Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Because maps of the whole world are not necessary.
The only legitimate reason to use a map is to plan a trip.
To represent all or part of the world. Do you mean a map can only be used to plan an itinerary? It's a very common use indeed, but certainly not the only one.
QuoteA round earth is, by definition, not flat. To make a flat map of a world that's not flat, you need a transformation. This transformation is called a map projection. There are many different map projections, and which one you choose depends largely on what you want to do with it. None of them is really more wrong or more accurate than another - they are just different representations of the same thing.Well, I would think when you guys come up with one that you guys agree upon, then it might be time for you guys to come demanding one we guys agree upon.
You fail to understand that there is not really a "tilt". The Moon appears exactly the way it's supposed to appear. You intuitively expect to be able to draw a straight line from the Moon to the position of the Sun in the sky, perpendicular to the terminator. But this expectation, albeit intuitive, is false. Because of perspective.Actually, far be it from me to argue with one of my RE brethren, but actually the moon tilt illusion is, as the name suggests, an illusion.#
When you observe the effect you can stretch a piece of string from the moon, perpendicular to the terminator, and you'll see that contrary to the way it appears there is a straight line between the moon and sun
Why?
Please show one of the entire world.
What is a legitimate purpose of a map?
Then compare the sizes of, say, Greenland vs Brazil, India, Australia. Or Svalbard vs Sri Lanka. Or Iceland vs Gabon. Let's see if it matches reality. If it does, let's see if there are other problems.As if you have any
PERSONAL
idea of the shapes of any country.
You don't.
Yes, there are some flat earthers who don't agree on a flat earth, believing it to be concave at the edges.QuoteAs far as the OP is concerned, I already answered that question.
Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.
Wait - have you just written that some flat earthers don't agree on the very principle of a flat earth?No wonder it will be hard to agree on a map then.As if RE agrees on a world map...
We already have the math with the actual RE distances.
I agree that things should not turn much to persoective. The Moon would actually turn negligibly to perspective in RE, less than 2 degrees.
So how can you get it to turn 45 degrees to perspective, without seeing different sides of the Moon's day and night?
How can a pencil or a Rubix Cube tilt to perspective without seeing different sides of it?
You flatly refuse to answer.
The general response to this is to claim that the physical Moon is not tilting, but that it is only the Moon's day and night that tilts to perspective. This is also incorrect, for the same reasons previously discussed, since one would have to see different parts of the Moon's day and night:
The same issue occurs. The Moon Phase diagram I provided previously shows that different observers would have to be viewing different parts of the Full Moon.
So, how does this work with "extreme perspective" as the answer to this?
So you have never seen a satellite cross the night sky? In the exact position that it is supposed to be?I don't know about exact position, but yes I have seen a satellite cross the sky.
Allow me to clarify.Well, you weren't using a flat map then.Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.
They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.
Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?
So, we're back to the original point.
If Google Maps and Bing are not flat maps, and you finally realize they're a projection of a sphere in two dimensions... Please show us an actual, and accurate, map of the flat earth.
And if possible, to get back once again to the origin of this thread - agreed upon among flat earthers. According to the FAQ of TFES, such a thing does not exist. Why would it be so hard to make a flat map of a flat earth?
All maps that are presented on paper and utilize linear measures for scaling are accurate.
There are plenty of accurate flat maps like this.
As far as the OP is concerned, I already answered that question.
Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.
Can you read the post again and understand my question was quite specific and mentioned nothing of the language used, just specific words?I doubt cartographers have any input as to the writing content placed on their end product...Necessary to use the word "projection," to maintain the illusion of globe.I see. So cartographers down the centuries are in on all this too, are they? The earth is flat, maps are flat. So it should be fairly simple to make an accurate map of the earth. But no. They decided to deliberately distort it for...reasons? And they made up a whole lot of different ways of doing so? Sheesh.
Did Mercator or Piri Reis coin the word, "projection"?
Mercator, just like any scholar of his times, wrote in latin. Can you read latin? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Mercator_1569_world_map_sheet_01.png
If not, well, maybe the translation in the Wikipedia article can help you understand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_1569_world_map#legend3
Thank you.
Well, you weren't using a flat map then.Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.
They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.
Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?
I doubt cartographers have any input as to the writing content placed on their end product...Necessary to use the word "projection," to maintain the illusion of globe.I see. So cartographers down the centuries are in on all this too, are they? The earth is flat, maps are flat. So it should be fairly simple to make an accurate map of the earth. But no. They decided to deliberately distort it for...reasons? And they made up a whole lot of different ways of doing so? Sheesh.
Did Mercator or Piri Reis coin the word, "projection"?
All maps are flat for a reason.
All flat maps are accurate to the point we have used them for 100's of years.
I would be willing to buy a long range laser measuring device like a bosch GLR825 accuracy to1/25 of in.and some plumb bobs if anyone wants to see what happens.
I am not sure what you mean, as all maps are flat.For RE, there is usually general agreement 8n all aspects. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, gravity exists, etc. I've noticed that in FE, there are so many different models and theories. Ice wall, no ice wall, but an infinite plane, earth sits on the back of a giant turtle, Maturin(the giant turtle) stands on the back of four elephants, gravity does exists, gravity does not exist it's upward acceleration, etc. I guess what I'm wondering, is there anything - other than the earth being flat - that all flat earthers agree on?There is a general agreement among flat earthers that the earth is not a globe.
Other than that, I am not sure.
This is not surprising. Agreeing on virtually anything else would be the first step towards accepting a single flat Earth model, in which it would be much easier to find impossibilities or inconsistencies, either within the model itself or between the model and observations that can be easily made in the world as we see it.
I mean, we don't even have a definitive map of what it's supposed to look like. Humans have been making maps for centuries, and no one could ever come up with a correct, definitive map of the Earth if it were flat?
And all flat maps are very definitive.
It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.
For RE, there is usually general agreement 8n all aspects. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, gravity exists, etc. I've noticed that in FE, there are so many different models and theories. Ice wall, no ice wall, but an infinite plane, earth sits on the back of a giant turtle, Maturin(the giant turtle) stands on the back of four elephants, gravity does exists, gravity does not exist it's upward acceleration, etc. I guess what I'm wondering, is there anything - other than the earth being flat - that all flat earthers agree on?There is a general agreement among flat earthers that the earth is not a globe.
Other than that, I am not sure.
I think we can prove or disprove flat or round earth by measuring the distance between two objects,silos poles or cranes.The tops should be farther apart than the bottom.
I asked the same question regarding the Artemis Project but received little response. Will FE just consider it another hoax?
