[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Thus far no.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Now I'm confused...

And where is the North Pole in the flat earth model if not at the centre of the disk then?

Paul McCartney died in 1966.

That's one of the funniest memes in the history memeology.

Billy not trolling. And some of his arguments seem prima facie reasonable to me.

Which ones exactly?

I'm sure Billy is thrilled to have your endorsement in this matter.

I get the impression that even Billy finds some of your ideas with regards to terrestrial matters fanciful, to put it charitably.

The Horizon Effect Argument seems prima facie plausible. (i.e. the sailboat pictures)

They are "correct" insofar as they are testing the azi equi pro map. Latitude is not the right parameter, the sides disagree on that. So they use only (r,theta).

My issue is I do not subscribe to the UN disk model. My map is google maps and sometimes ordnance survey, these get me about just fine.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Evidence of death please.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Because if you listen very closely, you can hear John Lennon say "I buried Paul" at the end of the song Strawberry Fields Forever..

That is a kind of evidence. But there is no hard evidence as far as I know.

On the replacement however, for that there is plenty of both hard and soft evidence.

https://youtu.be/eswQl-hcvU0?si=DQkVzy05...

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Paul is barefoot on the Abbey Road cover. WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED!! THIS IS SCIENCE!!!

Calling something prima facie plausible doesn't make any sense when you already have been presented with compelling contrary evidence.

If someone were in here arguing that airplanes rely on antigravity technology, and their proof was that metal objects of sufficient size and density fall to Earth when dropped, would you say that the person has made a prima facie case that airplanes rely on antigravity technology?

Ok, maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the whole point of their calculations that if the "orthodox" map (e.g. Google maps) is accurate, then Earth has a curvature of pi/20000km, i.e. not zero? Why would the projection matter? You just adjust your distance calculation so it works with your projection, presumably. The shortest distance between 2 points on a sphere is the geodesic through those 2 points (great circle), and this is not affected by projection.

And the illegally parked VW has the registration LMW 281F, and Paul would have been 28 IF he were still alive at the time, the implication being he wasn't.

Apparently the car is now in the VW museum.

Did you know that Google uses the Web Mercator projection? It is based on a spherical earth.

Billy,

I get the feeling you might be assigning way too much import to cartographic projection. The reason we have different projections (assuming the Earth is a ball) is that a sphere is not a developable surface, which in plain English means you can't roll a piece of paper into a sphere (unlike, for example, a cylinder or a cone), and consequently you can't unroll a sphere onto a flat piece of paper. A projection is a function (method, if you like) to map points on the sphere to points on the plane. We can then linearly scale this planar projection down to map size and print it on a piece of paper or put it in a PDF. The different projections we use have properties in terms of what they distort and what they preserve (e.g. distances, angles) and are useful in different circumstances. But the specific choice of projection doesn't affect the thing you're projecting and doesn't change distances or angles on the original sphere (hopefully this goes without saying).

If the Earth were flat, on the other hand, we would not need any projection, as it's already flat. It would just need to be scaled down to fit on a piece of paper.

I see no reason why the premise of the paper or its conclusions would be dependent on choice of projection. Presumably they just need some (any) projection to show the reader what they're talking about.

To Didace's point - I don't understand how you can reconcile believing Google maps to be accurate and simultaneously disbelieving the Earth is spherical. The map is based on a projection of a sphere onto a plane.

It would just be a globe proof, why would they need a flat map to debunk? I have not read that far.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Fair point. Neither have I, let me know.

This is an interesting comment:

"In extracting information from Gleason’s map, we ignore the Arctic and Antarctic Circles (both clearly labeled) as well as the Tropics of Capricorn and Cancer (one labeled, the other one not but still clearly identifiable). These four traditional circles pertain more to the solar cycle of seasons than to the geometry of the surface of the Earth itself. The pertinent information lies in the eleven circles that are labeled from 0◦ to 75◦ in 15◦ latitude intervals on both sides of the Equator. Regarding the contentious 90◦ South parallel circle, which may or may not reduce to a single point, we can safely omit it, since no regular commercial airline route flies over Antarctica."

It is true these special lines of latitude identify seasonal, celestial phenomena. The latitudes in between also map celestial phenomena. These are projected onto the imaginary Earth sphere. There is nothing more "geometric" about arbitrarily spaced latitude lines than the tropics.

The "no fly zone" over Antarctica is ofc an on-going controversy.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

They have simply used the reciprocal of the radius, i.e. curvature, rather than the radius directly. The conclusion is that spherical earth times stack up, as do flat earth times when looking at a flight along approx meridian. But times in the southern hemisphere along latitudes differ wildly. But this is totally obvious and expected. The latitude lines of the globe are stretched laterally to give the Gleason. So of course the real distances are shorter.

Does the conclusion support sphericity, or curvature generally? It does not refute it. For the times given, the recorded flight times concur with those predicted using a spherical map. We can say the globe map is accurate for predicting flight times and the azi equi pro map is not.

(Disclaimer, my stats is close to pathetic and I have no intention of improving. Anything hugely relevant in the statistical analysis please interpret.)

Next we would need to establish how this map is developed, the science of cartography. I believe surveying provides the raw data, which assumes a flat earth. But open to all possibility.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

A stack of turtles.