[Everette Graham]

I am not a flat earther. I am not hating or downing flat earthers whatsoever. I have one simple question that kind of confuses me about flat earth maps. I personally just want to be more educated on both sides of the whole debate. How come there are never fully-functional scales on flat earth maps? Like an accurate scale that could tell me which way would be faster to get from Germany to Russia on a globe map and a flat earth map. Which route would be faster? I am sorry if this post offends anyone, and I am sorry that it is not long and that it does not explain very well.

[SteelyBob]

There kind-of is, in the sense that the wiki makes a claim about the diameter of the FE - see https://wiki.tfes.org/Eratosthenes_on_Diameter

From this, if you take the most commonly depicted north centred monopole map, then you can work out the scale. See this post of mine here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13948.msg237441#msg237441

But it gets muddled by the fact that some of the most frequent FE proponents on here don't actually support the monopole map, although debate between FE proponents about which map works, and why, is very rare indeed. I think you are correct in saying that there is a reluctance to commit to, or to discuss, accurate distance measurements. For me, that's one of the most powerful arguments against the whole concept - such distances are easily measured and verified.

[BillO]

I might have something to add to this, but I don't have a solid answer either.

I actually did an experiment in person.  My wife and I just got back from a vacation in Australia.  We flew into Perth, rented an RV and drove, with a few side trips, to Sydney.  The total distance we clocked on the RV was 4925KM.  So the distance, as the crow flies, should be substantially less than that.  And sure enough, on the globe earth it is 3290KM.  So my meandering route would seem to agree with the globe earth model.

Using the information here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Eratosthenes_on_Diameter I calculated that the latitude of 32.9 degrees south (halfway between the latitudes of Perth and Sydney) should be approximately 13,670 KM from the north pole.  The angular distance in longitudes between Perth and Sydney is ~0.6196 radians, so the distance between Perth and Sydney as the crow flies on the flat earth, according to the wiki here should be more than: 13,670 x 0.6196 =  8569KM.  The distance by road should be substantially more again.

So, clearly actual observation does not agree with what is predicted by the north centered unipolar model and hence any kind of routing is not possible on that representation of the flat earth.

[jimster]

In another thread, Troolon explained to me that measurement is broken. His attitude towards the same question was that when real world measurements do not match FE, one concludes that measurement is broken. Most would conclude that real world measurements confirm RE. If you wish to believe FE, something has to give, so measurement is broken. Result you don't like? Declare it wrong. No idea what forces or equations account for broken measurement? No problem. Only RE explains measurement? Just ignore the problem, i.e., don't reply. 

[Clyde Frog]

In another thread, Troolon explained to me that measurement is broken. His attitude towards the same question was that when real world measurements do not match FE, one concludes that measurement is broken. Most would conclude that real world measurements confirm RE. If you wish to believe FE, something has to give, so measurement is broken. Result you don't like? Declare it wrong. No idea what forces or equations account for broken measurement? No problem. Only RE explains measurement? Just ignore the problem, i.e., don't reply.

You continue to demonstrate that you haven't understood a single thing Troolon wrote. Across 2 threads, simultaneously. Telling you that you are misinterpreting what he presented is not the same as telling you that measurement is broken.

[jimster]

My recollection is that when I asked him why Australia was much wider on his map, he said "measurement is broken". Later I said that I could sum up what he said as "If measurement is broken and light rays do not travel straight, then the earth could be any shape." He agreed that was true.

He also said that after his coordinate conversion changed the shape of a sphere to a disk and that the mathematical properties were preseved. I said that the actual definition of a sphere was the set of points equidistant from a central point, and that is not a disk. He said that the basis would be translated and that preserved the properties.

Maybe I misremember. Maybe I misunderstood, but math is a pretty clear language. You do have a point that Troolon, who admitted to a very limited math education, does not speak the language clearly to me.

Are you a mathematician? What do you think a mathematician from a college would say about his ideas? That he made profound discovery? That he recited obvious basic math? That they agree the meaning of his math is that the earth could be any shape? Or perhaps that he needs to understand what a coordinate conversion is, for starters.

If I am wrong about coordinate conversion ans all the facts of what Troolon did, I would like to know.

[Clyde Frog]

You are wrong, now you know. I mean, he said as much, so you could have just read what he wrote, but I'm happy to tell you too.

The other physicists and mathematicians he works with commented on it before he posted it here. He wrote about that, too, in the very same thread. You could have read that for yourself. But you didn't.

Maybe leave your instinctive desire to bash anything that looks strange to you behind and reread what he wrote? It's a RE, expressed in a way that looks new and scary, but it's window dressing. He took your favorite planet and gave it a new look. Same shape, same physics, now being sold in new packaging.

[jimster]

The polar projection does not distort measurements that are directly north/south. For that map, the distances along longitude lines match those on a globe. In other words, the distance from the north shore of Australia to south shore matches on both globe and north pole projection, the UN/most common FE map. So you can determine the north/south scale using 8000 mile diameter FE map. Distance from equator to north pole is the same on globe and FE polar projection map.

If you use that scale to measure the width of Australia, globe works, FE polar projection has Australia too wide, wider than USA. GPS, astral navigation, odometer, airline schedule, geometric calculation of distance on a sphere, all match RE and do not match the scaled measurement on FE polar projection map. Either FE does not match reality, or measurement is broken.

Perhaps this is why published FE maps never have scales. It has been suggested that FE rulers need to be bendable and stretchy. This flies in the face of the idea of measurement, which scientists go to great lengths to make constant and measure accurately. Measurement is not bendable or stretchy, that violates the very definition and concept of it.

If you want to portray the earth as a different shape than it actually is, you will inevitably need bendable and stretchy rulers. So here's the deal: RE - rulers can be straight and constant and distances match observed reality. FE - distances do not match, so measurement must be distorted to match observed reality.