Nukehasslefan
Winger
They simply do not take the so-called global curve into account.
-
The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Put a flat earthier into space
- Thread starter southstander
- Start date
So they don't take it into account, so the distances are correct?
Why did you say you accepted the distances are correct in the first place.
I genuinely don't know now if you do or you don't
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Swrve it all you want but you know what I'm talking about.
I missed this bit.
Let's take a look at boats.
Last edited:
3.142
Striker
And of course if we pick 2 places with water between them the distances are errmmmm, the same anyway, because errmmm water level.So they don't take it into account, so the distances are correct?
Why did you say you accepted the distances are correct in the first place.
I genuinely don't know now if you do or you don't
Seems to think we measure distances between places as if we travel through the earth to get there
Nukehasslefan
Winger
I didn't say any distances were correct. I said I accept what you're saying.So they don't take it into account, so the distances are correct?
Why did you say you accepted the distances are correct in the first place.
I genuinely don't know now if you do or you don't
So you accept measured and travelled distances generally like you say here, is it just these 5 cities you don't agree with.
Shall I pick another 5?
You must be logged on to see external links
Nukehasslefan
Winger
I'm fine with what I've put down.
Yet you don't accept travelled distances between those cities I put up.
Why didn't you dispute them before you produced your map?
Why say you CAN make a flat map work with these known distances.
You have failed dramatically.
The Snockerty Friddle
Winger
The irony!
I'm swerving nothing here and am well aware of what's being discussed. We moved on from sticks in the ground months ago and they were proving you wrong on a different matter anyway.
If we measure the distance from point to point on a globe, which we do, because we live on a globe, that gives us one distance and it's not going to change if you flatten the globe out into a 2D map.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Take away the curved paths and it'll be fine.
No need to dispute anything. I know the Earth is not a globe and I offered you a setup of distances based on taking out the curve.
I did.
In your mind which is fine.
Of course, it would change.
What curved paths?
I'm talking distances drove, sailed, flew by people in real life, they have to be accurate.
A plane that flies from Newcastle to Manchester will register miles the same as if it flew to Portugal.
Why didn't you dispute the distances before you tried (and failed) to produce a map.
Do you have an alternative list of distances between all of these cities and more, you must have surely or how do you know what your world looks like? Can you post some?
How come some distances will be short yet others too long, surely it must be one rule across the board for "removing the curve"
What about distances strictly over flat unhindered water? On your map you wouldn't cross any land masses to get from Australia to South america or then on to South Africa, all across perfectly flat water so why don't they work?
The Snockerty Friddle
Winger
Stick a pin in London on a globe. Tie a bit of string to that and pin the other end into another city. That gives you the distance between the two cities. It cannot change.
A piece of string is a piece of string.
As you insist on the monumental fuckwittery of dispensing with the known globe and replacing it with ANYthing else, your map simple HAS to show the same distance between those two and all others or else it's a pointless piece of crap.
You could take the longitude and latitude of any two cities and use geometry to figure out the straight-line distance between the two. Easy enough with two, but you have to be able to do it with every single place on the planet. You cant. Even in your diagram from a couple of pages back you somehow managed to put Japan to the north west of Australia which seems a bit off.
Oh wait.... geometry doesn't exist does it? Silly me.
Last edited:
payne
Striker
no such thing as right angles you utter moron
The Snockerty Friddle
Winger
I just cant seem to shake off that actual reality mindset and get with the everyone's an idiot narrative.
payne
Striker
they aren't idiots, they just follow set narratives and follow the story all laid out for them. no need to think outside the box on something so utterly mundane as the shape of the planet when they have bills to pay and kids to feed. It's probably good that 99.9% of who's ever lived lives in this ignorance as the levels of paranoia on mass if they knew the globe cover up and mass conspiracy, they wouldn't get any work done
Nukehasslefan
Winger
You're never going to get anything accurate if you offer a curved path for a straight and level direction, as simple as that.
Yes, it will but the real issue here is not the so-called northern hemisphere but the so-called southern hemisphere and distances and it's this that I have the major issues with in terms of miles offered.
I don't think I failed. I think I did fine.
I've done enough for you and got back exactly what I guessed so forgive me if I don't offer you anything else on this because it doesn't gain you anything and it certainly doesn't solve anything, other than your belief that a flat map cannot be accurately made from a globe model, which we all knew anyway.
The distance of the curve would alter things.
But the same thing applies. A curved ocean. It's so ridiculous but there you go.
So the same thing would need to apply.
Your distances all offer a convex curvature, so we are arguing it from that point.
Of course, it can't change, on your globe but it would if the distance was leveled.
Last edited:
fyl2u
Striker
You really do. It's mirrored in such a way that reflections from the projector are stunningly perfect and somehow never distort no matter the distance from the projector, angle of the dome at that point, or whether or not a bit has just fallen off in a random direction to create the illusion of shooting stars, while also somehow preventing any reflection occurring of the land and sea below it. Oh, and the bits falling off that give the illusion of shooting stars have no reflection either. MAGIC.
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Maybe if you'd paid more attention you wouldn't then need to offer what you yhave.
The Snockerty Friddle
Winger
Exactly how?
The string is just a measured bit of string of a set length, the cities are a known distance apart as measured on the globe, change that to a flat map projection and the distance has to be the same. Even your curved stick is still the same stick when straightened out.
You're not getting it are you, are you a moron?
Forget about a globe, OK, forget it.
A plane flies from Newcastle to London or someone drives that journey, the plane or car will register x miles, the same vehicle does the same to Portugal (which I've drove) nobody alters the mileometers on planes or cars depending on where they are going or in which hemisphere, keep extending that further, quantas may fly between 2 destinations in the southern hemisphere, they may go from southern to northern using the same plane, they don't alter the plane and the way they measure the miles, we know how far places are actually apart on our world no matter what shape, you say its flat so nothing to take into account or asjust in your world.
So why are the distances actually travelled and measured incorrect to you?
Or as I say do you have an alternative flat earth list of miles between cities? You must have surely if you know how to map it, pop them up?
