[jimster]

It seems to me that an accurate FE map would be useful and would certainly prove FE.

How would a FEr make a map? What data to collect how?

Is there any practical way to make an FE map, perhaps it is impossible?

Given airliners, internet, gps, etc etc etc, it seems technically possible to make an accurate map.

Why has a map with correct distances and a scale not been produced?

[AATW]

I've shown in this thread that a FE map (and therefore a FE) is impossible:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11747.0

That is presuming the distances given on Google Maps are accurate. Given that Google Maps is used by millions of people every day I'd suggest that there's a pretty good level of confidence in their mapping and therefore the distances they give. If those distances are in dispute though  then I guess FE needs to get out there and do their own surveying to make a map.

[iamcpc]

It seems to me that an accurate FE map would be useful and would certainly prove FE.

I agree. A huge flaw in the flat earth theory is that  there is a claim that there is no map. Even though it is demonstrated hundreds of millions of times every single day that we have the ability to accurately navigate this planet by plane, train, automobile, ship, and foot.

I am of the mindset that the earth has already been accurately map where the map depicts the earth as a flat plane. I have given links to these maps several times and, based on my extensive travels using these maps (or maps very similar to them), can verify they are pretty accurate. 

How would a FEr make a map? What data to collect how?

The Flat earth community can not even begin to work on making a map without first agreeing on basic fundamentals like North America is North of South America (There are legitimately members of the flat earth community who believe that basic statement to be false). Is there a south pole or not?

If half the community believes there is a south pole and half don't then already making a map is impossible.

Within the subset of people who believe there is a south pole: half believe that North America is north of South America and half believe that it's not. A map with a south pole depicting North America North of South America would be rejected by 75% of the flat earth community.

The maps I have linked in this response have been rejected for reasons such as:


1. It's not shapes like a circle with the north pole is not in the middle.
2. It's not shaped like a circle with Jerusalem in the middle.
3. There is no dome/firmament/great ice wall
4. That's not a flat earth map that's a round earth map (even though the earth is clearly depicted as a flat plane)
etc etc etc

Is there any practical way to make an FE map, perhaps it is impossible?

Yes. This has already been done in the map links listed in my response.

A better question is this:
Is there any practical way to make an FE map which is accepted by over 75% of the flat earth community?
No. Before anything like this can be started the 75% of the flat earth community must first agree on very basic map rules such as France and Germany are both in Europe which they are unable to do.

Why has a map with correct distances and a scale not been produced?

A map with correct distances and a scale which represents the earth as a flat plane has already been produced. I've linked several versions in my response.


A better question is this:
Why has a map with correct distances and a scale which is accepted by over 75% of the flat earth community not been produced ?
Before anything like this can be started the 75% of the flat earth community must first agree on very basic map rules such as France and Germany are both in Europe which they are unable to do.

I've shown in this thread that a FE map (and therefore a FE) is impossible:

I disagree. There are many maps which represent the earth as a flat, infinitely repeating plane instead of a sphere which are pretty accurate:



https://search.yahoo.com/search/?p=maps
suncalc.net



This one it not an infinitely repeating flat plane but rather a pac-man effect flat plane
https://www.timeanddate.com/time/map/

[jimster]

Small map equals small distortion, unnoticeable and unimportant. Large flat map has choice of distortion, but can never be right without some disto0rtion, the distances can never be accurate. I have never seen a FE map with a scale to check the distances.

Show me a map of the entire world, flat, no missing parts, with a scale and accurate distances.

For example, in mapping Australia on a flat map you have two choices, either make Australia the wrong size or the coasts have the wrong longitude.

Feel free to show me a FE map with correct distances everywhere. I bet you my entire net worth you never will.

[iamcpc]

Small map equals small distortion, unnoticeable and unimportant. Large flat map has choice of distortion, but can never be right without some disto0rtion, the distances can never be accurate. I have never seen a FE map with a scale to check the distances.

Show me a map of the entire world, flat, no missing parts, with a scale and accurate distances.

For example, in mapping Australia on a flat map you have two choices, either make Australia the wrong size or the coasts have the wrong longitude.

Feel free to show me a FE map with correct distances everywhere. I bet you my entire net worth you never will.

Did you not see the link to Yahoo maps? The distances shown on Yahoo maps (which depicts the earth as a flat plane) match  the distances shown on Google maps (which depicts the earth as a sphere). If you don't believe me then test it yourself. Drive around Australia using Yahoo maps and an odometer. I'm sure you will find the distances are pretty close to your odometer.

[jimster]

I clicked on the first link and it gave me a search on "map", not sure what that means.

I clicked on the second link, got a map. On this map, Australia (continent, area = 7,692,024 km2 ) is smaller than Greenland (island, area = 2,166,086 km2). This map does not work.

Can you give me a link to a flat map that has Greenland, USA, and Australia in proper size relationships?

There is no such link, this can only be done on a globe. I will find the problem on any flat map of the whole world.

Link to flat map with Australia, USA and Greenland at proper size, pleeeeease.

[iamcpc]

I clicked on the first link and it gave me a search on "map", not sure what that means.

I clicked on the second link, got a map. On this map, Australia (continent, area = 7,692,024 km2 ) is smaller than Greenland (island, area = 2,166,086 km2). This map does not work.

Can you give me a link to a flat map that has Greenland, USA, and Australia in proper size relationships?

There is no such link, this can only be done on a globe. I will find the problem on any flat map of the whole world.

Link to flat map with Australia, USA and Greenland at proper size, pleeeeease.

They are very easy to find. After literally 30 seconds of searching I found several here are a few more:


I would also like you to note that these are big name websites used by millions of people each day to travel.


https://www.bing.com/maps/
https://www.mapquest.com/
https://maps.yahoo.com/b

[SeaCritique]

That is presuming the distances given on Google Maps are accurate.

Surveying local areas and short distances and then stitching those patches together seems, to me, to have no bearing on the shape of the Earth.

[Balls Dingo]

Surveying local areas and short distances and then stitching those patches together seems, to me, to have no bearing on the shape of the Earth.

Of course it does. When you discover that it's impossible to stitch those patches together to make a 2D shape without distorting the individual patches, it suggests that the patches don't belong to a 2D shape. There is no Flat Earth map with accurate distances between Sydney and Santiago, Tokyo and Los Angeles, Perth and Johannesburg, and New York and London because it's literally impossible. And yes, it's even impossible within a single continent. Doesn't that tell you something?

[inquisitive]

I clicked on the first link and it gave me a search on "map", not sure what that means.

I clicked on the second link, got a map. On this map, Australia (continent, area = 7,692,024 km2 ) is smaller than Greenland (island, area = 2,166,086 km2). This map does not work.

Can you give me a link to a flat map that has Greenland, USA, and Australia in proper size relationships?

There is no such link, this can only be done on a globe. I will find the problem on any flat map of the whole world.

Link to flat map with Australia, USA and Greenland at proper size, pleeeeease.

They are very easy to find. After literally 30 seconds of searching I found several here are a few more:


I would also like you to note that these are big name websites used by millions of people each day to travel.


https://www.bing.com/maps/
https://www.mapquest.com/
https://maps.yahoo.com/b

All based on the WGS-84 model of the round earth.

[ChrisTP]

I clicked on the first link and it gave me a search on "map", not sure what that means.

I clicked on the second link, got a map. On this map, Australia (continent, area = 7,692,024 km2 ) is smaller than Greenland (island, area = 2,166,086 km2). This map does not work.

Can you give me a link to a flat map that has Greenland, USA, and Australia in proper size relationships?

There is no such link, this can only be done on a globe. I will find the problem on any flat map of the whole world.

Link to flat map with Australia, USA and Greenland at proper size, pleeeeease.

They are very easy to find. After literally 30 seconds of searching I found several here are a few more:


I would also like you to note that these are big name websites used by millions of people each day to travel.


https://www.bing.com/maps/
https://www.mapquest.com/
https://maps.yahoo.com/b

greenland still looks out of proportion to me in these compared to to Greenland on a globe.

[Balls Dingo]

greenland still looks out of proportion to me in these compared to to Greenland on a globe.

Yes, it is. The bottom of Australia is always too wide on those projections too. There's a good site where you can see the true size of countries, which is, funnily enough: https://thetruesize.com/

One of the things you can do with that site is drag countries to the equator to see (roughly) their true size.

[robinofloxley]

It seems to me that an accurate FE map would be useful and would certainly prove FE.

How would a FEr make a map? What data to collect how?

Is there any practical way to make an FE map, perhaps it is impossible?

Given airliners, internet, gps, etc etc etc, it seems technically possible to make an accurate map.

Why has a map with correct distances and a scale not been produced?

It's not actually that hard to make a flat map of the Earth from scratch with a bit of programming know how and the internet.

There's a site http://www.geonames.org/. If you look there, under the "Download" section there is a link to "Free Gazetteer Data" with a bunch of zip files. The files in there contain positions of "features" specified by latitude and longitude. A "feature" could be anything, a river bed, a building, basically anywhere someone has been and recorded a location.

One of the files is "allCountries.zip" which contains about 11 million separate "features" in 250+ countries. It's not that hard to use that file and plot each position as a dot on a chart of some kind and see what it looks like.

There's nothing about these files relating to either RE or FE, they are just locations of features, put them to whatever use you like.

Here's one I made earlier, I chose a polar co-ordinate system with latitude +90 in the centre - i.e. a North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant (AE) layout. Each feature includes a country code, so I've used that to give each country's features a unique (but random) colour. Here's the result:



As you might expect European countries and the USA are well surveyed with lots of recorded features, so you see a dense overlapping of dots. South America and Africa are less well accounted for so more sparse. Antarctica is there, but relatively few documented features and made worse by being spread around the outside, so it is hard to make out, particularly on an AE projection.

You can do any projection you like. I've projected the same features onto a 3D sphere and it looks just like a globe.

[iamcpc]

I clicked on the first link and it gave me a search on "map", not sure what that means.

I clicked on the second link, got a map. On this map, Australia (continent, area = 7,692,024 km2 ) is smaller than Greenland (island, area = 2,166,086 km2). This map does not work.

Can you give me a link to a flat map that has Greenland, USA, and Australia in proper size relationships?

There is no such link, this can only be done on a globe. I will find the problem on any flat map of the whole world.

Link to flat map with Australia, USA and Greenland at proper size, pleeeeease.

They are very easy to find. After literally 30 seconds of searching I found several here are a few more:


I would also like you to note that these are big name websites used by millions of people each day to travel.


https://www.bing.com/maps/
https://www.mapquest.com/
https://maps.yahoo.com/b

greenland still looks out of proportion to me in these compared to to Greenland on a globe.

See the scale below in the bottom right corner? Greenland is only a few hundred miles from the southern tip to the northern tip.

This is an interactive map. You notice how the scale changes based on where you are looking?

https://i.imgur.com/DeBxFOW.jpg

It's not actually that hard to make a flat map of the Earth from scratch with a bit of programming know how and the internet.

Your projection does not reconcile with know shipping times/distances, known travel times/distances, known flight paths, know flight times/distances outlined in several posts:



https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11791.0
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9213
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0

[ChrisTP]

What I'm saying is flat maps like mapquest are still distorted because they are projections;

[jimster]

So you are saying these are the true FE maps, not the polar projection UN map?

First, maps, these and the ones hanging in classrooms, are made flat for convenience. They explained to us that these were distorted, that it was a tradeoff between convenience of flat and accuracy of globe. Educated people look at these maps and understand that Alaska and Australia really aren't as big. These maps are useful, however for locating countries relative place, for selecting, but not for measuring.

From wiki mercator projection (what the links you gave me are):

"Because the linear scale of a Mercator map increases with latitude, it distorts the size of geographical objects far from the equator and conveys a distorted perception of the overall geometry of the planet. At latitudes greater than 70° north or south the Mercator projection is practically unusable, because the linear scale becomes infinitely large at the poles."

Go to your maps and look at Alaska. It is close to half the size of continental USA and looks like it is much bigger than Mexico - 761,000 sq mi, Alaska 663,000 sq mi continental USA 3,120,000 sq mi. Does that look right to you? By sq mi, continental US is 4.7 times the size of Alaska. Check your map.

You need to read this, it explains the problem and the possible solutions:

http://geoawesomeness.com/best-map-projection/

My criteria for a good map is that all the distances are correct. The metric "voted on by FErs" is just that, not equivalent to "correct". I would like it if they voted a map in, there would be one targert to demolish, rather than ever shifting tentative maps.

I doubt you will be able to get them to vote because they have to keep their options open. FErs do not like to be opinned down, everything must ready to be backed out when the inevitable problems are pointed out. Like Alaska is waaaaay too big big on mercator projection.

Go to google eart web page. There you will find a globe displayed. Pick a place and zoom into the surface of a sphere with a radius so large that a one sq mile map has a curve of 8 inches. That curve is still there, but so tiny it doesn't matter. This is the accurate representation, bing etc just used a flat mercator for convenience/aesthetics and did not bother to say "Warning: Mercator projection distorts sizws close to the poles!" because they thought everybody had that explained to them in 5th grade, as I did.

So if you want to stay with your Mercator projection, let's talk about the size of Alaska vs Mexico. Iceland and Greenland are way too big also

[jimster]

To make it completely simple, Mexico is bigger than Alaska. Look at your map and explain.

[iamcpc]

What I'm saying is flat maps like mapquest are still distorted because they are projections;

This is why they have an interactive scale which I have already demonstrated. When you look at Greenland the scale changes and the distances and area of Greenland represented on the map are correct.

So you are saying these are the true FE maps, not the polar projection UN map?

I am saying that there are accurate interactive maps which depict the earth as a flat plane and they are not shaped like a circle.

Go to your maps and look at Alaska. It is close to half the size of continental USA and looks like it is much bigger than Mexico - 761,000 sq mi, Alaska 663,000 sq mi continental USA 3,120,000 sq mi. Does that look right to you? By sq mi, continental US is 4.7 times the size of Alaska. Check your map.

This is incorrect. These maps are interactive and the scale on these maps changes as I have already demonstrated in my Greenland screenshot. When you make claims like the map represents that Alaska is half the size of the united states please check the scale on the map.

Mapquest.com shows the distance from southern Alaska (anchorage) to northern Alaska (barrow) to be about 400-600 miles. Now I look at Texas. The scale CLEARLY shows that the distance from Anchorage Alaska to Barrow Alaska is about the same as the distance from Southern Texas to Oklahoma.

See these three children. They are all 3 feet tall but appear different sizes. You can tell they are all three feet because of the scale:




Here is another illustration:

On this map there are 2 rectangle shaped countries. They are both one inch wide:

To make it completely simple, Mexico is bigger than Alaska. Look at your map and explain.

The maps I have provided show that Mexico is bigger than Alaska. If you don't believe me then I propose a simple experiment. It only takes 2 steps:

1. zoom to Alaska and post a print screen of Alaska filling most of the mapquest window with the scale on it. Post it on this thread.
2. Zoom to Mexico ans post a print screen of Mexico filling most of the mapquest window with the scale on it. Post that image in this thread.

With these two images we can easily identify which one is larger based on the information provided by the map.

[jimster]

If I can change the scale of the map in different places, I could make Alaska 10 feet across and the continental USA 1 inch wide.

How do I use your map to measure the distance between Stockholm and Cairo? The scale will continuously change between them. Not very convenient. Complicated calculation, you'll need a program.

What I am saying is you can't make a map of the earth with a constant scale everywhere without a globe. On a globe, Alaska looks right, the proportion to continental US is what the sq mi numbers predict. On a globe, you can take a piece of string and measure between any two places, and the number will match airline schedules, google maps, and gps.

There is no flat map that can have one sacale and accurate distances everywhere. And that is the precise match with RE that FE does not have.

[iamcpc]

If I can change the scale of the map in different places, I could make Alaska 10 feet across and the continental USA 1 inch wide.

How do I use your map to measure the distance between Stockholm and Cairo?

I'm glad you asked. In google i searched for "distance from stockholm and cairo". The very first link was on freemaptools.com. I found an interactive map tools which represents the earth as a flat plane demonstrating the distance between those two points.

What I am saying is you can't make a map of the earth with a constant scale everywhere without a globe. On a globe, Alaska looks right, the proportion to continental US is what the sq mi numbers predict. On a globe, you can take a piece of string and measure between any two places, and the number will match airline schedules, google maps, and gps.

1. The round earth model the earth is not a perfect sphere. The earth is an oblate spheroid. I'm pretty sure that also prevents a constant scale everywhere.
2. Regardless there are accurate interactive maps which represent the earth as a flat plane which is the entire point.