Hi,
I just found a direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires which takes 11 hours. It's with New Zealand air flight no anz30. Looking at the flat earth map the distance between NZ and South America is huge, i am no expert but I don't think the plane would cover the distance in 11 hours only and without anyone noticing the flight path. What are your thoughts?
Hi,Can I get a link to the flat earth map?
I just found a direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires which takes 11 hours. It's with New Zealand air flight no anz30. Looking at the flat earth map the distance between NZ and South America is huge, i am no expert but I don't think the plane would cover the distance in 11 hours only and without anyone noticing the flight path. What are your thoughts?
Does this flight go south over antartica or west?
Shortest Sydney to Santiago on "Gleason Map" about 25,400 km (https://www.dropbox.com/s/vzyemzfa4a1xuxs/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%20Gleasons%20Map.png?dl=1) | Great Circle Sydney to Santiago on "Google Earth" about 11,400 km (https://www.dropbox.com/s/qpyi22n7tofunwr/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20Great%20Circle%20-%20Google%20Earth.png?dl=1) |
Hi,Can I get a link to the flat earth map?
I just found a direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires which takes 11 hours. It's with New Zealand air flight no anz30. Looking at the flat earth map the distance between NZ and South America is huge, i am no expert but I don't think the plane would cover the distance in 11 hours only and without anyone noticing the flight path. What are your thoughts?
Does this flight go south over antartica or west?
I have not prepared maps for this route, I did not know it existed till just now. The next flight Auckland to Buenos Aries (flight ANZ30) is:
Departs Auckland, Friday, 4 March, 7:20 pm, this is 6:20 am Friday, UTC.
Arrives Buenos Aires, Friday, 4 March, 3:00 pm, this is 6:00 pm Thursday, UTC.
These times give a gate to gate time of 11 hrs 40 min - west to east has favourable winds.
Note that the return flight takes 13 hrs 31 min - winds wrong way.
I do have maps for the Sydney to Santiago route, which is just a little longer. These flights do not go very close to Antarctica.
Below are the shortest distance routes from Sydney(Australia) to Santiago (Chile) on the Gleason's Map[1] and on Google Earth (for the Globe).
Note that the actual routes used on long distant flights will usually be chosen to fit in with the current winds. The return flight from Chile to Sydney often would be routed further south, possibly within sight of Antarctica.
Shortest Sydney to Santiago on "Gleason Map"about 25,400 km(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%20Gleasons%20Map_zpsfdlirlhm.png) Great Circle Sydney to Santiago on "Google Earth"about 11,400 km(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20Great%20Circle%20-%20Google%20Earth_zpso0htsooh.png)
[1] Note that while the Gleason's map is often used by Flat Earthers, it is not the "Official Map"!
Hi,As I've stated in another thread, my friend has caught the return flight recently and it does only take 11 hours or so.
I just found a direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires which takes 11 hours. It's with New Zealand air flight no anz30. Looking at the flat earth map the distance between NZ and South America is huge, i am no expert but I don't think the plane would cover the distance in 11 hours only and without anyone noticing the flight path. What are your thoughts?
That's not a projection that has accurate representation of latitude. So no clue why you wasted your time rabinoz.That is almost identical to the map TFES uses. Have a look in http://wiki.tfes.org/Antarctica (http://wiki.tfes.org/Antarctica). and many Flat Earthers insist that Gleason's is a "Flat Earth map" - it is not.
That's why I asked for a link to the official flat earth map. Because I didn't know there was an official one.As far as I know the only difference between the maps is the orientation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
Here is the information on that projection and, no, latitude distances aren't correct, only distances from the north pole are, "longitude"
I'd like a link to that flight.
I can't see any direct flights, and the fastest is almost 18 hours.
http://www.skyscanner.net/transport/flights/buea/akl/160518/160525/airfares-from-buenos-aires-to-auckland-international-in-may-2016.html?adults=1&children=0&infants=0&cabinclass=economy&rtn=1&preferdirects=false&outboundaltsenabled=false&inboundaltsenabled=false&qp_prevProvider=ins_month&qp_prevCurrency=GBP&qp_prevPrice=1053&age=10#results
I'd like a link to that flight.
There needs to be a flight that goes over the south pole for this to be anything worth mentioning.
In the post 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires « Reply #2 » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4735.msg91393#msg91393) (earlier in this thread) I gave the Sydney to Santiago shortest routes on the "Gleason Map" (close to the FE's "Ice Wall Map" and has some place names) and on the Globe (Google Earth Pro). The differences in routes and distances is massive. Here is a reduced size version of the maps:There needs to be a flight that goes over the south pole for this to be anything worth mentioning.
Not really. Distance on a FE and RE will not match up somewhere.
If FE goes with the south pole at the center then flights traveling between North America and Asia would be brought up.
If someone comes up with something else the distance will not match somewhere.
The whole reason there is not an accurate FE map is because known distances can not be used to make the map.
Shortest Sydney to Santiago on "Gleason Map", about 25,400 km (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%20Gleasons%20Map_zpsfdlirlhm.png) | Great Circle Sydney to Santiago on "Google Earth", about 11,400 km (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20Great%20Circle%20-%20Google%20Earth_zpso0htsooh.png) |
In the post 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires « Reply #2 » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4735.msg91393#msg91393) (earlier in this thread) I gave the Sydney to Santiago shortest routes on the "Gleason Map" (close to the FE's "Ice Wall Map" and has some place names) and on the Globe (Google Earth Pro). The differences in routes and distances is massive. Here is a reduced size version of the maps:There needs to be a flight that goes over the south pole for this to be anything worth mentioning.
Not really. Distance on a FE and RE will not match up somewhere.
If FE goes with the south pole at the center then flights traveling between North America and Asia would be brought up.
If someone comes up with something else the distance will not match somewhere.
The whole reason there is not an accurate FE map is because known distances can not be used to make the map.
Shortest Sydney to Santiago on"Gleason Map", about 25,400 km(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%20Gleasons%20Map_zpsfdlirlhm.png) Great Circle Sydney to Santiago on"Google Earth", about 11,400 km(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20Great%20Circle%20-%20Google%20Earth_zpso0htsooh.png)The distance on the Gleason map had to be scaled from the Equator to North Pole distance of 10,000 km.
Dude. How many times do you have to be told that the AEP is not accurate for latitude?How many times? I'm guessing that number will be exactly the same as the number of times YOU have to be told that the AEP is "one of the two Flat Earth geographic models" as presented by the Wiki (http://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents).
What is so hard to understand?Nothing, we completely understand that the AEP is not an accurate representation of the world. It seems to me that you are misunderstanding something: it appears that you don't know that some FE proponents believe it IS accurate. We RE proponents did not invent a foolish "flat earth map, ha ha ha!" so as to have a straw man to kick around, the wiki gave it to us.
Distances are accurate from the center asking the longitude ONLY.It isn't our fault that the real world doesn't correspond to the AEP, but I am glad to see you acknowledge it. Nice to find something about which I can agree with you!
Well you do know that it isn't accurate, but you still try to use it to your advantage.Let's review the OP's question
Looking at the flat earth map the distance between NZ and South America is hugeThe OP is referring to AEP, which is commonly used by TFES wiki.
Well you do know that it isn't accurate, but you still try to use it to your advantage.Let's review the OP's questionLooking at the flat earth map the distance between NZ and South America is hugeThe OP is referring to AEP, which is commonly used by TFES wiki.
Then rabinoz explained why the AEP is wrong because of the flight path, to those who believe it right.
He wasn't talking to you if you believe it wrong, so anymore unnecessary argument?
I have NOT anywhere tried to deceive anyone. The North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection IS the same shape as TFES claims the Flat Earth is!Well you do know that it isn't accurate, but you still try to use it to your advantage.Let's review the OP's questionLooking at the flat earth map the distance between NZ and South America is hugeThe OP is referring to AEP, which is commonly used by TFES wiki.
Then rabinoz explained why the AEP is wrong because of the flight path, to those who believe it right.
He wasn't talking to you if you believe it wrong, so anymore unnecessary argument?
No the issue is he was told, by me, several times exactly why the AEP can not represent the Earth accurately, yet he makes a diagram which is supposed to represent some kind of scale (which how he deduced 25,400 km as the distance isn't even explained anywhere) in an attempt to mislead people.
Earth (http://wiki.tfes.org/Earth)I do believe that is a (rather crude!) North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection, though rotated 90° compared to the Gleason's map.
The earth is the flat astronomical body where live numerous species of plants, animals and other beings. The North Pole is the center of the earth, and South Pole is a circunference(sic) around it.
The sun and the moon are both located circa 3,000 miles above earth's surface. They have a mutual orbit (similar to a binary system orbit), which produces day and night on earth.
The stars are small astronomical bodies located circa 3,100 miles above earth and 100 miles above sun and moon orbit.(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png)
The most widely accepted map model of a flat earth.
I have NOT anywhere tried to deceive anyone. The North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection IS the same shape as TFES claims the Flat Earth is!Well you do know that it isn't accurate, but you still try to use it to your advantage.Let's review the OP's questionLooking at the flat earth map the distance between NZ and South America is hugeThe OP is referring to AEP, which is commonly used by TFES wiki.
Then rabinoz explained why the AEP is wrong because of the flight path, to those who believe it right.
He wasn't talking to you if you believe it wrong, so anymore unnecessary argument?
No the issue is he was told, by me, several times exactly why the AEP can not represent the Earth accurately, yet he makes a diagram which is supposed to represent some kind of scale (which how he deduced 25,400 km as the distance isn't even explained anywhere) in an attempt to mislead people.Quote from: the WikiEarth (http://wiki.tfes.org/Earth)I do believe that is a (rather crude!) North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection, though rotated 90° compared to the Gleason's map.
The earth is the flat astronomical body where live numerous species of plants, animals and other beings. The North Pole is the center of the earth, and South Pole is a circunference(sic) around it.
The sun and the moon are both located circa 3,000 miles above earth's surface. They have a mutual orbit (similar to a binary system orbit), which produces day and night on earth.
The stars are small astronomical bodies located circa 3,100 miles above earth and 100 miles above sun and moon orbit.(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png)
The most widely accepted map model of a flat earth.
Now, I do NOT think that is an accurate map of the earth, and that is the point I was trying to show.Now I do believe the honorable thing would be for you to apologise for you accusation.If you has a better map of the "Flat Earth" now would be a good time to show us! But, unless I am mistaken, YOU have never answered any of our questions nor presented anything other that pure negativity!
PS: I would like to have replied earlier, but I have been fighting my computer (it would not let me login!), so I had to teach it a lesson!
And the shape of Australia looks a bit like that rodent that the flat earthers found on Mars !;D I do hope you mean the shape of Australia on the North Polar Equidistant Azimuthal map and not "elegant" real shape. ;D
(http://rs1075.pbsrc.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/1892-new-standard-map-Australia_zpsbjox1mgg.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip) | (http://rs1075.pbsrc.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Australia%20on%20Google%20Earth_zpsy1w9phhs.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip) |
Well you do know that it isn't accurate, but you still try to use it to your advantage. At this point, that can only be interpreted as you being intentionally misleading.
Yes.....I was referring to the AEP. LOLAnd the shape of Australia looks a bit like that rodent that the flat earthers found on Mars !;D I do hope you mean the shape of Australia on the North Polar Equidistant Azimuthal map and not "elegant" real shape. ;D
(http://rs1075.pbsrc.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/1892-new-standard-map-Australia_zpsbjox1mgg.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip) (http://rs1075.pbsrc.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Australia%20on%20Google%20Earth_zpsy1w9phhs.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip)
Yes, I have to admit it does, but watch the Brisbane bit! I live near there and don't know that I like the idea of of living anywhere the pig's snout.Yes.....I was referring to the AEP. LOLAnd the shape of Australia looks a bit like that rodent that the flat earthers found on Mars !;D I do hope you mean the shape of Australia on the North Polar Equidistant Azimuthal map and not "elegant" real shape. ;D
(http://rs1075.pbsrc.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/1892-new-standard-map-Australia_zpsbjox1mgg.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip) (http://rs1075.pbsrc.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Australia%20on%20Google%20Earth_zpsy1w9phhs.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip)
On second thought Australia looks more like a pig on Gleason' Map.....There's the snout at Brisbane and the ear at the top of the vertical line on the drawing. LOL
Hi,Can I get a link to the flat earth map?
I just found a direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires which takes 11 hours. It's with New Zealand air flight no anz30. Looking at the flat earth map the distance between NZ and South America is huge, i am no expert but I don't think the plane would cover the distance in 11 hours only and without anyone noticing the flight path. What are your thoughts?
Does this flight go south over antartica or west?
I have not prepared maps for this route, I did not know it existed till just now. The next flight Auckland to Buenos Aries (flight ANZ30) is:
Departs Auckland, Friday, 4 March, 7:20 pm, this is 6:20 am Friday, UTC.
Arrives Buenos Aires, Friday, 4 March, 3:00 pm, this is 6:00 pm Thursday, UTC.
These times give a gate to gate time of 11 hrs 40 min - west to east has favourable winds.
Note that the return flight takes 13 hrs 31 min - winds wrong way.
I do have maps for the Sydney to Santiago route, which is just a little longer. These flights do not go very close to Antarctica.
Below are the shortest distance routes from Sydney(Australia) to Santiago (Chile) on the Gleason's Map[1] and on Google Earth (for the Globe).
Note that the actual routes used on long distant flights will usually be chosen to fit in with the current winds. The return flight from Chile to Sydney often would be routed further south, possibly within sight of Antarctica.
Shortest Sydney to Santiago on "Gleason Map"about 25,400 km(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%20Gleasons%20Map_zpsfdlirlhm.png) Great Circle Sydney to Santiago on "Google Earth"about 11,400 km(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20Great%20Circle%20-%20Google%20Earth_zpso0htsooh.png)
[1] Note that while the Gleason's map is often used by Flat Earthers, it is not the "Official Map"!
In the post 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires « Reply #2 » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4735.msg91393#msg91393) (earlier in this thread) I gave the Sydney to Santiago shortest routes on the "Gleason Map" (close to the FE's "Ice Wall Map" and has some place names) and on the Globe (Google Earth Pro). The differences in routes and distances is massive. Here is a reduced size version of the maps:There needs to be a flight that goes over the south pole for this to be anything worth mentioning.
Not really. Distance on a FE and RE will not match up somewhere.
If FE goes with the south pole at the center then flights traveling between North America and Asia would be brought up.
If someone comes up with something else the distance will not match somewhere.
The whole reason there is not an accurate FE map is because known distances can not be used to make the map.
Shortest Sydney to Santiago on"Gleason Map", about 25,400 km(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%20Gleasons%20Map_zpsfdlirlhm.png) Great Circle Sydney to Santiago on"Google Earth", about 11,400 km(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20Great%20Circle%20-%20Google%20Earth_zpso0htsooh.png)The distance on the Gleason map had to be scaled from the Equator to North Pole distance of 10,000 km.
Dude. How many times do you have to be told that the AEP is not accurate for latitude? What is so hard to understand? Distances are accurate from the center asking the longitude ONLY.
Rabinoz knows that, he just likes to doodle numbers and lines on it anyway to prove some non point. Also I'm certain he hasn't driven all around Australia with the expressed purpose of measuring the continent and making sure google maps is correct.
Rabinoz knows that, he just likes to doodle numbers and lines on it anyway to prove some non point. Also I'm certain he hasn't driven all around Australia with the expressed purpose of measuring the continent and making sure google maps is correct.
Rand McNally probably has road maps of Australia. I would feel that if the road mileages were not accurate and proved the true size of Australia as it really is they would be getting a lot of complaints from tourists and business travelers. And if Australia has an organization such as AA-in the UK or the AAA-in the USA they would make certain their maps were accurate. You wouldn't have to drive around the country.
I have driven all over the USA and can vouch for the accuracy of the old "free oil company road maps", the current AAA maps and current Microsoft Streets and Trips software. They all are correct and agree with google maps.
The reason Gleason's Map is so distorted is simply because it's simply a copy of the North Polar AEP.
I think I have discovered the problem. The automobile manufacturers in Australia have programmed their odometers.
Count them in on The Great Round Earth Conspiracy.
*tap tap*Rabinoz knows that, he just likes to doodle numbers and lines on it anyway to prove some non point. Also I'm certain he hasn't driven all around Australia with the expressed purpose of measuring the continent and making sure google maps is correct.
Rand McNally probably has road maps of Australia. I would feel that if the road mileages were not accurate and proved the true size of Australia as it really is they would be getting a lot of complaints from tourists and business travelers. And if Australia has an organization such as AA-in the UK or the AAA-in the USA they would make certain their maps were accurate. You wouldn't have to drive around the country.
I have driven all over the USA and can vouch for the accuracy of the old "free oil company road maps", the current AAA maps and current Microsoft Streets and Trips software. They all are correct and agree with google maps.
The reason Gleason's Map is so distorted is simply because it's simply a copy of the North Polar AEP.
I think I have discovered the problem. The automobile manufacturers in Australia have programmed their odometers.
Count them in on The Great Round Earth Conspiracy.
Is it always tag team with you guys or what? All I'm said is I doubt he drove corner to corner with debunking a flat earth projection wrong. Seems like it would be a real waste of time and gas if that's what he did. Dont know what youre even going on about in your post.
*tap tap*Rabinoz knows that, he just likes to doodle numbers and lines on it anyway to prove some non point. Also I'm certain he hasn't driven all around Australia with the expressed purpose of measuring the continent and making sure google maps is correct.
Rand McNally probably has road maps of Australia. I would feel that if the road mileages were not accurate and proved the true size of Australia as it really is they would be getting a lot of complaints from tourists and business travelers. And if Australia has an organization such as AA-in the UK or the AAA-in the USA they would make certain their maps were accurate. You wouldn't have to drive around the country.
I have driven all over the USA and can vouch for the accuracy of the old "free oil company road maps", the current AAA maps and current Microsoft Streets and Trips software. They all are correct and agree with google maps.
The reason Gleason's Map is so distorted is simply because it's simply a copy of the North Polar AEP.
I think I have discovered the problem. The automobile manufacturers in Australia have programmed their odometers.
Count them in on The Great Round Earth Conspiracy.
Is it always tag team with you guys or what? All I'm said is I doubt he drove corner to corner with debunking a flat earth projection wrong. Seems like it would be a real waste of time and gas if that's what he did. Dont know what youre even going on about in your post.
Yes, it is all a tag team. A guy can only take so much idiocy in one sitting.
I don't know if it's just an act or not but it seems that no matter how long or how hard you try to explain something to a flat earther they say they don't get it or maybe they just pretend they don't get it or they don't understand it. The explanation of the North Polar AEP and why it is inaccurate for example.
I try to limit my visits to an hour or so on the FES. An hour or so of idiocy or pretended idiocy is enough.
The point of my post was that the earth is not shaped like a flat disc and there is no accurate flat earth map of the earth bcause the earth is a globe in case the flat earthers didn't get the point. Havent any flat earthers ever been to elementary school ? Maybe not ? That would be against their religion ?
Let's circle back to the original post, which may be summed up as follows: A flight from Auckland to Buenos Aires exists that lasts eleven hours. The two flat earth maps presented in the wiki show distances between those two cities which could not be covered in that time by passenger aircraft. This suggests that neither of the maps presented by the wiki are correct. The open question: can anyone show us a flat earth map on which the distance between Auckland and Buenos Aires is the correct distance?
I don't know what you don't understand. I have been telling people all along that the AEP is not to be used as any kind of accurate representation, and that the only thing to scale is the distances from the north pole south along longitude.I know you were answering "geckothegeek", but I hope this gets my meaning across.
When have I said otherwise? When did I seem confused? You are quick to come with lame insults, but your entire argument as far as I've ever seen is "the earth is round because it is." Now before you just devolve into your shell and call me a flat earther as some kind of self defense mechanism, when have I ever indicated I believed the Earth was flat? All I ever said is based on the information we have from observable phenomena that nothing is readily apparent about the shape of the Earth. The fact is, if 99% of people weren't told it was a sphere they wouldn't deduce that on their own.
Now please tell me more about how you think you're dealing with someone who hasn't been to elementary school.
I have tried to shorten it a bit, but it is still long!The only reply that has ever made any sense has been "Evidence?", so I have a number of times provided evidence such as in:
I made a post http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4499.msg88069#msg88069 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4499.msg88069#msg88069)
where I stated that the earth we live on simply cannot be flat.
What I am doing here is essentially repeating the earlier post, with a little different wording.
But, what about the crucial question? Let's look at the accepted dimensions of the earth.
From the TFES Wiki we have:Quote from: Flat Earth WikiFrom: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall)Presumably the distance from the north pole out to the equator can be taken as one quarter of this, 6,225 miles or 10,018 km.
The figure of 24,900 miles is the diameter of the known world; the area which the light from the sun affects.
I will use a rounded figure for the north pole to equator distance of 10,000 km, which is closer to the currently accepted value.
Then to get a figure for the equatorial circumference of the earth, we can look at the "definition" of the Nautical Mile:QuoteA sea mile or nautical mile is, strictly, the length of a minute of arc measured along a meridian. It represents a minute of longitude only at the equator.Currently the Nm is defined as exactly 1,852 meters.So the circumference of the equator must be (1,852 m) x 60' x 360° = 40,003 km.
Again I will use a rounded figure for the equatorial circumference of 40,000 km.
But, on any flat earth map I have seen the equatorial circle circumference is simply thecircumference of a circle of radius 10,000 km, or 62,830 km.
I do not see any possible way of reconciling the quite accepted equatorial circumference of 40,000 km of the earthwith the flat earth equatorial circle circumference of 62,830 km.What are your thoughts? Are my distances wrong?
It seems strange to me that so many flat earth supporters send post after post quibble about tiny problems they see in a satellite photo, or some feature of the globe, yet are simply quite unwilling to tackle (what to me are) glaring holes in their own model.Part of this must be that so many of flat earth supporters simply do not understand the implications of what they claim to support.
I don't know what you don't understand. I have been telling people all along that the AEP is not to be used as any kind of accurate representation, and that the only thing to scale is the distances from the north pole south along longitude.
EarthNow to me, that looks like the AEP and while it might not be very accurate we are looking at discrepencies of 25,400 km on the AEP (Gleason's) to 11,400 km on the Globe (Google Earth).
The earth is the flat astronomical body where live numerous species of plants, animals and other beings. The North Pole is the center of the earth, and South Pole is a circunference around it.
The sun and the moon are both located circa 3,000 miles above earth's surface. They have a mutual orbit (similar to a binary system orbit), which produces day and night on earth.
The stars are small astronomical bodies located circa 3,100 miles above earth and 100 miles above sun and moon orbit.(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png)
The most widely accepted map model of a flat earth
Pretty sure that this one fits all your requests:I don't know what you don't understand. I have been telling people all along that the AEP is not to be used as any kind of accurate representation, and that the only thing to scale is the distances from the north pole south along longitude.
YOU may not believe the earth is a flat disk, a globe, a square or a dodecahedron, but TFES claims:QuoteEarthNow to me, that looks like the AEP and while it might not be very accurate we are looking at discrepencies of 25,400 km on the AEP (Gleason's) to 11,400 km on the Globe (Google Earth).
The earth is the flat astronomical body where live numerous species of plants, animals and other beings. The North Pole is the center of the earth, and South Pole is a circunference around it.
The sun and the moon are both located circa 3,000 miles above earth's surface. They have a mutual orbit (similar to a binary system orbit), which produces day and night on earth.
The stars are small astronomical bodies located circa 3,100 miles above earth and 100 miles above sun and moon orbit.(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png)
The most widely accepted map model of a flat earth
You might not believe in the Flat Earth, but you must have some global map that you use - of to you sit at home and "meditate"!
So out with it, or just stop simply trying to tear down everything, with nothing to replace what you have discarded.
So, who cares about a bit of accuracy!
So, what about YOU giving us a map that will agree with what we actually see on the Real Earth - whatever its shape.
But, please remember there are certainly measurements that will not fit on a plane surface!
Yes, I can't see any other object fitting the known measurements of the real earth than a GLOBE.Pretty sure that this one fits all your requests:I don't know what you don't understand. I have been telling people all along that the AEP is not to be used as any kind of accurate representation, and that the only thing to scale is the distances from the north pole south along longitude.
YOU may not believe the earth is a flat disk, a globe, a square or a dodecahedron, but TFES claims:QuoteEarthNow to me, that looks like the AEP and while it might not be very accurate we are looking at discrepencies of 25,400 km on the AEP (Gleason's) to 11,400 km on the Globe (Google Earth).
The earth is the flat astronomical body where live numerous species of plants, animals and other beings. The North Pole is the center of the earth, and South Pole is a circunference around it.
The sun and the moon are both located circa 3,000 miles above earth's surface. They have a mutual orbit (similar to a binary system orbit), which produces day and night on earth.
The stars are small astronomical bodies located circa 3,100 miles above earth and 100 miles above sun and moon orbit.(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png)
The most widely accepted map model of a flat earth
You might not believe in the Flat Earth, but you must have some global map that you use - of to you sit at home and "meditate"!
So out with it, or just stop simply trying to tear down everything, with nothing to replace what you have discarded.
So, who cares about a bit of accuracy!
So, what about YOU giving us a map that will agree with what we actually see on the Real Earth - whatever its shape.
But, please remember there are certainly measurements that will not fit on a plane surface!
(http://www.zonu.com/images/500X0/2009-11-18-11144/South-America-on-the-globe.png)
Hey you buffoons, that is not a map. That is an illustration of one side of a globe. Try to navigate with that thing and see how far you get.To quote xkcd (https://xkcd.com/977/), "yes, you're very clever." The important thing about globes is that you can rotate them to whatever part of the earth you want, and you will have an accurate representation of that portion of the earth. Can you do that with an AEP map? No, you cannot. Especially in the southern hemisphere, as rabinoz will be quick to point out.
Hey you buffoons, that is not a map. That is an illustration of one side of a globe. Try to navigate with that thing and see how far you get.Hey, you buffoon!
Hey you buffoons, that is not a map. That is an illustration of one side of a globe. Try to navigate with that thing and see how far you get.Sorry, I tried to upload a 3D object, but I broke the Internets. This image is simply a 2D representation of an object that meets the specified requirements.
It's a bit funny that no-one can find any flat object that fits! Possibly:Hey you buffoons, that is not a map. That is an illustration of one side of a globe. Try to navigate with that thing and see how far you get.Sorry, I tried to upload a 3D object, but I broke the Internets. This image is simply a 2D representation of an object that meets the specified requirements.
Hey you buffoons, that is not a map. That is an illustration of one side of a globe. Try to navigate with that thing and see how far you get.
Last time I saw a map it looked flat to me. My Google maps app looks pretty flat to me, in fact they ignored curvature altogether when they made the Web Mercator map it uses.And look at the size of Greenland. Are you saying that the earth is flat because its projections are flat?
Last time I saw a map it looked flat to me. My Google maps app looks pretty flat to me, in fact they ignored curvature altogether when they made the Web Mercator map it uses.What on earth are you talking about? ALL maps on paper or a computer screen ARE FLAT!
I don't know what you don't understand. I have been telling people all along that the AEP is not to be used as any kind of accurate representation, and that the only thing to scale is the distances from the north pole south along longitude.
YOU may not believe the earth is a flat disk, a globe, a square or a dodecahedron, but TFES claims:QuoteEarthNow to me, that looks like the AEP and while it might not be very accurate we are looking at discrepencies of 25,400 km on the AEP (Gleason's) to 11,400 km on the Globe (Google Earth).
The earth is the flat astronomical body where live numerous species of plants, animals and other beings. The North Pole is the center of the earth, and South Pole is a circunference around it.
The sun and the moon are both located circa 3,000 miles above earth's surface. They have a mutual orbit (similar to a binary system orbit), which produces day and night on earth.
The stars are small astronomical bodies located circa 3,100 miles above earth and 100 miles above sun and moon orbit.(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png)
The most widely accepted map model of a flat earth
You might not believe in the Flat Earth, but you must have some global map that you use - of to you sit at home and "meditate"!
So out with it, or just stop simply trying to tear down everything, with nothing to replace what you have discarded.
So, who cares about a bit of accuracy!
So, what about YOU giving us a map that will agree with what we actually see on the Real Earth - whatever its shape.
But, please remember there are certainly measurements that will not fit on a plane surface!