The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: jimster on March 10, 2019, 09:04:24 PM
-
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?
-
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.
-
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/
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/ (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:
(https://i.imgur.com/HOPYQiG.png)
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.
-
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
-
What I'm saying is flat maps like mapquest are still distorted because they are projections;
(https://mk0brilliantmaptxoqs.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Australia-Greenland_size_comparison.png)
(https://files.brightside.me/files/news/part_21/213805/12884910-12835305-1-1470126383-0-1470722322-1470810609-1000-6-1488295420-1000-226b863ec2-1492076660.jpg)
-
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
-
To make it completely simple, Mexico is bigger than Alaska. Look at your map and explain.
-
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/PUx0px0.jpg)
Here is another illustration:
On this map there are 2 rectangle shaped countries. They are both one inch wide:
(https://i.imgur.com/mDnY6Vr.png)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
I'm not for one moment suggesting it does reconcile with anything in the real world. The original question asked if there was any practical way to actually make a map given gps, the internet etc. What I've presented is a way to do exactly that - to produce an actual map from scratch with some (essentially gps based) data from the internet and a bit of programming. I'm not claiming anything about reality here, just saying how you (i.e. anyone) can go about making their own map.
The only (arbitrary) choice I made here was how to project the data onto a flat surface. I just chose an AE projection. No particular reason other than that's a common projection used on this forum.
-
You can't do it by asking the software, it displays a mercator projection but gives you the correct distance. You have to use a ruler or string.
Look at Alaska on one of these maps. Look at continental USA, is it 4.7 times the size of Alaska, Mexico is slightly larger than Alaska in sq miles.
I went to the bing map and measured the width of the US as 12 inches, bing says it is 2700 miles. I then measured the width of Alaska from Canadian border to Nome on the west coast at 6 inches. Bing says it is 775.
Why does bing not tell me numbers that have a 2:1 ratio as my measurement says it should be?
You can do this yourself.
Here is either the truth, or very incompetent airline people:
http://www.flyalaska.com/alaskafacts.html
This is not the relative size shown on your mercator projections, because they make things bigger than they are towards the poles.
You can make a computer map that is visually distorted yet reports accurate distances.
What you can't do is make a world map on a flat sheet of paper and measure all distances accurately with a constant scale.
-
2. Regardless there are accurate interactive maps which represent the earth as a flat plane which is the entire point.
Those maps are not accurate which is the entire point. Even the example you suggested, freemaptools.com, uses Google Maps which is based on a Mercator projection. It may not be immediately obvious to you but the cities at the top of the map near Stockholm are more spread out than the cities at the bottom of the map near Cairo, ie. their relative distances are incorrect. If you used the same tool I did, even the line between Stockholm and Cairo is slightly curved which indicates distortion.
An example - take a basketball and slice off the top. Now lay the slice flat. You actually can't - the rubber will keep popping up. You'll either have to use some force and stretch it around the edges, or maybe take a pen knife and cut some small slits. You might get something approaching a flat shape but it won't be very accurate. Now draw Australia to scale on that basketball, draw some dots for all the major cities, and cut it out with a pen knife. You'll have the same problem, the rubber will pop up slightly. You'll be able to flatten it out with a little force but that will distort the distances, especially around the edges of the country. There is no flat shape you can make with that rubber where the relative distances between the cities/dots are accurate. You cannot represent Australia on a 2D plane.
-
Let me make this perfectly clear. What I mean by accurate is all distances everywhere. Any difference in any distance is distorted, and yes, you can project a spherical surface onto a plane, but you can not preserve all distances accurately. Gauss's theorem, mathematically provable. That is why the scale on the map changes with latitude.
You can't do it. There will never be a flat map of earth that has the same scale everywhere and accurate distances everywhere. That can only be done on a globe.
Please show me the map with the same scale everywhere that is flat and has accurate distances everywhere. I will admit that I was wrong, and I am a stupid idiot, and tell everyone that you are a genius.
-
(https://media.mnn.com/assets/images/2016/11/authagraph.png.653x0_q80_crop-smart.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AuthaGraph_projection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AuthaGraph_projection)
-
From the Wiki page, "the projection does not qualify as equal-area because the method does not control area at infinitesimal scales or even within those regions".
-
What happens when I sail east from New York on your map? Many people have sailed west from New Yrok and not run into the edge. Is your map a cylinder? If it is, we only have to tuck the ends in and we have a ball. If it is not, why can people sail east from NY and get to Europe?
-
Those maps are not accurate which is the entire point. Even the example you suggested, freemaptools.com, uses Google Maps which is based on a Mercator projection. It may not be immediately obvious to you but the cities at the top of the map near Stockholm are more spread out than the cities at the bottom of the map near Cairo, ie. their relative distances are incorrect. If you used the same tool I did, even the line between Stockholm and Cairo is slightly curved which indicates distortion.
They are accurate because the scale of the map changes. The map is interactive. It's been demonstrated many times in this thread that the interactive maps have a sliding scale.
What happens when I sail east from New York on your map? Many people have sailed west from New Yrok and not run into the edge. Is your map a cylinder? If it is, we only have to tuck the ends in and we have a ball. If it is not, why can people sail east from NY and get to Europe?
If you are asking about the flat circle map I don't know. That map fails to reconcile with reality in terms of known and measured flight/travel/shipping/driving times and distances.
In the other map which represents the map as a flat plane if you sail east from New York you reach either Europe or Africa depending on your heading. You can't sail west from New York because west of New York is the united states.
-
Iamcpc, the map is visually distorted, the scales scale up or down for you based on the actual length which is based on a globe earth but the flat map is still visibly stretched at the top. We all know the scales change as you look higher or lower... That is to be expected on a flat projection of a globe earth and not to be expected on a flat earth.
-
They are accurate because the scale of the map changes. The map is interactive. It's been demonstrated many times in this thread that the interactive maps have a sliding scale.
Of course the scale changes but that doesn't fix the problem. Do you understand that if you do the experiments you suggested, zoom to Alaska so it's filling most of the mapquest window and zoom to Mexico so it's filling most of the mapquest window, that shape that you see for Alaska and Mexico is not their actual shape despite the scale in the bottom corner changing? Because there is no 2D representation of those states/countries that is not distorted. You have to stretch it or squash or distort it in some way to make a 2D representation. And the bigger the area you fill the screen with, the greater the distortion. While it's true that if you zoom right in to the highest level, the distortion becomes insignificant for practical purposes, that does not make it an accurate map.
Edit: Just to clear this up once and for all, I've used Mapquest and put in four Australian cities (Broome, Cairns, Perth, and Sydney) and then taken a screenshot. Distance between Broome and Cairns on the screenshot is 536.54 pixels (using the measure tool in Photoshop), in freemaptools, it's 2497.396kms. Distance between Perth and Sydney on the screenshot is 806.68 pixels, in freemaptools, it's 3290.287kms. So the former is 4.6546 km per pixel, the latter is 4.0788 km per pixel. In other words, km per pixel for Broome and Cairns is 14.17% greater than km per pixel for Perth and Sydney. I've also included a screenshot of the shortest distance between those points on freemaptools. It should be obvious that the bottom line is slightly more curved than the top. This is also another way of visualising the distortion on the map. Regardless, if it was possible to have a 2D representation of Australia, it should be possible for the software to make both of those straight lines and they would represent the distances accurately. But it's not. Also, if this was the case, pilots could also throw away their great circle mapping tools for domestic flights within Australia because they could use this amazing, accurate 2D map. But they can't.
Feel free to check my results.
-
I want to see the FE map where I can't sail into the edge. The polar projection/ice wall explanation is not available to a flat rectangular map. Any flat rectangular map has to explain what is up with the edges. The earth, to a sailor, has no edge. If flat map, must explain edge.
Do you have explanation for edges?