[ICanScienceThat]

OH here's a really good one. This guy takes an inflatable globe and tries to chop it up and lay it flat. This illustrates very well how you cannot have it both ways. Either it's a globe or it's flat. It cannot be both:

[iamcpc]

Google maps IS a map of a sphere. They project a portion of the sphere onto a flat projection for display on your flat screen.

I disagree and here is why:

https://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/physics/solarSystem/InteractiveEarth/interactiveEarth.html

This is an example of a map of a sphere. I see a huge difference between the sphere map I have provided and the 2 dimensional map I have provided.

Either it's a globe or it's flat. It cannot be both

Neither of those change the fact that accurate maps of the earth do exist. Why anyone would think otherwise as a round earther or a flat earther totally baffles me.

[ICanScienceThat]

Google maps IS a map of a sphere. They project a portion of the sphere onto a flat projection for display on your flat screen.

I disagree and here is why:

https://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/physics/solarSystem/InteractiveEarth/interactiveEarth.html

This is an example of a map of a sphere. I see a huge difference between the sphere map I have provided and the 2 dimensional map I have provided.

Either it's a globe or it's flat. It cannot be both

Neither of those change the fact that accurate maps of the earth do exist. Why anyone would think otherwise as a round earther or a flat earther totally baffles me.

I don't follow you. Did you provide an accurate 2D map somewhere?

It is impossible to take a globe and lay it flat without distortion. It cannot be done. It has been mathematically proven that it cannot be done. There must be distortion, and worse: there must be pac-manning gaps.

Are there accurate flat maps? Yes there are, and no that isn't a contradiction. But there are important details you'd have to accept if you want to call your flat map "accurate". You have to read the explanation... here goes:
1) A small section of a sphere is nearly flat. You can project a small section of a sphere onto a flat surface and get only a little distortion. That will make an accurate map for a small section. The larger you make your map, the more distorted it becomes. So a map of a small area (say a city) can be accurate enough to be considered very accurate.
2) You can deal with the distortion in your projection. Some maps distort distances in order to preserve angles. If you're navigating from place to place, it is the angles that matter most, so this makes sense. If you also provide a key for how to correct for the distorted distances, the map can now be considered completely accurate. It is distorted, but it is "accurate".

Does that make sense?

So you disagree that google maps is a map of a sphere? Just zoom out all the way and turn on satellite imagery. It will turn into a globe for you. You can now zoom in and out and see for yourself that it does look flat when you're zoomed in, but it's totally a globe when you're zoomed out.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1022258,-123.1624902,4863419m/data=!3m1!1e3

[iamcpc]

I don't follow you. Did you provide an accurate 2D map somewhere?

Yes. Google maps.

It is impossible to take a globe and lay it flat without distortion. It cannot be done. It has been mathematically proven that it cannot be done. There must be distortion, and worse: there must be pac-manning gaps.

Where is the distortion and pac-manning gaps on google maps?

Are there accurate flat maps? Yes there are, and no that isn't a contradiction. But there are important details you'd have to accept if you want to call your flat map "accurate".

This is not a contradiction to the previous statement that 2d maps are distorted and have pac-manning gaps? I beg to differ.

1) A small section of a sphere is nearly flat. You can project a small section of a sphere onto a flat surface and get only a little distortion. That will make an accurate map for a small section. The larger you make your map, the more distorted it becomes. So a map of a small area (say a city) can be accurate enough to be considered very accurate.
2) You can deal with the distortion in your projection. Some maps distort distances in order to preserve angles. If you're navigating from place to place, it is the angles that matter most, so this makes sense. If you also provide a key for how to correct for the distorted distances, the map can now be considered completely accurate. It is distorted, but it is "accurate".

I used a google maps to travel very long distances. I didn't ever notice any distorted distances. Can you provide one example of distorted distances on google maps?

So you disagree that google maps is a map of a sphere?

Please leave the shape of the earth out of this. The map is either able to facilitate accurate navigation over great distances or it's not.  My entire point here is that I think it's ridiculous to claim that no accurate map exists. Saying that it does not, based on my personal experience, GREATLY discredits any sort of flat earth model.



When I went sailing we were not using a globe. We were using flat pieces of paper. When I drove from Alaska to South America I was using flat pieces of paper or flat 2D electronic maps to accurately navigate.

Just zoom out all the way and turn on satellite imagery. It will turn into a globe for you. You can now zoom in and out and see for yourself that it does look flat when you're zoomed in, but it's totally a globe when you're zoomed out.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1022258,-123.1624902,4863419m/data=!3m1!1e3
If you turn on satellite imagery it creates a spherical maps.

I'm not talking about the sphere map. I'm never even tried to use a sphere map to navigate. The only maps that I ever used to navigate were 2d maps.

[iamcpc]

Look, the greenland island on a 2D earth map, pick it up then compare to the Africa continel. It's about the same size, right? Actually, no. Africa is much much bigger than Greenland. It's because the Google map 2d model trade off the size to correct the direction. You cant have size and direction always correct when trasfer 3d to 2d. You have to trade off. Either size or direction. Keep learning.

Accoring to google maps Greenland is about  1000-1200 miles from North to South. and Africa is about 9-10 times that.

[ICanScienceThat]

It is impossible to take a globe and lay it flat without distortion. It cannot be done. It has been mathematically proven that it cannot be done. There must be distortion, and worse: there must be pac-manning gaps.

Where is the distortion and pac-manning gaps on google maps?

I believe I answered that directly afterwards... you're about to quote the answer right here:

Are there accurate flat maps? Yes there are, and no that isn't a contradiction. But there are important details you'd have to accept if you want to call your flat map "accurate".

This is not a contradiction to the previous statement that 2d maps are distorted and have pac-manning gaps? I beg to differ.

...there are important details you'd have to accept if you want to call your flat map "accurate". It is these details that explain how this is no contradiction. Here they come right in your quote:

1) A small section of a sphere is nearly flat. You can project a small section of a sphere onto a flat surface and get only a little distortion. That will make an accurate map for a small section. The larger you make your map, the more distorted it becomes. So a map of a small area (say a city) can be accurate enough to be considered very accurate.
2) You can deal with the distortion in your projection. Some maps distort distances in order to preserve angles. If you're navigating from place to place, it is the angles that matter most, so this makes sense. If you also provide a key for how to correct for the distorted distances, the map can now be considered completely accurate. It is distorted, but it is "accurate".

I used a google maps to travel very long distances. I didn't ever notice any distorted distances. Can you provide one example of distorted distances on google maps?

I also use google maps. As I drive, I notice that the screen constantly updates. Typically showing no more than a fraction of a mile ahead of me. The distortion on such a small area would be tiny. This is point 1) above. By continually updating the center of the projection, the distortion is kept tiny at all times.

If you zoom out google maps far enough, you can get it to show you a map of North America as a single flat projection.
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.8365983,-111.834146,3.86z
Now click the satellite view and compare:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Morocco/@45.8365983,-111.834146,8187863m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0xd0b88619651c58d:0xd9d39381c42cffc3!8m2!3d31.8775576!4d-6.328125
By comparing these, we can see the the distortion effect. This is point 2) above. The map could be very useful for navigation, but it is clearly distorted.
As I said before, take the globe version and zoom in. You'll see that the distortion seems to melt away when you zoom in enough. That is point 1) above again.

So you disagree that google maps is a map of a sphere?

Please leave the shape of the earth out of this. The map is either able to facilitate accurate navigation over great distances or it's not.  My entire point here is that I think it's ridiculous to claim that no accurate map exists. Saying that it does not, based on my personal experience, GREATLY discredits any sort of flat earth model.



When I went sailing we were not using a globe. We were using flat pieces of paper. When I drove from Alaska to South America I was using flat pieces of paper or flat 2D electronic maps to accurately navigate.

I think that's what I just said. You can navigate with it, and you can call it "accurate", but don't expect it to have no distortion unless you are zoomed in close enough that you cannot see the distortion.
I'm not sure whether you're a FE or a RE at this point. Rather confusing.
Let's agree that you can use flat maps to navigate with, but let's also acknowledge that projecting the entire world onto a flat projection or a spherical projection will cause significant distortion. One will be accurate, and the other dramatically not so.

[inquisitive]

The WGS-84 model is what you should be discussing.  What you describe as distortion is in fact a projection.