[markjo]

Provided the Earth is a circle then they would only vary based on the diameter of the Earth since the system is defined by having 360 degrees of latitude and longitude.

Minor nit to pick: there are only 180 degrees of latitude.

So it is. But you do have to count each latitude twice to make a circumference effectively making 360 degrees to count.

Do you mean "diameter" instead of "circumference"?

[Lord Dave]

Its simple trigonometry, Dave.

London is 0 degrees West/East. It is 51 degrees north.

Sydney is 151 degrees East and 33 degrees south.

Each degree is 60 nautical miles. Make a triangle.

angle 151 degrees. sides are (90-51) x 60) and ((90 x 60) +(33 x 60))

Bit of trig later


9,495 nautical miles. There is a fair bit of rounding on my part not using minutes etc but you see how its done. The round earth value is 9,174 nautical miles.

Hardly impossible to make a calculator, is it?

However, I don't want to generate all the answers. I'd rather the community got together and debated the calcs and the mathematics. This isn't Thork's flat earth society.

If a formula is arrived at, I'm sure me or Pizzaplanet can convert this to javascript or whatever their preference is.

Wouldn't the latitude and longitude lines be different on a flat earth due to the different positioning and elongation/shrinking of continents?

Provided the Earth is a circle then they would only vary based on the diameter of the Earth since the system is defined by having 360 degrees of latitude and longitude.

And how large should we make the flat earth?

That would mean revamping their associated coordinates, not the coordinate system itself.

Then the distance can't be calculated with the coordinate system.

[Rama Set]

Provided the Earth is a circle then they would only vary based on the diameter of the Earth since the system is defined by having 360 degrees of latitude and longitude.

Minor nit to pick: there are only 180 degrees of latitude.

So it is. But you do have to count each latitude twice to make a circumference effectively making 360 degrees to count.

Do you mean "diameter" instead of "circumference"?

Yes. I instinctually used a RE paradigm.

[Rama Set]

Its simple trigonometry, Dave.

London is 0 degrees West/East. It is 51 degrees north.

Sydney is 151 degrees East and 33 degrees south.

Each degree is 60 nautical miles. Make a triangle.

angle 151 degrees. sides are (90-51) x 60) and ((90 x 60) +(33 x 60))

Bit of trig later


9,495 nautical miles. There is a fair bit of rounding on my part not using minutes etc but you see how its done. The round earth value is 9,174 nautical miles.

Hardly impossible to make a calculator, is it?

However, I don't want to generate all the answers. I'd rather the community got together and debated the calcs and the mathematics. This isn't Thork's flat earth society.

If a formula is arrived at, I'm sure me or Pizzaplanet can convert this to javascript or whatever their preference is.

Wouldn't the latitude and longitude lines be different on a flat earth due to the different positioning and elongation/shrinking of continents?

Provided the Earth is a circle then they would only vary based on the diameter of the Earth since the system is defined by having 360 degrees of latitude and longitude.

And how large should we make the flat earth?

Uhhh... You can do that?  The a singularity. Conversely, kickstart a FE cartography mission and get an accurate answer.

That would mean revamping their associated coordinates, not the coordinate system itself.

Then the distance can't be calculated with the coordinate system.

[/quote]

Once you have the proper coordinates on a FE you sure can!

[inquisitive]

Please explain why distances must be the same on different shaped surfaces.

Why would I try explaining something I didn't say or claim? That'd be a silly thing for me to do, and it's a very silly thing for you to request.

You said they would not be different, so must be the same.

[Rama Set]

Please explain why distances must be the same on different shaped surfaces.

Why would I try explaining something I didn't say or claim? That'd be a silly thing for me to do, and it's a very silly thing for you to request.

You said they would not be different, so must be the same.

You are implying necessity of difference or sameness when some might be the same and some might be different.

[Pete Svarrior]

You said they would not be different, so must be the same.

I did not say that. I said that your statement of "they must be different" is false.

[inquisitive]

Basic maths tells us that it would not be possible to put 10 capital cities of the world on a flat scale map and maintain the actual distances between each one.

[Pete Svarrior]

Basic maths tells us that it would not be possible to put 10 capital cities of the world on a flat scale map and maintain the actual distances between each one.

You're more than welcome to demonstrate that. So far, all you've contributed to this forum is a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and straw man attacks. Don't expect people to take you seriously.

[inquisitive]

Basic maths tells us that it would not be possible to put 10 capital cities of the world on a flat scale map and maintain the actual distances between each one.

You're more than welcome to demonstrate that. So far, all you've contributed to this forum is a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and straw man attacks. Don't expect people to take you seriously.

It is not an attack, how can all the distances between 5 places remain the same on a flat surface and a spherical one?

[markjo]

You said they would not be different, so must be the same.

I did not say that. I said that your statement of "they must be different" is false.

Perhaps if you were to reply with meaningful responses, rather than with vague, one word answers, then there might not be so much confusion and the discussion could proceed in a productive manner.  Or is that too much to hope for from the management? 

[Rama Set]

Basic maths tells us that it would not be possible to put 10 capital cities of the world on a flat scale map and maintain the actual distances between each one.

You're more than welcome to demonstrate that. So far, all you've contributed to this forum is a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and straw man attacks. Don't expect people to take you seriously.

It is not an attack, how can all the distances between 5 places remain the same on a flat surface and a spherical one?

Depending on the size of the sphere and the distances between, it is eminently possible. PizaaPlanet is right, you need to substantiate this claim.

[inquisitive]

Consider a square with sides of 10 units. A point in the centre of the square will be 7.07 units from each of the corners.

Place those 4 corners on a sphere, still 10 units apart.  The centre point will be raised and hence more than 7.07 units.

[Rama Set]

Sorry mate, but this is still just a claim.  Can you do the transformation you are talking about?

[inquisitive]

Sorry mate, but this is still just a claim.  Can you do the transformation you are talking about?

What's not to understand?  What 'transformation'?

Please provide a link to a flat earth map.

[Rama Set]

Sorry mate, but this is still just a claim.  Can you do the transformation you are talking about?

What's not to understand?

The point is that you are responsible for making people understand your claims.

What 'transformation'?

You are talking about transforming a set of coordinates from a flat space to a curved space.

Please provide a link to a flat earth map.

Huh?  Aside from being a REer and understanding that they have never claimed to have an accurate map, why would I do that?

[inquisitive]

Sorry mate, but this is still just a claim.  Can you do the transformation you are talking about?

What's not to understand?

The point is that you are responsible for making people understand your claims.

What 'transformation'?

You are talking about transforming a set of coordinates from a flat space to a curved space.

Please provide a link to a flat earth map.

Huh?  Aside from being a REer and understanding that they have never claimed to have an accurate map, why would I do that?

If there was a flat earth map then distances could be measured and compared with verified ones on a spherical earth.  Obviously they would be different.

[Rama Set]

You are going round in circles now.

[Tintagel]

Sorry mate, but this is still just a claim.  Can you do the transformation you are talking about?

What's not to understand?

The point is that you are responsible for making people understand your claims.

What 'transformation'?

You are talking about transforming a set of coordinates from a flat space to a curved space.

Please provide a link to a flat earth map.

Huh?  Aside from being a REer and understanding that they have never claimed to have an accurate map, why would I do that?

If there was a flat earth map then distances could be measured and compared with verified ones on a spherical earth.  Obviously they would be different.

You are assuming that a planar earth is flat like a sheet of paper is flat, when it may not be.   I don't think anyone here disputes that spherical geometry and Euclidean geometry exist.

[Pete Svarrior]

Or is that too much to hope for from the management? 

You may have missed that (although I'd be surprised, given that you were involved in the discussion), but forum staff are held to the same standards as any other poster, not higher.

Perhaps if you were to reply with meaningful responses, rather than with vague, one word answers, then there might not be so much confusion and the discussion could proceed in a productive manner.

I'm very sorry that you feel that way. My post was pretty clear, and if you don't know what "nope" means, well, that's your problem, not mine.