[zp0okii]

If the earth is flat, why have cartographers spent so much time devising different mark-up methods for the Earth's terrain? The reason cartographers struggle, according to them, is because it is impossible to correctly depict landmasses situated on a spherical object on a flat plane. This is why Greenland looks so huge on most maps and Africa looks so small (compared to their actual, recorded sizes). Any ideas?

[zp0okii]

Bump

[TomInAustin]

If the earth is flat, why have cartographers spent so much time devising different mark-up methods for the Earth's terrain? The reason cartographers struggle, according to them, is because it is impossible to correctly depict landmasses situated on a spherical object on a flat plane. This is why Greenland looks so huge on most maps and Africa looks so small (compared to their actual, recorded sizes). Any ideas?

Some would have you believe that there is no money to do a flat earth map and they will even pretend to have never even considered what one might look like.   Using simple tools it is quite easy to prove that a flat map is not possible.  All you need is an accurate program like Autocad, or Sketchup on the free side, or even simpler is some graph paper and some drafting tools.

[juner]

Bump

Please refrain from low-content posts such as merely "bumping" a thread without adding anything. If someone wants to respond to your original post, they will.

[3DGeek]

If the earth is flat, why have cartographers spent so much time devising different mark-up methods for the Earth's terrain? The reason cartographers struggle, according to them, is because it is impossible to correctly depict landmasses situated on a spherical object on a flat plane. This is why Greenland looks so huge on most maps and Africa looks so small (compared to their actual, recorded sizes). Any ideas?

If FET were true then all cartographers would very soon discover for themselves that measured distances don't match the Round Earth and therefore would either make the information public - or they'd have to have been recruited into The Conspiracy.

If they are in the conspiracy then they'd simply be PRETENDING that it was hard to make a round earth map that can be spread out flat.

In truth, they are well aware that the world is round - and there is no way that all of the people who do this kind of thing could be silenced.

[CriticalThinker]

If the earth is flat, why have cartographers spent so much time devising different mark-up methods for the Earth's terrain? The reason cartographers struggle, according to them, is because it is impossible to correctly depict landmasses situated on a spherical object on a flat plane. This is why Greenland looks so huge on most maps and Africa looks so small (compared to their actual, recorded sizes). Any ideas?

If FET were true then all cartographers would very soon discover for themselves that measured distances don't match the Round Earth and therefore would either make the information public - or they'd have to have been recruited into The Conspiracy.

If they are in the conspiracy then they'd simply be PRETENDING that it was hard to make a round earth map that can be spread out flat.

In truth, they are well aware that the world is round - and there is no way that all of the people who do this kind of thing could be silenced.

Is the conspiracy a widely accepted part of FET?  Cartographers have been making maps since long before the founding of the US.  How would a single massive global conspiracy even function?  The world hasn't even agreed that pollution is universally a bad idea.  When the distance between 2 cities could easily be confirmed through the routine measurements of any man or woman, wouldn't errors in Lat/Long have been easily discovered by now?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

[StinkyOne]

If the earth is flat, why have cartographers spent so much time devising different mark-up methods for the Earth's terrain? The reason cartographers struggle, according to them, is because it is impossible to correctly depict landmasses situated on a spherical object on a flat plane. This is why Greenland looks so huge on most maps and Africa looks so small (compared to their actual, recorded sizes). Any ideas?

If FET were true then all cartographers would very soon discover for themselves that measured distances don't match the Round Earth and therefore would either make the information public - or they'd have to have been recruited into The Conspiracy.

If they are in the conspiracy then they'd simply be PRETENDING that it was hard to make a round earth map that can be spread out flat.

In truth, they are well aware that the world is round - and there is no way that all of the people who do this kind of thing could be silenced.

Is the conspiracy a widely accepted part of FET?  Cartographers have been making maps since long before the founding of the US.  How would a single massive global conspiracy even function?  The world hasn't even agreed that pollution is universally a bad idea.  When the distance between 2 cities could easily be confirmed through the routine measurements of any man or woman, wouldn't errors in Lat/Long have been easily discovered by now?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

It appears to be. I believe Tom Bishop's position is that there is no conspiracy, but he is the only one I've seen make that comment. Most every other post I've seen seems to imply a massive conspiracy or Satan making people think the world is round among the religious FEers. The views I've seen expressed are pretty broad. There does seem to be a lot of hate towards NASA.

[JHelzer]

I see this as a very compelling question for the Flat Earth Society to answer.

If the Earth really is flat, then it would be simple to map it on a flat paper.
How is it possible that we don't have an accurate flat map of a flat Earth?

Just thinking about that question casts a huge shadow over all FE arguments.
The truth is that mapping the Earth on a flat plane is impossible.  That is why no one has ever been able to do it.
No flat map is a strong argument that the Earth is not flat.

[Tom Bishop]

If the Earth really is flat, then it would be simple to map it on a flat paper.

Go ahead and map the world for us then, if you think it is so easy.

[Curious Squirrel]

If the Earth really is flat, then it would be simple to map it on a flat paper.

Go ahead and map the world for us then, if you think it is so easy.

Tom, I believe that's the point. It apparently isn't easy, ergo how can the Earth be flat.

[Tom Bishop]

If the Earth really is flat, then it would be simple to map it on a flat paper.

Go ahead and map the world for us then, if you think it is so easy.

Tom, I believe that's the point. It apparently isn't easy, ergo how can the Earth be flat.

He just said that it's easy to map the world. Why not map it for us then and then tell us the results?

[Melondor]

If the flat earth society wants to start being taken seriously and not just considered a conspiracy, they need to decide on a model. You are not going to convince anybody if you all contradict each over. As for a map you have to find a map projection that doesnt mess with the areas of landmass' or the distance between points. There are two possibilities here; A the earth is an oblate sphereoid, the currently accepted distances and areas of places are correct and are difficult to represent on a flat surface. B the earth is flat and we cant project it on a flat surface because the currently believed distances and areas are wrong. If B is true it suprises me that no one has simply debunked all of cartography.

[Curious Squirrel]

If the Earth really is flat, then it would be simple to map it on a flat paper.

Go ahead and map the world for us then, if you think it is so easy.

Tom, I believe that's the point. It apparently isn't easy, ergo how can the Earth be flat.

He just said that it's easy to map the world. Why not map it for us then and then tell us the results?

I highlighted the important part of his sentence since you seem to be having trouble with it. RE has a map/model, and it works very well.

[StinkyOne]

If the flat earth society wants to start being taken seriously and not just considered a conspiracy, they need to decide on a model. You are not going to convince anybody if you all contradict each over. As for a map you have to find a map projection that doesnt mess with the areas of landmass' or the distance between points. There are two possibilities here; A the earth is an oblate sphereoid, the currently accepted distances and areas of places are correct and are difficult to represent on a flat surface. B the earth is flat and we cant project it on a flat surface because the currently believed distances and areas are wrong. If B is true it suprises me that no one has simply debunked all of cartography.

This is a very big if. I get the impression that they aren't all that interested in proof. I view it as a touch of cognitive dissonance.
"It's not denial. I'm just selective about the reality I accept.” ― Bill Watterson

[Rational]

If the Earth really is flat, then it would be simple to map it on a flat paper.

Go ahead and map the world for us then, if you think it is so easy.

Tom, I believe that's the point. It apparently isn't easy, ergo how can the Earth be flat.

He just said that it's easy to map the world. Why not map it for us then and then tell us the results?

Actually, it is quite easy. Just look at a globe. All the land masses – Greenland, Africa, Australia, Alaska to name a few – are correctly shaped and appropriately sized. Distances between any 2 points are consistent with GPS, airline flight times, mathematical calculations using latitude and longitude.

That is why all two-dimensional maps have shortcomings. You cannot accurately plot out a three-dimensional sphere onto a two-dimensional sheet of paper.

[Tom Bishop]

If the Earth really is flat, then it would be simple to map it on a flat paper.

Go ahead and map the world for us then, if you think it is so easy.

Tom, I believe that's the point. It apparently isn't easy, ergo how can the Earth be flat.

He just said that it's easy to map the world. Why not map it for us then and then tell us the results?

Actually, it is quite easy. Just look at a globe. All the land masses – Greenland, Africa, Australia, Alaska to name a few – are correctly shaped and appropriately sized. Distances between any 2 points are consistent with GPS, airline flight times, mathematical calculations using latitude and longitude.

That is why all two-dimensional maps have shortcomings. You cannot accurately plot out a three-dimensional sphere onto a two-dimensional sheet of paper.

Looking at a globe and then assuming that the earth is a globe is your way of mapping the earth?

[J-Man]

Do I really need a map? I've been to Canada and Mexico a couple times and did a round trip of the US. I have no plans to go anywhere else, why do I even need a map? Someone already designed a congested interstate and freeways, that work. Modern man has little need for a full map, ancient man had little need but for a localized map.

It's like I need to invent a spaceship to go to Mars, but Mars is just a light in the firmament.

[CriticalThinker]

If the Earth really is flat, then it would be simple to map it on a flat paper.

Go ahead and map the world for us then, if you think it is so easy.

Tom, I believe that's the point. It apparently isn't easy, ergo how can the Earth be flat.

He just said that it's easy to map the world. Why not map it for us then and then tell us the results?

Actually, it is quite easy. Just look at a globe. All the land masses – Greenland, Africa, Australia, Alaska to name a few – are correctly shaped and appropriately sized. Distances between any 2 points are consistent with GPS, airline flight times, mathematical calculations using latitude and longitude.

That is why all two-dimensional maps have shortcomings. You cannot accurately plot out a three-dimensional sphere onto a two-dimensional sheet of paper.

Looking at a globe and then assuming that the earth is a globe is your way of mapping the earth?

Not really Tom.

We look for directions to get somewhere through the air, sea or by land and using the coordinate system of Latitude/Longitude works very well for getting us to our destination.  It has worked so reliably that I can do it with a map and compass or a fancy GPS and I will still get to my destination repeatably.  When the distances of the lines of Latitude and Longitude are plotted on a physical piece of media, they naturally curve and bend to form a sphere.  That sphere is the result of generations of empirical testing repeated with ever increasing degrees of sophistication and yet not once has it been wildly off target. 

By comparison, the FE community doesn't have even the most rudimentary map that is capable of being used for navigation over long distance in any southern continent.  The FE model can't explain flights in half of the known world without resorting to an explanation of magic to explain why the FE flights break the rules of physics.  I thought that the Zetetic Method was all about observable testable hypothesis, but I've yet to see anyone from the FE community even remotely consider testing their hypothesis against a null.  Unless the FE model is capable of physically measuring and plotting out the distances of the southern hemisphere accurately, I am forced to accept the overwhelming volume of evidence that suggests the earth is round.  When the test hypothesis is that the earth is flat, the null hypothesis must be that the earth is not flat.  So far there is no solid empirical evidence that the earth is flat so I must revert to the null.  That is the scientific method.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

[JHelzer]

If the Earth really is flat, then it would be simple to map it on a flat paper.

Go ahead and map the world for us then, if you think it is so easy.

Tom, I'll take you up on your challenge. 
I'll gather some distance data and make a map.
If the Earth truly is flat, my map will be easy to make and come out flat.
If the Earth isn't flat, it will be hard to force onto a flat plane and it will come out some other shape.

Again, I repeat.  A flat world would be easy to map onto a flat piece of paper.  It is a wonder it hasn't been done.

[Tom Bishop]

We look for directions to get somewhere through the air, sea or by land and using the coordinate system of Latitude/Longitude works very well for getting us to our destination.

You need to verify that the distances are accurate, not that you can travel from coordinate A to coordinate B.

It has worked so reliably that I can do it with a map and compass or a fancy GPS and I will still get to my destination repeatably.  When the distances of the lines of Latitude and Longitude are plotted on a physical piece of media, they naturally curve and bend to form a sphere.  That sphere is the result of generations of empirical testing repeated with ever increasing degrees of sophistication and yet not once has it been wildly off target.

Please show these "generations of empirical testing"

By comparison, the FE community doesn't have even the most rudimentary map that is capable of being used for navigation over long distance in any southern continent.

Incorrect.

The FE model can't explain flights in half of the known world without resorting to an explanation of magic to explain why the FE flights break the rules of physics.  I thought that the Zetetic Method was all about observable testable hypothesis, but I've yet to see anyone from the FE community even remotely consider testing their hypothesis against a null.  Unless the FE model is capable of physically measuring and plotting out the distances of the southern hemisphere accurately

What are you talking about? The monopole model was phased out after the discovery of the South Pole.

So far there is no solid empirical evidence that the earth is flat so I must revert to the null.  That is the scientific method.

Atually the Scientific Method involves experimentation to confirm your hypothesis. You have provided none of your own, and none of others.