[Action80]

There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.

And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.

Unbelievable.

That is completely believable, unless your grocer is 7000 miles away.
The distortion in distances and land mass shapes is only noticeable on a macro scale.
This is what I was talking about above when I said ignorance. That isn't meant as an insult, but if you're not trolling then that's what your post betraying.

My post is betraying absolutely nothing.

You act as if 7000 mile distances cannot be mapped out on a flat surface either, using the term, "MACRO SCALE," as if it necessary to map it visually for an individual to comprehend to begin with.

Ridiculous.



Everything is not as it appears.

[Rama Set]

If this is going to turn in to another thread bickering about maps, can it be split and moved either to the uppers or the science & technology forum, please?

[Action80]

If this is going to turn in to another thread bickering about maps, can it be split and moved either to the uppers or the science & technology forum, please?

Discussing an aspect of the debates taking place on this forum that may or may not result in a changing of one's worldview is perfectly in line with the OP.

Reported.

[JSS]

There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.

And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.

Unbelievable.

That is completely believable, unless your grocer is 7000 miles away.
The distortion in distances and land mass shapes is only noticeable on a macro scale.
This is what I was talking about above when I said ignorance. That isn't meant as an insult, but if you're not trolling then that's what your post betraying.

My post is betraying absolutely nothing.

You act as if 7000 mile distances cannot be mapped out on a flat surface either, using the term, "MACRO SCALE," as if it necessary to map it visually for an individual to comprehend to begin with.

Ridiculous.

You need to understand how scale works.  A flat map of a small area of a sphere works because the distortions are tiny. But if you try and map a larger percentage then you will run into problems.

I can claim a basketball is flat by making a flap map of the tiny dot on the i in 'Microfiber' and claiming it works to navigate inside that dot.  But try and make a flat map of those three lines going around it or a flat map of the distances between the S, G and 1 and you will quickly find that you can't. Trying to make a flat map of all the words on a basketball will quickly run into problems where you can't make all the distances fit.

You can not accurately map multiple distances 7000 miles apart on the surface of a sphere 8000 miles in diameter. You can map a distance of a few miles because the errors will be too small at human scales to matter.

Everything is not as it appears.

Exactly. A sphere appears flat if you view a tiny section of if, which means you can't determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the distance to your grocer down the street.

[Action80]

There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.

And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.

Unbelievable.

That is completely believable, unless your grocer is 7000 miles away.
The distortion in distances and land mass shapes is only noticeable on a macro scale.
This is what I was talking about above when I said ignorance. That isn't meant as an insult, but if you're not trolling then that's what your post betraying.

My post is betraying absolutely nothing.

You act as if 7000 mile distances cannot be mapped out on a flat surface either, using the term, "MACRO SCALE," as if it necessary to map it visually for an individual to comprehend to begin with.

Ridiculous.

You need to understand how scale works.  A flat map of a small area of a sphere works because the distortions are tiny. But if you try and map a larger percentage then you will run into problems.

This is a ridiculous non-sequitur.

The fact anyone is even making a claim there are "distortions because of projections," is made with absolutely no direct personal knowledge of the matter.

Someone told you this, so it must absolutely be true.

Matching numerical entries to solutions can be formulated for any set of desired end parameters. That is exactly how math works.

Somebody came up with some numbers to match how things would appear if this was spherical and this was so far away.

Good for them.

Doesn't make it true.

[Lord Dave]

There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.

And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.

Unbelievable.

That is completely believable, unless your grocer is 7000 miles away.
The distortion in distances and land mass shapes is only noticeable on a macro scale.
This is what I was talking about above when I said ignorance. That isn't meant as an insult, but if you're not trolling then that's what your post betraying.

My post is betraying absolutely nothing.

You act as if 7000 mile distances cannot be mapped out on a flat surface either, using the term, "MACRO SCALE," as if it necessary to map it visually for an individual to comprehend to begin with.

Ridiculous.

You need to understand how scale works.  A flat map of a small area of a sphere works because the distortions are tiny. But if you try and map a larger percentage then you will run into problems.

This is a ridiculous non-sequitur.

The fact anyone is even making a claim there are "distortions because of projections," is made with absolutely no direct personal knowledge of the matter.

Someone told you this, so it must absolutely be true.

Matching numerical entries to solutions can be formulated for any set of desired end parameters. That is exactly how math works.

Somebody came up with some numbers to match how things we appear if this was spherical and this far away.

Good for them.

Doesn't make it true.

Then do us all a favor and map a basket ball on a piece of paper.  Come back to us when you're done.

[JSS]

You need to understand how scale works.  A flat map of a small area of a sphere works because the distortions are tiny. But if you try and map a larger percentage then you will run into problems.

This is a ridiculous non-sequitur.

The fact anyone is even making a claim there are "distortions because of projections," is made with absolutely no direct personal knowledge of the matter.

Someone told you this, so it must absolutely be true.

Matching numerical entries to solutions can be formulated for any set of desired end parameters. That is exactly how math works.

Somebody came up with some numbers to match how things we appear if this was spherical and this far away.

Good for them.

Doesn't make it true.

It's clear you don't understand much about geometry or topography.  Try this experiment.  Take a basketball, or any other round object and a sheet of paper.  Now try and wrap that paper around the sphere without cutting or folding the paper.  You will find that you can't create a 1:1 map between the sphere and the paper without altering it.

This isn't just hard to do, it's impossible.  If you want an easy to understand example, on a sphere you can create a triangle with three right angles.  This is impossible on a flat piece of paper, so it should be pretty obvious a 1:1 map is impossible.  Try drawing a triangle with 3 right angles on a flat piece of paper for yourself if you don't believe me.

I have done all that I just described, so I do have "direct personal knowledge of the matter" as do most people.  You likely do too, but we all tend to forget a lot of what we learn in high school. 

This debate is a good example of the OPs question. Anyone looking from the outside would see nobody here is convincing anyone.

[Action80]

There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.

And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.

Unbelievable.

That is completely believable, unless your grocer is 7000 miles away.
The distortion in distances and land mass shapes is only noticeable on a macro scale.
This is what I was talking about above when I said ignorance. That isn't meant as an insult, but if you're not trolling then that's what your post betraying.

My post is betraying absolutely nothing.

You act as if 7000 mile distances cannot be mapped out on a flat surface either, using the term, "MACRO SCALE," as if it necessary to map it visually for an individual to comprehend to begin with.

Ridiculous.

You need to understand how scale works.  A flat map of a small area of a sphere works because the distortions are tiny. But if you try and map a larger percentage then you will run into problems.

This is a ridiculous non-sequitur.

The fact anyone is even making a claim there are "distortions because of projections," is made with absolutely no direct personal knowledge of the matter.

Someone told you this, so it must absolutely be true.

Matching numerical entries to solutions can be formulated for any set of desired end parameters. That is exactly how math works.

Somebody came up with some numbers to match how things we appear if this was spherical and this far away.

Good for them.

Doesn't make it true.

Then do us all a favor and map a basket ball on a piece of paper.  Come back to us when you're done.

I am under no pressure to map a spherical object onto a flat surface. It is nonsensical to do so.

[Action80]

You need to understand how scale works.  A flat map of a small area of a sphere works because the distortions are tiny. But if you try and map a larger percentage then you will run into problems.

This is a ridiculous non-sequitur.

The fact anyone is even making a claim there are "distortions because of projections," is made with absolutely no direct personal knowledge of the matter.

Someone told you this, so it must absolutely be true.

Matching numerical entries to solutions can be formulated for any set of desired end parameters. That is exactly how math works.

Somebody came up with some numbers to match how things we appear if this was spherical and this far away.

Good for them.

Doesn't make it true.

It's clear you don't understand much about geometry or topography.  Try this experiment.  Take a basketball, or any other round object and a sheet of paper.  Now try and wrap that paper around the sphere without cutting or folding the paper.  You will find that you can't create a 1:1 map between the sphere and the paper without altering it.

This isn't just hard to do, it's impossible.  If you want an easy to understand example, on a sphere you can create a triangle with three right angles.  This is impossible on a flat piece of paper, so it should be pretty obvious a 1:1 map is impossible.  Try drawing a triangle with 3 right angles on a flat piece of paper for yourself if you don't believe me.

I have done all that I just described, so I do have "direct personal knowledge of the matter" as do most people.  You likely do too, but we all tend to forget a lot of what we learn in high school. 

This debate is a good example of the OPs question. Anyone looking from the outside would see nobody here is convincing anyone.

On the contrary,  it is precisely this type of "debate," built upon a faulty presupposition, and the follow up statements such as, "you're ignorant," and,"you know very little about topography, " that led me to conversion. 

Me- Why wrap a piece of paper around a sphere to begin with?

Answer- Because the earth is a globe.

Ridiculous.

[JSS]

I am under no pressure to map a spherical object onto a flat surface. It is nonsensical to do so.

Another good example for the subject of this thread showing how debates are very unlikely to change anyone mind, at least for this subject.

You can't have a successful debate with someone who is not willing to learn.  Nobody is asking Action80 to accept the world is round, just learn some simple geometry and topography. To try an experiment. There can be little hope of changing ones mind if they are not willing to learn, and learning something new is never a bad thing.

People in general don't like their assumptions and beliefs challenged. One thing this site has been good for, at least for me is doing just that.  I haven't changed my mind, but I've done a lot of experiments and discovered that many things I thought I knew well I only had a simple understanding of, and in some cases was flat out wrong. You can't truly know something unless you can fully explain it to another.

[Action80]

I am under no pressure to map a spherical object onto a flat surface. It is nonsensical to do so.

Another good example for the subject of this thread showing how debates are very unlikely to change anyone mind, at least for this subject.

You can't have a successful debate with someone who is not willing to learn.  Nobody is asking Action80 to accept the world is round, just learn some simple geometry and topography. To try an experiment. There can be little hope of changing ones mind if they are not willing to learn, and learning something new is never a bad thing.

Agreed.

So, do you have anything new to offer?

Because the experiment you offer is old as dirt.

I do not need to perform it as I already know it will not be possible to match flat coordinates with those that are placed on a sphere.

I am also aware that it proves nothing as to the shape of the earth.

[JSS]

It's clear you don't understand much about geometry or topography.  Try this experiment.  Take a basketball, or any other round object and a sheet of paper.  Now try and wrap that paper around the sphere without cutting or folding the paper.  You will find that you can't create a 1:1 map between the sphere and the paper without altering it.

This isn't just hard to do, it's impossible.  If you want an easy to understand example, on a sphere you can create a triangle with three right angles.  This is impossible on a flat piece of paper, so it should be pretty obvious a 1:1 map is impossible.  Try drawing a triangle with 3 right angles on a flat piece of paper for yourself if you don't believe me.

I have done all that I just described, so I do have "direct personal knowledge of the matter" as do most people.  You likely do too, but we all tend to forget a lot of what we learn in high school. 

This debate is a good example of the OPs question. Anyone looking from the outside would see nobody here is convincing anyone.

On the contrary,  it is precisely this type of "debate," built upon a faulty presupposition, and the follow up statements such as, "you're ignorant," and,"you know very little about topography, " that led me to conversion. 

Me- Why wrap a piece of paper around a sphere to begin with?

Answer- Because the earth is a globe.

Ridiculous.

You are making up a response nobody has said.  Let me give you a real answer.

"Action80 - Why wrap a piece of paper around a sphere to begin with?"

Because it will demonstrate that a map of a sphere and a map of a plane are incompatible.  It shows that even if you can map a tiny spot on a sphere as a flat plane, you can't do that to the entire sphere. 

The discussion of the topological incompatibilities between a sphere and a plane began because of this exchange.

There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.

And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.
Unbelievable.

This shows you don't really understand the problems with planes and spheres. It's why the example of wrapping paper around a sphere was given to you, to try and help you understand. 

Here is another try.  Wrap some paper around a basketball and trace the letters. Then unfold it and try and make a map that keeps the distance between all points. You are going to find that you can't do this.  It's a physical demonstration of the fact that you can't transform a sphere into a plane, which means if points and distances fit on a sphere, that surface can not be flat.

[Action80]

You are making up a response nobody has said.  Let me give you a real answer.

"Action80 - Why wrap a piece of paper around a sphere to begin with?"

Because it will demonstrate that a map of a sphere and a map of a plane are incompatible.  It shows that even if you can map a tiny spot on a sphere as a flat plane, you can't do that to the entire sphere. 

Which next leads to the follow up,"Why of course! How does this concern the shape of the earth?"

The discussion of the topological incompatibilities between a sphere and a plane began because of this exchange.

There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.

And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.
Unbelievable.

This shows you don't really understand the problems with planes and spheres. It's why the example of wrapping paper around a sphere was given to you, to try and help you understand.

Here is another try.  Wrap some paper around a basketball and trace the letters. Then unfold it and try and make a map that keeps the distance between all points. You are going to find that you can't do this.  It's a physical demonstration of the fact that you can't transform a sphere into a plane, which means if points and distances fit on a sphere, that surface can not be flat.

You just stated exactly why you demand the wrapping of paper around a sphere.

You presuppose a globe.

I've performed the experiment. Of course it cannot be done.

I know that and I also know it demonstrates nothing in support of a globe earth.

[JSS]

You are making up a response nobody has said.  Let me give you a real answer.

"Action80 - Why wrap a piece of paper around a sphere to begin with?"

Because it will demonstrate that a map of a sphere and a map of a plane are incompatible.  It shows that even if you can map a tiny spot on a sphere as a flat plane, you can't do that to the entire sphere. 

Which next leads to the follow up,"Why of course! How does this concern the shape of the earth?"

So because an argument leads somewhere you don't like, you won't follow it?  Who is presupposing here?

The discussion of the topological incompatibilities between a sphere and a plane began because of this exchange.

There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.

And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.
Unbelievable.

This shows you don't really understand the problems with planes and spheres. It's why the example of wrapping paper around a sphere was given to you, to try and help you understand.

Here is another try.  Wrap some paper around a basketball and trace the letters. Then unfold it and try and make a map that keeps the distance between all points. You are going to find that you can't do this.  It's a physical demonstration of the fact that you can't transform a sphere into a plane, which means if points and distances fit on a sphere, that surface can not be flat.

You just stated exactly why you demand the wrapping of paper around a sphere.

You presuppose a globe.

I've performed the experiment. Of course it cannot be done.

I know that and I also know it demonstrates nothing in support of a globe earth.

Your example of "I can make a flat map of my grocery store so the earth is flat" shows that you didn't really grasp this. Saying that it demonstrates nothing in support of the earth being a sphere shows that you still may not fully understand.

Take the known distances between cities and try and fit them onto a flat map, you can't.

Try and fit them on a cube, a torus, a pyramid. They don't work either.

Try it on a sphere and you will find that they fit.

This is what wrapping a sphere demonstrates. That if you can fit a set of points onto a sphere, it's because they represent a sphere. They simply can't have those distances and directions on anything but a sphere. It explains why you have so much trouble making a flat map of the earth that works.

[TrustScience]

I've done sufficient research to make an informed decision about which team I'm on.

You have demonstrated otherwise. Understanding the subject will be a prerequisite to you having a meaningful discussion.

Considering that I have not discussed any specific aspects of what I do or do not know about the shape of the Earth, how precisely have I demonstrated that I lack sufficient knowledge to participate in the discussion that I myself initiated?
It could be argued that you, as a proponent of FET, have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of basic physics. Therefore, by your logic, you don’t meet the prerequisites to participate in a meaningful discussion on this topic. A topic which has comically devolved from simple question about whether these debates ever sway either side, into one largely about wrapping paper around basketballs.

Have you ever thought about how a single explanation—a spherical earth—effortlessly explains literally everything that gets debated on this forum, and a flat earth requires a vast, ever-growing trove of separate explanations for each aspect?

The truth is right under your feet. It’s just a lot less fun than being in this elite club of special enlightened people who think they know more than all the great thinkers mankind has ever produced.

[Pete Svarrior]

Considering that I have not discussed any specific aspects of what I do or do not know about the shape of the Earth, how precisely have I demonstrated that I lack sufficient knowledge to participate in the discussion that I myself initiated?

Here's one example:

The only topic that might be fun to explore is whether a spherical Earth can be disproved by Flat Earthers. Has that been sufficiently explored already?

Oh gee oh my i wonder if anyone has done literally the most common activity in the FE sphere of interest, that would be soooooo interesting.

It's really sad. You've made it crystal clear that you know very little about FET, despite your clear and deliberate effort not to disclose your level of understanding. Work on fixing that. You'll be a happier man at the end of it, regardless of your conclusions.

A topic which has comically devolved from simple question about whether these debates ever sway either side, into one largely about wrapping paper around basketballs.

Yes, RE arguments seldom get more complex than "wow but flat erth is not same as rund erth?????". Sadly, that's a side effect of your poor thread design.

It could be argued that you, as a proponent of FET, have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of basic physics.

Certainly, it could be argued... if only you knew what my position is. And, of course, chances are my conventional credentials in physics surpass your own. But let's not get facts get in the way of your tRuSt iN sCiEnCe.

[Lord Dave]

One can't change the mind of someone who doesn't believe what he says anyway.

Or perhaps:
You can't change the mind of a troll.  You can only bore them into leaving.

[Tumeni]

You presuppose a globe.

OK.

Why not do some experiments where we presuppose a flat plane, and see how geometry works out with those?

[Action80]

You are making up a response nobody has said.  Let me give you a real answer.

"Action80 - Why wrap a piece of paper around a sphere to begin with?"

Because it will demonstrate that a map of a sphere and a map of a plane are incompatible.  It shows that even if you can map a tiny spot on a sphere as a flat plane, you can't do that to the entire sphere. 

Which next leads to the follow up,"Why of course! How does this concern the shape of the earth?"

So because an argument leads somewhere you don't like, you won't follow it?  Who is presupposing here?

It's a rather direct question. Can you answer it?

The discussion of the topological incompatibilities between a sphere and a plane began because of this exchange.

There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.

And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.
Unbelievable.

This shows you don't really understand the problems with planes and spheres. It's why the example of wrapping paper around a sphere was given to you, to try and help you understand.

Here is another try.  Wrap some paper around a basketball and trace the letters. Then unfold it and try and make a map that keeps the distance between all points. You are going to find that you can't do this.  It's a physical demonstration of the fact that you can't transform a sphere into a plane, which means if points and distances fit on a sphere, that surface can not be flat.

You just stated exactly why you demand the wrapping of paper around a sphere.

You presuppose a globe.

I've performed the experiment. Of course it cannot be done.

I know that and I also know it demonstrates nothing in support of a globe earth.

Your example of "I can make a flat map of my grocery store so the earth is flat" shows that you didn't really grasp this. Saying that it demonstrates nothing in support of the earth being a sphere shows that you still may not fully understand.

Take the known distances between cities and try and fit them onto a flat map, you can't.

Nonsense. The distances between cities is well known and are quite well represented in a flat plane presentation.

Try and fit them on a cube, a torus, a pyramid. They don't work either.

Try it on a sphere and you will find that they fit.

This is what wrapping a sphere demonstrates. That if you can fit a set of points onto a sphere, it's because they represent a sphere. They simply can't have those distances and directions on anything but a sphere. It explains why you have so much trouble making a flat map of the earth that works.

Your argument fails. Every map I use to navigate is flat in presentation and works just fine.

[Action80]

You presuppose a globe.

OK.

Why not do some experiments where we presuppose a flat plane, and see how geometry works out with those?

Who is we?