[iamcpc]

I've actively been researching the flat earth idea for a while now. I've found many compelling flat earth points regarding everything from sunsets to seismic waves.
I can honestly say that there are many good points, or at the very least things worth discussing, brought up by many of the flat earth models that I've encountered.
I have not yet found a flat earth response to how we are able to navigate and travel on this earth. I'm hoping I can get a response.

1. If no accurate map of the earth exists how am I able to accurately travel long distances on a consistent basis using a map?
2. If i'm able to use a map to accurately travel long distances all over the world would that not make my map accurate?
3. If we don't have an accurate map of the earth (and don't know the distances between far cities) how are ships and planes able to navigate long distances?

[edby]

In my experience, FE supporters tend not to address navigational and distance measurement type questions. Interesting to see if they do.

[iamcpc]

In my experience, FE supporters tend not to address navigational and distance measurement type questions. Interesting to see if they do.

I've found answers for pretty much all my other questions but this one. I believe that the earth can be flat AND we can have some general idea about cartography and navigation. Is the reason because there are so many flat earth models?

Alaska can be north of Brazil on both a round earth and a flat one.

[edby]

I've found answers for pretty much all my other questions but this one. I believe that the earth can be flat AND we can have some general idea about cartography and navigation. Is the reason because there are so many flat earth models?
Alaska can be north of Brazil on both a round earth and a flat one.

We can have a general idea yes, but not a more precise one. We can measure latitude using ancient techniques, and we can measure longitude using the sort of precise clock that was developed in the 18th century. However these are not consistent with the surface distance implied by a flat earth model. Indeed, the accurate clocks used to measure longitude were developed at great expense because of the danger and loss of life

You say ‘Is the reason because there are so many flat earth models?’, which I don’t follow. No flat earth model of distance is consistent with the actual measurement based on actual observations. It is easy to prove this using spherical geometry. Any set of distances you take will be in some way inconsistent with flatness.

[iamcpc]

You say ‘Is the reason because there are so many flat earth models?’, which I don’t follow. No flat earth model of distance is consistent with the actual measurement based on actual observations. It is easy to prove this using spherical geometry. Any set of distances you take will be in some way inconsistent with flatness.

well according to this model it looks like Sydney might be close to the edge of the flat earth:




According to some models the earth does not have an edge it's an infinite flat plane. How can someone create a map of an infinite plane?

According to another model japan is on the edge because it has a higher risk of earthquakes.

Another model says that there is only one continent and Jerusalem is in the middle.

Another model says there is a giant ice wall around the edge.

Another model says there is a dome.


How could one map possibly fit all these ideas? An infinite plane can't have an edge. Japan can't be in 2 locations at once on 2 separate maps.

[AATW]

According to some models the earth does not have an edge it's an infinite flat plane. How can someone create a map of an infinite plane?

I don't think people who claim that believe that any countries are infinite distances apart, more that the known earth is part of an infinite plane.
This model does solve some problems - the atmosphere leaking off the edge if there is no dome - but obviously infinite plane = infinite mass = infinite amount of "dark energy needed for UA. Unless...the think that gravity exists which might work?

[Curious Squirrel]

According to some models the earth does not have an edge it's an infinite flat plane. How can someone create a map of an infinite plane?

I don't think people who claim that believe that any countries are infinite distances apart, more that the known earth is part of an infinite plane.
This model does solve some problems - the atmosphere leaking off the edge if there is no dome - but obviously infinite plane = infinite mass = infinite amount of "dark energy needed for UA. Unless...the think that gravity exists which might work?

You are correct. The infinite plane model uses standard gravity, NOT UA. This is why the plane is 'infinite' or so close to that you don't get the non-downward force you would get on a finite plane Earth that had gravity.

[iamcpc]

You are correct. The infinite plane model uses standard gravity, NOT UA. This is why the plane is 'infinite' or so close to that you don't get the non-downward force you would get on a finite plane Earth that had gravity.

This statement makes it appear that there is one infinite plane model.

There is an infinite plane model with no gravity, no firmament, and no dome.
there is an infinite plane model with gravity, no firmament, and no dome
there is an infinite plane model with gravity, a firmament, and no dome
There is an infinite plane model where the dome is the firmament and another one where the dome is outside of the firmament and another where the dome is inside the firmamemnt

[totallackey]

I've actively been researching the flat earth idea for a while now. I've found many compelling flat earth points regarding everything from sunsets to seismic waves.
I can honestly say that there are many good points, or at the very least things worth discussing, brought up by many of the flat earth models that I've encountered.
I have not yet found a flat earth response to how we are able to navigate and travel on this earth. I'm hoping I can get a response.

1. If no accurate map of the earth exists how am I able to accurately travel long distances on a consistent basis using a map?

The maps are accurate enough and the maps are flat the same as the earth you travel on.

2. If i'm able to use a map to accurately travel long distances all over the world would that not make my map accurate?

It would make the map accurate enough and the map is flat the same as the earth you travel on.

3. If we don't have an accurate map of the earth (and don't know the distances between far cities) how are ships and planes able to navigate long distances?

We have maps that are accurate enough and those maps are flat the same as the earth you travel on.

These questions really?

[Tontogary]

I've actively been researching the flat earth idea for a while now. I've found many compelling flat earth points regarding everything from sunsets to seismic waves.
I can honestly say that there are many good points, or at the very least things worth discussing, brought up by many of the flat earth models that I've encountered.
I have not yet found a flat earth response to how we are able to navigate and travel on this earth. I'm hoping I can get a response.

1. If no accurate map of the earth exists how am I able to accurately travel long distances on a consistent basis using a map?

The maps are accurate enough and the maps are flat the same as the earth you travel on.

2. If i'm able to use a map to accurately travel long distances all over the world would that not make my map accurate?

It would make the map accurate enough and the map is flat the same as the earth you travel on.

3. If we don't have an accurate map of the earth (and don't know the distances between far cities) how are ships and planes able to navigate long distances?

We have maps that are accurate enough and those maps are flat the same as the earth you travel on.

These questions really?

There is no flat earth map that is accepted, (apparently)
Any of the ones I have seen are definitely not accurate enough for even general ocean navigation, so they are not accurate enough.
Charts used for navigation are Mercator projection charts based on the global earth.

[iamcpc]

There is no flat earth map that is accepted, (apparently)
Any of the ones I have seen are definitely not accurate enough for even general ocean navigation, so they are not accurate enough.
Charts used for navigation are Mercator projection charts based on the global earth.

Why can't google maps be the accepted flat earth map?

[totallackey]

There is no flat earth map that is accepted, (apparently)
Any of the ones I have seen are definitely not accurate enough for even general ocean navigation, so they are not accurate enough.
Charts used for navigation are Mercator projection charts based on the global earth.

You have zero clue as to whether any map is acceptable for navigation.

I bet you have not even floated a boat in a bathtub.

Most maps are accurate enough to get the job done.

And all maps are flat.

Period.

End of sentence.

And as far as the word "projection," is concerned, Mercator drew his map on a sheet of paper lying FLAT on a table.

Some yokel decided to label it a projection.

[inquisitive]

There is no flat earth map that is accepted, (apparently)
Any of the ones I have seen are definitely not accurate enough for even general ocean navigation, so they are not accurate enough.
Charts used for navigation are Mercator projection charts based on the global earth.

You have zero clue as to whether any map is acceptable for navigation.

I bet you have not even floated a boat in a bathtub.

Most maps are accurate enough to get the job done.

And all maps are flat.

Period.

End of sentence.

And as far as the word "projection," is concerned, Mercator drew his map on a sheet of paper lying FLAT on a table.

Some yokel decided to label it a projection.

And maps have lines of longitude and latitude on them matching a round earth.

[Round Eyes]

According to some models the earth does not have an edge it's an infinite flat plane. How can someone create a map of an infinite plane?

I don't think people who claim that believe that any countries are infinite distances apart, more that the known earth is part of an infinite plane.
This model does solve some problems - the atmosphere leaking off the edge if there is no dome - but obviously infinite plane = infinite mass = infinite amount of "dark energy needed for UA. Unless...the think that gravity exists which might work?

two different models. in the infinite plane model, there is gravity.  gravity will hold the atmosphere, same as RET.  There is no dome in RET, same mechanism for holding the atmosphere.  Why is an infinite plane so hard to comprehend, when most people in RET would say the universe is infinite? 

UA does not use an infinite plane, you are combining them.  UA has a finite earth being constantly accelerated.  i dont buy this theory at all.  i think the infinite plane model is much simpler.

[iamcpc]

two different models. in the infinite plane model, there is gravity.  gravity will hold the atmosphere, same as RET.  There is no dome in RET, same mechanism for holding the atmosphere.  Why is an infinite plane so hard to comprehend, when most people in RET would say the universe is infinite? 

UA does not use an infinite plane, you are combining them.  UA has a finite earth being constantly accelerated.  i dont buy this theory at all.  i think the infinite plane model is much simpler.

The flat earth model is a moot point. Google maps is pretty accurate. Regardless of if the earth is a flat circle, infinite flat plane, flat square, sphere, oval, egg shaped, or even shaped like a cylinder google maps is pretty damn accurate (which can be easily tested by anyone with a car, plane ticket, or train ticket) with photographic ground level evidence.

[Round Eyes]

two different models. in the infinite plane model, there is gravity.  gravity will hold the atmosphere, same as RET.  There is no dome in RET, same mechanism for holding the atmosphere.  Why is an infinite plane so hard to comprehend, when most people in RET would say the universe is infinite? 

UA does not use an infinite plane, you are combining them.  UA has a finite earth being constantly accelerated.  i dont buy this theory at all.  i think the infinite plane model is much simpler.

The flat earth model is a moot point. Google maps is pretty accurate. Regardless of if the earth is a flat circle, infinite flat plane, flat square, sphere, oval, egg shaped, or even shaped like a cylinder google maps is pretty damn accurate (which can be easily tested by anyone with a car, plane ticket, or train ticket) with photographic ground level evidence.

Oh, I see Mr. Google maps is back again... Great, please provide a link to Google maps for the 89th time....

What does this have to do with my post... Nothing

[iamcpc]

two different models. in the infinite plane model, there is gravity.  gravity will hold the atmosphere, same as RET.  There is no dome in RET, same mechanism for holding the atmosphere.  Why is an infinite plane so hard to comprehend, when most people in RET would say the universe is infinite? 

UA does not use an infinite plane, you are combining them.  UA has a finite earth being constantly accelerated.  i dont buy this theory at all.  i think the infinite plane model is much simpler.

The flat earth model is a moot point. Google maps is pretty accurate. Regardless of if the earth is a flat circle, infinite flat plane, flat square, sphere, oval, egg shaped, or even shaped like a cylinder google maps is pretty damn accurate (which can be easily tested by anyone with a car, plane ticket, or train ticket) with photographic ground level evidence.

Oh, I see Mr. Google maps is back again... Great, please provide a link to Google maps for the 89th time....

What does this have to do with my post... Nothing

google maps represents an infinite repeating plane.

[totallackey]

There is no flat earth map that is accepted, (apparently)
Any of the ones I have seen are definitely not accurate enough for even general ocean navigation, so they are not accurate enough.
Charts used for navigation are Mercator projection charts based on the global earth.

You have zero clue as to whether any map is acceptable for navigation.

I bet you have not even floated a boat in a bathtub.

Most maps are accurate enough to get the job done.

And all maps are flat.

Period.

End of sentence.

And as far as the word "projection," is concerned, Mercator drew his map on a sheet of paper lying FLAT on a table.

Some yokel decided to label it a projection.

And maps have lines of longitude and latitude on them matching a round earth.

No.

They have lines on them matching the flat paper on which they are drawn.

[edby]

They have lines on them matching the flat paper on which they are drawn.

So are you comfortable that the flat maps you use are an accurate representation of distances on the earth's surface?

[ICanScienceThat]

The problem is that you cannot unfold a sphere into a flat surface without causing severe distortion complete with pac-man style wormholes. It's easier to see with a cube. I suspect most of us have built a paper cube before. You trace out the 6 faces on a flat surface, cut them out, and fold them into a cube. Unfold it again, and you'll see that many of the faces aren't anywhere near the edge they touched as a cube. Those edges are what I'm calling the pac-man style wormholes... you cross one boundary and appear instantly on another face of the cube. It works when it's assembled as a cube, but when you lay it flat, you need wormholes.

What this means is that the Earth cannot be both a sphere AND a flat surface. It must be one or the other (assuming we aren't going into higher-dimensional math and allowing for wormholes). I hope that's simple enough. It's either a globe or a plane - it can't be said that "either way works".

So if you make a flat map (any map really), we'll want to test the latitude and longitude of any city on your map against empirical observations. (These were outlined by a previous poster.) If the flat map does not match the known latitude and longitude at any point, we either need to prove the accepted latitude and longitude of that city is incorrect, or we must reject the map as inaccurate.

As I've just pointed out, there is no way for both the globe and a flat map to represent the exact same latitudes and longitudes without severe distortion. We also know that the standard globe model DOES accurately represent the latitude and longitude of every city on it. (Please let us know if you'd care to dispute this point.)

So... before making any FE map, you would first want to come up with some justification for why you are going to challenge the latitude and longitude of cities all over the Earth.

The same can be said for distances between these cities. If we can measure (or even estimate) the distance between any 2 points on the Earth, we'll need to make sure your new map reproduces those empirical results correctly. Once again, you'll first need to establish that there are a pair of cities on the globe which are represented inaccurately.

So if you have a specific, testable reason to challenge the latitude and longitude of any city on the Earth, please share that. (My apologies if this has been given before... if so, I have missed it and would appreciate being directed to it... thanks).