FLAT EARTH

[Dino246]

FYI....

This is the Azimuthal Equidistant map.

It is one of the most accurate representations of the world map, rendering with high precision all locations and continents. (in scale, unlike other maps)

It has been the preferred map by many navigators for a long time.

It perfectly represents the "Globe" in a flat plane.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection


You clearly make a fool out of yourselves when you demonstrate your ignorance on such basic concepts.

Maybe you really don't know as much as you think.

RESEARCH, don't mock.

The polar azimuthal projection is merely one of hundreds of map projections, all of which distort some aspect of the earth's surface - distance, shape, direction, size. It's popular among flat-earthers because its appearance fits their hypothesis.

It is impossible to represent a roughly-spherical surface accurately on a flat plane without some distortion.

In order for your flat-earth hypothesis to be viable, your position must account for all real-world observations in a consistent and scientifically-testable manner. Couching your position in conspiracy theories and simplistic observations is woefully inadequate.

 

[Seedz]

The polar azimuthal projection is merely one of hundreds of map projections, all of which distort some aspect of the earth's surface - distance, shape, direction, size. It's popular among flat-earthers because its appearance fits their hypothesis.

It is impossible to represent a roughly-spherical surface accurately on a flat plane without some distortion.

In order for your flat-earth hypothesis to be viable, your position must account for all real-world observations in a consistent and scientifically-testable manner. Couching your position in conspiracy theories and simplistic observations is woefully inadequate.

"The azimuthal equidistant projection is an azimuthal map projection. It has the useful properties that all points on the map are at proportionately correct distances from the center point, and that all points on the map are at the correct azimuth (direction) from the center point." (Wikipedia)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
Many other projections fail to uphold these values of direction and distance, which in a map are some of the most important aspects.

What is scientific about claiming that there is a curvature when many different tests have failed to represent such observations?

Suppose that the earth is a sphere of a radius of 3963 miles. If you are at a point P on the earth's surface and move tangent to the surface a distance of 1 mile then you can form a right angled triangle. Using the theorem of Pythagoras a[SUP]2[/SUP] = 3963[SUP]2[/SUP] + 1[SUP]2[/SUP] = 15705370 and thus a = 3963.000126 miles. Thus your position is 3963.000126 - 3963 = 0.000126 miles above the surface of the earth. 0.000126 miles = 12*5280*0.000126 = 7.98 inches. Hence the earth's surface curves approximately 8 inches in one mile. Since it is a curve, that value is squared per mile. The further the distance that you measure, the more drop there will be.

I have drawn models of the earth in Cad programs like solid works and Autocad, and I cannot for the life of me replicate what is observable in the real world. Have you done any of this homework? Or do you pretentiously post on forums claiming to know what you're talking about?

What about civilian high altitude balloons that fly upwards of 120K feet and show no curvature when using a non fish eye camera.

What is realistic about the globe earth observations? Can you tell me of 1 single observation without using mainstream sources that prove a globe earth?

The problem with you globe heads is that you take what you have been taught by faith and you never question it. Just like the enterntainment industry has slowly grown more and more perverse, so have our politics, government officials, and agendas for human kind.

Do you wonder why the azimuthal projection is one of the oldest? Used by the ancient egyptians and even found in an 11th century work by al-biruni.

Why is it that flat earth was the norm originally?

Why is it that many ancient cultures teach flat earth as the correct representation of the world?

Let me guess, you haven't looked into any "space" footage or "lunar" landings have you?

 

[LibrarianLeo]

"The azimuthal equidistant projection is an azimuthal map projection. It has the useful properties that all points on the map are at proportionately correct distances from the center point, and that all points on the map are at the correct azimuth (direction) from the center point." (Wikipedia)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
Many other projections fail to uphold these values of direction and distance, which in a map are some of the most important aspects.

What is scientific about claiming that there is a curvature when many different tests have failed to represent such observations?

Suppose that the earth is a sphere of a radius of 3963 miles. If you are at a point P on the earth's surface and move tangent to the surface a distance of 1 mile then you can form a right angled triangle. Using the theorem of Pythagoras a[SUP]2[/SUP] = 3963[SUP]2[/SUP] + 1[SUP]2[/SUP] = 15705370 and thus a = 3963.000126 miles. Thus your position is 3963.000126 - 3963 = 0.000126 miles above the surface of the earth. 0.000126 miles = 12*5280*0.000126 = 7.98 inches. Hence the earth's surface curves approximately 8 inches in one mile. Since it is a curve, that value is squared per mile. The further the distance that you measure, the more drop there will be.

I have drawn models of the earth in Cad programs like solid works and Autocad, and I cannot for the life of me replicate what is observable in the real world. Have you done any of this homework? Or do you pretentiously post on forums claiming to know what you're talking about?

What about civilian high altitude balloons that fly upwards of 120K feet and show no curvature when using a non fish eye camera.

What is realistic about the globe earth observations? Can you tell me of 1 single observation without using mainstream sources that prove a globe earth?

The problem with you globe heads is that you take what you have been taught by faith and you never question it. Just like the enterntainment industry has slowly grown more and more perverse, so have our politics, government officials, and agendas for human kind.

Do you wonder why the azimuthal projection is one of the oldest? Used by the ancient egyptians and even found in an 11th century work by al-biruni.

Why is it that flat earth was the norm originally?

Why is it that many ancient cultures teach flat earth as the correct representation of the world?

Let me guess, you haven't looked into any "space" footage or "lunar" landings have you?

If you look at the moon with binoculars or even without, you can see from the change of the shape of the craters that it is globe shaped. From the moon, you would see the same effect. Looking at other planets, you see the same shape.

A globe shaped moon doe not prove the earth is the same. But the odds are good since
the moon travels in a regular orbit around the earth and causes tides.

 

[LibrarianLeo]

There is no "south pole"

Antarctica is the beginning of the edge, just like a coastline is the beginning of a continent.

Instead of imposing your own preconceived notions, why don't you take some time and unbiased-ly research flat earth facts?

It may surprise you.

The South Pole - All You Need to Know Before You Go (with Photos)


Google images
https://www.google.com/maps/@-64.6806132,135.9020029,6501105m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

[Seedz]

How do you explain this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tgxTCDjvBI

It is a video taken by a civilian grade camera.

Riddle me this: How is it possible to zoom, and draw the detail out of what the star actually looks like with a civilian grade camera?

How is it even possible if this star is supposedly 8.6 Light years away???


A light year is one year of travel at the speed of light.

Do you realize how far allegedly that is?

 

[Seedz]

Here is another test, with a p900!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clg7rQB6H2U

You can pick up this sucker for a mere $400.00 on amazon.

If the moon is almost a quarter million miles away, how can this cheap camera zoom in and FOCUS on the moon if it is truly so far away?

 

[Karraster]

Here is another test, with a p900!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clg7rQB6H2U

You can pick up this sucker for a mere $400.00 on amazon.

If the moon is almost a quarter million miles away, how can this cheap camera zoom in and FOCUS on the moon if it is truly so far away?

very cool. from his youtube page~

Ripple ripple little star, you don't seem so very far.
Spinning round the world so fast, worshipped throughout all our past.
Ripple ripple little star, not what NASA says you are.
​

 

[MichaelOwen]

People forget how far technology has come these days.....and ask all the questions why.....if you'd actually do some research instead of relying on internet sources, then maybe your mind will be free, but hey it's your choice, stay in that hell of a stronghold you have called conspiracy

 

[tourist]

Here is another test, with a p900!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clg7rQB6H2U

You can pick up this sucker for a mere $400.00 on amazon.

If the moon is almost a quarter million miles away, how can this cheap camera zoom in and FOCUS on the moon if it is truly so far away?

The cheap camera obviously has a good lens. Cheap telescopes can FOCUS on the moon too and other planets as well. Far away is a relative term.

 

[MichaelOwen]

The cheap camera obviously has a good lens. Cheap telescopes can FOCUS on the moon too and other planets as well. Far away is a relative term.

Another thing not taken into account is the shear size of the moon, nor the planets. These aren't just little marbles in the sky....their massive creations!

 

[Seedz]

The cheap camera obviously has a good lens. Cheap telescopes can FOCUS on the moon too and other planets as well. Far away is a relative term.

239,000 miles are still 239,000 miles. No matter how you slice it. Can you visualize how far that actually is?


it still doesn't make sense that that camera can zoom and focus as well as it does on an object so far away.

There is still atmospheric occulison and visibility issues, but it still focuses regardless of size of the object. The surface is still 239,000 miles away.

A $400 camera is able to focus and close in never the less.

 

[MichaelOwen]

239,000 miles are still 239,000 miles. No matter how you slice it. Can you visualize how far that actually is?


it still doesn't make sense that that camera can zoom and focus as well as it does on an object so far away.

There is still atmospheric occulison and visibility issues, but it still focuses regardless of size of the object. The surface is still 239,000 miles away.

A $400 camera is able to focus and close in never the less.

Again....you're completely overlooking the size.....a camera with a 400 dollars lens can be zoom in on the moon and be clearly visible....on a planet like Saturn....no, it's only going to appear as a bright shining light, same as the other planets. But a good powered telescope can focus in to a certain degree on a planet further out when set right

 

[Seedz]

Again....you're completely overlooking the size.....a camera with a 400 dollars lens can be zoom in on the moon and be clearly visible....on a planet like Saturn....no, it's only going to appear as a bright shining light, same as the other planets. But a good powered telescope can focus in to a certain degree on a planet further out when set right

OK,

let's forget that we are focusing on the whole moon as a whole.

For the sake of argument lets focus on a single crater of the moon which is far smaller than the moon as a whole.

Granted, this is a screen shot and the quality has been compromised, but regardless, the craters come out in very good detail, here is the link to the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfshAzV0FN4



You also say, what about saturn?

Well, the p900 can also see that. Fast forward to about 1:30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=troqVst56eg

One of different videos showing that you can see "saturn" with a p900, it is not just a spec of light.

Saturn is supposedly 745,645,430.6848 Miles from earth. Yet the P900 can see its rings....

 

[Dino246]

...
Have you done any of this homework? Or do you pretentiously post on forums claiming to know what you're talking about?
...

I hold an earned degree in Geography from an accredited university. I have worked in the mapping field for much of my career. If you want to argue flat earth with me, you would do well not to waste your time with disjointed anecdotes. As I said before, if your position cannot account for all real-world observations, it must be false. Accounting for a few of them while ignoring others is nowhere near convincing.

 

[Seedz]

I hold an earned degree in Geography from an accredited university. I have worked in the mapping field for much of my career. If you want to argue flat earth with me, you would do well not to waste your time with disjointed anecdotes. As I said before, if your position cannot account for all real-world observations, it must be false. Accounting for a few of them while ignoring others is nowhere near convincing.

In order for me to understand what you mean by observations, you have to be more specific.

Many of the areas that are mapped are done in smaller plots. No area is mapped as a whole, i.e. mapping the whole continent of Australia was not done as a whole, it is a culmination of smaller plots. Now I am asking you, what is the typical size of a plot to be surveyed?

Aren't many of today's maps done with aerial views?

Many of these views can be represented with great accuracy in a flat plane, meaning 2D images.

Aren't bar scales always straight lines? Correct me if I am wrong, but are the Bar scales adjusted for curve?


The "few" observations that I have accounted for in favor of a flat plane are so irrefutably blatant that I find it very difficult to understand how it is that the globe earth still stands. Then I realize that because of institutions like NASA and the education system, the information is controlled, and tailored to fit a particular paradigm.



I too hold a degree, (in mechanical engineering) from an accredited University. I am not undermining your education nor your skill set, and forgive me for coming off as aggressive.

But I just want you to see that you need to look at the whole picture and realize that there are a lot of holes in the globe model and your particular day to day job (probably) rarely deals with globe specifics.

 

[LibrarianLeo]

If you've seen heat creating distortion near it's source, then you
can also see stars twinkling in the sky due to heat.
A Star is just a pinpoint source of light so it moves a lot.
You can't see details of even our sun without good filters.

 

[Seedz]

If you've seen heat creating distortion near it's source, then you
can also see stars twinkling in the sky due to heat.
A Star is just a pinpoint source of light so it moves a lot.
You can't see details of even our sun without good filters.

Disregard the optical effects, my argument is based on the ability to zoom in and focus with a low grade camera and bring out detail of the celestial objects.

 

[MichaelOwen]

In order for me to understand what you mean by observations, you have to be more specific.

Many of the areas that are mapped are done in smaller plots. No area is mapped as a whole, i.e. mapping the whole continent of Australia was not done as a whole, it is a culmination of smaller plots. Now I am asking you, what is the typical size of a plot to be surveyed?

Aren't many of today's maps done with aerial views?

Many of these views can be represented with great accuracy in a flat plane, meaning 2D images.

Aren't bar scales always straight lines? Correct me if I am wrong, but are the Bar scales adjusted for curve?


The "few" observations that I have accounted for in favor of a flat plane are so irrefutably blatant that I find it very difficult to understand how it is that the globe earth still stands. Then I realize that because of institutions like NASA and the education system, the information is controlled, and tailored to fit a particular paradigm.



I too hold a degree, (in mechanical engineering) from an accredited University. I am not undermining your education nor your skill set, and forgive me for coming off as aggressive.

But I just want you to see that you need to look at the whole picture and realize that there are a lot of holes in the globe model and your particular day to day job (probably) rarely deals with globe specifics.

There are just as many holes in the flat Earth model if not more than the Globe model. What you haven't answered on is this : How do you explain a sunset, or a sun RISE. How do you explain seeing stars in the northern Hemisphere you cannot see in the Southern Hemisphere. How can you explain the change in temperature from Winter to Spring, to Summer to Fall and back to Winter? How can you explain that when it is daylight here in the states, I can call a relative in Cambodia and it's night time? Explain the time zones if you can. Can you give me a solid argument as to why these observations are seen and recorded day in and day out? And what observations have YOU YOURSELF truly made of the "flat" Earth as you believe it be?

 

[Seedz]

There are just as many holes in the flat Earth model if not more than the Globe model. What you haven't answered on is this : How do you explain a sunset, or a sun RISE. How do you explain seeing stars in the northern Hemisphere you cannot see in the Southern Hemisphere. How can you explain the change in temperature from Winter to Spring, to Summer to Fall and back to Winter? How can you explain that when it is daylight here in the states, I can call a relative in Cambodia and it's night time? Explain the time zones if you can. Can you give me a solid argument as to why these observations are seen and recorded day in and day out? And what observations have YOU YOURSELF truly made of the "flat" Earth as you believe it be?

Didn't you say you already researched flat earth? If you did you wouldn't be asking these questions.

If you truly want to listen I will explain.

All of this info is readily available on many flat earth pages, not to mention you can reason a lot of these things on your own once you realize we're not a spec of dust floating in space.

Nonetheless, answers for all of these questions exist.

The only one thing that is not fully evident are eclipses.

NASA says it is alignment of moon, earth and sun.

What if there is a third object in heaven?

There are ancient accounts of said object through out history.

I personally have not found a conclusive argument for this, but I am transparent about what I know and what I don't.

 

[tourist]

Didn't you say you already researched flat earth? If you did you wouldn't be asking these questions.

If you truly want to listen I will explain.

All of this info is readily available on many flat earth pages, not to mention you can reason a lot of these things on your own once you realize we're not a spec of dust floating in space.

Nonetheless, answers for all of these questions exist.

The only one thing that is not fully evident are eclipses.

NASA says it is alignment of moon, earth and sun.

What if there is a third object in heaven?

There are ancient accounts of said object through out history.

I personally have not found a conclusive argument for this, but I am transparent about what I know and what I don't.

NASA was not the first to explain the reason for an eclipse. This knowledge is centuries old. To make a more effective argument it would be helpful to you to stop mentioning about NASA as I believe no one gives that agency a second thought, even know what they do or give a squat about what they do or say. NASA is not the only space agency either. Flat earth and round earth has been debated for centuries, this is not something that a government agency came up with and decided to perpetuate a fraud on the masses for reasons unknown. Personally, I don't care if the earth is round or flat but the preponderance of evidence suggest that the earth is indeed round and has been observed, verified, and recorded by reputable persons many times over even before Christopher Columbus.