The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: AndraiaZ on June 25, 2019, 04:50:56 PM
-
Hi!
I did a bit of Research on the Flat Earth Theory in the last couple of months and in all that time I haven't got a good answer to a Question I think is one of the main Things I am skeptical about with that Theory.
It's about the Flat Earth Map. Maths tells us that you can't map out a sphere, there are Proofs for that, so no map of the earth is correct. The different maps obtained by projections (as claimed) all have one thing in common: They are distorted.
Some got correct angles and others correct lengths but they can't have both at the same time.
Now to my Question: If the earth is flat, we should have a map that has got both of those Attributes, in other words we should be able to have a perfect map of the earth without any distortion. Is there such a map?
If there is, I'm fully convinced that you're right, because the only way we could have a perfect map is when the earth is flat.
Thanks in Advance for your answers :)
-
It is true a sphere cannot be mapped to a flat plane. And you raise a fair point, if you could map a flat world with no distortion, where is said map?
If you look at the flat earth map all flat earthers use, the azimuthal equidistant projection, with lines of latitude & longitude to assist, you can see that the cells get wider and wider the further you move from the north pole. I must stress these are supposed to be SQUARES. That's the reason Australia looks twice as wide as it really is - because the map is distorted. And why is it distorted? Well, I'm sure you can come to that conclusion yourself.
-
Hi!
I did a bit of Research on the Flat Earth Theory in the last couple of months and in all that time I haven't got a good answer to a Question I think is one of the main Things I am skeptical about with that Theory.
It's about the Flat Earth Map. Maths tells us that you can't map out a sphere, there are Proofs for that, so no map of the earth is correct. The different maps obtained by projections (as claimed) all have one thing in common: They are distorted.
Some got correct angles and others correct lengths but they can't have both at the same time.
Now to my Question: If the earth is flat, we should have a map that has got both of those Attributes, in other words we should be able to have a perfect map of the earth without any distortion. Is there such a map?
If there is, I'm fully convinced that you're right, because the only way we could have a perfect map is when the earth is flat.
Thanks in Advance for your answers :)
A big part of the problem is that there are at least a dozen different flat earth maps that I've come across and only one that I've found is supported by modern cartography, shipping, flight, and travel data.
I've voiced my concerns with several of the flat earth maps but I have not been able to sway one person from adhering to their personal flat earth map.
https://www.bing.com/maps
-
A big part of the problem is that there are at least a dozen different flat earth maps that I've come across and only one that I've found is supported by modern cartography, shipping, flight, and travel data.
https://www.bing.com/maps
I'm sure you know this already, but that's not a flat earth map. Bing maps uses the Mercator projection of a sphere earth.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/bingmaps/articles/bing-maps-tile-system
-
I'm sure you know this already, but that's not a flat earth map. Bing maps uses the Mercator projection of a sphere earth.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/bingmaps/articles/bing-maps-tile-system
When I use my eyes I can clearly see that Bing maps represents the earth as a flat plane. When I zoom all the way out i can plainly see a flat plane. There are many ways to draw a map in which the earth is shown as a flat plane.
By your logic there is no flat earth map. They are all projections of a sphere earth.
Take a look at this website:
https://www.google.com/maps
Zoom all the way out. This website represents the earth as a sphere.
-
When I use my eyes I can clearly see that Bing maps represents the earth as a flat plane. When I zoom all the way out i can plainly see a flat plane. There are many ways to draw a map in which the earth is shown as a flat plane.
By your logic there is no flat earth map. They are all projections of a sphere earth.
Take a look at this website:
https://www.google.com/maps
Zoom all the way out. This website represents the earth as a sphere.
Microsoft clearly states in it's documentation that it is a flat projection of a sphere. Bing maps isn't representing Earth as a flat plane as you suggest.
By your logic there is no flat earth map. They are all projections of a sphere earth.
Well, my logic isn't a factor here. I made no blanket claim that all flat earth maps are projections of a sphere earth. I was simply displaying what Microsoft states about the one map you believe is the most plausible flat earth map.
-
Bing maps isn't representing Earth as a flat plane as you suggest.
If bing maps are not representing the earth as a flat plane then what shape are they representing the earth as? It's not a sphere. I already demonstrated what an interactive sphere earth map looks like and it didn't look like bing maps.
It sure is not a pyramid or a cube or a cylinder either.
Well, my logic isn't a factor here. I made no blanket claim that all flat earth maps are projections of a sphere earth. I was simply displaying what Microsoft states about the one map you believe is the most plausible flat earth map.
Oh. Well then my original statement still stands. Any map of the entire earth that is printed on paper (or could be printed on paper) represents the earth (regardless of the shape of that earth) as a flat plane.
-
Forgive me if my comments seem offensive, but is iamcpc even a FE?
This is classic Poe, right?
Sorry... the moderators will hate that. Let me explain.
I had the impression already that iamcpc isn't a FE. IIRC, I've seen them chiming in from various points of view.
iamcpc has already stated that the scale of bing maps changes as you scroll North/South. This indicates they clearly understand the the projection isn't "flat". I mean it's flat, sure, but it's clearly a projection onto flat. If you printed it on paper that sliding scale wouldn't happen, and iamcpc clearly shows it.
So... is this a joke? or... what?
-
Forgive me if my comments seem offensive, but is iamcpc even a FE?
This is classic Poe, right?
Sorry... the moderators will hate that. Let me explain.
I had the impression already that iamcpc isn't a FE. IIRC, I've seen them chiming in from various points of view.
iamcpc has already stated that the scale of bing maps changes as you scroll North/South. This indicates they clearly understand the the projection isn't "flat". I mean it's flat, sure, but it's clearly a projection onto flat. If you printed it on paper that sliding scale wouldn't happen, and iamcpc clearly shows it.
So... is this a joke? or... what?
I guess I don't understand the question.
Is an interactive map with a scale that changes a joke? I don't think so.
Is my belief that the most accurate flat earth map that I've seen resembles Bing maps? I don't think so.
When you ask if i'm FE I don't know what that means. Could you please elaborate?
If, by FE, you mean do I believe 100% that we have proven the earth to be flat then: no. I'm not.
If, by FE, you mean that I honestly believe there is real evidence, and logical arguments which supports the idea that the earth is flat (or some flattish shape) as well as real evidence and logical arguments which weaken the round earth model then: Yes I am
It's not black and white. You don't have to 100% know the earth is flat or 100% know the earth is round. You could be 80-20 Flat earth. You could be 60-40 flat earth. It's not just strongly agree or strongly disagree. There are areas in the middle.
I could think there is a very real possibility backed by evidence and logic which supports the idea that the earth could be flat but have an issue with some of the more common flat earth models having issues reconciling with observations I've personally made.
I found this map https://www.zmescience.com/other/design-other/accurate-map-design-11022016/ which does NOT have an interactive changing scale but it does not have a north so I don't know how to verify if it's accurate.
It's hard to talk about maps when people claim for any map that it's just a projection of a sphere therefore does not count as a flat earth map.
-
Is an interactive map with a scale that changes a joke? I don't think so.
Is my belief that the most accurate flat earth map that I've seen resembles Bing maps? I don't think so.
When you ask if i'm FE I don't know what that means. Could you please elaborate?
If, by FE, you mean do I believe 100% that we have proven the earth to be flat then: no. I'm not.
If, by FE, you mean that I honestly believe there is real evidence, and logical arguments which supports the idea that the earth is flat (or some flattish shape) as well as real evidence and logical arguments which weaken the round earth model then: Yes I am
Everything you wrote there is great, and I respect it all.
Let's talk about the bing map and your presentation of it. Is it "flat"? Sure, insofar as it is 2 dimensional, yeah it's flat. But could this be a representation of what the Earth is really like? You pointed out the dynamic scale, so I'm forced to say the representation is clearly a distortion of reality, and you clearly understand that. So I'm led to the most obvious conclusion that the suggestion that this map is the best "flat earth map" was meant to be cheeky.
If not, then consider... if the map must dynamically change scale, then it could NOT be the same as a physical, static object. (I'm assuming we can agree that the Earth isn't dynamically scaling.)
So can we agree that the bing map is the projection of some higher dimensional shape onto a 2D plane? This projection has caused significant distortions as indicated by the dynamic scale. Agreed?
In that case, I would suggest that we can now agree the Earth cannot look like this. What are the possibilities that remain?
a) You were being cheeky all along, and I've fallen into your trap.
b) You hadn't really thought about it before, but now you realize this map doesn't meet the criteria of a "flat earth map".
c) You still don't understand why the bing map cannot be the "flat earth map" we're looking for.
If you want to go with c), there are 2 possibilities:
c1) You possess an understanding of an abstract type of geometry that I am failing to consider
c2) You don't respect the same rules of 2D geometry and 3D geometry that I do.
It's hard to talk about maps when people claim for any map that it's just a projection of a sphere therefore does not count as a flat earth map.
I think that's a pretty good summation of exactly what I'm claiming. Are you suggesting that a projection of a sphere CAN qualify as a flat earth map? Or perhaps you are suggesting that the same map could be BOTH a projection from a sphere and an accurate presentation of the flat Earth?
-
If not, then consider... if the map must dynamically change scale, then it could NOT be the same as a physical, static object. (I'm assuming we can agree that the Earth isn't dynamically scaling.)
So can we agree that the bing map is the projection of some higher dimensional shape onto a 2D plane? This projection has caused significant distortions as indicated by the dynamic scale. Agreed?
No. I don't agree. Just because a map has a scale which changes does not mean that the earth is a sphere. The earth could be more shaped like a dinner plate or some other shape which is more "flat" than a sphere and have an interactive scale.
In that case, I would suggest that we can now agree the Earth cannot look like this. What are the possibilities that remain?
This is a moot point. Any map I present can just be claimed to be a projection of a sphere therefore a round earth map. The map with the interactive scale you claim to be a projection of a sphere could also be a projection of an oblate spheroid correct? What about an ellipsoid?
I think that's a pretty good summation of exactly what I'm claiming. Are you suggesting that a projection of a sphere CAN qualify as a flat earth map? Or perhaps you are suggesting that the same map could be BOTH a projection from a sphere and an accurate presentation of the flat Earth?
We have a different definition of a flat earth map. You define a flat earth map as a map of the earth in which the earth is represented as a flat plane in which the map is also a projection of a flat plane.
by your definition there is no flat earth map.
My definition of a flat earth map is a map which represents the earth as a flat plane which can be verified as accurate.
-
If not, then consider... if the map must dynamically change scale, then it could NOT be the same as a physical, static object. (I'm assuming we can agree that the Earth isn't dynamically scaling.)
So can we agree that the bing map is the projection of some higher dimensional shape onto a 2D plane? This projection has caused significant distortions as indicated by the dynamic scale. Agreed?
No. I don't agree. Just because a map has a scale which changes does not mean that the earth is a sphere. The earth could be more shaped like a dinner plate or some other shape which is more "flat" than a sphere and have an interactive scale.
In that case, I would suggest that we can now agree the Earth cannot look like this. What are the possibilities that remain?
This is a moot point. Any map I present can just be claimed to be a projection of a sphere therefore a round earth map. The map with the interactive scale you claim to be a projection of a sphere could also be a projection of an oblate spheroid correct? What about an ellipsoid?
I think that's a pretty good summation of exactly what I'm claiming. Are you suggesting that a projection of a sphere CAN qualify as a flat earth map? Or perhaps you are suggesting that the same map could be BOTH a projection from a sphere and an accurate presentation of the flat Earth?
We have a different definition of a flat earth map. You define a flat earth map as a map of the earth in which the earth is represented as a flat plane in which the map is also a projection of a flat plane.
by your definition there is no flat earth map.
My definition of a flat earth map is a map which represents the earth as a flat plane which can be verified as accurate.
If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the Bing map could be a distortion from a flat shape into it's current flat shape. Right?
I agree. It could. But here we agree that it is significantly distorted, right?
Can we please have a map that is not distorted this badly? Something that represents a God's eye view of the Earth as it really is?
I'd be happy to take the Bing map and un-distort it for you to show you what that looks like. Have you ever seen that? Do you want to?
-
If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the Bing map could be a distortion from a flat shape into it's current flat shape. Right?
I agree. It could. But here we agree that it is significantly distorted, right?
Can we please have a map that is not distorted this badly? Something that represents a God's eye view of the Earth as it really is?
I'd be happy to take the Bing map and un-distort it for you to show you what that looks like. Have you ever seen that? Do you want to?
If you don't like the distorted map then why on earth is it used so commonly and widely for just about everything??
If i'm able to take a map with an interactive scale and use it to accurately navigate hundreds of thousands of square miles on the earth i'm pretty happy with the map. I've seen 2d map of the earth without an interactive scale which I had linked previously in this thread and I didn't like it because it didn't line up well with the cardinal directions.
-
If you don't like the distorted map then why on earth is it used so commonly and widely for just about everything??
If i'm able to take a map with an interactive scale and use it to accurately navigate hundreds of thousands of square miles on the earth i'm pretty happy with the map. I've seen 2d map of the earth without an interactive scale which I had linked previously in this thread and I didn't like it because it didn't line up well with the cardinal directions.
The question is truly one of, "Is it possible that the Earth is flat?" If the Earth is a sphere, there is no possible way to draw an undistorted 2D map of it. If the Earth is flat, an undistorted 2D map should be no problem. So present us such an undistorted 2D map, and we have our answer. Lacking such a map, we can continue to conclude that the Earth simply is not flat.
And again, it seems CERTAIN that you know exactly why we're having this discussion. You know that an undistorted 2D map is KEY to the flat Earth question.
I posit once more that it seems extremely unlikely that you are seriously proposing a distorted map as any sort of validation that the Earth could truly be flat. I have the distinct feeling of a fishhook in my cheek.
-
Google maps tend to be more accurate for regular people observation.
Even if you get your spinning globe at the corner of the room and observe details with a magnifier, you will see no difference if the map was flatten or not.
In small angles it is very difficult to notice differences.
Google does that, when you zoom in, it tend to flat since there is no gain in keeping the roundness.
If you zoom out, it tend to become more and more round, but it is just for the sake of it, you don't have any real use for a whole planet view as a map, other than just curiosity to locate something or to learn a little bit more.
Google gain points by that, since you can actually see the poles in almost real geometry, and the lands of higher latitudes.
Microsoft tend to be lazy on the programming for real time scaling, they keep the map as the Mercator projection - some navigators like the mercator since it represent a spaced time longitude, but fails on distances. Spaced time is good for navigation observing the sky, Sun, stars, etc, but it doesn't mean exactly "clock time", since distances become shorter, it seems you are traveling faster, what is not true. If you measure wind speed and knots of water movement, it doesn't match the traveled time, but they use a table for latitude compensation that fixes that, they are not stupid.
For the common person, observing the Mercator map makes a wrong impression of the planet, but a great part of the "common persons" can not even think in 3D or in a spherical navigation, most of them not even left the city they're born, so...
My own young age education used the Mercator map, and it polarized my mind in a wrong way. It took few years of my youth to correct it, mostly close to the poles. Then, and only then, everything about the solar projections, seasons and eclipses start to make better sense, and then I move out from the bag of "common persons".
Interesting that there is no need to use Mercator projection for Mars map, for example, but it is done like that, and I think they do it for "compatibility" of what "common person" is used on the Mercator map of Earth. Even so, I think it is ridiculous. Fortunately we have GoogleEarth with Mars 3D database, what solves the issue easy.
(http://mars3dmap.com/facebook.jpg)
There is a lot of people already working for the Human trip to Mars, it is a good plan, there are many thousands of people, companies, universities (including us) studying all kinds of subjects, everything you can imagine and more, just to avoid surprises once on Mars. In 20~40 years we will have people there, researching, living, expanding environmental habitats, increasing the living conditions for more and more people moving to Mars. There is even a research about animal embryos to be transported to Mars and grew up there, some as food, some as pets, some tests involve low oxygen levels. FEs would continue to say it is just fake pictures and images from NASA, unfortunately, for them.
https://youtu.be/8QtXFLL7Y2g (https://youtu.be/8QtXFLL7Y2g)
-
No. I don't agree. Just because a map has a scale which changes does not mean that the earth is a sphere. The earth could be more shaped like a dinner plate or some other shape which is more "flat" than a sphere and have an interactive scale.
Are you completely ignoring the fact that Microsoft is using a projection created from a spherical map?
To simplify the calculations, we use the spherical form of this projection, not the ellipsoidal form. Since the projection is used only for map display, and not for displaying numeric coordinates, we don’t need the extra precision of an ellipsoidal projection. The spherical projection causes approximately 0.33% scale distortion in the Y direction, which is not visually noticeable.
My definition of a flat earth map is a map which represents the earth as a flat plane which can be verified as accurate.
Do you consider the Mercator projection which Bing uses accurate?
https://thetruesize.com/#?borders=1~!MTc4OTI0NTI.NDAzNTc1MQ*MzYwMDAwMDA(MA (https://thetruesize.com/#?borders=1~!MTc4OTI0NTI.NDAzNTc1MQ*MzYwMDAwMDA(MA)
-
I'm chiming in on this as a cartographer/geographer.
To reiterate what sperical, ICanScienceThat, Bad Puppy are saying (and I hope I'm not misrepresenting their thoughts):
If the earth is flat, or flatish (in imacpc's words), then a projection is not necessary to represent the earth. A simple scaled drawing would be the most accurate representation of the world on a flat surface. Just as an architectural drawing is a scaled drawing of the layout of a house and does not have any projection applied to it. And the scale would not change from north to south or east to west and the shapes of land masses. All the angles and distances between objects would all be correct. And all the objects (the land masses) would not be distorted in any way.
However, if the earth is not flat and is, say, close to a sphere, then to represent that shape on a 2D surface one must use some sort of projection. And all projections will distort some aspect of the original shape. So you can have accurate angles, accurate distances, accurate shapes. But you can not have all three on the same map. So you choose your projection based upon the purpose of the map. If navigation is important then the Mercator projection is one of the preferred projections. But it does distort the surface areas of the continents, as mentioned above.
All this gets back to the original OP question: "Is there such a map?" (i.e. "a perfect map of the earth without any distortion")
And the answer is that there is not such a map of the FE world. Which does seem odd since a scale drawing of a 2D surface should be pretty straightforward over the course of human history.
On the difference between a sphere, an oblate spheroid, and an ellipsoid in discussions of the earth.
While it's true that in the RE world the earth is not a perfect sphere, it is so close that in everyday language the term 'sphere' is perfectly adequate. The diameter of the earth at the equator is approximately 12,756 km and the diameter from North to South pole is approximately 12,714 km. A difference of 42 km, or 0.3%! Although those distances are necessary to know for many applications, for most people and in most instances that difference of 42 km has no practical meaning and we can talk of the earth as being a sphere. But technically it is an oblate spheroid. which is just a type of ellipsoid.
-
The question is truly one of, "Is it possible that the Earth is flat?" If the Earth is a sphere, there is no possible way to draw an undistorted 2D map of it. If the Earth is flat, an undistorted 2D map should be no problem. So present us such an undistorted 2D map, and we have our answer. Lacking such a map, we can continue to conclude that the Earth simply is not flat.
Here is an undistorted 2D map of the earth. By your logic the earth must be flat. I believe you are incorrect to make assumptions about the shape of the earth based on a map. The earth could be flat or a sphere or an oblate spheroid and we could draw a map of it.
(https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/11/03/15/authagraph.png?width=668)
I posit once more that it seems extremely unlikely that you are seriously proposing a distorted map as any sort of validation that the Earth could truly be flat. I have the distinct feeling of a fishhook in my cheek.
I'm not. I've made several statements like the one below indicating that you can't infer the shape of the earth because a map has an interactive scale:
No. I don't agree. Just because a map has a scale which changes does not mean that the earth is a sphere. The earth could be more shaped like a dinner plate or some other shape which is more "flat" than a sphere and have an interactive scale.
Here I am making the point that just because a map is distorted does not mean the earth is a sphere. It could be an ellipsoid. It could be a long FLAT ellipsoid. It could be a dinner plate where the edges cause distortion when projected onto a 2D image. It could be any number of shapes.
You sir are the one who says look a distorted map! The earth is a sphere! Yet, when presented with a map with no distortion you won't flip 180 degrees and say look! a map with no distortion! The earth is flat!
I'm telling you that I believe that both ways of thinking are false.
-
Here is an undistorted 2D map of the earth. By your logic the earth must be flat. I believe you are incorrect to make assumptions about the shape of the earth based on a map. The earth could be flat or a sphere or an oblate spheroid and we could draw a map of it.
(https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/11/03/15/authagraph.png?width=668)
Do you really believe this is an undistorted 2D map of the earth? Do people always forget about water, and distances when they look for a map where the size of of the bodies correspond to measurements? How about simple things like the distance between Iceland and Norway being almost 1/4 the distance between Australia and Antarctica? Is it an infinite repeating plane, or are you suggesting that the earth is a rectangle?
Are you just trolling now?
-
Here is an undistorted 2D map of the earth. By your logic the earth must be flat. I believe you are incorrect to make assumptions about the shape of the earth based on a map. The earth could be flat or a sphere or an oblate spheroid and we could draw a map of it.
(https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/11/03/15/authagraph.png?width=668)
Your map gets distances obviously wrong, though. South Africa isn't ~50x further away from Antarctica than South America. This is because the map is distorted.
There is only one way that you can get a map that gets all distances, shapes etc. correct, and that's on the surface of a sphere. Therefore, the Earth is a sphere. If you tried to accurately represent the Earth on a long ellipsoid, or a dinner plate, or in fact any other shape, it would be distorted.
The point is that the sphere is the only shape that can produce a non-distorted map in this particular case. The argument isn't that distorted map == sphere.
If you don't like the distorted map then why on earth is it used so commonly and widely for just about everything??
Because phones and flat maps are much easier to carry around than spheres.
-
You sir are the one who says look a distorted map! The earth is a sphere! Yet, when presented with a map with no distortion you won't flip 180 degrees and say look! a map with no distortion! The earth is flat!
I'm telling you that I believe that both ways of thinking are false.
I said no such thing. I said, "If the Earth is a sphere, there is no possible way to draw an undistorted 2D map of it. If the Earth is flat, an undistorted 2D map should be no problem. So present us such an undistorted 2D map, and we have our answer. Lacking such a map, we can continue to conclude that the Earth simply is not flat."
Please read that back. Notice how I did NOT say that a distorted map proves a sphere. I said quite specifically that an undistorted 2D map should be no problem for a flat Earth. Let me clarify that right now. If you can produce an accurate, undistorted 2D map of the Earth, I will concede ahead of time that this would be a genuine breakthrough. Would it "prove" that the Earth is flat? Not all by itself, but this would be a tremendous piece of evidence. This would be a paradigm shift in the flat Earth movement. It would be worth real money. I know of a guy offering $40,000 for such a thing.
If you can produce such a thing, I promise to re-evaluate EVERYTHING I have studied so far in relation to flat Earth. I promise to promote this new map. I will feature it on YouTube, and I will add comments to my existing videos about just how important a map like that would be.
That's real objectivity. That's honesty.
So now, let's be honest. Do you honestly think the map you linked is "undistorted"? If you think that, I'd challenge you to imagine a flight from New York to London. I would certainly call such a flight path significantly "distorted." Don't you agree?
-
I said no such thing. I said, "If the Earth is a sphere, there is no possible way to draw an undistorted 2D map of it.
If there is no possible way to draw an undistorted 2D map of a sphere and I have presented you with an undistroted 2d map of the earth are you saying that you honestly now believe the earth is not a sphere?
Please note there is an undistorted 2D map of the earth shown below. Based on your logic it it impossible that the earth is a sphere based on the existence of this map
(https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/11/03/15/authagraph.png?width=668)
If the Earth is flat, an undistorted 2D map should be no problem. So present us such an undistorted 2D map, and we have our answer.
Please note the map below is an undistorted 2d map:
(https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/11/03/15/authagraph.png?width=668)
Lacking such a map, we can continue to conclude that the Earth simply is not flat."
1. Here is another example of you making conclusions about the shape of the earth based on map distortions which I've already explained multiple times is a flawed way of thinking
2. We are not lacking such a map. Please see the map shown below:
(https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/11/03/15/authagraph.png?width=668)
-
I said no such thing. I said, "If the Earth is a sphere, there is no possible way to draw an undistorted 2D map of it.
If there is no possible way to draw an undistorted 2D map of a sphere and I have presented you with an undistroted 2d map of the earth are you saying that you honestly now believe the earth is not a sphere?
If the Earth is flat, an undistorted 2D map should be no problem. So present us such an undistorted 2D map, and we have our answer. Lacking such a map, we can continue to conclude that the Earth simply is not flat."
I feel like you didn't make it to the end of my previous post. Allow me to repeat:
So now, let's be honest. Do you honestly think the map you linked is "undistorted"? If you think that, I'd challenge you to imagine a flight from New York to London. I would certainly call such a flight path significantly "distorted." Don't you agree?
-
I feel like you didn't make it to the end of my previous post. Allow me to repeat:
So now, let's be honest. Do you honestly think the map you linked is "undistorted"? If you think that, I'd challenge you to imagine a flight from New York to London. I would certainly call such a flight path significantly "distorted." Don't you agree?
I don't have enough experience with the undistorted map (which you said was impossible if the earth was a sphere) to map a flight path on it.
How is it that there is a map which accurately shows the sizes of all the countries on earth in 2D without an interactive scale? I'm really starting to believe that the existence of the map shown below is more evidence which supports a flat earth.
(https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/11/03/15/authagraph.png?width=668)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Undistorted 2d map^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If the Earth is a sphere, there is no possible way to draw an undistorted 2D map of it.
I believe you have checkmated yourself with this logic.
In addition I don't think that an interactive scale on an interactive map is distortion at all. If I look at a highway almanac the scale changes from state to state. If we were going to put an interactive highway almanac on the internet it would REQUIRE an interactive scale.
-
I don't have enough experience with the undistorted map (which you said was impossible if the earth was a sphere) to map a flight path on it.
You don't need much experience. A cursory glance shows that going from South Africa to South America requires crossing the whole of Europe and North America. Or, as I pointed out earlier, that North America is about thrice as close to Antarctica as South Africa. To get from New Zealand to Antarctica on this map, you'd need to travel North West (or whatever the equivalent cardinal directions are on this map), and yet you claim it's undistorted?
It also seems to have Russia around the same size as Africa, which is completely wrong.
What is your definition of "undistorted"? Because clearly having countries the correct size, distance away from each other, or direction relative to each other aren't in your definition.
-
What is your definition of "undistorted"? Because clearly having countries the correct size, distance away from each other, or direction relative to each other aren't in your definition.
I had already linked a map, with an interactive changing scale, in which the countries were the correct size, distance apart etc. It was rejected because it had an interactive scale which changes depending on which country you look at. So I presented a map which did not have an interactive scale in the the countries were more to scale which was not interactive.
It also seems to have Russia around the same size as Africa, which is completely wrong.
I don't know how to calculate the internal area of an abstract shape such as the borders of Russia on that map so I don't know if it is the correct size or not.
You don't need much experience. A cursory glance shows that going from South Africa to South America requires crossing the whole of Europe and North America.
This is not a map used by airlines to map flight paths. I had already shown a map which almost all flights are mapped on but, because it has an interactive scale, it was rejected.
-
What is your definition of "undistorted"? Because clearly having countries the correct size, distance away from each other, or direction relative to each other aren't in your definition.
I had already linked a map, with an interactive changing scale, in which the countries were the correct size, distance apart etc. It was rejected because it had an interactive scale which changes depending on which country you look at. So I presented a map which did not have an interactive scale in the the countries were more to scale which was not interactive.
It also seems to have Russia around the same size as Africa, which is completely wrong.
I don't know how to calculate the internal area of an abstract shape such as the borders of Russia on that map so I don't know if it is the correct size or not.
You don't need much experience. A cursory glance shows that going from South Africa to South America requires crossing the whole of Europe and North America.
This is not a map used by airlines to map flight paths. I had already shown a map which almost all flights are mapped on but, because it has an interactive scale, it was rejected.
You didn't answer my question about your definition of "undistorted".
I don't know how to calculate the internal area from the map either. I can however just put some paper over my screen, trace around Russia and overlay it on Africa, and see that there's zero chance that Africa is twice the area that Russia is on that map, like it should be.
-
I had already linked a map, with an interactive changing scale, in which the countries were the correct size, distance apart etc. It was rejected because it had an interactive scale which changes depending on which country you look at. So I presented a map which did not have an interactive scale in the the countries were more to scale which was not interactive.
The only other link I saw you link was Bing maps, which uses the Mercator projection (at least when you zoom out far). The Mercator projection is certainly distorted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Distortion
-
I had already linked a map, with an interactive changing scale, in which the countries were the correct size, distance apart etc. It was rejected because it had an interactive scale which changes depending on which country you look at. So I presented a map which did not have an interactive scale in the the countries were more to scale which was not interactive.
The only other link I saw you link was Bing maps, which uses the Mercator projection (at least when you zoom out far). The Mercator projection is certainly distorted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Distortion
My definition of undistorted when referring to a map:
1. The map must have countries the correct size (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level).
2. Countries should be the correct distance away from each other (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level)
3. Countries should be the correct direction relative to each other
4. The map must be able to be used to accurately navigate every country on earth
Bing maps has all of those listed above but was rejected because it has an interactive scale. I've only really done a lot of extensive traveling in North America, South America, and Europe so I can't corroborate the accuracy of #4 in Africa, Asia, and Australia but, based on my sample data, I will assume that you can.
-
I had already linked a map, with an interactive changing scale, in which the countries were the correct size, distance apart etc. It was rejected because it had an interactive scale which changes depending on which country you look at. So I presented a map which did not have an interactive scale in the the countries were more to scale which was not interactive.
The only other link I saw you link was Bing maps, which uses the Mercator projection (at least when you zoom out far). The Mercator projection is certainly distorted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Distortion
My definition of undistorted when referring to a map:
1. The map must have countries the correct size (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level).
2. Countries should be the correct distance away from each other (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level)
3. Countries should be the correct direction relative to each other
4. The map must be able to be used to accurately navigate every country on earth
Bing maps has all of those listed above but was rejected because it has an interactive scale. I've only really done a lot of extensive traveling in North America, South America, and Europe so I can't corroborate the accuracy of #4 in Africa, Asia, and Australia but, based on my sample data, I will assume that you can.
Bing uses the Mercator projection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Distortion
Look at the size of Greenland. It fails #1 miserably.
-
I had already linked a map, with an interactive changing scale, in which the countries were the correct size, distance apart etc. It was rejected because it had an interactive scale which changes depending on which country you look at. So I presented a map which did not have an interactive scale in the the countries were more to scale which was not interactive.
The only other link I saw you link was Bing maps, which uses the Mercator projection (at least when you zoom out far). The Mercator projection is certainly distorted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Distortion
My definition of undistorted when referring to a map:
1. The map must have countries the correct size (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level).
2. Countries should be the correct distance away from each other (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level)
3. Countries should be the correct direction relative to each other
4. The map must be able to be used to accurately navigate every country on earth
Bing maps has all of those listed above but was rejected because it has an interactive scale. I've only really done a lot of extensive traveling in North America, South America, and Europe so I can't corroborate the accuracy of #4 in Africa, Asia, and Australia but, based on my sample data, I will assume that you can.
Bing uses the Mercator projection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Distortion
Look at the size of Greenland. It fails #1 miserably.
Not it does not. The scale is interactive. Do I really need to save the image of bing maps that i'm looking at now showing that greenland is about 2k miles from north to south and a second screenshot of bing maps showint that 2k miles is like a third of the height of Africa? Do you know what an interactive map is with an interactive scale is?
The scale of the map changes based on where you look and how far you zoom in.
Even Google maps, which depicts the earth as a sphere has an interactive scale which changes based on where you look and how far you zoom in.
-
I had already linked a map, with an interactive changing scale, in which the countries were the correct size, distance apart etc. It was rejected because it had an interactive scale which changes depending on which country you look at. So I presented a map which did not have an interactive scale in the the countries were more to scale which was not interactive.
The only other link I saw you link was Bing maps, which uses the Mercator projection (at least when you zoom out far). The Mercator projection is certainly distorted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Distortion
My definition of undistorted when referring to a map:
1. The map must have countries the correct size (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level).
2. Countries should be the correct distance away from each other (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level)
3. Countries should be the correct direction relative to each other
4. The map must be able to be used to accurately navigate every country on earth
Bing maps has all of those listed above but was rejected because it has an interactive scale. I've only really done a lot of extensive traveling in North America, South America, and Europe so I can't corroborate the accuracy of #4 in Africa, Asia, and Australia but, based on my sample data, I will assume that you can.
Let me help you out.
1) The first test I'm going to apply to your "undistorted map" is "Can I measure distances between major cities and verify that they match accepted values?" It's simple enough to look up flight times to verify that the distances are at least in the plausible range. I will not consider this map "undistorted" unless a single, static scale can be used to represent these distances.
2) The next test would be to check whether those flights match up with real-world flights at all. For example, if we were to fly from New York to London, the course should take us Eastward over the Atlantic Ocean. If we end up flying West across Canada and Russia along the way, somebody is going to notice.
3) Next up, I'm going to look for pac-manning. Those are situations where you fly off one edge of the map and appear on the other. Like in your most recent attempt, if I fly out of New York across the Atlantic Ocean, I'll fly off the top of the map and then appear again flying down off the top of the map on the left - near Europe.
4) The Bing map shows this effect quite plainly. Perhaps it's more "Defender" than "Pac-Man," but the problem is the same. You should see that on the left and right edges of the map, flying off one edge makes you appear back on the other edge. You can drag-scroll it left/right to move where that boundary is. Place the US right in the middle. Fly East out of NY to London. Fly West out of LA to Tokyo. How do you get from Tokyo to London? Can we fly West off the edge of the map and appear on the right side again?
If you could solve these issues, you'd have REAL progress. If you somehow made that work, we'd next want to check the location and orientations of things.
5) Is the latitude and longitude of each major city correct? These can be verified by the Sun & Stars.
6) Is the relative direction from one city to the next correct?
In short, I want the equivalent of a God's eye view of the flat Earth. A top-down image that looks as if it were a photograph taken from a great distance above the plane.
These are the reasons that you cannot make an undistorted 2D map of a sphere. It's geometrically impossible. You need to cut it somewhere, and most projections stretch it as well.
Both of the maps you have presented so far are massively distorted. They both exhibit cuts (pac-manning) and stretching. Those are distortions.
-
iamcpc, Perhaps you could add equatorial lines to that map while you're at it. Would Brazil be as cold as Canada in this map?
-
Not it does not. The scale is interactive. Do I really need to save the image of bing maps that i'm looking at now showing that greenland is about 2k miles from north to south and a second screenshot of bing maps showint that 2k miles is like a third of the height of Africa? Do you know what an interactive map is with an interactive scale is?
Ahh I see, so it only gets the sizes correct when you're zoomed in far enough that it's not showing any other countries, but it can't show direction or distance in this zoomed-in format. Why not just stitch together all of these zoomed-in images into a full flat map that has the correct sizes and distances? The answer is: you can't. That's why it distorts when you zoom out.
I think we're pretty much agreeing here: the Earth is locally flat-ish, so if you zoom in you lose a lot of the distortion and you can do small distances and sizes accurately, but when you actually want to map a significant portion of the Earth on a flat map, you are guaranteed distortion.
-
iamcpc, Perhaps you could add equatorial lines to that map while you're at it. Would Brazil be as cold as Canada in this map?
I'm not an experience cartographer so I would not be able to do that for you. I'm sorry
-
iamcpc, Perhaps you could add equatorial lines to that map while you're at it. Would Brazil be as cold as Canada in this map?
I'm not an experience cartographer so I would not be able to do that for you. I'm sorry
Shall we sum this whole thing up then?
1) Do you now understand and agree that the 2 maps you have posted are distorted?
2) Do you now understand and agree that these maps are too distorted to answer the criticism that the flat Earth has no undistorted map?
-
Shall we sum this whole thing up then?
1) Do you now understand and agree that the 2 maps you have posted are distorted?
2) Do you now understand and agree that these maps are too distorted to answer the criticism that the flat Earth has no undistorted map?
My definition of undistorted when referring to a map:
1. The map must have countries the correct size (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level).
2. Countries should be the correct distance away from each other (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level)
3. Countries should be the correct direction relative to each other
4. The map must be able to be used to accurately navigate every country on earth
Bing maps, by my definition, is not distorted.
Other people here say that it is distorted because it has an interactive scale. This is a difference of opinion.
Even google maps which represents the earth as a sphere has an interactive scale which changes based on where you look and your zoom level.
-
Ok iamcpc. Your definition of "distorted" is different from mine. That seems valid. By your definition, your maps are not distorted. Great.
So let's circle back to the reason we're talking about distortion in the first place:
Hi!
I did a bit of Research on the Flat Earth Theory in the last couple of months and in all that time I haven't got a good answer to a Question I think is one of the main Things I am skeptical about with that Theory.
It's about the Flat Earth Map. Maths tells us that you can't map out a sphere, there are Proofs for that, so no map of the earth is correct. The different maps obtained by projections (as claimed) all have one thing in common: They are distorted.
Some got correct angles and others correct lengths but they can't have both at the same time.
Now to my Question: If the earth is flat, we should have a map that has got both of those Attributes, in other words we should be able to have a perfect map of the earth without any distortion. Is there such a map?
If there is, I'm fully convinced that you're right, because the only way we could have a perfect map is when the earth is flat.
Thanks in Advance for your answers :)
Reading that back, using honesty, objectivity, and every possible measure of fairness; your definition of "distorted" does not seem to match the original poster's. He says specifically, "Some got correct angles and others correct lengths but they can't have both at the same time." He was pretty clear what he was asking for here. The angles on the Bing map are correct - sort of, but not really. They are useful for navigation because they are correct in the sense of compass directions, but if you were to make a triangle out of 3 cities with very different latitudes, you'd see the angles of the triangle don't work out. The lengths are correct, only if you account for the dynamic scale.
The original poster did not mention the cuts, but I'd like to add the cuts. Any 3D shape can be squashed out flat with some amount of stretching, but no matter how much stretching you do, math says a 3D closed volume MUST be cut in order to lay it out flat. The OP talks about, "Maths tells us that you can't map out a sphere," and this is part of what they are talking about, so I think this extension is fair. (It isn't really required, but it's easier to see cuts than stretches.)
The point of the original post was very clear. "If the earth is flat, we should have a map that has got both of those Attributes, in other words we should be able to have a perfect map of the earth without any distortion. Is there such a map?"
They are not asking for a map that can be used to navigate. They are asking for a map that shows how a flat Earth could actually work. Your maps do not do this. Your maps show how a globe Earth works.
-
The point of the original post was very clear. "If the earth is flat, we should have a map that has got both of those Attributes, in other words we should be able to have a perfect map of the earth without any distortion. Is there such a map?"
They are not asking for a map that can be used to navigate. They are asking for a map that shows how a flat Earth could actually work. Your maps do not do this. Your maps show how a globe Earth works.
In my opinion interactive maps like bing which have an interactive scale which changes based on where you look and what level you are zoomed into have correct angles and correct lengths. When someone says that Greenland is the same size as Africa they are looking at the scale of the interactive map associated with another country instead of the interactive scale associated with Greenland.
-
The point of the original post was very clear. "If the earth is flat, we should have a map that has got both of those Attributes, in other words we should be able to have a perfect map of the earth without any distortion. Is there such a map?"
They are not asking for a map that can be used to navigate. They are asking for a map that shows how a flat Earth could actually work. Your maps do not do this. Your maps show how a globe Earth works.
In my opinion interactive maps like bing which have an interactive scale which changes based on where you look and what level you are zoomed into have correct angles and correct lengths. When someone says that Greenland is the same size as Africa they are looking at the scale of the interactive map associated with another country instead of the interactive scale associated with Greenland.
So in short, your posts are not relevant to the OP's question then?
Your maps do NOT show how a flat Earth could work. If you'd like to assert otherwise, I'd like to hear how.
-
So in short, your posts are not relevant to the OP's question then?
Your maps do NOT show how a flat Earth could work. If you'd like to assert otherwise, I'd like to hear how.
Again this is just a difference of opinion. In my opinion I have given a map, which depicts the earth as a flat plane, in which the map, by my definition, is undistorted. Again we get back to semantics of what the definition of "distorted" means when referring to a map and how different people can have different criteria for what is, or is not, distorted.
If you show Bing maps to anyone in the world and ask them what this is the map of I'm willing to bet that 99% of the population who graduated the 6th grade could tell you that it's a map of the earth.
Bing maps also resembles maps which are on almost the wall of virtually every school that I've seen in America.
It meets all of the criteria listed below:
1. The map has countries the correct size (based on the interactive scale of the map).
2. The map shows countries the correct distance away from each other (based on the interactive scale of the map).
3. The map has Countries the correct direction relative to each other
4. The map is usable to accurately navigate every country on earth
Some got correct angles and others correct lengths but they can't have both at the same time.
5. The map has correct angles.
6. The map has correct lengths (based on the interactive scale of the map).
So in short, your posts are not relevant to the OP's question then?
It's my opinion that, based on the information presented above, my post are relevant to the OP's question.
If you disagree you are certainly entitled to your opinion on that matter.
The problem is that people started rejecting the map because it has an interactive scale. Thus I had to present another a non interactive map with a more universal scale.
-
Just to clarify, when you say "interactive scale" do you just mean the zooming in and out feature?
-
Just to clarify, when you say "interactive scale" do you just mean the zooming in and out feature?
I don't know if you know a lot about programming but there are these things called event handlers. For example the edge of this window has a mouse over event handler which changes the cursor to a little arrow. This text box that i'm typing this response in has a mouse over event handler which changes the cursor again. This window has a keypress event handler which makes the letter "e" appear in this text box when I type the letter.
For example:
on bing maps I can click the middle mouse and nothing happens. When I click the middle mouse several things happen. The mouse goes down (mousedown event). There is a click (onclick event). Then the mouse button goes up (mouseup event).
There is no code handling the middle mouse click event.
There is no code handling the middle mouse mousedown event (provided that the mouse didn't move).
There is no code handling the middle mouse mouseup event (provided that the mouse didn't move).
on bing maps I can double click the middle mouse and nothing happens. When I double click the middle mouse several things happen again. this appears not to change the scale of the map
on bing maps I can press and hold the middle mouse. Then while the middle mouse is held move it. Then after moving the mouse let go of the middle mouse button which changes the scale of the map
middle mouse on mouse down event = Take a picture of the starting position of the mouse
middle mouse on mouse up event = take a picture of the ending position of the mouse
if starting position of the mouse <> ending position of the mouse then
change map scale
end if
In addition to things like dragging and dropping the middle mouse which appear to have an effect on the scale of the map there are keyboard buttons like the arrows which appear to, in certain situations, change the scale of the map. There are many different combinations of events and inputs you can send to the map which either always change the scale or sometimes change the scale.
When I say interactive scale i'm talking about any combinations of clicks, button presses, or other events which will change the scale of the map without doing things like injecting code or scripts or altering memory if the computer or browser in which those inputs, clicks, or events change the scale of the map. I didn't build the interactive map so i'm unable to tell you all the events and inputs which can change the scale of the map. I highly doubt Bing would tell you either.
-
Again this is just a difference of opinion. In my opinion I have given a map, which depicts the earth as a flat plane, in which the map, by my definition, is undistorted.
You required that it gets sizes correct, and yet both maps you show clearly don't get sizes correct.
The fact that you can zoom in on Greenland and it shows it as being the correct size is entirely irrelevant: if I'm zoomed in on Greenland, you can't compare the sizes of all the countries anymore because you're no longer looking at a map of the Earth, you're just looking at a map of Greenland. If you zoomed in on every country and grabbed the map that it gave you, every country would be the same size. Great! Except then if you tried to stitch all of those maps that get the relative country sizes correct together, you'd end up with a map that gets other things wrong.
I think my main points are really this:
- zooming in on Bing maps is the same as looking at a different map. The "zoomed in" map and the "zoomed out" map are not the same map. This should be obvious enough, as Greenland is horribly stretched when zoomed out and not when zoomed in.
- The only important question is "can I draw a single map that accurately represents the entire globe on a flat surface". No zooming, just a flat plane with the countries drawn on. This isn't the programming problem that you're making it out to be: it's a question of geometry.
-
So in short, your posts are not relevant to the OP's question then?
Your maps do NOT show how a flat Earth could work. If you'd like to assert otherwise, I'd like to hear how.
Again this is just a difference of opinion. In my opinion I have given a map, which depicts the earth as a flat plane, in which the map, by my definition, is undistorted. Again we get back to semantics of what the definition of "distorted" means when referring to a map and how different people can have different criteria for what is, or is not, distorted.
If you show Bing maps to anyone in the world and ask them what this is the map of I'm willing to bet that 99% of the population who graduated the 6th grade could tell you that it's a map of the earth.
Bing maps also resembles maps which are on almost the wall of virtually every school that I've seen in America.
It meets all of the criteria listed below:
1. The map has countries the correct size (based on the interactive scale of the map).
2. The map shows countries the correct distance away from each other (based on the interactive scale of the map).
3. The map has Countries the correct direction relative to each other
4. The map is usable to accurately navigate every country on earth
Some got correct angles and others correct lengths but they can't have both at the same time.
5. The map has correct angles.
6. The map has correct lengths (based on the interactive scale of the map).
So in short, your posts are not relevant to the OP's question then?
It's my opinion that, based on the information presented above, my post are relevant to the OP's question.
If you disagree you are certainly entitled to your opinion on that matter.
The problem is that people started rejecting the map because it has an interactive scale. Thus I had to present another a non interactive map with a more universal scale.
If you want me to believe that you are honest, then answer these questions with a simple yes or no.
These 2 questions will not completely answer the issue of relevant distortion, but it is my claim that your maps cannot do this, but any acceptable map must meet this criteria. The AE map can, and even the dual-polar map can sort of.
1) Do you believe that on our actual Earth, one can start at any point, travel due East, and eventually return to their starting point? (With the exception of the poles.)
2) Is it possible to trace the line of such a circular East-bound travel on either of these maps with an unbroken line?
-
If you want me to believe that you are honest, then answer these questions with a simple yes or no.
I don't understand what the number of words I use in my response has to do with my level of honesty but i'll answer with one word just to appease you.
1) Do you believe that on our actual Earth, one can start at any point, travel due East, and eventually return to their starting point? (With the exception of the poles.)
Yes.
2) Is it possible to trace the line of such a circular East-bound travel on either of these maps with an unbroken line?
Yes.
-
2) Is it possible to trace the line of such a circular East-bound travel on either of these maps with an unbroken line?
Yes.
In that case, please show us this unbroken line on your Bing map. Please take a screenshot of your Bing map and draw over it a hypothetical trip from New York to London to Tokyo to LA and then back to New York. The trip should go Eastward and must not be broken. And just to save us an iteration of this nonsense, please don't try to use the excuse that you can dynamically scroll the map to make the trip by a series of unbroken lines. I asked for a single unbroken line.
-
2) Is it possible to trace the line of such a circular East-bound travel on either of these maps with an unbroken line?
Yes.
In that case, please show us this unbroken line on your Bing map. Please take a screenshot of your Bing map and draw over it a hypothetical trip from New York to London to Tokyo to LA and then back to New York. The trip should go Eastward and must not be broken. And just to save us an iteration of this nonsense, please don't try to use the excuse that you can dynamically scroll the map to make the trip by a series of unbroken lines. I asked for a single unbroken line.
I have already done this here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14046.msg187564#msg187564
-
2) Is it possible to trace the line of such a circular East-bound travel on either of these maps with an unbroken line?
Yes.
In that case, please show us this unbroken line on your Bing map. Please take a screenshot of your Bing map and draw over it a hypothetical trip from New York to London to Tokyo to LA and then back to New York. The trip should go Eastward and must not be broken. And just to save us an iteration of this nonsense, please don't try to use the excuse that you can dynamically scroll the map to make the trip by a series of unbroken lines. I asked for a single unbroken line.
I have already done this here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14046.msg187564#msg187564
You used an omnidirectional treadmill as an example. I find that kind of funny considering that a really large sphere can make a great omnidirectional treadmill. If you're thinking of those flat kinds, well, that would mean that the Earth would have to fold around the edge at some point and arrive at the other side. And, how would that work for vehicles traveling in opposite directions? An illustration of that "treadmill" would help.
-
2) Is it possible to trace the line of such a circular East-bound travel on either of these maps with an unbroken line?
Yes.
In that case, please show us this unbroken line on your Bing map. Please take a screenshot of your Bing map and draw over it a hypothetical trip from New York to London to Tokyo to LA and then back to New York. The trip should go Eastward and must not be broken. And just to save us an iteration of this nonsense, please don't try to use the excuse that you can dynamically scroll the map to make the trip by a series of unbroken lines. I asked for a single unbroken line.
I have already done this here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14046.msg187564#msg187564
Thanks. I think that makes it all extremely clear. You are trolling. I believe trolling is completely within the rules here on TFES, so go for it.
Ultimately, that's the answer I'm really looking for, so I appreciate your participation.
-
Thanks. I think that makes it all extremely clear. You are trolling. I believe trolling is completely within the rules here on TFES, so go for it.
Ultimately, that's the answer I'm really looking for, so I appreciate your participation.
You demand one word responses, reject a map of the earth which is widely used and accepted by millions and millions and millions of people, question my beliefs/sincerity (when I've been on here for several months giving positive and negative feedback about many of the different flat earth models as well as researching and understanding the logical answers that many of the FE models come up with to answer various questions), demand some allegiance into some binary flat earth schism you made up, then resort to name calling when I provide you an example of exactly what you ask for.
It really is sad when you have to stoop to calling someone names. Should I stoop to that level and call you a stinky head? Which one of us is really trolling? Keep in mind I've done none of the things listed above. Why even bother coming here?
Furthermore it's very common among the people who are further to the FE side of the bell curve than I am to have a belief that there is no map of the earth. Are you going to call them trolls too? I don't think they are trolls I just think they have a different set of beliefs and have done more or different research than I have.
-
I think a lot of people find it hard to comprehend that someone could believe the world is like a packman level which is probably why he thinks you're trolling. That and you refer to the projection of the globe as a accurate map of the world without any distortion which it isn't. The Bing map is distorted, it is a distorted map in the same way every flat map of the world would be if it were projected from the globe. It is accurate in that you can navigate using it, but not accurate as a visual representation on a larger scale. the distortion comes from the the areas closest to the north and sound poles where it stretched and land becomes visibly larger than it really is.
-
I think a lot of people find it hard to comprehend that someone could believe the world is like a packman level which is probably why he thinks you're trolling.
But you can comprehend someone who believes the earth is a flat circle with a dome and a firmament (whatever that is)?
That and you refer to the projection of the globe as a accurate map of the world without any distortion which it isn't. The Bing map is distorted, it is a distorted map in the same way every flat map of the world would be if it were projected from the globe. It is accurate in that you can navigate using it, but not accurate as a visual representation on a larger scale. the distortion comes from the the areas closest to the north and sound poles where it stretched and land becomes visibly larger than it really is.
An interactive map has an interactive scale. I've demonstrated many times where, based on the interactive scale, there is no distortion.
Assuming the image below shows three children each 3 feet tall is the image below distorted? By your logic yes this image is distorted. The closest child appears 4-5 times bigger than the furthest child.
By my logic, since this image has an interactive scale (or multiple scales), this is not distorted and the image accurately shows each child to be 3 feet tall.
(https://i.imgur.com/PUx0px0.jpg)
-
No you have the idea of distortion wrong. The projection of the map is orthographic there is no perspective. Also the distortion on the poles comes from stretching out a single point across whole length of the equator.
EDIT: and no since you asked I cannot comprehend how anyone could think the earth is a disk either. but that's why I'm not a flat earther. :P
-
An interactive map has an interactive scale. I've demonstrated many times where, based on the interactive scale, there is no distortion.
When you zoom all the way out, it's distorted. That's all that matters. I don't think anybody is arguing about being able to zoom in and have things appear locally flat except you.
Of course if you look at a map of any single country it will get sizes and distances etc. almost exactly right, because across small distances the Earth's curvature is small. According to your logic, this means the Earth is flat, and lets you ignore that it's impossible to produce a flat map of the entire world.
Do you understand that when you zoom in on Bing maps, you're looking at a different map? It's not a zoomed-in version of the same image, it's a different image.
-
This thread is presumably about the flat Earth being unable to produce a map that is consistent with reality. Within this thread, only one person has put forth any attempt to address this, and the models put forth are Bing's interactive Mercator projection and what looks to be an Albers conic projection.
Are we truly being asked to accept that either of these maps represent the reality of the Earth? There's truly no accounting for what somebody might believe, but it sure seems a stretch that anyone might believe that either of these maps satisfies this test - particularly someone as thoughtful and well-spoken as iamcpc is.
In the end, a very specific request was answered with diagrams that EXPLICITLY fail to satisfy the request. What can we conclude? The obvious conclusion I draw from this is that iamcpc is deliberately failing to satisfy the request. From this, I further conclude that iamcpc fully understands the request, but CHOOSES to act like they do not.
Simply put, the obvious conclusion is that iamcpc is not representing something they actually believe, but is instead attempting to draw out the conversation to the frustration of their opponents. Unless this is your first time on the internet, you may have encountered a pattern like this before, and it has come to be called, "trolling."
To iamcpc, let me be perfectly clear. I do not believe that you are representing any honest belief that the Earth really works like bing maps. I do not believe you. Call it "devil's advocate" if you like, but you are not being genuine with us. If you care about my trust in you, that is the challenge you would have to overcome at this point.
To the rest of you, I'd say, "Don't feed the trolls."
-
Do you understand that when you zoom in on Bing maps, you're looking at a different map? It's not a zoomed-in version of the same image, it's a different image.
Much like when I look at a united states road atlas the scale changes based on what state you look at. If you put all of the states together and gave them an interactive scale would that make them distorted? I guess some people could say yes. It's my option that, as long as the scale accurately shows all of the individual states and USA as a whole correct then it's not distorted.
-
This thread is presumably about the flat Earth being unable to produce a map that is consistent with reality.
There are maps which represent the earth as a flat plane which are used and widely accepted as consistent with reality by literally hundreds of millions of people used by websites such as bing.com, mapquest.com, timeanddate.com etc etc etc.
They are so consistent with reality they are in virtually every school in the America.
Do you understand that when you zoom in on Bing maps, you're looking at a different map? It's not a zoomed-in version of the same image, it's a different image.
Much like when I look at a united states road atlas the scale changes based on what state you look at. If you put all of the states together and gave them an interactive scale would that make them distorted? I guess some people could say yes. It's my opinion that, as long as the scale accurately shows all of the individual states and USA as a whole correct then it's not distorted. It's a difference of opinion at this point.
To the rest of you, I'd say, "Don't feed the trolls."
Like me being asked to draw arrows or a line on a map dozens of different ways. I find that pretty trolling when they all document the same thing.
In that case, please show us this unbroken line on your Bing map. Please take a screenshot of your Bing map and draw over it a hypothetical trip from New York to London to Tokyo to LA and then back to New York. The trip should go Eastward and must not be broken. And just to save us an iteration of this nonsense, please don't try to use the excuse that you can dynamically scroll the map to make the trip by a series of unbroken lines. I asked for a single unbroken line.
Since drawing new and different lines on maps makes me an honest person instead of a lying troll here you go
Due to display limitations on Bing maps there is a portion of the map that can't be displayed in a screenshot. This is why multiple screenshots are needed. Please note that literally EVERYWHERE I've looked online to map these flight paths was shown on a map VERY similar to this.
(https://i.imgur.com/XLgrsIb.jpg)
Here's a line drawn on a map with a better aspect ratio. Please note that literally EVERYWHERE I've looked online to map these flight paths was shown on a map VERY similar to this.
(https://i.imgur.com/ertQdU5.jpg)
Here's the line drawn on a map which I feel is inaccurate:
(https://i.imgur.com/eDXNDvK.png)
Here's the line drawn on a model that has two poles.
(https://i.imgur.com/sf4qLog.png)
-
Do you understand that when you zoom in on Bing maps, you're looking at a different map? It's not a zoomed-in version of the same image, it's a different image.
Much like when I look at a united states road atlas the scale changes based on what state you look at. If you put all of the states together and gave them an interactive scale would that make them distorted? I guess some people could say yes. It's my option that, as long as the scale accurately shows all of the individual states and USA as a whole correct then it's not distorted.
I know what you are trying to say here, but it still doesn't work without distortion. Take Wyoming for example. In Bing maps, Wyoming is depicted as a perfect rectangle (90 degree angles), no matter what zoom level you're at. But in reality, (looking straight down at it) Wyoming is actually trapezoidal, with an ever-so-slightly curved top and bottom. The northern border is 342 miles wide, while the southern border is 365 miles wide.
Why the discrepancy? Wyoming's borders line up exactly with longitude and latitude lines. On a sphere, longitude lines are not parallel; north of the equator, the space between lines gradually get closer together the further north you go (and in the reverse south of the equator). So, the space between the east and west borders will be wider in the south than the north, making Wyoming's southern border wider than the northern border.
The Mercator projection (which Bing maps uses) forces the longitude lines to be parallel...thus, trapezoids like Wyoming are projected as rectangles.
I should note that even though the distortions are there, they are still 'good enough' for navigation.
-
I know what you are trying to say here, but it still doesn't work without distortion. Take Wyoming for example. In Bing maps, Wyoming is depicted as a perfect rectangle (90 degree angles), no matter what zoom level you're at. But in reality, (looking straight down at it) Wyoming is actually trapezoidal, with an ever-so-slightly curved top and bottom. The northern border is 342 miles wide, while the southern border is 365 miles wide.
Google maps which represents the earth as a perfect sphere also shows Wyoming with 90 degree angles. Do you have any map or globe that shows wyoming as you describe
-
I know what you are trying to say here, but it still doesn't work without distortion. Take Wyoming for example. In Bing maps, Wyoming is depicted as a perfect rectangle (90 degree angles), no matter what zoom level you're at. But in reality, (looking straight down at it) Wyoming is actually trapezoidal, with an ever-so-slightly curved top and bottom. The northern border is 342 miles wide, while the southern border is 365 miles wide.
Google maps which represents the earth as a perfect sphere also shows Wyoming with 90 degree angles. Do you have any map or globe that shows wyoming as you describe
Looks trapezoidal to me. There may be approximately 90 degree angles on the corners, but the north and south aren't straight lines. They bow outwards and inwards, respectively. That makes it possible to have a trapezoidal shape and have right angles.
-
I know what you are trying to say here, but it still doesn't work without distortion. Take Wyoming for example. In Bing maps, Wyoming is depicted as a perfect rectangle (90 degree angles), no matter what zoom level you're at. But in reality, (looking straight down at it) Wyoming is actually trapezoidal, with an ever-so-slightly curved top and bottom. The northern border is 342 miles wide, while the southern border is 365 miles wide.
Google maps which represents the earth as a perfect sphere also shows Wyoming with 90 degree angles. Do you have any map or globe that shows wyoming as you describe
Looks trapezoidal to me. There may be approximately 90 degree angles on the corners, but the north and south aren't straight lines. They bow outwards and inwards, respectively. That makes it possible to have a trapezoidal shape and have right angles.
Your claim was that the Wyoming border does not have 90 degree angles. Google maps which represents the earth as a perfect sphere also shows Wyoming with 90 degree angles. Do you have any map or globe that shows Wyoming as you describe?
I have to ask again because when i asked the first time you didn't reply with a map or glove which shows Wyoming without 90 degree angles. You replied with your opinion about the angles.
-
I know what you are trying to say here, but it still doesn't work without distortion. Take Wyoming for example. In Bing maps, Wyoming is depicted as a perfect rectangle (90 degree angles), no matter what zoom level you're at. But in reality, (looking straight down at it) Wyoming is actually trapezoidal, with an ever-so-slightly curved top and bottom. The northern border is 342 miles wide, while the southern border is 365 miles wide.
Google maps which represents the earth as a perfect sphere also shows Wyoming with 90 degree angles. Do you have any map or globe that shows wyoming as you describe
Looks trapezoidal to me. There may be approximately 90 degree angles on the corners, but the north and south aren't straight lines. They bow outwards and inwards, respectively. That makes it possible to have a trapezoidal shape and have right angles.
Your claim was that the Wyoming border does not have 90 degree angles. Google maps which represents the earth as a perfect sphere also shows Wyoming with 90 degree angles. Do you have any map or globe that shows Wyoming as you describe?
I have to ask again because when i asked the first time you didn't reply with a map or glove which shows Wyoming without 90 degree angles. You replied with your opinion about the angles.
I think it depends on the browser you use to view Google Maps. I noticed when using the Google Maps app on my iPhone, it is using a Mercator projection. I'm not sure what Android Google Maps uses. But when viewing it in a Chrome browser on a PC, it is on a sphere. So I don't know which projection will be shown in Google Maps in all situations, as I can only test a few.
However, Google EARTH should always use the spherical projection, so that would probably be the best one to use to compare.
-
I know what you are trying to say here, but it still doesn't work without distortion. Take Wyoming for example. In Bing maps, Wyoming is depicted as a perfect rectangle (90 degree angles), no matter what zoom level you're at. But in reality, (looking straight down at it) Wyoming is actually trapezoidal, with an ever-so-slightly curved top and bottom. The northern border is 342 miles wide, while the southern border is 365 miles wide.
Google maps which represents the earth as a perfect sphere also shows Wyoming with 90 degree angles. Do you have any map or globe that shows wyoming as you describe
Looks trapezoidal to me. There may be approximately 90 degree angles on the corners, but the north and south aren't straight lines. They bow outwards and inwards, respectively. That makes it possible to have a trapezoidal shape and have right angles.
Your claim was that the Wyoming border does not have 90 degree angles. Google maps which represents the earth as a perfect sphere also shows Wyoming with 90 degree angles. Do you have any map or globe that shows Wyoming as you describe?
I have to ask again because when i asked the first time you didn't reply with a map or glove which shows Wyoming without 90 degree angles. You replied with your opinion about the angles.
I don't believe any claim was made that it does not have 90 degree angles. The claim that Uetzicle made is that it's trapezoidal. And, not because of the angles, but in this case because of the curves at the north and south.
-
Hey guys,
first off: Thanks for replying, I'm happy I encouraged a discussion :)
iamcpc, I totally get what confuses you and I think the Approach used to tell you why the bing Map you provided is distorted was not clear enough for you to see it, so let me try
In my original post (and that what it's all About) I talked About a 2d map, and a 2d map is a map you could print out. So what I Need is a map of the earth on a piece of paper where the lenghts and the angles are Right (in that case it would be undistorted and my Point would be satisfied). So if we do that with the bing map we would have to take the fully zoomed out view, print it out and THEN look if the two Points are true. That's not the case, I could Show you that quite easily if you want me too or you can take my word for it...
If you would however ask me to do that I could Show you what's wrong with the other map you have shown us on one example.
I just got one Question: Where can I get the true lenghts of the countrys? Is the measurement on the bing map correct in your opinion? If yes I can show you the Problem if not please tell me where I can get the Right measurements from.
Thanks!
-
I know what you are trying to say here, but it still doesn't work without distortion. Take Wyoming for example. In Bing maps, Wyoming is depicted as a perfect rectangle (90 degree angles), no matter what zoom level you're at. But in reality, (looking straight down at it) Wyoming is actually trapezoidal, with an ever-so-slightly curved top and bottom. The northern border is 342 miles wide, while the southern border is 365 miles wide.
Google maps which represents the earth as a perfect sphere also shows Wyoming with 90 degree angles. Do you have any map or globe that shows wyoming as you describe
Looks trapezoidal to me. There may be approximately 90 degree angles on the corners, but the north and south aren't straight lines. They bow outwards and inwards, respectively. That makes it possible to have a trapezoidal shape and have right angles.
Your claim was that the Wyoming border does not have 90 degree angles. Google maps which represents the earth as a perfect sphere also shows Wyoming with 90 degree angles. Do you have any map or globe that shows Wyoming as you describe?
I have to ask again because when i asked the first time you didn't reply with a map or glove which shows Wyoming without 90 degree angles. You replied with your opinion about the angles.
90 degrees is sort of a misnomer. Because, again, we're talking about 3D Globe projections onto a 2D plane. The eastern and western borders of Wyoming were plotted to parallel along longitudinal lines, as mentioned previously, the northern border is shorter than the southern border by about 20 miles. Here is what Wyoming looks like on Google maps:
(https://i.imgur.com/REva7rg.jpg?1)
Spherical Geometry and the notion of 90 degrees is an interesting subject, but perhaps not for this thread.
-
Do you understand that when you zoom in on Bing maps, you're looking at a different map? It's not a zoomed-in version of the same image, it's a different image.
Much like when I look at a united states road atlas the scale changes based on what state you look at. If you put all of the states together and gave them an interactive scale would that make them distorted? I guess some people could say yes. It's my option that, as long as the scale accurately shows all of the individual states and USA as a whole correct then it's not distorted.
My points are:
- You cannot draw a single flat map that is correct AND covers the entire earth
- As soon as you have some kind of 'interactive scale', you're not drawing a single map anymore. When you zoom in on Bing maps, it draws a different map. If a country is the wrong size when you're zoomed out but becomes the correct size when you zoom in, the zoomed in and zoomed out maps are not the same map.
So I think we agree basically. You can't draw a flat map of the whole world, but you can draw a flat map of e.x. a single state. Where we differ is on my first point. As soon as you can't draw a flat map that covers the entire earth, that's game over.
-
Do you understand that when you zoom in on Bing maps, you're looking at a different map? It's not a zoomed-in version of the same image, it's a different image.
Much like when I look at a united states road atlas the scale changes based on what state you look at. If you put all of the states together and gave them an interactive scale would that make them distorted? I guess some people could say yes. It's my option that, as long as the scale accurately shows all of the individual states and USA as a whole correct then it's not distorted.
My points are:
- You cannot draw a single flat map that is correct AND covers the entire earth
- As soon as you have some kind of 'interactive scale', you're not drawing a single map anymore. When you zoom in on Bing maps, it draws a different map. If a country is the wrong size when you're zoomed out but becomes the correct size when you zoom in, the zoomed in and zoomed out maps are not the same map.
So I think we agree basically. You can't draw a flat map of the whole world, but you can draw a flat map of e.x. a single state. Where we differ is on my first point. As soon as you can't draw a flat map that covers the entire earth, that's game over.
If it is game over, then why are all maps flat?
It is the undulations and rises of terrain causing distortion.
-
Do you understand that when you zoom in on Bing maps, you're looking at a different map? It's not a zoomed-in version of the same image, it's a different image.
Much like when I look at a united states road atlas the scale changes based on what state you look at. If you put all of the states together and gave them an interactive scale would that make them distorted? I guess some people could say yes. It's my option that, as long as the scale accurately shows all of the individual states and USA as a whole correct then it's not distorted.
My points are:
- You cannot draw a single flat map that is correct AND covers the entire earth
- As soon as you have some kind of 'interactive scale', you're not drawing a single map anymore. When you zoom in on Bing maps, it draws a different map. If a country is the wrong size when you're zoomed out but becomes the correct size when you zoom in, the zoomed in and zoomed out maps are not the same map.
So I think we agree basically. You can't draw a flat map of the whole world, but you can draw a flat map of e.x. a single state. Where we differ is on my first point. As soon as you can't draw a flat map that covers the entire earth, that's game over.
If it is game over, then why are all maps flat?
It is the undulations and rises of terrain causing distortion.
Why are all photos of you flat?
-
If it is game over, then why are all maps flat?
It is the undulations and rises of terrain causing distortion.
Maps are flat because carrying a globe around in your pocket isn't comfortable, and because paper and screens are flat. What matters when drawing a map is that it's usable to navigate, not that it's an undistorted representation of the earth.
-
I don't believe any claim was made that it does not have 90 degree angles. The claim that Uetzicle made is that it's trapezoidal. And, not because of the angles, but in this case because of the curves at the north and south.
Wyoming doesn't have 90 degree angles. The borders of Wyoming are defined by specific lines of latitude and longitude. Lines of latitude are parallel. Lines of longitude all converge at the poles. Thus, Wyoming's northern border is slightly shorter than its southern border, and the NE and NW corners are slightly greater than 90 degrees, while the SE and SW ones are slightly smaller. The southern border is 23 miles longer than the Northern one. With some basic trigonometry, one can derive the angles, which are approximately 92.4 degrees in the north, and 87.6 in the south.
edited for for more detail.
-
Leanardo DaVinci lived and studied in the Renaissance ( following the dark ages ) . Many of his beliefs and studies including anatomical drawings ( which were from (“life”) would have been considered heracy so he wrote in his journals in such a fashion that they could only be read in the reflection of a mirror . He would have been executed for his findings as being contrary to the Church doctrine .
Flat Earthers are today’s heretics , but no longer is that punishable by death. Where exactly does one go to obtain a grant to accurately map the flat earth ? Sign me up . This would be interesting work , indeed .
-
Leanardo DaVinci lived and studied in the Renaissance ( following the dark ages ) . Many of his beliefs and studies including anatomical drawings ( which were from (“life”) would have been considered heracy so he wrote in his journals in such a fashion that they could only be read in the reflection of a mirror . He would have been executed for his findings as being contrary to the Church doctrine .
Flat Earthers are today’s heretics , but no longer is that punishable by death. Where exactly does one go to obtain a grant to accurately map the flat earth ? Sign me up . This would be interesting work , indeed .
First you have to come up with a FE approved mapping system. Tom had provided evidence that mapping coordinate systems based on longitude and latitude are inaccurate.
Also what about Bing maps did you reject?
-
Leanardo DaVinci lived and studied in the Renaissance ( following the dark ages ) . Many of his beliefs and studies including anatomical drawings ( which were from (“life”) would have been considered heracy so he wrote in his journals in such a fashion that they could only be read in the reflection of a mirror . He would have been executed for his findings as being contrary to the Church doctrine .
Flat Earthers are today’s heretics , but no longer is that punishable by death. Where exactly does one go to obtain a grant to accurately map the flat earth ? Sign me up . This would be interesting work , indeed .
First you have to come up with a FE approved mapping system. Tom had provided evidence that mapping coordinate systems based on longitude and latitude are inaccurate.
Also what about Bing maps did you reject?
As far as coming up with an FE approved mapping system, who would do the approving? And Tom didn't provide evidence that longitude and latitude are inaccurate, he presented information about how US State Plane maps use a simple X/Y coordinate system because it's easier and works well for short distances, which these types of maps are designed for.
Bing maps are based upon longitude and latitude and the Mercator projection which are globe coordinates and a globe representation. So if you started with a Bing map, you'd be starting with a globe earth. I think you want to start with a flat earth. That seems to be the whole point.