[stack]

It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.

Can you show me an accurate flat map of the whole earth? By accurate I mean that distances between places on the map and the shapes and areas of countries all match the reality.

Shapes is not an objective criteria.

Name one large area on earth that is accurately depicted on any map in regard to shape.

Distances is an objective criteria and all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria.

Pretty much every map we come across seems to be based upon a globe projection, think Mercator as an example, with a globe coordinate system and globe distances. Do you have a world map that does not use a globe projection, globe coordinate system, and globe distances? If so, please present it here.

[AATW]

Name one large area on earth that is accurately depicted on any map in regard to shape.

If you are talking about maps of the whole earth, there isn't one.
Why do you think that is?

Distances is an objective criteria and all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria.

Do they? Well, riddle me this then, Batman:
Here's the Mercator projection of the earth:



I've drawn two yellow lines on it which are the same length. So they should represent the same distance, yes?
Except they don't. Here are the real distances:



One is well over twice the distance of the other. Why would that be?

[robinofloxley]

I am not sure what you mean, as all maps are flat.

And all flat maps are very definitive.

It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.

Shapes is not an objective criteria.

Name one large area on earth that is accurately depicted on any map in regard to shape.

Distances is an objective criteria and all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria.

OK, so here's a flat map. It's Bing. I've dropped 4 pins on the map (just type the coordinates into the search bar) at specific positions (lat/long), a (45,60), b (45,-60), c (-45,60) and d (-45,-60). I've used Bing maps built in measuring tool (right click "Measure Distance" on Windows) to measure the distances between these points.

• It's a flat map
• Since length ab = length cd and length ac = length bd and length ad = length cb, this must be a rectangle
• Since it is a rectangle, the red triangle is a right angled triangle
• Since it is a right angled triangle, cd² + db² = cb² (pythagoras)
• Length cb should be (according to pythagoras) 13066km, but according to Bing, it it 15410km. That's 2344km (18%) gone AWOL

It's a flat map with impossible distances, it's a paradox. You can't make this work, it is not accurate. Any round earther can explain away the paradox of course.

[totallackey]

It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.

Can you show me an accurate flat map of the whole earth? By accurate I mean that distances between places on the map and the shapes and areas of countries all match the reality.

Shapes is not an objective criteria.

Name one large area on earth that is accurately depicted on any map in regard to shape.

Distances is an objective criteria and all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria.

Pretty much every map we come across seems to be based upon a globe projection, think Mercator as an example, with a globe coordinate system and globe distances. Do you have a world map that does not use a globe projection, globe coordinate system, and globe distances? If so, please present it here.

And all maps utilize linear measurements.

Did Mercator even come up with his projection first?

[totallackey]

I am not sure what you mean, as all maps are flat.

And all flat maps are very definitive.

It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.

Shapes is not an objective criteria.

Name one large area on earth that is accurately depicted on any map in regard to shape.

Distances is an objective criteria and all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria.

OK, so here's a flat map. It's Bing. I've dropped 4 pins on the map (just type the coordinates into the search bar) at specific positions (lat/long), a (45,60), b (45,-60), c (-45,60) and d (-45,-60). I've used Bing maps built in measuring tool (right click "Measure Distance" on Windows) to measure the distances between these points.

• It's a flat map
• Since length ab = length cd and length ac = length bd and length ad = length cb, this must be a rectangle
• Since it is a rectangle, the red triangle is a right angled triangle
• Since it is a right angled triangle, cd² + db² = cb² (pythagoras)
• Length cb should be (according to pythagoras) 13066km, but according to Bing, it it 15410km. That's 2344km (18%) gone AWOL

It's a flat map with impossible distances, it's a paradox. You can't make this work, it is not accurate. Any real earther can explain away the paradox of course.

It is highly convenient you chose a route that would never be capable of independent verification.

[robinofloxley]

I am not sure what you mean, as all maps are flat.

And all flat maps are very definitive.

It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.

Shapes is not an objective criteria.

Name one large area on earth that is accurately depicted on any map in regard to shape.

Distances is an objective criteria and all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria.

OK, so here's a flat map. It's Bing. I've dropped 4 pins on the map (just type the coordinates into the search bar) at specific positions (lat/long), a (45,60), b (45,-60), c (-45,60) and d (-45,-60). I've used Bing maps built in measuring tool (right click "Measure Distance" on Windows) to measure the distances between these points.

• It's a flat map
• Since length ab = length cd and length ac = length bd and length ad = length cb, this must be a rectangle
• Since it is a rectangle, the red triangle is a right angled triangle
• Since it is a right angled triangle, cd² + db² = cb² (pythagoras)
• Length cb should be (according to pythagoras) 13066km, but according to Bing, it it 15410km. That's 2344km (18%) gone AWOL

It's a flat map with impossible distances, it's a paradox. You can't make this work, it is not accurate. Any real earther can explain away the paradox of course.

It is highly convenient you chose a route that would never be capable of independent verification.

Well you can choose to accept the figures I've given or follow what I did and independently verify for yourself that these distances are what Bing gives you.

If you accept the values I've given, then I guess you are then questioning Bing's ability to give you a distance to within 18% of the correct value. Feel free to pick a random journey and compare the distance you travelled to Bing's estimate. I'd be surprised to find an 18% difference.

The differences between a projection on to flat surface and the sphere/spheroid it was projected from simply aren't measurable unless the projected map covers a significant proportion of the original sphere, so anything which would show a difference is bound to be on a scale where you'd say "highly convenient".

You made a claim that "all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria". I showed you one which clearly doesn't, so you question the distances and you've shifted the goalposts and this is now about whether or not Bing is accurate.

[AATW]

Did Mercator even come up with his projection first?

Why do you think he came up with it at all?
Why is any projection necessary? If the earth is flat and a map is flat no projection is needed.

[totallackey]

Well you can choose to accept the figures I've given or follow what I did and independently verify for yourself that these distances are what Bing gives you.

It is the idea that none of the lines you drew on the Bing map match a traveled route of any sort.

If you accept the values I've given, then I guess you are then questioning Bing's ability to give you a distance to within 18% of the correct value. Feel free to pick a random journey and compare the distance you travelled to Bing's estimate. I'd be surprised to find an 18% difference.

I'd like for you to identify an actual journey.

I doubt you find a huge error, because all flat maps are pretty doggone accurate.

The differences between a projection on to flat surface and the sphere/spheroid it was projected from simply aren't measurable unless the projected map covers a significant proportion of the original sphere, so anything which would show a difference is bound to be on a scale where you'd say "highly convenient".

It is highly convenient when you pick lines that haven't been traveled in the annals of humakind.

You made a claim that "all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria". I showed you one which clearly doesn't, so you question the distances and you've shifted the goalposts and this is now about whether or not Bing is accurate.

No, you've done nothing of the sort.

You pulled some goalposts in off a playing field that has never existed.

[totallackey]

Did Mercator even come up with his projection first?

Why do you think he came up with it at all?

I don't.

Why is any projection necessary? If the earth is flat and a map is flat no projection is needed.

The word "projection," is necessary.

[robinofloxley]

Well you can choose to accept the figures I've given or follow what I did and independently verify for yourself that these distances are what Bing gives you.

It is the idea that none of the lines you drew on the Bing map match a traveled route of any sort.

If the map is accurate, if Bing's measuring tool is accurate and I've used it correctly, then it shouldn't matter whether or not the specific route has ever been travelled. If you can suggest 4 other locations on earth at least 8000km apart where the distances between all 4 points are accurately known, please do and we'll go from there.

If you accept the values I've given, then I guess you are then questioning Bing's ability to give you a distance to within 18% of the correct value. Feel free to pick a random journey and compare the distance you travelled to Bing's estimate. I'd be surprised to find an 18% difference.

I'd like for you to identify an actual journey.

What constitutes an actual journey? Air and sea journeys vary according to wind and current and there isn't a road straight enough or long enough to make this a worthwhile exercise.

I doubt you find a huge error, because all flat maps are pretty doggone accurate.

The differences between a projection on to flat surface and the sphere/spheroid it was projected from simply aren't measurable unless the projected map covers a significant proportion of the original sphere, so anything which would show a difference is bound to be on a scale where you'd say "highly convenient".

It is highly convenient when you pick lines that haven't been traveled in the annals of humakind.

You made a claim that "all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria". I showed you one which clearly doesn't, so you question the distances and you've shifted the goalposts and this is now about whether or not Bing is accurate.

No, you've done nothing of the sort.

You pulled some goalposts in off a playing field that has never existed.

Not really, it's very similar to how flat earthers claim there are no photos from space, someone provides one and the response is the photo is not to be trusted, so it's then an argument about trust in the source, it's no longer about whether or not a photo exists. I've shown you a flat map (you say they're accurate) with distances which don't add up. You're casting doubt about these distances. I'm telling you these are what Bing gives you. You either trust Bing or you don't. Whether anyone in history has travelled this route is irrelevant if the map is trustworthy and Bing's distances are trustworthy.

[AATW]

The word "projection," is necessary.

Necessary for what?
And I note you've ignored my post above where I've shown that two lines of the same length on a map represent very different real world distances. Why would that be?

[GreatATuin]

All maps are flat for a reason.

The reason is: because paper is flat. And it's more convenient to print maps on flat paper than on anything else.

All flat maps are accurate to the point we have used them for 100's of years.

Because for most use cases, the distortion that results of the projection can be neglected. And for the rest of cases, people know the distances aren't really proportional.

[totallackey]

Well you can choose to accept the figures I've given or follow what I did and independently verify for yourself that these distances are what Bing gives you.

It is the idea that none of the lines you drew on the Bing map match a traveled route of any sort.

If the map is accurate, if Bing's measuring tool is accurate and I've used it correctly, then it shouldn't matter whether or not the specific route has ever been travelled.

Of course it would.

A map with a linear scale for distances between points exists specifically to aid in travel.

If you can suggest 4 other locations on earth at least 8000km apart where the distances between all 4 points are accurately known, please do and we'll go from there.

I am confident in your ability to identify any of them.

If you accept the values I've given, then I guess you are then questioning Bing's ability to give you a distance to within 18% of the correct value. Feel free to pick a random journey and compare the distance you travelled to Bing's estimate. I'd be surprised to find an 18% difference.

I'd like for you to identify an actual journey.

What constitutes an actual journey? Air and sea journeys vary according to wind and current and there isn't a road straight enough or long enough to make this a worthwhile exercise.

Then why did you start?

I doubt you find a huge error, because all flat maps are pretty doggone accurate.

The differences between a projection on to flat surface and the sphere/spheroid it was projected from simply aren't measurable unless the projected map covers a significant proportion of the original sphere, so anything which would show a difference is bound to be on a scale where you'd say "highly convenient".

It is highly convenient when you pick lines that haven't been traveled in the annals of humakind.

You made a claim that "all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria". I showed you one which clearly doesn't, so you question the distances and you've shifted the goalposts and this is now about whether or not Bing is accurate.

No, you've done nothing of the sort.

You pulled some goalposts in off a playing field that has never existed.

Not really, it's very similar to how flat earthers claim there are no photos from space, someone provides one and the response is the photo is not to be trusted, so it's then an argument about trust in the source, it's no longer about whether or not a photo exists. I've shown you a flat map (you say they're accurate) with distances which don't add up. You're casting doubt about these distances. I'm telling you these are what Bing gives you. You either trust Bing or you don't. Whether anyone in history has travelled this route is irrelevant if the map is trustworthy and Bing's distances are trustworthy.

Maybe for you.

Considering there is no way to verify an error of what you claim to be 18 percent, it remains just your opinion.

[totallackey]

The word "projection," is necessary.

Necessary for what?
And I note you've ignored my post above where I've shown that two lines of the same length on a map represent very different real world distances. Why would that be?

Necessary to use the word "projection," to maintain the illusion of globe.

I didn't ignore it.

You didn't include any visible art.

At least any I can see on my monitor.

[AATW]

Necessary to use the word "projection," to maintain the illusion of globe.

I see. So cartographers down the centuries are in on all this too, are they? The earth is flat, maps are flat. So it should be fairly simple to make an accurate map of the earth. But no. They decided to deliberately distort it for...reasons? And they made up a whole lot of different ways of doing so? Sheesh.

I didn't ignore it.
You didn't include any visible art.
At least any I can see on my monitor.

Odd. I use imgbb and it's fine for me. But OK, I'll attach them.
Mercator is the projection with the two yellow lines on which are the same length. You said that maps are accurate so those lines should represent the same distance. But they don't. See the "scale" image which shows that one is over double the distance of the other in real life.
Why would that be?

[totallackey]

Necessary to use the word "projection," to maintain the illusion of globe.

I see. So cartographers down the centuries are in on all this too, are they? The earth is flat, maps are flat. So it should be fairly simple to make an accurate map of the earth. But no. They decided to deliberately distort it for...reasons? And they made up a whole lot of different ways of doing so? Sheesh.

I doubt cartographers have any input as to the writing content placed on their end product...

Did Mercator or Piri Reis coin the word, "projection"?

I didn't ignore it.
You didn't include any visible art.
At least any I can see on my monitor.

Odd. I use imgbb and it's fine for me. But OK, I'll attach them.
Mercator is the projection with the two yellow lines on which are the same length. You said that maps are accurate so those lines should represent the same distance. But they don't. See the "scale" image which shows that one is over double the distance of the other in real life.
Why would that be?

I'll check em out.

[totallackey]

Mercator is the projection with the two yellow lines on which are the same length. You said that maps are accurate so those lines should represent the same distance. But they don't. See the "scale" image which shows that one is over double the distance of the other in real life.
Why would that be?

I just looked at the images...first thing that stands out to me is you are not encompassing the same amount of longitudinal distance in the lines.

So, they cannot possibly represent the same length.

Optical illusion.

[AATW]

Hmm. Not sure I understand what you're saying but those lines are the same length and direction. I literally copied and pasted the same line to a new location. If the map is accurate - you started this by saying flat maps are accurate - then they should represent the same distance.
But they don't. Why not?

I mean, the actual answer is that the map isn't accurate. Flat maps on this scale cannot be accurate. There is a reason for that...

[GreatATuin]

Necessary to use the word "projection," to maintain the illusion of globe.

I see. So cartographers down the centuries are in on all this too, are they? The earth is flat, maps are flat. So it should be fairly simple to make an accurate map of the earth. But no. They decided to deliberately distort it for...reasons? And they made up a whole lot of different ways of doing so? Sheesh.

I doubt cartographers have any input as to the writing content placed on their end product...

Did Mercator or Piri Reis coin the word, "projection"?

Mercator, just like any scholar of his times, wrote in latin. Can you read latin? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Mercator_1569_world_map_sheet_01.png

If not, well, maybe the translation in the Wikipedia article can help you understand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_1569_world_map#legend3

[totallackey]

Hmm. Not sure I understand what you're saying but those lines are the same length and direction. I literally copied and pasted the same line to a new location. If the map is accurate - you started this by saying flat maps are accurate - then they should represent the same distance.
But they don't. Why not?

I mean, the actual answer is that the map isn't accurate. Flat maps on this scale cannot be accurate. There is a reason for that...

Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.