Thanks for responding - even if not addressing the question. The equator on the ground as I have seen it is a straight line
But if it were circular, it means the maps have misrepresented it - and that the entire map is full of wrong points
How come then that the maps with the straight line equator, tally with the ground situation
Is that not sufficient proof that they are the real maps?
I hope some analytic mind will read this question and answer it - even if you dont
You claim "you can transpose reality onto any kind of map or coordinate system you want to". But you forget that if the earth were flat, there never be any need to "transpose reality onto any kind of map or coordinate system". A map of the flat earth would be just a small scale version of the earth.Thanks for responding - even if not addressing the question. The equator on the ground as I have seen it is a straight line
But if it were circular, it means the maps have misrepresented it - and that the entire map is full of wrong points
How come then that the maps with the straight line equator, tally with the ground situation
Is that not sufficient proof that they are the real maps?
I hope some analytic mind will read this question and answer it - even if you dont
I think what he is trying to say is that you can transpose reality onto any kind of map or coordinate system you want to. You can make a spiral staircase map if you were smart enough to.
Also, just because the equator is drawn as a straight line on the common projections, it obviously does not mean that the sun travels in a straight line. The Earth is apparently on a circular path, while rotating, around a stationary sun. Capturing that complicated motion in relation to any coordinate system is no easy task.
Either way, it looks like a straight line on the ground for the same reason people say you can't see the curvature of the horizon at ground level. We're just too small and the Earth is just too big.
Hello Everyone,Not getting far is it? They do tend to ignore threads when there is no reasonable Flat Earth answer. I have tried numerous time to point out that Australia on the Flat Earth map is over twice the correct width.
I do NOT believe that the earth is flat, but would like to hear the other side. I am a Kenyan who has crossed the equator at several marked points. On the ground, the equator is a straight line (ignoring altitude or the curvature of the earth)
But supposing the earth was flat, the only way to explain the trajectory of the sun would be that the equator would have to be a circle on the flat ground.
If that were so, it would mean that there is a great variance between maps (which saw the equator as a straigh line) and the actual location of the equator (and by extension all points) on the ground.
Why then am I able to use maps that were drawn long before GPS existed, and find that the GPS coordinates tally with those on the ground and with present day digital maps - as well as the old analogue ones?
Why are GPS maps useful for navigation - showing me exactly where I am?
Since GPS devices make errors of only a few meters, how possible is it that the current maps are deffective and we are not able to detect - using them or sextants or aerial surveys.
Thomas, Nairobi, KENYA
Not getting far is it? They do tend to ignore threads when there is no reasonable Flat Earth answer. I have tried numerous time to point out that Australia on the Flat Earth map is over twice the correct width.
That "correct width" comes from early maps (I have an 1855 map), current atlases, Google earth, GPS distances and my own measurement of parts of it.
All these sources are consistent with each other, but far from being in agreement with the Ice-Wall Flat Earth map.In other words, I can categorically say that in this region, the Ice-Wall Flat Earth map is wrong.
Not getting far is it? They do tend to ignore threads when there is no reasonable Flat Earth answer. I have tried numerous time to point out that Australia on the Flat Earth map is over twice the correct width.
That "correct width" comes from early maps (I have an 1855 map), current atlases, Google earth, GPS distances and my own measurement of parts of it.
All these sources are consistent with each other, but far from being in agreement with the Ice-Wall Flat Earth map.In other words, I can categorically say that in this region, the Ice-Wall Flat Earth map is wrong.
You keep saying that, but you are being disingenuous. You KNOW that the Azimuthal equidistant projection doesn't show things in realistic proportions, just as no projection does. But the distances are correct if you understand how the "map" is plotted. You do understand. You are just a liar. You refuse to ever accept anything that goes against your (or your employers) narrative. You spread falsehoods and when called out you never have once adjusted your position.
To say only Flat Earthers refuse to accept logical alternatives to their worldview, then sir, kettle meet pot.
I'm sorry, I would indulge, but that is so painful to read.
Admit it. You KNOW the AEP isn't meant to show Australia in proportion to things in the northern hemisphere.
I'm sorry, I would indulge, but that is so painful to read.Yes, you would find it very painful to read, the truth sometimes hurts, at least others might see what type of person you are!
Admit it. You KNOW the AEP isn't meant to show Australia in proportion to things in the northern hemisphere.
You KNOW the AEP isn't meant to show Australia in proportion to things in the northern hemisphere.
I'm sorry, I would indulge, but that is so painful to read.
Admit it. You KNOW the AEP isn't meant to show Australia in proportion to things in the northern hemisphere.
He did admit that.
His point is that if the earth is flat, there would be no need for distances and/or directions to be distorted. But flat earthers can't come up with a flat map that doesn't include these obvious distortions. Because the earth isn't flat.
I'm sorry, I would indulge, but that is so painful to read.
Admit it. You KNOW the AEP isn't meant to show Australia in proportion to things in the northern hemisphere.
He did admit that.
His point is that if the earth is flat, there would be no need for distances and/or directions to be distorted. But flat earthers can't come up with a flat map that doesn't include these obvious distortions. Because the earth isn't flat.
No he doesn't admit that. He keeps bringing up how the proportions of Australia don't work on the AEP. Even though, they most certainly do if you understand the coordinate system. That is him playing stupid just to make a low hanging fruit argument.
Flat Earthers can't come up with the map because they don't have the means to. Probably not a lot of experienced cartographers going to get funding to create a flat earth map.
You could totally transpose Earth onto a flat plain, but getting accurate distances is something that took thousands of years of expedition and exploration to get. The "Map" we see of the "globe" wasn't a knee jerk production by the heliocentrists produced to appease the skeptics. And even then, originally was just a transposition of the flat earth map everyone used before that.
I'm sorry, I would indulge, but that is so painful to read.
Admit it. You KNOW the AEP isn't meant to show Australia in proportion to things in the northern hemisphere.
He did admit that.
His point is that if the earth is flat, there would be no need for distances and/or directions to be distorted. But flat earthers can't come up with a flat map that doesn't include these obvious distortions. Because the earth isn't flat.
No he doesn't admit that. He keeps bringing up how the proportions of Australia don't work on the AEP. Even though, they most certainly do if you understand the coordinate system. That is him playing stupid just to make a low hanging fruit argument.
Flat Earthers can't come up with the map because they don't have the means to. Probably not a lot of experienced cartographers going to get funding to create a flat earth map.
You could totally transpose Earth onto a flat plain, but getting accurate distances is something that took thousands of years of expedition and exploration to get. The "Map" we see of the "globe" wasn't a knee jerk production by the heliocentrists produced to appease the skeptics. And even then, originally was just a transposition of the flat earth map everyone used before that.
Quite true, I definitely do not admit that "the AEP isn't meant to show Australia in proportion to things in the northern hemisphere".
Your claim that "the proportions of Australia don't work on the AEP. Even though, they most certainly do if you understand the coordinate system." is quite false.
If you think I am wrong, maybe you can show how you get the East-West and North-South dimensions of Australia from that map - with all your working.
Please remember that if you utilise the co-ordinate transformations done in producing that projection all you are doing is proving that the earth is a globe.
What you fail to realise is what I have been at pains to stress and TotesNotReptilian pointed out "is that if the earth is flat, there would be no need for distances and/or directions to be distorted. But flat earthers can't come up with a flat map that doesn't include these obvious distortions."
The measurements of the earth are well known, the continents have been surveyed with increasing accuracy for many centuries.
The surveys of the land areas are actual measurements done
in the early days with physical devices like chains,
then from around the 1960s using electronic means (Tellurometer) and
finally laser and satellite methods.
My stressing Australia is simply because I live here and have driven over essentially all of it a number of times and would know if the map measurements were grossly in error.
But, the whole point that you refuse to face is that if the earth we flat, no "projection" would be needed.
The straight simple fact of the matter would be that a map would be simple a scale drawing of the full sized earth. Until you face that, you will be forever confused.
The only need for any changing scales in the east-west direction on the AEP map is that it is a projection of the globe, and that is a known and predictable distortion.
I'm sorry, I would indulge, but that is so painful to read.Yes, you would find it very painful to read, the truth sometimes hurts, at least others might see what type of person you are!
Admit it. You KNOW the AEP isn't meant to show Australia in proportion to things in the northern hemisphere.
THE AEP ISN'T A FLAT EARTH MAP. IT IS A PROJECTION OF A GLOBE EARTH.
I never said it was a map that accurately represents the Earth. I gave some reasons as to why a flat earth map doesn't exist in my post. You glossed over them.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Maps/1888_Topographic_Survey_Map_of_the_United_States_-_Geographicus_-_USA-topographcialsurvey-1888%20-%201200%20pix_zpsbk0xrgtz.jpg) 1888 Topographic Survey Map of the United States | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Map%20of%20Australia%201850s%20-%201200x1000_zpssnqy1cl3.png) Map of Australia, 1855 |
I also mentioned that maps existed long before the Earth was thought to be round. People traveled relatively reliably all over the world, using the stars and the rudimentary maps available at the time. There was no reason to ever transpose the map onto a globe, aside from the contemporary thought that the Earth was round. No one uses a globe to navigate, or the "flat" map based on the globe shape.
Actually, your walls of text would be almost bearable, if they didn't look like pieced together ransom notes.
Much better, you almost had it except for that rogue centered paragraph. Legibility is better, now work on your brevity.There is no centred paragraph.
Much better, you almost had it except for that rogue centered paragraph. Legibility is better, now work on your brevity.There is no centred paragraph.
And, what material would you suggest I leave out?
Now, what about you explaining why the AEP, if it is a map of the Flat Earth map, should show any distortion?
I would never do that because I know the AEP is a projection based on a spherical earth. I also said in my previous posts why an official flat earth map probably doesn't exist. What else do you want from me?Nothing!
Just a quick addition: it's surely trivial to show you can't directly map a flat earth onto a sphere and vice versa. A flat earth either has an edge (see ice wall) or is infinite. A sphere does not have an edge on the surface ( any direction you travel you eventually end up back where you started) and it's not infinite. How do you map an edge onto a sphere?
Just a quick addition: it's surely trivial to show you can't directly map a flat earth onto a sphere and vice versa. A flat earth either has an edge (see ice wall) or is infinite. A sphere does not have an edge on the surface ( any direction you travel you eventually end up back where you started) and it's not infinite. How do you map an edge onto a sphere?
I think anyone who was making a flat earth map wouldn't try to use the sphere as a starting point.