History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedThe REAL world look like this...

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The REAL world look like this...
    Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 01:43

Since the 15th century people has been cheated by a projection that distort the real aspect of the world. Mercator projection makes people to believe Europe and the Northern region of the world are larger and the southern hemisphere smaller that they really are.

In Peters projection you see clearly that Iceland is an island, how small is Europe, that Anglo America is smaller than Latin America, that Africa is huge and that India is not that small.
 
The real aspect of the world is seen only with Peters' projection. This projection show countries of the size they really are. It is quite shocking to see it the first time. If you haven't as yet, this is the Peter's Projection:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 2818
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 06:03
First of all, the Mercator projection does not make the southern hemisphere look smaller: scaling is increased by distance from the equator, effectively rendering Greenland and Antarctica humongous (and btw also means that mainland USA is scaled almost exactly as much as Chile and Argentina).
 
Secondly, Mercator's projection was made to ease navigation in the early modern era: straight lines on the map are lines of true bearing - this is not the case on other projections or on a globe. As such, it was far superior to other projections in the field and it's not some kind of propaganda piece to show Europe bigger. It's hardly the projection you usually find in school rooms.
 
Third, Peters projection distorts area as well. It's a cylindrical projection and thusly have huge distortions in the North and the South.
 
Fourth. It's not a "real aspect" - you can only get that with a globe. Fifth I take here as well: if you by real aspect meant equal-area, Peters is far from the only, and far from the first, and far from the best*.
 
Eg the Samson-Flamsteed sinusoidal projection:
 
 
And the Mollweide elliptical projection:
 
 
 
 
And especially Goode's projection, which takes the best of the two above making it pretty accurate:
 
 
 
 
*the last was an opinion


Edited by Styrbiorn - 25-Mar-2007 at 06:16
Back to Top
Dan Carkner View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dan Carkner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 10:56
Wow Pinguin, it's funny you posted this thread because I am staying at my friend's in Montreal and I was just lying awake in the morning looking at her Peter's projection on the wall,thinking-- Is algeria really that big!? And Brazil!?
Back to Top
Lmprs View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1872
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lmprs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 11:14
Pinguin, the maps in your post show shapes correctly, but the same thing cannot be said about areas.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 14:02
Originally posted by Dan Carkner Dan Carkner wrote:

Wow Pinguin, it's funny you posted this thread because I am staying at my friend's in Montreal and I was just lying awake in the morning looking at her Peter's projection on the wall,thinking-- Is algeria really that big!? And Brazil!?
 
Yes, they are. In South America I live in Chile, the smallest Hispanic country of the region. But you can put in here Japan and France together and you'll still have room to put more.
 
The Earth in Peters projection (not in "evil" Mercator projection LOL)
 
Image:Gall-peters.jpg
 
This is the key of Peters projection:
 
Gall-Peters projection shows areas of equal size on the globe as also equal size on the map
 
 
 
This is about the Gall-Peters Projection and its purpose
 
The Gall-Peters projection is one specialization of a configurable equal-area map projection known as the equal-area cylindric or cylindrical equal-area projection. The Gall-Peters achieved considerable notoriety in the late 20th century as the centerpiece of a controversy surrounding the political implications of map design. Maps based on the projection continue to see use in some circles and are readily available, though few major map publishers produce them.
 
Arno Peters, a historian, devised a map based on Gall's orthographic projection in 1967, presented it in 1973 as a 'new invention', and promoted it as a superior alternative to the Mercator projection, a much older projection suitable for navigation which increasingly inflates the sizes of regions according to their distance from the equator. The Mercator inflation results, for example, in a representation of Greenland that is larger than Africa, whereas in reality Africa is 13 times as large. In contrast, the Gall-Peters projection shows areas of equal size on the globe as also equal size on the map. Since much of the underdeveloped world lies in or near the tropics, those countries appear smaller on a Mercator, and therefore, in Peters's theory, less significant. By using his "new" projection, disadvantaged nations could be restored to their rightful proportions. This argument was picked up by many educational and religious bodies, leading to adoption of the Gall-Peters projection amongst some socially concerned groups.

Peters's original description of the projection for his map contained an error such that the standard parallels worked out to be 4602'N/S. The text accompanying the description made it clear that he had intended the standard parallels to be 45, making his projection identical to Gall's orthographic.[6] In a world map, the difference is negligible.

Arno Peters was the son of social activists and probably gained his lifelong concern about equality from his parents, Lucy and Bruno Peters. In 1929, when Peters was 13, the famous African-American activist and NAACP field secretary William Pickens visited the family and left a signed copy of his book Bursting Bonds. During the Second World War, Peters' father was imprisoned by the Nazis for refusing to obey the totalitarian regime

 


Edited by pinguin - 25-Mar-2007 at 14:04
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 2818
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 14:07
Quote Gall-Peters projection shows areas of equal size on the globe as also equal size on the map
 
Which also is the goal for a number of other projections, several of which makes a better job than Peters. Please note that Peters projection is also erroneous; it's impossible to create a completely equal-sized rectangular map of the earth.
 
 
And if your going to copy-paste from wikipedia why not take the whole article?
 
 
 
 
 
----
quoted from wikipedia, rest of the article pinguin quoted:
 
---
 

Peters's foray into cartography was largely ignored by the cartographic community at first. Crusaders for new projections spring up now and then, rarely making much of an impression. For one thing, the mathematics governing map projections does not permit development of a world map that is significantly "better" in any objective sense than the hundreds of map projections already devised. Peters's map was no exception in that regard, and in fact Peters had (probably unwittingly) based it on a projection that was already over a century old. That projection, Gall's "orthographic", passed unnoticed when it was announced in 1855 for the simple fact that it lacked any remarkable properties. Peters's co-option of it did nothing to change that. For another thing, Mercator's inappropriate use in world maps and the size disparities figuring prominently in Peters's arguments against the Mercator had been remarked upon for centuries and quite commonly in the 20th century.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Even Peters's politicized interpretation of the common use of Mercator was nothing new, with mention of a similar controversy in Kelloway's 1946 text.[10] Cartographers had witnessed an eerily similar campaign twenty years prior to Peters's efforts when Trystan Edwards described and promoted his "Trystan Edwards" projection, disparaging the Mercator and recommending his projection as the solution.[7] Peters's map differed from Edwards's only in height-to-width ratio. Cartographers, who had long despaired over publishers' stubborn use of the Mercator, had no reason to think Peters would succeed any more than Edwards had, or, for that matter, any more than any other of the long line of (perhaps) well-intentioned, zealous, but poorly informed predecessors had.[13][14]

Nor was the concept that an equal area projection was preferable to the Mercator projection at all new to USA school textbooks. Before the First World War the noted cartographer John Paul Goode had spoken and written many times against "the evil Mercator" projection, and at the time of his death in 1932 Goode's School Atlas was the leading atlas used in US public schools (the 2004 edition which is in print as of June 2006 has the slightly revised title of Goode's World Atlas 21st Edition ISBN 0-528-85339-2). Goode's phrase "evil Mercator" still appears in the section on map projections in the 1939 edition, and the Goode homolosine projection that Goode invented is emphasized.

Peters, however, launched his campaign in a different world. He announced his map at a time when themes of social justice resonated strongly in academia and politics. Insinuating cartographic imperialism, Peters found ready audiences. The campaign was bolstered by the innuendo that the Peters projection was the only "area-correct" map. Other claims included "absolute angle conformality", "no extreme distortions of form" and "totally distance-factual".[15]

All of those claims were erroneous.[16][17] Some of the oldest projections are equal-area (the sinusoidal projection is also known as the Mercator equal-area projection), and hundreds have been described, refuting any implication that Peters's map is special in that regard. In any case, Mercator was not the pervasive projection Peters made it out to be: a wide variety of projections has always been used in world maps.[18] Hence, it could be argued that Peters had simply set up a straw man to knock down. Peters's chosen projection suffers extreme distortion in the polar regions, as any cylindric projection must, and its distortion along the equator is considerable. Indeed, most ironically, the only region lacking distortion happens to be along the latitude of Arno Peters's native Germany[1] (and the opposite latitude in the southern hemisphere), not anywhere in the underdeveloped world. The claim of distance fidelity is particularly problematic; Peters's map lacks distance fidelity everywhere except along the 45th parallels north and south, and then only in the direction of those parallels. No world projection is good at preserving distances everywhere; Peters's and all other cylindric projections are especially bad in that regard because east-west distances inevitably balloon toward the poles.[16][19]

The cartographic community met Peters's 1973 press conference with amusement and mild exasperation, but little activity beyond a few articles commenting on the technical aspects of Peters's claims. In the ensuing years, however, it became clear that Peters and his map were no flash in the pan. By 1980 many cartographers had turned overtly hostile to his claims. In particular, Peters writes in The New Cartography,

Philosophers, astronomers, historians, popes and mathematicians have all drawn global maps long before cartographers as such existed. Cartographers appeared in the "Age of Discovery," which developed into the Age of European Conquest and Exploitation and took over the task of making maps.

By the authority of their profession they have hindered its development. Since Mercator produced his global map over four hundred years ago for the age of Europeans world domination, cartographers have clung to it despite its having been long outdated by events. They have sought to render it topical by cosmetic corrections.

...The European world concept, as the last expression of a subjective global view of primitive peoples, must give way to an objective global concept.

The cartographic profession is, by its retention of old precepts based on the Eurocentric global concept, incapable of developing this egalitarian world map which alone can demonstrate the parity of all peoples of the earth.[5]

This incendiary attack did not endear cartographers, who themselves had long been frustrated by the favoritism publishers showed for Mercator's projection.

The two camps never made any real attempts toward reconciliation. The Peters camp largely ignored the protests of the cartographers. Peters did not acknowledge the prior art of Gall[16] until the controversy had largely run its course, late in his life. While it is very likely Peters reinvented the projection independently, the unscholarly conduct and refusal to engage the cartographic community undoubtedly contributed to the polarization and impasse.[20]

Frustrated by some very visible successes and mounting publicity stirred up by the industry that had sprung up around the Peters map, the cartographic community began to plan more coordinated efforts to restore balance, as they saw it. The 1980s saw a flurry of literature directed against the Peters phenomenon. Though Peters's map was not singled out, the controversy motivated the American Cartographic Association (now Cartography and Geographic Information Society) to produce a series of booklets designed to educate the public about map projections and distortion in maps. In 1989 and 1990, after some internal debate, seven North American geographic organizations adopted the following resolution[21][22] that rejected all rectangular world maps, a category that includes both the Mercator and the Gall-Peters projections:

WHEREAS, the earth is round with a coordinate system composed entirely of circles, and

WHEREAS, flat world maps are more useful than globe maps, but flattening the globe surface necessarily greatly changes the appearance of Earth's features and coordinate systems, and
WHEREAS, world maps have a powerful and lasting effect on peoples' impressions of the shapes and sizes of lands and seas, their arrangement, and the nature of the coordinate system, and
WHEREAS, frequently seeing a greatly distorted map tends to make it "look right,"
THEREFORE, we strongly urge book and map publishers, the media and government agencies to cease using rectangular world maps for general purposes or artistic displays. Such maps promote serious, erroneous conceptions by severely distorting large sections of the world, by showing the round Earth as having straight edges and sharp corners, by representing most distances and direct routes incorrectly, and by portraying the circular coordinate system as a squared grid. The most widely displayed rectangular world map is the Mercator (in fact a navigational diagram devised for nautical charts), but other rectangular world maps proposed as replacements for the Mercator also display a greatly distorted image of the spherical Earth.

It should be noted that the geography and cartography community is not unanimously united against the Peters World Map. For example, one map society, the North American Cartographic Information Society (NACIS), declined to endorse the 1989 resolution, though no reasons were given. Second, there is a small number of cartographers, including Brian Harley, who have credited the Peters phenomenon with demonstrating the social implications of map projections, at the very least. Within geography more generally, some commentators see the cartographic controversy over the Peters world map as a sign of immaturity in the cartographic profession, given that all maps are political.[20]



Edited by Styrbiorn - 25-Mar-2007 at 14:11
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 14:17
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

 And if your going to copy-paste from wikipedia why not take the whole article?
  
 
Why for? Everyone has the right to chose the projection it wishes LOL.
 
Besides, I enjoy seen those maps in Peters projection. They look like "politically correct" carthography Big%20smile


Edited by pinguin - 25-Mar-2007 at 14:19
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 2818
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 14:32
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Why for? Everyone has the right to chose the projection it wishes LOL.
 
Of course, but completely ignoring the problems of the projection seems a bit biased. Tongue
 
Quote Besides, I enjoy seen those maps in Peters projection. They look like "politically correct" carthography Big%20smile
 
PC yes, but hardly correct. Did you read my posts? The Peters projection is not better than other equal-area projections, rather the other way around since it distorts the Northern regions instead.
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Status: Offline
Points: 3344
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 14:43
As long as the Turket is the largest country, it's correct.
 
Nationalism is a wonderful thing.
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 2818
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 14:50
Well, take a look at this satellite photo o Africa from above. Those who thinks Peters projection gives an accurate shape of the continent please raise your hands.
 
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 14:58
Yes, you are right. But is not such "politically" impressive, though.LOL
 
Jesus! Europe is quite a small place, isn't? Wink
 
Next exercise is the "Down Under" Map, that show Southern Hemisphere (Australia included) is on the top. A favorite in Australia, New Zealand, Southern South America and South Africa Big%20smile:
 


Edited by pinguin - 25-Mar-2007 at 15:01
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 15:18
Some 45 years ago I got commissioned (I was an art editor at the time) to produce a map of the world for the Commonwealth Institute in London as a wall display that would not unduly exaggerate or make more important any particular Commonwealth country.
 
Since this included not having any particular country at the centre, all I could come up with was mapping the world on a set of hexagons which could be rotated around each other regularly giving everyone a chance to be nearer the centre or relgated to the outside.
 
Unfortunately it proved to be mechanically too clumsy and I gave up.
 
I didn't keep a copy, and it seems like too much work to recreate it now, but I hope the idea comes across. As does the thought that there is nothing very new about drawing maps for political purposes, correct or incorrect.
 
The whole point of Mercator's though, as Styrbiorn pointed out, is that if you follow a set compass course you traverse a straight line on the map. Which is invaluable to navigators. (And moreover it's neat to have north straight up and east and west at right angles to it. Nothing to do with politics. All to do with getting the ship to where you want it to go.)
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 2818
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 15:18
I like the Down Under map, it messes up my head which is used to having North in the top. Makes one think, it does. Watching maps makes it easier to find a place, but it confuses the sense of real directions.
 
 
And yep, Europe is small, but not that small as on the pic. It's on the periphery which makes it seem smaller. Compare eg:
 
 
 
 


Edited by Styrbiorn - 25-Mar-2007 at 15:21
Back to Top
Ovidius View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 20-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 421
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ovidius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 16:32
I love the aussia map.

I mean come on, Up and down is fairly subjective. Why do we always look at the Earth in a certain way.. Maybe South is North?

And most of these maps really show how huge austrialia is.
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Status: Offline
Points: 1921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 16:41
Originally posted by pekau pekau wrote:

As long as the Turket is the largest country, it's correct.
 
Nationalism is a wonderful thing.
 
What the hell are you trying to sayQuestion


Edited by Kapikulu - 25-Mar-2007 at 16:44
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Status: Offline
Points: 1921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 16:42
Originally posted by Feanor Feanor wrote:

Pinguin, the maps in your post show shapes correctly, but the same thing cannot be said about areas.
 
That seems somewhat correct...Russian Federation, with its 17.5 million km squares, seems more or less in the same size with Brazil...
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Status: Offline
Points: 3344
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 17:28
Originally posted by Kapikulu Kapikulu wrote:

Originally posted by pekau pekau wrote:

As long as the Turket is the largest country, it's correct.
 
Nationalism is a wonderful thing.
 
What the hell are you trying to sayQuestion
 
I was being sarcastic.
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Lmprs View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1872
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lmprs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 17:35
Originally posted by pekau pekau wrote:

As long as the Turket is the largest country, it's correct. Nationalism is a wonderful thing.

Since I am the only Turkish member who posted in this thread until your message, I take it your words were aimed at me.

I didn't a say thing about Turkey, so why you would react like this is beyond me.

Here's a little geography lesson to you:



You see those lines in different colors? In reality they are all at the same length, as the distance between 0˚ - 15˚ and 15˚- 30˚ are the same.

As I said before, this map shows shapes correctly only, not areas or sizes.

And here's a map which shows areas correctly, and not shapes:



Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Status: Offline
Points: 3344
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 17:37
Sorry to break this to you, but earth is flat.LOL
 
It looks like this...
 
 
Why a Flat Earth?
Ever since the official signing of the Flat Earth Society's charter, one of our most difficult goals was to understand the mindset of those we were trying to save. The complexities of Efimovich's theory, that theory's convoluted nature and dependence on flawed logic and the omission of obstructions make it nearly impossible to understand at all, let alone understand why anyone would believe such dribble.
Although we have, through the years, made significant progress towards understanding the viewpoint of Efimovich's followers, we still recognize the holes in the intricate web Efimovich wove. Ours is the truth, the truth of the world's flatness, and ours is also the burden of proof. We are the minority, the followers of lies being the majority, and we gladly accept our burden, if in the end that acceptance means ridding the world of the foul half-truths spread by Grigori Efimovich and his brood of vipers. We present the following five arguments, each completely logical and to some degree building off of the arguments before it. We hope that, after carefully considering what we say here, you will look a with a little less ridicule on the Flat Earth Society and its members.
 
1) The ether factor
In classical physics, ether was assumed to be a ephemeral substance which permeated all matter. This omnipresent medium was that through which visible light and other electromagnetic waves were supposed to have traveled. It was assumed to have qualities which now seem rather bizarre - too bizarre, in fact, to be allowed to exist, by Efimovich's teachings. So in 1887, two American scientists, operating under the Efimovich-based assumption that the Earth was moving through outer space and not the fixed center of the Universe, conducted an experiment to "prove" whether or not ether actually existed.
In this experiment, the general idea was to try to calculate the absolute speed of the earth relative to the fixed ether. In a sense, they would emit a light pulse, and calculate how far it "trailed" behind the earth, much like tossing a napkin out the window of a moving car to calculate the car's speed. It was assumed that, if ether existed, the light pulse would fall back in one direction, giving the physicists a tangible "absolute" speed of the earth. Their calculated speed: Zero.
Yes, scientists Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley were baffled by this, wondering how the Earth could be sitting in one spot, while every aspect of the teachings of Grigori Efimovich indicated that the planet must be orbiting its own sun, and therefore must be moving at least with a critical orbital velocity. Moving quickly to avoid having to admit that they were wrong, they were able to instead "infer" from their results that the ether must not exist, and that light must propagate through no medium at all (impossible for a wave by the very definition of a wave). Their inference was generally accepted by the scientific community (save a few notable exceptions, including Hendrik A. Lorentz) and the "ridiculous" notion of ether was thrown out.
But light waves would still require a medium for transmission, and the actual purpose of the experiment was to determine the existence of that medium. The results speak for themselves: the Earth does not move. And even if the Earth did, the problems inherent in keeping it moving through this light medium called ether are overwhelmingly supportive of "Flat-Earth" theory.
 
1) Maintaining speed
In the Efimovich model, the planet Earth is supposed to be a large, spherical shaped ball of rock flying through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour. But how could the Earth continue to move at the same speed for as long a time as the "round Earthers" say that it has existed for; namely, several billion years. If outer space were a vacuum, then there would be no problem. But space is not a vacuum, it is instead filled with ether. The earth would have to have been pushing its way through the ether for all those billions of years. Shouldn't it have slowed somewhere along the line? What would keep the Earth from grinding down to a stop at some point on the Efimovichian timeline?
 
2) An accelerating world
A second critical piece to the Efimovich model is that the Earth is not the center of the solar system either. It is, according to "round Earth" theory, orbiting the sun at a radius of around five-hundred million kilometers. Were this the case, the Earth would be an accelerated object in circular motion around its sun. And thereby are the problems introduced. The Earth accelerating in circular motion would behave no differently than would a car taking a corner: loose objects (humans and animals would act like loose change or a cup of coffee on the dashboard) would slide around, or be thrown off completely. There would be an apparent centrifugal force on everything. During the day, when things would be facing the sun and therefore on the inside of the "orbit", buildings would be crushed and humans beings squashed like grasshoppers in a centrifuge. And at night, when everything would be at the outside, trees and buildings would be ripped from the ground and flung into outer space, and humans wouldn't stand a chance. Obviously, there is a flaw in Efimovich's "orbit" theory.
 
 
1) Staying on top
Once again, picture in your mind a round world. Now imagine that there are two people on this world, one at each pole. For the person at the top of the world, (the North Pole), gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the "globe"?
2) Falling off
As we begin to make this argument, we acknowledge beforehand that we are aware of the property of matter known as friction. Yes, we realize that whenever two surfaces are held together by any force there will be a static frictional force that will resist any motion by either surface in any direction other than parallel to the force. The example we are using is an extreme situation, and would involve the object in question to travel a considerable distance (tens of degrees of latitude) from the "top" of the planet.
Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball. Certainly a few grains would stay - right around the top, the surface is nearly horizontal - but when you stray too far from the absolute top of the ball, the grains of sand start sliding off and falling onto the ground. The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion. Because the top is a very localized region on a sphere, if the Earth were in fact round, there would be only a very small area of land that would be at all inhabitable. Stray to the outside fringes of the "safe zone", and you start walking at a tilt. The further out you go, the more you slant, until your very survival is determined by the tread on your boots. Reach a certain point, and you slide off the face of the planet entirely. Obviously, something is wrong.
In order to avoid the aforementioned scenario, (which obviously is inaccurate, as you very rarely hear of people falling off the face of the planet) we are forced to assume that, in the "round Earth" theory, there would be a gravitational field radiating from the center of the planet. All objects, be they rocks, insects, humans, or other planets would have, under Efimovich's theory, have a gravitational "charge" that would, under a certain alignment, cause them to be attracted to the center of the Earth. Unfortunately, like a magnet in a stronger magnetic field, it would undoubtedly require a long time to re-align an object's gravitational charge, were this the case. And so we go to argument four, which deals with difficulties in having different "downs" for different people.
 
1) Negotiating long-distance travel
Now imagine, if only for the sake of argument, that the person on top and the person on bottom can both manage to remain attracted to the ground "below" them. What would happen if the person on one side decided to visit the other? Since the man at the North Pole has a different idea of what is down and up (and in fact experiences an opposite pull from the Earth's gravity) than the person at the South Pole does, when the denizen of the frozen Arctic visits his Antarctic counterpart, they will experience gravitational pulls exactly opposite of each other! The human from the North Pole will "fall up", never returning to the ground, and will continue falling forever into the deep void of outer space!
Looking at the feasibility of Efimovich's teachings cannot remain limited to examining small, solid objects such as human beings. A true analysis of his work must incorporate natural phenomena and how their existence is either explained or made difficult by each of the theories. In the next argument against the "round-Earth" theory, we will be analyzing the existence of two extremely commonplace (yet altogether unfeasible under the ramifications of having a round planet) non-solids: the atmosphere and the oceans.
 
 
1) The fluid problem
Water. Regardless of which train of thought you follow, it covers over seventy-five percent of our planet's surface. And the atmosphere, also a fluid, covers the entire surface. The difference is why. While flat-Earthers know that the ocean is really just a large bowl, (with great sheets of ice around the edges to hold the ocean back), and the atmosphere is contained by a large dome, the backwards "round-Earth" way of thinking would have you believe that all those trillions of gallons of water and air just "stick" to the planet's surface.
Conventional thinking would suggest that the water would just run down the sides of the Earth (to use the analogy again, like droplets running down the sides of a beach ball) and fall into outer space, while the air would dissipate. Using the earlier mentioned idea of "gravitational charge" gives some credibility to the theory. If the fluids were static, then exposure to the gravitational field for a long enough period of time would allow their molecules to align themselves with and be pulled in by the field.
But fluids are not static, especially not in the atmosphere and oceans. Great ocean currents run both at the surface and deep below, carrying water across huge basins, keeping the solution far from stagnant. Jet streams of air travel at hundreds of miles per hour through the atmosphere. And windblown rainclouds carry vast quantities of evaporated seawater across miles of ground, releasing their load far from its starting point. Water or air that (according to "round-Earth" theory) starts on one side of the planet could end up completely on the other side in a matter of only a few days. With all this turbulence and motion, if the world were round, the oceans should all fall "down" into the sky, leaving the planet dry and barren, and the atmosphere would simply float away. Why, just look at the moon. It is round, like a ball, and yet it has no atmosphere at all.
 
2) Thermodynamic complications
Taking into account the "gravitational charge" analogy once more, and assuming that for some reason the atmosphere was able to align itself with the new direction of the theoretical "gravitational field", we are faced with a new problem involving another branch of physics known as thermodynamics.
Obviously, the world is static, the fixed center of the Universe. The sun, planets and stars all revolve around it (although not necessarily in circular paths), in a plane level with the flat Earth.


Edited by pekau - 25-Mar-2007 at 17:39
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
~ Scylding ~

Joined: 30-Aug-2004
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4433
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 18:52
Before you guys goes totally overboard with strange maps, just showing whatever you like, I feel obligated to post the lastest satellite photo, taken by DANSA, the Danish National Space Agency and it is without doubt, the most accurate representatation of how the world is..... - seen from this side of the planet Wink
 


Edited by Northman - 25-Mar-2007 at 18:55
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.061 seconds.