« Last post by Nirmala on March 27, 2017, 10:56:37 PM »
I sent another reply before seeing your invitation to discuss it here.
You say, "Mapping the world is a ridiculously simple task?"
Mapping a two dimensional object onto a two dimensional sheet of paper is ridiculously simple....in comparison to mapping a three dimensional object to a two dimensional piece of paper. The latter requires the use of perspective. The former does not. Again, a small enough area makes this obvious, so a blueprint or elevation drawing of a 20,000 square foot building is for all practical purposes completely accurate and does not require the use of perspective techniques. If I want to focus on one corner of the building/blueprint, I just move my eyes over that part of the blueprint to get an accurate sense of the proportions of the rooms in that corner. However an artist's rendering of that same building as it appears from a distance would need to use all of the tricks of perspective to make it look proportional due to the introduction of a third dimension to the drawing (the distance from the artist's eyes to the various parts of the building). So the artist would draw a distant part of the building with smaller dimensions and a nearer part of the building with larger dimensions. If a builder tried to build the building by using the dimensions of the artist's view, the building would be bizarrely proportioned.
Same thing with a map. Any two-dimensional viewpoint of a three dimensional object, like a round planet, will introduce all kinds of distortions. However, a two dimensional drawing of a flat object as seen from above does not have these problems. Even if it is a very large map or drawing, the distances everywhere on the map should correspond to the scale of the map with complete accuracy. No map of the flat earth accomplishes anything close to this simple task. All of the distances are known and have been measured on the surface of the earth or in the air in numerous surveys. All the map maker would need to do if the earth was flat is enter all of those distances. Someone on youtube actually tried to do this with the flat earth map by adjusting it to show distances that correspond to actual flight times: Unfortunately, he was unable to adjust his map to take into account all of the flight times and distances. To check this,you just need to look at some of the flights I have already mentioned, i.e. Sydney to Johannesburg versus Sydney to Santiago. Or you can just look at the flight from Sydney to Perthand realize his map isgrossly inaccurate. On his map, the distance from Sydney to Perth is much greater than the distance from the Panama Canal to the north pole.
And I notice you did not address the simple fact that all of the distances between any two points on earth correspond exactly and perfectly to scale when using a globe. Why do you suppose that is the case? Do you not find it intriguing at the very least that a ball shaped representation of the earth is completely accurate when any two-dimensional representation is invariably inaccurate? Why would any two dimensional representations of the earth have any distortion if the earth were truly flat (and therefore the earth was two-dimensional for the purposes of map making)? Even a flat representation of the United States incurs these distortions if you use a large enough scale and measure carefully enough. Do you think it should be difficult to show the distances and shape of the United States accurately on a map, even though it has been so carefully measured and mapped? And yet, it is impossible with only two dimensions to show it's shape and all of the distances involved with complete accuracy, even though the map as we know it is accurate enough for most purposes. But if you wanted to accurately compute the flight distance from Seattle to Miami, you better use a spherical model or you will be incorrect in your calculation. You can do this with either a globe, or with a three dimensional calculation that includes the curvature of the earth.
Your response that maps are not accurate is a classic straw man argument. I did not say maps are accurate. I said the globe is accurate. How do you explain that fact?
You also said, "Where is your evidence that the distance between every point on earth is completely accurate? You are just waving your hands around without any real large scale evidence to point to."
The evidence is all of the recorded info throughout history about the distances between two points when traveled by foot, car, ship or airplane. All of these are somewhat affected by the curving nature of roads and mountains, water currents, air currents, etc, but when these are taken into account the distances are just as they appear on a globe. Can you show me one example where with repeated experiments, the actual distance on the surface of the earth was inexplicably different than what is calculated using a globe or three dimensional geometry? All of the flight times and distances I have quoted in this thread and tens of thousands are accurate when plotted on a globe. How much evidence do you need? It is easy to test for yourself. Pick any two cities, say Sydney and Perth. Measure them on a globe with a clearly marked scale and then compare that to a driving map showing distances or a flight path showing distances. Any inaccuracies would be due to the shape of the roads on the ground, but in the air, they will compare to within a small degree. Remember that even airplanes must follow "highways" in the sky, so some inaccuracies would be introduced. But the results will be more accurate and consistent than any two dimensional map ever created. And in the case of the flat earth maps I have seen so far, the consistency and accuracy is many orders of magnitude greater.