So is your map fundamentally different to the lemon squeezer one and if so in what way.
It's basically a central gradient with indentations and then a large scoop from centre leading to an outer gradient towards the foundation of the dome or to be more clear, sloping up to the dome.
The so called North Pole you definitely said was in the raised centre.
There is no north pole in terms of how you offer it for a globe. It's a central energy that can be classed as north for clarity.
So are Australia and South America not opposite on yours although they are on the lemon squeezer?
Yes, they would be.
In that someone at least had enough faith in their theory to create the lemon squeezer map. Our free thinker wont produce a map because that would mean committing to details that would inevitably be visibly and provably wrong.
Not at all.
The only argument you would have against any of it is by using a global model that you think is accurate and for no other reason than being told it is, so I have absolutely no issues there.
You can. I explained this earlier. Through a telescope it is difficult to get sights on but you can see the shape. I have seen this. You asked about and asked if I had photographed it to. We had this conversation a few hours ago. Don't you remember.
Yes I have seen the shape. No I have not managed to get a photograph.
You can f***ing well see it. Why is this so difficult.
See what exactly? What are you seeing?
Show me a picture of what you are genuinely seeing through your scope. I know you say you don't have one but use some picture you believe marries up with what you genuinely see.
Because the distances between certain cities are too small to lay out on a flat structure. It doesn't work, it naturally forms a 3 dimensional structure. Take an orange, peel it and lay out the peel flat then look at the gaps. If you try to take distances between cities and lay them out flat then that is what you get, a split orange peel of a world.
Of course, you'd have to fill in the gaps if you had to peel the supposed globe.
You say it would distort it. I agree if we were peeling a paper globe map but that is exactly what it is. It's a model and not the real thing.
There's no distortion on the real thing and no offering for it except to use a model.
If we wanted to go with this argument I could offer fitting pieces and call that supposed distortion, not distortion from a flattened perspective.
I could then say you can't make a globe out of it unless you crease it which would distort it.
It's an argument that offers nothing either way.
As I said before, you have a majority backing for a globe model and that's it. You are not in possession of any facts.
This thread has taught many of us many things, but I have learned I could never be a remedial science teacher. Teaching a pig to tie a bow tie, doddle. Explaining something simple to you, like you can f***ing well see it. Really really hard.
I agree. You see, when you are not in possession of the facts and are only in possession of what you're told are the facts then your teaching to others can only ever be based on regurgitation. This is all fine if people want to hang onto that as you offer them facts and them accepting what you say as factual.
The problem you have in this case is, that I'm not one to simply believe something until I know it for a fact but I can happily accept a story told and go with it until I feel there's a time to question.
This is where I'm at and I agree it's frustrating for people like yourself because when you're in possession of a library at will, you're armed with everything you accept and believe from an authority, and what you believe is the authority on any given subject.
Though at times I think you use your ignorance as a deflection from the issue and actually answering any question.
It depends on who is really ignorant.
We are now on to us repeating the same things over an over while you say "huh what?" rather than answering what the ISS is or why the distances don't work.
Then do not repeat. You have a choice.
