive reasoning.
You're trying to make visual representations of your travels through space-time. But you're not asking the fundamental question of Scientific inquiry:
"Well, how did I get here?" David Byrne 1980.
Legit question wrote:
The AE & Gleason's map is not perfect, however, it does do a great job demonstrating flight paths.
....
9. The AE map was invented by Al-Biruni about 1,000 years ago and before you globeheads laugh it off, remember that this map is widely used by the USGS (United States Geological Survey) today.
You do realise that the Azimuthal Equidistant projection is a projection of the globe ? It was created by Al-Biruni , who also calculated the radius of the earth using trigonometry using the horizon from the top of hills. If a map with an AE projection can do a "great job demonstrating flight paths", it's a good argument FOR a spheroidal earth.
foxymoron wrote:
Heya Flat earther friends, not keen to debate the math but really keen to understand the reason for the lie/hoax from your perspective. Why would NASA scientists, meteorologists, airline's ect lie, what's the point and who benefits?
Trying again..
Journey to the edge of the Earth wrote:
You're both wrong. You three dimensional thinkers don't get it.
Flatness and roundness are both illusions. Everything is multi- dimensional, waves and orbits and even that is a reductive reasoning.
You're trying to make visual representations of your travels through space-time. But you're not asking the fundamental question of Scientific inquiry:
"Well, how did I get here?" David Byrne 1980.
You may ask yourself, am I right or am I wrong?
The answer to your question is the same as it ever was: letting the days go by.
tooniron wrote:
You do realise that the Azimuthal Equidistant projection is a projection of the globe ? It was created by Al-Biruni , who also calculated the radius of the earth using trigonometry using the horizon from the top of hills. If a map with an AE projection can do a "great job demonstrating flight paths", it's a good argument FOR a spheroidal earth.
Yes — Al Biruni famously used the observable and measurable fact that the horizon does not rise to eye level, and calculated the radius of the earth by measuring the dip-angle of the horizon from eye-level.
Another “nail-in-the coffin” for flat-earthers worldwide.
Legit question wrote:
9. I will dig into the Australia map distortion question later.
No need — here is an Azimuth Equidistant map — the projection proposed by Al-Biruni — the same astronomer/mathematician that estimated the globe earth’s radius 1000 years ago by observing and measuring the horizon below eye level — that doesn’t distort Australia too much:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_south_SW.jpg/640px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_south_SW.jpgOne centered around Taipei also preserves Australia pretty well:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Taipei_centered_azimuthal_equidistant_projection.gif/640px-Taipei_centered_azimuthal_equidistant_projection.gifThis one centered around Syndey has minimal Australian distortion:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Gcmsyd.jpg/640px-Gcmsyd.jpgHere is Tissot indicating with circles how the Gleason map distorts everything below the equator:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_with_Tissot%27s_indicatrix.png/640px-Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_with_Tissot%27s_indicatrix.pngHere is one centered on Los Angeles for the Americans:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/Los_Angeles_centered_azimuthal_equidistant_projection.gif/640px-Los_Angeles_centered_azimuthal_equidistant_projection.gifFlat earth was debunked 2000 years ago when philosophers observed the stars.
foxymoron wrote:
[quote]foxymoron wrote:
Heya Flat earther friends, not keen to debate the math but really keen to understand the reason for the lie/hoax from your perspective. Why would NASA scientists, meteorologists, airline's ect lie, what's the point and who benefits?
Let's say that we finally figured it out in the late 1950's when we finally had the technology to put rockets into low orbit and then documented evidence that the earth was indeed flat. Why not tell everybody then? Ok, what's the worst that can happen? The world of academia would be drastically altered: astronomy, astrophysics, etc would have to be shut down and retooled since it would be proven to be false. The financial markets would also take a massive hit. The five major houses of religion Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism would all be given leverage over the false science that has been taught for hundreds of years.
NASA's budget would be decimated, there would be Congressional hearings, the public would be angry, the public's all already low trust in the government will crater, etc. Remember Napoleon's quote, "History is a set of lies that people have agreed upon."
rekrunner wrote:
tooniron wrote:
You do realise that the Azimuthal Equidistant projection is a projection of the globe ? It was created by Al-Biruni , who also calculated the radius of the earth using trigonometry using the horizon from the top of hills. If a map with an AE projection can do a "great job demonstrating flight paths", it's a good argument FOR a spheroidal earth.
Yes — Al Biruni famously used the observable and measurable fact that the horizon does not rise to eye level, and calculated the radius of the earth by measuring the dip-angle of the horizon from eye-level.
Another “nail-in-the coffin” for flat-earthers worldwide.
We can see up objects up to 150 miles away with HD camera technology. It completely disproves the globe earth curve calculator (8 inches per mile squared) There is no "nail-in-the coffin" for flat earth.
I suggest everyone watch this documentary with LQ featured. It’s a hoot!
https://decider.com/2019/03/06/behind-the-curve-the-earth-is-round/
So private spaceflight is all a scam too? You refuse to answer this.
When 1000s of people a year are going to space for tourism in 20 years. What's the endgame for the flat earth movement?
Legit question wrote:
foxymoron wrote:
[quote]foxymoron wrote:
Heya Flat earther friends, not keen to debate the math but really keen to understand the reason for the lie/hoax from your perspective. Why would NASA scientists, meteorologists, airline's ect lie, what's the point and who benefits?
Let's say that we finally figured it out in the late 1950's when we finally had the technology to put rockets into low orbit and then documented evidence that the earth was indeed flat. Why not tell everybody then? Ok, what's the worst that can happen? The world of academia would be drastically altered: astronomy, astrophysics, etc would have to be shut down and retooled since it would be proven to be false. The financial markets would also take a massive hit. The five major houses of religion Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism would all be given leverage over the false science that has been taught for hundreds of years.
NASA's budget would be decimated, there would be Congressional hearings, the public would be angry, the public's all already low trust in the government will crater, etc. Remember Napoleon's quote, "History is a set of lies that people have agreed upon."
If that happened, everybody who found out would realistically be like, I can't wait to be the one to tell people this. thousands upon thousands of people would be clamoring to spill the beans, and since its real, they would have all the evidence in the world. Furthermore, our countries advisaries would love to inspire some domestic strife and would certainly have revealed 'oh by the way our space agencies were watching and the Americans not only didn't go to the moon, they are actually lying to you about everything.' Furthermore, if it were true, it would be constantly rediscovered thousands of times over with every new generation of physicists, astronomers, cartographers, pretty much anybody in any tech company that has to work with satellites they use to get internet. There would also be huge unanswered questions about our map. Professionals in a lot of different professions would be like wait why are there so many discrepancies on our map of the earth, this isn't adding up. They aren't doing that. Nobody questions it because its making sense, the model is working for every aspect of science and technology that uses it. The only people that are questioning "discrepancies in the map" are random internet people who's teachers used to hand them their tests back face-down.
Legit question wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Yes — Al Biruni famously used the observable and measurable fact that the horizon does not rise to eye level, and calculated the radius of the earth by measuring the dip-angle of the horizon from eye-level.
Another “nail-in-the coffin” for flat-earthers worldwide.
We can see up objects up to 150 miles away with HD camera technology. It completely disproves the globe earth curve calculator (8 inches per mile squared) There is no "nail-in-the coffin" for flat earth.
Or it proves refraction on a globe earth.
In any case, 8”/mi.^2 is a rough approximation which breaks down over large distances. For a much more accurate modeling, which can show both flat and globe earth side by side, I gave you a link a few pages back which models both a flat-earth and its laws of perspective, and a globe-earth, with the ability to simulate the effects of refraction, and zoom and field of view, allowing you to pan and tilt and roll, and add objects and match them to real photos.
But you are side-stepping the point about Al-Biruni’s repeatable mountain top experiment. How do flat earthers explain Al-Biruni’s mountain top experiment, where he measured the horizon not rising to eye-level, and used the difference between eye-level and the horizon to estimate the radius of the globe earth? Do they think he was working for NASA when he estimated the radius of the earth?
Any notion that “the horizon always rises to eye level” was debunked more than 1000 years ago by a guy with a telescope.
Not sure why everyone is blabbering on and on after this post settled the debate once and for all! Go to any major city that lies on flat Terrain. And ask yourself the question why do the skyscrapers disappear when you get far enough away from them, if the Earth is flat? Yet the moon on the horizon is clearly visible How can a flat earther possibly answer that question? Why do the skyscrapers disappear when you drive about 13 or 14 miles away from them? If the Earth was really flat theoretically they would be visible for as far away as you go as long as your field of vision isn't obstructed The debate is over!
ezbub wrote:
If the Earth really was flat you could go up in the Sears Tower in Chicago and see all the neighboring skyscrapers in the neighboring cities across the United States
I think the obvious point that the Earth is not flat is that you cannot go up on a high point and see other high points , like you would if the Earth really was flat
I know flat-earthers argue against this by saying that the atmosphere distorts distance Vision
But this is easily shown to be incorrect by the fact that you can see the moon clearly on the horizon, when you are looking through miles and miles of Earth's atmosphere, and then outer space to see the moon and it is very clearly visible
If the Earth really was flat you would not be able to see the moon on the horizon, but yet not be able to see distance skyscrapers
I think this is one of the most obvious ways to Simply show the Earth is round
Go to any major city that lies on flat Terrain, and drive from the skyscraper out and watch it vanish Over the Horizon , if the Earth really was flat it would not vanish like this
Also why wouldn't flat-earthers just rent a plane and fly towards the Antarctic wall and simply videotape it from a distance it should be clearly visible from a plane even if you're not allowed to approach it because of their mythical government conspiracy
But surely you have to be able to get close because some land masses lie fairly close to it, so it should be easy to rent a plane and just show video that the Earth is flat, and show some of the features that are theorized by flat-earthers
If the Earth was flat the highest point on the Earth would be visible from everywhere on the Earth! Yet how come himalayans and the Rockies and all the highest mountains magically vanish when you're a few hundred miles away from them? Yet the moon is visible on the horizon!
ContextisKing wrote:
Not sure why everyone is blabbering on and on after this post settled the debate once and for all!
Go to any major city that lies on flat Terrain. And ask yourself the question why do the skyscrapers disappear when you get far enough away from them, if the Earth is flat?
Yet the moon on the horizon is clearly visible
How can a flat earther possibly answer that question? Why do the skyscrapers disappear when you drive about 13 or 14 miles away from them? If the Earth was really flat theoretically they would be visible for as far away as you go as long as your field of vision isn't obstructed
The debate is over!
ezbub wrote:
If the Earth really was flat you could go up in the Sears Tower in Chicago and see all the neighboring skyscrapers in the neighboring cities across the United States
I think the obvious point that the Earth is not flat is that you cannot go up on a high point and see other high points , like you would if the Earth really was flat
I know flat-earthers argue against this by saying that the atmosphere distorts distance Vision
But this is easily shown to be incorrect by the fact that you can see the moon clearly on the horizon, when you are looking through miles and miles of Earth's atmosphere, and then outer space to see the moon and it is very clearly visible
If the Earth really was flat you would not be able to see the moon on the horizon, but yet not be able to see distance skyscrapers
I think this is one of the most obvious ways to Simply show the Earth is round
Go to any major city that lies on flat Terrain, and drive from the skyscraper out and watch it vanish Over the Horizon , if the Earth really was flat it would not vanish like this
Also why wouldn't flat-earthers just rent a plane and fly towards the Antarctic wall and simply videotape it from a distance it should be clearly visible from a plane even if you're not allowed to approach it because of their mythical government conspiracy
But surely you have to be able to get close because some land masses lie fairly close to it, so it should be easy to rent a plane and just show video that the Earth is flat, and show some of the features that are theorized by flat-earthers
Ezrun wrote:
If the Earth was flat the highest point on the Earth would be visible from everywhere on the Earth!
Yet how come himalayans and the Rockies and all the highest mountains magically vanish when you're a few hundred miles away from them? Yet the moon is visible on the horizon!
ContextisKing wrote:
Not sure why everyone is blabbering on and on after this post settled the debate once and for all!
Go to any major city that lies on flat Terrain. And ask yourself the question why do the skyscrapers disappear when you get far enough away from them, if the Earth is flat?
Yet the moon on the horizon is clearly visible
How can a flat earther possibly answer that question? Why do the skyscrapers disappear when you drive about 13 or 14 miles away from them? If the Earth was really flat theoretically they would be visible for as far away as you go as long as your field of vision isn't obstructed
The debate is over!
Exactly! The Earth really was flat you would never have a clear view of the horizon!
How is it that I can see the sun and the moon clearly set and rise on the horizon, but yet even with a powerful telescope I cannot see any elevated structures when I am on a fairly desolate part of the Earth such as the middle of the ocean or a large field, or the Prairies of the Midwest or desert or beach etc....
This!
Exactly! The Earth really was flat you would never have a clear view of the horizon!
How is it that I can see the sun and the moon clearly set and rise on the horizon, but yet even with a powerful telescope I cannot see any elevated structures when I am on a fairly desolate part of the Earth such as the middle of the ocean or a large field, or the Prairies of the Midwest or desert or beach etc....[/quote]
I fail to believe that flat earthers really hold the opinion that the earth is flat. I think they are 1. trolling or 2. just want something to argue about to fill the void that is their lives.
Alan
