The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 04, 2019, 12:36:29 PM

Title: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 04, 2019, 12:36:29 PM
As there is no flat earth map I thought I'd have a go at making one
I had a look on Google Maps and used that as my source for distances between places.
Obviously if you don't accept those distances as accurate then that's going to be a problem from the start but given that Google Maps is used by millions of people to get around you'd think we'd know about it if their maps were wrong.

I took some US Cities - I used mainland US partly because it's continental so we get away from complexities about measuring distances across oceans. I picked them fairly arbitrarily but I wanted them far apart as this is where we should see most difference between a flat earth and a globe.

I started with Seattle. Final image is at the bottom of this post.

The distance between Seattle to New York is 2405 Miles
So I drew a black circle diameter 2405 pixels. Seattle is the centre. New York must be somewhere on that circle.

New York to Dallas is 1368 miles. I picked an arbitrary point on the circle surrounding Seattle - to the right of the circle as New York is due East of Seattle. I called that point New York and drew a red circle 1368 pixels around that point.
So Dallas must be somewhere on that red circle.

Seattle to Dallas is 1684 miles so I drew another blue circle around Seattle of diameter 1684 pixels. Dallas must be somewhere on that blue circle

So, Dallas must be on the intersection between the red and blue circles.
There are 2 possibilities as the circles intersect in 2 places. Dallas is south of both New York and Seattle though so I've picked the lower one and called that Dallas.

So now we know where Seattle, New York and Dallas are in relation to one another.
I've marked the cities with rough X's and labelled them.
Now what happens if we add a 4th city?

I picked Minneapolis as it is fairly central to the above 3 cities.
The distance from Minneapolis to
New York is 1020 miles
Seattle is 1384 miles
Dallas is 1389 miles.

So I've drawn green circles with the corresponding number of pixels around those 3 cities.
Minneapolis must be somewhere on each of those green circles so it must be at the intersection of them.

The problem is the three green circles don't all intersect at any point. So either:
1) The distances on Google Maps are wrong
2) I have made an error somewhere in my reasoning or method
3) The earth isn't flat.

Are there any other possibilities?

(https://i.ibb.co/zVdBcqm/FEMap.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 05, 2019, 12:08:22 AM
Bother.
I just realised I have made an error.
I was drawing circles where the *diameter* in pixels was the distance between cities in miles when that should have been the *radius*. So each circle should be twice as big as it is. As I have done this consistently the error actually cancels out, the whole diagram is simply half the size it should be, it’s 2 miles to the pixel instead of one.
Just thought I’d mention that in case anyone else notices.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: totallackey on January 07, 2019, 05:13:47 PM
What is with all the circles?

If you are drawing a connection of three circles intersecting three common points, the result should not be surprising.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 07, 2019, 05:33:07 PM
What is with all the circles?

If you are drawing a connection of three circles intersecting three common points, the result should not be surprising.
If the earth is flat and the distances between cities given by Google Maps is accurate then using the above method I should have found that the 3 green circles intersect at one point. That point would be Minneapolis. But they don't, so either:
1) The distances as given on Google Maps are wrong
2) There is something wrong with my method (I already admitted one error but that error cancels out, it just means the scale is half what I meant)
3) The earth isn't flat.

If you plot 4 points on a piece of paper and measured the distances between them I believe I could use the above method to reconstruct where the 4 points are in relation to one another.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: edby on January 08, 2019, 08:14:06 AM
There is nothing wrong with your method, as far as I can see. You can triangulate any three points on a curved surface and the distances will be consistent with their being on a flat surface. Add a fourth point, and you will immediately tell whether the surface has Euclidean geometry (i.e. is flat) or not.

How the distances could be wrong. Tom Bishop has always wisely insisted that distances given by the establishment are incorrect. Distances and flight times should be the focus of all future FE research.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2019, 08:54:03 AM
Thanks. Yes, I deliberately used distances over land so get away from issues of measuring distance over sea. Over land basic surveying methods can and have been used and if distances were inaccurate you'd think we'd know about it by now. I'd be interested to hear some FE response.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2019, 10:07:04 AM
I repeated the above for a few cities in the UK - I even repeated the error, I used the distances as the diameter, not the radius.
I'm not going to post all the details, you can check the distances for yourself.
Interestingly, here we do get a point where the green circles meet which must be where Oxford is.

(https://i.ibb.co/sC0SgqQ/FEMap-England.jpg)

My conclusion from this is
1) The method I am using is valid
2) The distances as given by Google Maps are likely to be accurate.
3) The difference between a flat earth and a globe earth in terms of accurate mapping is less noticeable over smaller distances, which is as you'd expect.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: ChrisTP on January 08, 2019, 11:17:26 AM
I'd like to see this for Russia and Australia too but I suppose you'd not be able to validate the distances unless you go there. I'm in the UK and google map distances are accurate, but then the UK is small. your USA example is telling though.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2019, 12:47:19 PM
You arbitrarily draw pretty kindergarten pictures of different color circles and x's on a whiteboard (mind you with absolute ZERO reference as to how anyone could actually verify scale) plus openly admit your ineptitude in formation and then have the temerity and gall to write I have no understanding of what you've done?

Simply writing when you actually do something might be a better place for you to start.

The fact you think that the circles are drawn arbitrarily shows that you don't understand what I've done.

If A and B are 'x' miles apart then if I plot a point A and then draw a circle centred on A of radius 'x' cm/mm/pixels around it then B must be somewhere on the circumference of that circle. Yes? My mistake was I used 'x' as the diameter, not the radius. But I did so consistently so all that does is means the scale is 2 miles to the pixel, not one. It doesn't affect the result.

I have followed the above logic to find the relationship between 3 cities in America and shown that if you try and plot a 4th then you don't find any common point which is at the right distance from those 3 other cities. I have now done the same for some UK cities and, as the UK is much smaller, I have found a common point for my 4th city. This shows the veracity of the method I've used and shows that the error between a flat map and a globe is, as expected, negligible on smaller scales.

If you have any sensible critique of what I've done then please post it. If I've made an error (apart from the one I've already admitted which only changes the scale, not the result) then please explain it.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: totallackey on January 08, 2019, 01:01:03 PM
You arbitrarily draw pretty kindergarten pictures of different color circles and x's on a whiteboard (mind you with absolute ZERO reference as to how anyone could actually verify scale) plus openly admit your ineptitude in formation and then have the temerity and gall to write I have no understanding of what you've done?

Simply writing when you actually do something might be a better place for you to start.

The fact you think that the circles are drawn arbitrarily shows that you don't understand what I've done.

If A and B are 'x' miles apart then if I plot a point A and then draw a circle centred on A of radius 'x' cm/mm/pixels around it then B must be somewhere on the circumference of that circle. Yes? My mistake was I used 'x' as the diameter, not the radius. But I did so consistently so all that does is means the scale is 2 miles to the pixel, not one. It doesn't affect the result.

I have followed the above logic to find the relationship between 3 cities in America and shown that if you try and plot a 4th then you don't find any common point which is at the right distance from those 3 other cities. I have now done the same for some UK cities and, as the UK is much smaller, I have found a common point for my 4th city. This shows the veracity of the method I've used and shows that the error between a flat map and a globe is, as expected, negligible on smaller scales.

If you have any sensible critique of what I've done then please post it. If I've made an error (apart from the one I've already admitted which only changes the scale, not the result) then please explain it.
How is one to know if the pixels are as you state?

What work that entail?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2019, 01:04:41 PM
How is one to know if the pixels are as you state?

What work that entail?
Here is the original image, you can check:

https://i.ibb.co/zVdBcqm/FEMap.jpg

The scale was intended to be one mile to the pixel. Because of my mistake it ended up being 2 miles to the pixel.
Feel free to check my workings or draw your own diagram. All you need is Google Maps. Pick 4 cities and try it yourself. As I've found in this thread, the discrepancy between the globe earth and flat maps is best seen over distances in the order or one or two thousand miles, not a couple of hundred.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: totallackey on January 08, 2019, 01:08:46 PM
How is one to know if the pixels are as you state?

What work that entail?
Here is the original image, you can check:

https://i.ibb.co/zVdBcqm/FEMap.jpg

The scale was intended to be one mile to the pixel. Because of my mistake it ended up being 2 miles to the pixel.
Feel free to check my workings or draw your own diagram. All you need is Google Maps. Pick 4 cities and try it yourself. As I've found in this thread, the discrepancy between the globe earth and flat maps is best seen over distances in the order or one or two thousand miles, not a couple of hundred.
One more time ssslllooowwwlllyyy so you might get it...

A pixel based on WHAT resolution?

Why would you think scaling would remain consistent?

Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2019, 01:12:52 PM
That's a completely nonsensical question. The resolution of your monitor doesn't matter. So long as you use a consistent scale all the resolution will do is make the image appear bigger or smaller on your monitor. It doesn't change the result.
I honestly don't understand what your objection is.
Again, if you prefer to do your own diagram then feel free to do so.
You could draw one on a piece of paper and use a scale of 1cm to 100 miles, or something.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: totallackey on January 08, 2019, 01:15:39 PM
That's a completely nonsensical question. The resolution of your monitor doesn't matter. So long as you use a consistent scale all the resolution will do is make the image appear bigger or smaller on your monitor. It doesn't change the result.
I honestly don't understand what your objection is.
Again, if you prefer to do your own diagram then feel free to do so.
You could draw one on a piece of paper and use a scale of 1cm to 100 miles, or something.
Maybe you better rethink your response.

You are telling me you drew a scale drawing using your resolution settings and expect someone to use their resolution settings to examine it?

Have you ever enlarged a drawing you might make in MS Paint?

What happens to the lines you see when you enlarge a drawing or shrink a drawing?

Do they not occupy more pixels on your screen as you enlarge it (i.e., become less defined?)

Do the lines not become more defined and sharp as the image shrinks?

You have three x's drawn with no corresponding grids?

How do we know those are laid out properly?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2019, 01:37:16 PM
You are telling me you drew a scale drawing using your resolution settings and expect someone to use their resolution settings to examine it?
Yes, because your resolution will only change the size of the image on your monitor, as will your monitor size. It will not change anything else about the image so is not relevant. If you go into a paint package and draw a circle of diameter 'x' pixels then you could send me that image and I could verify whether the circle was indeed 'x' pixels across using my paint package. Your resolution and mine would be entirely irrelevant.

Quote
You have three x's drawn with no corresponding grids?
I don't know what you mean by that. The first city is Seattle. That was my starting point, it has to be somewhere so I put an X to mark where I defined it to be.
The second X is New York. If the distances on Google Maps are correct then New York must be somewhere on the perimeter of the black circle. I have picked a point, it doesn't matter which one, all that affects is the orientation of the final map.
I then used the distances from Seattle to Dallas and New York to Dallas and drew circles of the corresponding size around my first 2 X's.
If the distances are correct and I've drawn my circles correctly then Dallas must be on the intersection between the red and blue circles.
There are two possibilities, I picked the lower one because I know that Dallas is south of both New York and Seattle.
That's my third X.
So now I know where those 3 cities are in relation to one another.
The green circles represent the distances from those 3 cities to the 4th. If the distances are correct then I should get an intersection between those 3 green circles, but I don't.
Note that when I used the same method with 4 English cities which are on a much smaller scale I DID get an intersection between the 3 green circles. The reason for this is over smaller distances there is less discrepancy between the globe earth and a flat map.

Quote
How do we know those are laid out properly?
You can check Google Maps to see if I have used the correct distances.
You can check the image to see if the circles are the number of pixels across I claim (again, you can do that regardless of your monitor and computer resolution)
You can pick your own cities and draw your own image. I look forward to seeing your results.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2019, 02:04:36 PM
Have you ever enlarged a drawing you might make in MS Paint?

What happens to the lines you see when you enlarge a drawing or shrink a drawing?

Do they not occupy more pixels on your screen as you enlarge it (i.e., become less defined?)

Do the lines not become more defined and sharp as the image shrinks?
Again, none of this is relevant. I have given you the full scale image, you can check it for yourself or you can draw your own if you don't trust my work. I encourage you to actually.

But here's some very basic checking I've done on my image to show you why resolution doesn't matter. So in the OP I said that it was 2405 miles from Seattle to New York and said that was the black circle. So I just loaded my image into Paint .NET and very roughly did a select of the area across that black circle:
(https://i.ibb.co/py9WhNr/FEMap-Check.jpg)

Note the bottom where Paint .NET helpfully tells me I've selected 2404 pixels which I'd suggest is close enough given that I did this while the image was zoomed out so it was hard to select perfectly. I've put a red ring round the screenshot where it tells you how many pixels you have selected. So the fact I'm zoomed out doesn't matter, the paint package tells me how many pixels the full size image is.

Bottom line: Do your own tests, make your own image or drawing and see what you find.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: edby on January 08, 2019, 03:29:27 PM
[etc]
It is also possible to do this using protractor and ruler like in the old days. Same result.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on January 08, 2019, 04:40:14 PM
I also reproduced his results in AutoCAD. I got the same discrepancy where the points do not converge. So not sure what your issue is, totallackey?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: RonJ on January 08, 2019, 08:27:41 PM
The bottom line here is that on a flat plane the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.  On a sphere the shortest distance between two points is the curved great circle line. 

There isn't anyway around it.  Geometry is earth shape agnostic, it just cares about shapes.  Over short distances there isn't much difference between a great circle curved line and a straight line on a plane.  As distances increase so does the overall difference between the two examples.  If you want to look at maps in the area of the Arctic Circle the differences are smaller than around the Antarctic Circle.

You can expect that the distances on Google Earth are accurate.  I've checked them using spherical trigonometry as well and the figures very accurately match up.

The airlines know exactly the distance between airports, and the shipping companies know exactly the distance between ports.  I haven't seen any disputes from flat earth advocates about the accuracy of that.  Basically the only defense of the flat earth would be the accuracy of those distances and/or the accuracy of the GPS system.  There is a difference between plain geometry just using the x & y coordinates and spherical geometry using x, y & z coordinates.  The distances are different.  Since I was traveling long distances for a living (before I retired) it was important for me to get things right.  Distances based on a sphere were always used.  The GPS figures were always accurate.  Great Circle routes were always accurate.

Barring that argument the flat earth paradigm can be shown to be a non-starter by the circles above.  Just compare an East-West route between two points in Australia and see what kind of difference you get using circles on a flat plane with the longitude lines diverging and great circle routes on a sphere where the longitude lines are converging. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: ChrisTP on January 17, 2019, 01:37:10 PM
Quote
Still struggling with the screen resolution and monitor settings uh...still unable to comprehend how different resolutions render pixelation.
Totallackey, to clear things up for you, resolution doesn't matter. Think of a raster image as a set grid of squares with each square being a 'pixel'. In the image, no matter the resolution of your screen or however you see the image in different sizes based on zooming in or screen resolutions, the raster image will still have a consistent grid of squares which does not change. Each square in the grid is assigned a hex value which you will see represented visually as a colour. So for example a 300x300 grid of coloured squares will still be exactly that regardless of screen resolution.  :)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 17, 2019, 01:54:17 PM
Quote
Still struggling with the screen resolution and monitor settings uh...still unable to comprehend how different resolutions render pixelation.
Totallackey, to clear things up for you, resolution doesn't matter. Think of a raster image as a set grid of squares with each square being a 'pixel'. In the image, no matter the resolution of your screen or however you see the image in different sizes based on zooming in or screen resolutions, the raster image will still have a consistent grid of squares which does not change. Each square in the grid is assigned a hex value which you will see represented visually as a colour. So for example a 300x300 grid of coloured squares will still be exactly that regardless of screen resolution.  :)
Correct. All resolution does is change the size you see the image.
And lackey is welcome to repeat my method and do his own drawing. If doing it on a computer is confusing him because of resolution red herrings he can do it on a piece of paper with a pencil and a pair of compasses.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: TomFoolery on February 11, 2019, 05:27:50 PM
There is nothing wrong with your method, as far as I can see. You can triangulate any three points on a curved surface and the distances will be consistent with their being on a flat surface. Add a fourth point, and you will immediately tell whether the surface has Euclidean geometry (i.e. is flat) or not.

How the distances could be wrong. Tom Bishop has always wisely insisted that distances given by the establishment are incorrect. Distances and flight times should be the focus of all future FE research.

We do need to be careful just dismissing distances that the establishment give us.

You can get into a 1985 chevy pickup with a purely mechanical odometer and a modern GPS navigational unit.
You can start out at one end of the country, put in a destination for the other end, and clear your trip odometer, and begin a journey.
The GPS accurately adds up all the distances of all the roads, and tells you, how many miles it will be.
Then you drive there, and it's that many miles according to your odometer.
And the establishment cannot possibly  be fudging your purely mechanical odometer to match the GPS system.
I've taken cars and odometers apart. There's a cable that is geared to your drive line, which turns a set of gears and little wheels in your odometer housing.
It measures distance plane (lol) and simple.
Same thing for flying small airplanes, as many private pilots use GPS in their small planes.
They are flying straight lines, and the GPS tells them it's so many miles, and they have a windspeed indicator and they know how fast their plane is flying and they can calculate the distance between two points, and GPS works great there too.
So I think we have to realize that GPS distances on land masses work very accurately within that land mass.

However, when we get to going between continents it's harder to prove that the GPSs are telling the correct distance.

We are stuck with the flight times though, a distance between southern continents is so great it would require the planes to fly at over the speed of sound, so I'm not sure how we deal with that.

For example, I added up some flights that I saw  happening on flight radar 24.

The following flights connect to form a loop all the way around the earth, as follows:

Start in Sao Paulo, Brazil
Fly to Johannesburg, South Africa
Fly to Perth, Australia
Fly to Melbourne, Australia
Fly to Auckland, New Zealand
Fly to Buenos Aires, Argentina
Then fly to Rio De Janeiro, Brazil where you will be very close to where you started.

That is a path that circumnavigates the earth south of the "equator"

There's probably a better path but these were just flights I saw on the live tracker in one day. I saved screenshots if anyone doubts.
Adding up the official flight distances (which we may not be able to trust) and the official flight times (which we can trust because everybody who flies knows they are pretty accurate on the time because we check our watches at takeoff and  landing!) -- anyway, adding up these flights gave about a total alleged circumference of around 20,000 miles, which would mean that all the civilized continents fit inside about a 6500 mile diameter circle on the flat earth.
And I'm inclined to believe the mile distances of those flights in general because they the time they took averaged to around 530mph which is expected for a jetliner.

But one flight I saw was very disturbing, Singapore to Newark 18 hours long and 9500 miles.

How do you fly a 9500 mile flight across a 6500 mile diameter circle? And Newark isn't even near the edge of the circle, and for that  matter, neither is Singapore. So that means two points near the middle of the earth are 9500 miles apart, so the disk must be at least 20,000 miles in diameter!

Granted, the jets could be going a bit faster or a bit slower to fudge the calculation to make the distances look different, but ultimately jets have a limited range of speeds.
Most commercial jets today cannot go over the speed of sound, nor can they go below a certain speed, especially at 34k feet, or they'd fall out of the sky.

So we've really got a challenge here, and I'm trying to help prepare us for the work we need to do so we don't think it's easy and end up like TigerDan who thought he could do it then gave up when he realized he had to make his flat earth spherical to make the flights match up.

If we can solve the map we'll have it all solved.


Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: ChrisTP on February 11, 2019, 05:43:09 PM
Well google maps gps is accurate and it's been established, if anyone noticed inaccuracies we'd know about it. It gets us round on time to the right locations, I cycle everywhere, I've cycled across England. It fairs accurately

Also regarding across large bodies of water, if you don't trust flight times you got ship times too. There's a ton of ships navigating the oceans. :)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map - Mobius?
Post by: TomFoolery on February 12, 2019, 02:32:32 AM
What do you all think of a multidimensional mobius map?

As you know, a mobius strip has only one surface, and yet half of that surface is facing the opposite way.

Perhaps that explains how the sun "sets."

Except we need it to be multi-dimensional instead of just a strip.

But this would allow us to travel in any direction and get to anyplace - and it would also explain how half the earth is dark, and explain why east-west flights between far southern continents aren't longer than they are. It would allow the southern continents to be the correct distance from each other just around the "twist" of the mobius.

I could only find a single path mobius, not a multi-dimension representation but look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb-Fi8GI6PE

Then try to imagine that you could also go at right angles and have the same effect of seamlessly showing up on the other side.

This could solve all sorts of problems.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: Balls Dingo on March 16, 2019, 02:14:49 AM
I respect you putting in the time to do this but unfortunately you've made an error. The distance from Dallas to Minneapolis is around 864 miles. I guess that shows how many people actually checked this :)

I've done something similar with cities in Australia but with greater accuracy. The cities I've chosen are Sydney, Perth and Darwin. The city which is the variable is Alice Springs. I've used the measurements in kilometres from Free Map Tools (https://www.freemaptools.com/how-far-is-it-between.htm) with one pixel equalling one kilometre. The error is there - which supports you're conclusion because I believe the method is sound - but it's only around 7-8km at these distances.

(https://i.imgur.com/WnJC7zp.gif)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 16, 2019, 09:40:16 AM
You know what? You’re right.
I’ve used the KM distance for that one and miles for the others.
Wow.
As you say, it shows how little anyone else bothered to check things!
Thanks for pointing this out.
I’ll have another look later and correct my mistake. Maybe I’ll accidentally prove the earth is flat after all!
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: ILOVETHEFE on April 04, 2019, 03:32:08 PM
Why would you use google maps to find the distance between cities. Isn't it known that they work with the government after making an app called Google Earth, which depicts the Earth as a GLOBE???
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: inquisitive on April 04, 2019, 04:07:29 PM
This will help make a map.

https://aireon.com/services/
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 05, 2019, 10:35:50 AM
Why would you use google maps to find the distance between cities. Isn't it known that they work with the government after making an app called Google Earth, which depicts the Earth as a GLOBE???
Yes, it does depict the earth as a globe. Because the earth is a globe.
As for why use Google Maps, it's as good a source as any and is used by millions of people every day to get around reliably.
If you believe it to be inaccurate though then feel free to find another source

I did repeat the above correcting my error, I can post the new image later. To be honest the error in the new image wasn't as pronounced as in the original, but it is there.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: iamcpc on April 05, 2019, 07:56:09 PM

As for why use Google Maps, it's as good a source as any and is used by millions of people every day to get around reliably.


There are many many MANY sets of maps, which are used by millions and millions of people every day to get around reliably in which the earth is represented as a flat plane and NOT as a globe such as:

mapquest maps
bing maps
yahoo maps
suncalc.net
timeanddate.com
geology.com world map
https://satellites.pro/plan/world_map which has a Google TM on the search results
mapsofworld.com
mapchart.net
https://mapmaker.nationalgeographic.org/
https://24timezones.com/worldmap
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: markjo on April 05, 2019, 08:23:12 PM
Don't forget that there are also open source map projects like:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/
https://www.mapbox.com/about/maps/

It seems that it would be hard to fool all of those contributors.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: stack on April 05, 2019, 09:22:07 PM

As for why use Google Maps, it's as good a source as any and is used by millions of people every day to get around reliably.


There are many many MANY sets of maps, which are used by millions and millions of people every day to get around reliably in which the earth is represented as a flat plane and NOT as a globe such as:

mapquest maps
bing maps
yahoo maps
suncalc.net
timeanddate.com
geology.com world map
https://satellites.pro/plan/world_map which has a Google TM on the search results
mapsofworld.com
mapchart.net
https://mapmaker.nationalgeographic.org/
https://24timezones.com/worldmap

All of which are based upon Globe projections. So it doesn't get someone out of the jam of not using Google maps just because it has a globe view and these layouts don't.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: iamcpc on April 08, 2019, 08:58:20 PM

All of which are based upon Globe projections. So it doesn't get someone out of the jam of not using Google maps just because it has a globe view and these layouts don't.

What they are (or are not) based on is a moot point. If they are based on a giant pyramid, egg, sphere, or oblate spheroid does not change the accuracy of the following statement:

There are accurate maps of the earth used and accepted by tens or hundreds of millions of of people every single day in which the map of the earth is represented as a FLAT plane.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: inquisitive on April 08, 2019, 09:32:49 PM

All of which are based upon Globe projections. So it doesn't get someone out of the jam of not using Google maps just because it has a globe view and these layouts don't.

What they are (or are not) based on is a moot point. If they are based on a giant pyramid, egg, sphere, or oblate spheroid does not change the accuracy of the following statement:

There are accurate maps of the earth used and accepted by tens or hundreds of millions of of people every single day in which the map of the earth is represented as a FLAT plane.
Represented on a flat surface with a grid that identifies the shape of a round earth using latitude and longitude.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on April 09, 2019, 11:17:30 AM
There are also blueprints of buildings, planes, automobiles, and millions of other objects represented in a 2D plane. Congratulations. Your point is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 09, 2019, 12:04:50 PM

As for why use Google Maps, it's as good a source as any and is used by millions of people every day to get around reliably.


There are many many MANY sets of maps, which are used by millions and millions of people every day to get around reliably in which the earth is represented as a flat plane and NOT as a globe such as:

mapquest maps
...
Yes. Because on the short scale of most journeys people make a 2D representation is perfectly adequate. But if you zoom out on the first of those, mapquest, you get:

(https://i.ibb.co/2FcXx3z/mapquest.jpg)

Do you see the problem?
HINT: Look up the size of Greenland. Then look up the size of Africa...

And that's because...they're representing a 3D object - the globe - on a 2D plane - a map.
And that means some projection has to be done. Which means on a large scale it's not accurate.
This is exactly why Google Maps changed recently so that as you zoom out it starts to display as a globe so accuracy is maintained.
Were the earth flat they wouldn't need to do that. A flat earth could be represented as a flat map without any projection, you'd just need to scale.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: QED on April 09, 2019, 06:03:45 PM

All of which are based upon Globe projections. So it doesn't get someone out of the jam of not using Google maps just because it has a globe view and these layouts don't.

What they are (or are not) based on is a moot point. If they are based on a giant pyramid, egg, sphere, or oblate spheroid does not change the accuracy of the following statement:

There are accurate maps of the earth used and accepted by tens or hundreds of millions of of people every single day in which the map of the earth is represented as a FLAT plane.

I am presently looking at a picture of a cat on my phone. That picture is flat, therefore all cats are in fact flat planes.

I have an instruction manual for putting together a new bookshelf. But it is the wrong one! My bookshelf is supposed to be a 3 dimensional object, but these instructions are on a flat piece of paper! I don’t want a flat bookcase!

I have a map of Kilimanjaro, which I have used when climbing it. That map is flat. Whhaaaaaat?!?! Kilimanjaro wasn’t flat!! It’s a mountain!!?!

You are an odd duck.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: iamcpc on April 11, 2019, 08:24:06 PM

What they are (or are not) based on is a moot point. If they are based on a giant pyramid, egg, sphere, or oblate spheroid does not change the accuracy of the following statement:

There are accurate maps of the earth used and accepted by tens or hundreds of millions of of people every single day in which the map of the earth is represented as a FLAT plane.

I am presently looking at a picture of a cat on my phone. That picture is flat, therefore all cats are in fact flat planes.

I have an instruction manual for putting together a new bookshelf. But it is the wrong one! My bookshelf is supposed to be a 3 dimensional object, but these instructions are on a flat piece of paper! I don’t want a flat bookcase!

I have a map of Kilimanjaro, which I have used when climbing it. That map is flat. Whhaaaaaat?!?! Kilimanjaro wasn’t flat!! It’s a mountain!!?!

You are an odd duck.

Never in my quote did I say that because the map represents the earth as flat that the earth is flat. I understand that paper is a 2d Medium and because of that many maps represent the are they are mapping as a flat plane.

I specifically left the shape of the earth out of it. The shape of the earth and a map of the earth being represented as a flat plane on a map are not mutually exclusive



The earth is a sphere or oblate spheroid AND there are accurate maps of the earth used and accepted by tens or hundreds of millions of of people every single day in which the map of the earth is represented as a FLAT plane.

The earth is a cube AND there are accurate maps of the earth used and accepted by tens or hundreds of millions of of people every single day in which the map of the earth is represented as a FLAT plane.

The earth is a pyramid AND there are accurate maps of the earth used and accepted by tens or hundreds of millions of of people every single day in which the map of the earth is represented as a FLAT plane.


Notice how the shape of the earth has no effect on if accurate maps of the earth exist where the earth is represented as a flat plane??

I even specifically said this to make the point that i'm making no claim about the shape of the earth:


What they are (or are not) based on is a moot point. If they are based on a giant pyramid, egg, sphere, or oblate spheroid does not change the accuracy of the following statement:







Do you see the problem?
HINT: Look up the size of Greenland. Then look up the size of Africa...

Those maps have an interactive adjusting scale so if you fill the map with Greenland and fill the map with Africa you can CLEARLY see that Greenland is much smaller than Africa.

Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: stack on April 11, 2019, 09:28:14 PM


The earth is a sphere or oblate spheroid AND there are accurate maps of the earth used and accepted by tens or hundreds of millions of of people every single day in which the map of the earth is represented as a FLAT plane.

The earth is a cube AND there are accurate maps of the earth used and accepted by tens or hundreds of millions of of people every single day in which the map of the earth is represented as a FLAT plane.

The earth is a pyramid AND there are accurate maps of the earth used and accepted by tens or hundreds of millions of of people every single day in which the map of the earth is represented as a FLAT plane.


Notice how the shape of the earth has no effect on if accurate maps of the earth exist where the earth is represented as a flat plane??

Here's a Cube earth projection flattened out and I stitched it together accordingly - I couldn't figure out how do add longitude and latitude lines, but it would look pretty nutty if I did:

(https://i.imgur.com/JMzN4ZB.jpg?1)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 11, 2019, 09:51:48 PM
Those maps have an interactive adjusting scale so if you fill the map with Greenland and fill the map with Africa you can CLEARLY see that Greenland is much smaller than Africa.
But why can't you see that when you show them on the map at the same time? Why does Greenland look bigger despite being less than a 10th of the area of Africa in real life? Because it's a projection. And projection is only needed because the earth isn't flat. Were the earth flat then a flat map would represent the sizes of countries and continents and the distances between them. But it doesn't, because it isn't.

Yes, people can get around with those maps because they're going from, say, London to Milton Keynes. On that scale the earth is close enough to flat that there is no significant distortion. But at the continent level there's a clear problem. Why? Because you can't represent the globe earth properly on a flat plane. You have to do some projection, there are different ways of doing that but all of them introduce some inaccuracies on the macro scale.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: QED on April 11, 2019, 10:04:49 PM

What they are (or are not) based on is a moot point. If they are based on a giant pyramid, egg, sphere, or oblate spheroid does not change the accuracy of the following statement:

There are accurate maps of the earth used and accepted by tens or hundreds of millions of of people every single day in which the map of the earth is represented as a FLAT plane.

I am presently looking at a picture of a cat on my phone. That picture is flat, therefore all cats are in fact flat planes.

I have an instruction manual for putting together a new bookshelf. But it is the wrong one! My bookshelf is supposed to be a 3 dimensional object, but these instructions are on a flat piece of paper! I don’t want a flat bookcase!

I have a map of Kilimanjaro, which I have used when climbing it. That map is flat. Whhaaaaaat?!?! Kilimanjaro wasn’t flat!! It’s a mountain!!?!

You are an odd duck.

Never in my quote did I say that because the map represents the earth as flat that the earth is flat. I understand that paper is a 2d Medium and because of that many maps represent the are they are mapping as a flat plane.

I specifically left the shape of the earth out of it. The shape of the earth and a map of the earth being represented as a flat plane on a map are not mutually exclusive



The earth is a sphere or oblate spheroid AND there are accurate maps of the earth used and accepted by tens or hundreds of millions of of people every single day in which the map of the earth is represented as a FLAT plane.

The earth is a cube AND there are accurate maps of the earth used and accepted by tens or hundreds of millions of of people every single day in which the map of the earth is represented as a FLAT plane.

The earth is a pyramid AND there are accurate maps of the earth used and accepted by tens or hundreds of millions of of people every single day in which the map of the earth is represented as a FLAT plane.


Notice how the shape of the earth has no effect on if accurate maps of the earth exist where the earth is represented as a flat plane??

I even specifically said this to make the point that i'm making no claim about the shape of the earth:


What they are (or are not) based on is a moot point. If they are based on a giant pyramid, egg, sphere, or oblate spheroid does not change the accuracy of the following statement:







Do you see the problem?
HINT: Look up the size of Greenland. Then look up the size of Africa...

Those maps have an interactive adjusting scale so if you fill the map with Greenland and fill the map with Africa you can CLEARLY see that Greenland is much smaller than Africa.

Okay, fair enough. Why bother with the statement at all then?

If you are not attempting to make an inference, then why are you talking?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: iamcpc on April 12, 2019, 12:50:59 PM

Okay, fair enough. Why bother with the statement at all then?

If you are not attempting to make an inference, then why are you talking?

I bother with the statement because it's a very popular claim among the flat earth community that either there is no map of the earth or there is no accurate map of the earth. Such a claim, in an age where BILLIONS of people are able to use maps to navigate the earth, is baffling to me. I feel like that claim SEVERELY weakens any credibility the different flat earth models have scraped together.

If the FE community wont accept google maps because it represent the earth as an interactive globe then there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other maps which represent the earth as a flat plane. Why can't those be accepted?

In addition the most popular FE map looks like a flat circle with ice around the perimeter. I strongly believe, based on personal observations made while traveling, that a flat circle model fails miserably at corroborating these observations. I believe the south pole does exist. In the FE flat circle map it does not exist at all.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 12, 2019, 01:15:42 PM
If the FE community wont accept google maps because it represent the earth as an interactive globe then there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other maps which represent the earth as a flat plane. Why can't those be accepted?
I have explained why. Because they are all projections. In the example I gave you see Greenland as much bigger than Africa. And yes, if you look at them individually you can see the reality of the relative sizes but if you look at them together then you can't. Because any projection distorts reality. This projection does retain sizes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall%E2%80%93Peters_projection

But then the shapes are distorted. The fundamental problem is that representing the surface of a sphere perfectly on a flat plane is impossible.
Something has to give.
And why do we need projections? Because we live on a globe.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: QED on April 12, 2019, 02:32:31 PM

Okay, fair enough. Why bother with the statement at all then?

If you are not attempting to make an inference, then why are you talking?

I bother with the statement because it's a very popular claim among the flat earth community that either there is no map of the earth or there is no accurate map of the earth. Such a claim, in an age where BILLIONS of people are able to use maps to navigate the earth, is baffling to me. I feel like that claim SEVERELY weakens any credibility the different flat earth models have scraped together.

If the FE community wont accept google maps because it represent the earth as an interactive globe then there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other maps which represent the earth as a flat plane. Why can't those be accepted?

In addition the most popular FE map looks like a flat circle with ice around the perimeter. I strongly believe, based on personal observations made while traveling, that a flat circle model fails miserably at corroborating these observations. I believe the south pole does exist. In the FE flat circle map it does not exist at all.

I see. I am glad you think the South Pole exists.

The reason FEers cannot accept the plethora of flat maps is because doing so would invalidate FET. You see, they are leading the data, not trying to find the most accurate model.

The thought process is like this:

1. The earth needs to be flat.
2. We need a map of the flat earth.
3. Flat maps based on RE science show Alaska and Asia on opposite sides of the world.
4. This is a problem, because airplanes can go from California to Asia without crossing over North America, the Atlantic, and Europe.
5. Hence, we can’t use those maps, and instead must try to invent a map which is flat but allows global earth travel to be possible.

This is why so many FE maps are oddly distorted, and also why FEers try to deny records of airplane flight durations and paths. It is the only way they can lead data into the conclusion they want to be true.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: iamcpc on April 12, 2019, 02:47:36 PM
The reason FEers cannot accept the plethora of flat maps is because doing so would invalidate FET. You see, they are leading the data, not trying to find the most accurate model.

It's been my experience that the reason that the FE community can't accept a map or model is because the individual beliefs about their own individual flat earth model vary so greatly. As an example:

1. I had several people tell me that the earth is a flat infinite plane. Anything that shows the earth with an edge or end is instantly rejected.
2. Some people believe there is no ice wall and that some sort of dome/firmament is at the edge of the flat disk earth. Any map with an ice wall is instantly rejected.
3. I had a few people who had a more biblical flat earth model say that Jerusalem is at the very center of the flat earth. Any map not depicting this is instantly rejected.
4. According to one person this was the most accurate map of the earth based on a very specific set of flight times (ignoring flights to and from the round earth southern hemisphere because they are fake). He would reject any map which is different than this:
(http://i64.tinypic.com/2cie2jd.png)
5. The same person from number 4 also debunked his own map by claiming that, because japan has more seismic activity, it is on the edge of the earth.


I believe, based on my personal experiences, that only about 40% of the entire flat earth community believes in a flat disk, ice wall, no dome, no firmament, north pole center model. At this forum I believe the number is closer to 70-80% because the community is less friendly to alternate models.

Even though a flat earth model such as Bing maps would be much more widely accepted among the round earth community the flat circle model will never go away.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: Bikini Polaris on April 13, 2019, 05:19:57 PM
Distances on Google Maps are consistent with GPS ones, and GPS existence itself is not denied by fes. Being made of numbers (no optical illusions, no conspiracies), distances should be the method of preference to actually prove the geometrical property of being flat. Amusingly enough, Robotham did not touch this topic in his Earth not a globe.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: iamcpc on April 15, 2019, 03:49:12 PM
Distances on Google Maps are consistent with GPS ones, and GPS existence itself is not denied by fes. Being made of numbers (no optical illusions, no conspiracies), distances should be the method of preference to actually prove the geometrical property of being flat. Amusingly enough, Robotham did not touch this topic in his Earth not a globe.

It may not be denied by the society as a whole but I've seen  several posts providing evidence that GPS is inaccurate, fake, or deliberately misleading




Here's some examples:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122030#msg122030
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122441#msg122441
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: KodyBair on April 15, 2019, 04:40:01 PM
It has been said a numerous number of times that the google map distances are not correct. Therefore, going by google maps would be the wrong thing to do. The idea of google maps is just another way of people covering lies over the eyes of people believing that the world is not round.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: Tumeni on April 15, 2019, 05:18:26 PM
.... several posts providing evidence that GPS is inaccurate, fake, or deliberately misleading
Here's some examples:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122030#msg122030
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122441#msg122441

Cannot be all three. If it's inaccurate and/or misleading, it cannot be fake. If it's fake, then debating whether it's inaccurate or misleading has no meaning.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: Tumeni on April 15, 2019, 05:21:17 PM
It has been said a numerous number of times that the google map distances are not correct. Therefore, going by google maps would be the wrong thing to do. The idea of google maps is just another way of people covering lies over the eyes of people believing that the world is not round.

Which maps, then? Do you accept UK Ordnance Survey as correct? Other national surveying organisations?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: iamcpc on April 15, 2019, 05:30:42 PM
.... several posts providing evidence that GPS is inaccurate, fake, or deliberately misleading
Here's some examples:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122030#msg122030
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122441#msg122441

Cannot be all three. If it's inaccurate and/or misleading, it cannot be fake. If it's fake, then debating whether it's inaccurate or misleading has no meaning.

yes it can. If person A says that it's inaccurate, person B says it's misleading, person C says it was made by round earth systems with the specific intent to return round earth numbers instead of accurate numbers then it's all three.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: Bikini Polaris on April 15, 2019, 08:01:32 PM

It may not be denied by the society as a whole but I've seen  several posts providing evidence that GPS is inaccurate, fake, or deliberately misleading

I do not promote either Google Maps or the GPS system, but there is no way around computing distances for creating a map. Secondly, I do understand that GPS distances will have a (possibly deliberate) error, but to disguise a plane as a sphere is a blatant distortion that is light years more obvious than "someone on the Internet believes GPS to be inaccurate". I say this because I believe that looking for a fe map looks like a crucial task in destroying the globe.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: stack on April 15, 2019, 10:15:21 PM
.... several posts providing evidence that GPS is inaccurate, fake, or deliberately misleading
Here's some examples:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122030#msg122030
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122441#msg122441

Cannot be all three. If it's inaccurate and/or misleading, it cannot be fake. If it's fake, then debating whether it's inaccurate or misleading has no meaning.

yes it can. If person A says that it's inaccurate, person B says it's misleading, person C says it was made by round earth systems with the specific intent to return round earth numbers instead of accurate numbers then it's all three.

What evidence is there that google maps/GPS is fake or purposefully misleading in those threads or anywhere? I can buy into an accuracy issue here in there. But that is completely different than outright fakery. I've driven coast to coast in the US twice and I'll say, my GPS was extremely accurate. Maybe I just got lucky and avoided Google Map's nefarious plot to conceal the true shape of the earth.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: iamcpc on April 16, 2019, 02:38:47 PM
What evidence is there that google maps/GPS is fake or purposefully misleading in those threads or anywhere? I can buy into an accuracy issue here in there. But that is completely different than outright fakery. I've driven coast to coast in the US twice and I'll say, my GPS was extremely accurate. Maybe I just got lucky and avoided Google Map's nefarious plot to conceal the true shape of the earth.


Some claims are made more based on faith, feeling, or observation. I don't feel the Earth hurtling through space in an infinite fall around the sun therefore that is not what is happening.


I have presented VERY strong evidence that there is an accurate map of the earth yet, it's VERY common among the community, to have the belief that there is no accurate map of the earth.




An issue here is that if you looking for something on the internet you will find it. After a simple "GPS is a lie" google search I find these:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cio-OyWrW_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTuHRuZfBN0
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 16, 2019, 03:13:19 PM
I don't feel the Earth hurtling through space in an infinite fall around the sun therefore that is not what is happening.
I can't see bacteria therefore they don't exist?
Come on, dude. There have been threads about this. The whole idea of "seeing is believing" or in this case "feeling is believing" is flawed.
You can do the maths and work out how much force you should feel because of earth's rotation. Yes there are other movements too but the important thing in what you'd feel is acceleration, not speed.
If you're on a plane and you walk up the aisle you can't feel you're moving at hundreds of miles an hour. If you jump you land back in the same spot, you don't shoot to the back of the plane because you retain the momentum of the plane. If you jumped and the plane suddenly accelerated or broke then you'd land in a different spot.
A common FE attack on RE is "people at the equator are hurtling round at a 1000 miles an hour". Yes, but the angular rotation - which is the important thing here - is one revolution a day.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: markjo on April 16, 2019, 05:51:13 PM
Some claims are made more based on faith, feeling, or observation. I don't feel the Earth hurtling through space in an infinite fall around the sun therefore that is not what is happening.
Do you feel the earth hurtling upwards through space, constantly accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s2?  Or have you spent your entire life acclimating to the motions of the earth so that you don't notice the movement?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: QED on April 16, 2019, 06:02:55 PM
What evidence is there that google maps/GPS is fake or purposefully misleading in those threads or anywhere? I can buy into an accuracy issue here in there. But that is completely different than outright fakery. I've driven coast to coast in the US twice and I'll say, my GPS was extremely accurate. Maybe I just got lucky and avoided Google Map's nefarious plot to conceal the true shape of the earth.


Some claims are made more based on faith, feeling, or observation. I don't feel the Earth hurtling through space in an infinite fall around the sun therefore that is not what is happening.


I have presented VERY strong evidence that there is an accurate map of the earth yet, it's VERY common among the community, to have the belief that there is no accurate map of the earth.




An issue here is that if you looking for something on the internet you will find it. After a simple "GPS is a lie" google search I find these:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cio-OyWrW_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTuHRuZfBN0

I think this approach may not always steer you towards truth. For example, when I am on an airplane, I definitely do not feel myself moving at hundreds of mph.

As another example, there are some pretty cool optical illusions that completely confuse the brain. In fact, they confuse our brain even when we know that it’s happening.

I guess my point is that human senses are great, but they have limits. And sometimes they are completely wrong. So if I was to base my beliefs only on my senses, well, I would be guaranteed wrong a lot of the time. Not all phenomena in the Universe can be senses by human organs.

Out of curiosity, how would you reconcile the limitations of your senses? Do you take a strict view - that unless you personally perceive it, you don’t believe it?

Also, we know that our feelings are sometimes wrong. Would you trust your feeling over hard objective evidence?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: iamcpc on April 16, 2019, 06:23:07 PM
Out of curiosity, how would you reconcile the limitations of your senses? Do you take a strict view - that unless you personally perceive it, you don’t believe it?

I believe that things are real and do exist that are beyond our perception. I'm unable to perceive carbon dioxide but I believe that it does exist.

Also, we know that our feelings are sometimes wrong. Would you trust your feeling over hard objective evidence?

Me personally no. Hard evidence > feelings. But in this case, there is both hard evidence, and strong feelings based on hundreds of personal real life observations and experiences that lead me to the claim that there are accurate maps of the earth. How is it possible, in the day and age when hundreds of millions of people use a map of the earth for accurate navigation every year, to claim that no map of the earth exists??
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: stack on April 16, 2019, 07:44:22 PM
An issue here is that if you looking for something on the internet you will find it. After a simple "GPS is a lie" google search I find these:

No doubt about that. There are already a flood of conspiracy theories across the web about the Notre Dame fire and it hasn't even been 24 hours. But just b/c this is the case, you wind up with the videos that you posted. Completely bereft of any practical evidence.

In one, the robot narrator's complaint is about GPS service going into Tijuana and how Anderson Cooper is a fraud. Really hard hitting evidence of a world-wide shape of the earth conspiracy. Absolute garbage.
Then a 1946 Ma-Bell Telephone infomercial about telecommunications cables to Microwave towers. Like zero enhancements/efficiencies have been made in the field of communication transmissions since the year after WWII ended. Again, absolute garbage.

If these are the types of presentations of 'evidence' that the FE 'community' hangs their hats on, I really don't know what to say. I'm not saying this is your evidence. I get it. But without a heightened level of confirmation bias/intense conspiratorial leanings, it's almost unimaginable that any FEr would die on the hill of these types of videos. Sadly, many do.

If I were an FEr I would embrace these technologies and figure out how they work on a flat earth rather dismiss them as fakery. I'd throw EA at how they rotate above the earth, or something like that. The evidence that maps work and satellite tech exists is just too overwhelming.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: QED on April 16, 2019, 08:02:38 PM
Out of curiosity, how would you reconcile the limitations of your senses? Do you take a strict view - that unless you personally perceive it, you don’t believe it?

I believe that things are real and do exist that are beyond our perception. I'm unable to perceive carbon dioxide but I believe that it does exist.

Also, we know that our feelings are sometimes wrong. Would you trust your feeling over hard objective evidence?

Me personally no. Hard evidence > feelings. But in this case, there is both hard evidence, and strong feelings based on hundreds of personal real life observations and experiences that lead me to the claim that there are accurate maps of the earth. How is it possible, in the day and age when hundreds of millions of people use a map of the earth for accurate navigation every year, to claim that no map of the earth exists??

Interesting. So do you believe that feelings, even feelings that you feel very strongly, can be wrong?

Also, do you believe that you can determine what is true based on how many people believe it? Cause there are hundreds of religions. Do you practice whichever religion has the largest following?

Also, about finding stuff on the internet, I found this:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/apr/07/conspiracy-theory-paranoia-aliens-illuminati-beyonce-vaccines-cliven-bundy-jfk

I guess my point is that with 7 billion people, you can always find some group that believes just about anything. Does the fact that people believe something make it true?

If you had to write down a perfect list of criteria that, if followed, would basically guarantee something was true, what would your list be?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: iamcpc on April 17, 2019, 10:14:55 PM
Interesting. So do you believe that feelings, even feelings that you feel very strongly, can be wrong?

of course.

Also, do you believe that you can determine what is true based on how many people believe it? Cause there are hundreds of religions.

No. I think you can determine how convincing is based on how many people believe it.

Do you practice whichever religion has the largest following?

No. Christianity is the most popular religion. The bible has verses in which God is telling people to murder babes and children.


Samuel 15:

 Now therefore, heed the voice of the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and attack[a] Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ”


God ordered the muder of men, women, infant, and nursing child. I believe the God that created this universe did no such thing.



I guess my point is that with 7 billion people, you can always find some group that believes just about anything. Does the fact that people believe something make it true?



not at all

If you had to write down a perfect list of criteria that, if followed, would basically guarantee something was true, what would your list be?

One thing that I've learned is that there is no such thing as truth. You can claim to me that the TRUTH is that 1 + 1 = 2. I can say that is not the truth but a lie.

You can show me thousands of mathematical papers proving that 1 + 1 = 2 and I can call them all lies or fabricated or wrong.

You can give me one apple, then give me a second apple, and point out that I now have two apples and I can tell you that's just what you're programmed to believe by the person (or people) behind this.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: markjo on April 18, 2019, 12:38:58 AM
You can give me one apple, then give me a second apple, and point out that I now have two apples and I can tell you that's just what you're programmed to believe by the person (or people) behind this.
Or, you can accept that numbers are simply symbols that we assign certain meanings to, just like any other language.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: QED on April 18, 2019, 11:37:50 AM
Interesting. So do you believe that feelings, even feelings that you feel very strongly, can be wrong?

of course.

Also, do you believe that you can determine what is true based on how many people believe it? Cause there are hundreds of religions.

No. I think you can determine how convincing is based on how many people believe it.

Do you practice whichever religion has the largest following?

No. Christianity is the most popular religion. The bible has verses in which God is telling people to murder babes and children.


Samuel 15:

 Now therefore, heed the voice of the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and attack[a] Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ”


God ordered the muder of men, women, infant, and nursing child. I believe the God that created this universe did no such thing.



I guess my point is that with 7 billion people, you can always find some group that believes just about anything. Does the fact that people believe something make it true?



not at all

If you had to write down a perfect list of criteria that, if followed, would basically guarantee something was true, what would your list be?

One thing that I've learned is that there is no such thing as truth. You can claim to me that the TRUTH is that 1 + 1 = 2. I can say that is not the truth but a lie.

You can show me thousands of mathematical papers proving that 1 + 1 = 2 and I can call them all lies or fabricated or wrong.

You can give me one apple, then give me a second apple, and point out that I now have two apples and I can tell you that's just what you're programmed to believe by the person (or people) behind this.

You lost me with your last paragraphs. There is no such thing as truth? What do you mean by truth?

My first name is Ryan. That is the truth. That is the name my momma gave me. How am I being programmed?

1+1=2 is a conspiracy? You are kinda an odd duck. These are more definitional things. We agree upon conventions so that communication becomes easier.

What are you trying to say here? That determinism is dead? That absolute knowledge is impossible? That everything is subjective?

Please clarify?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 18, 2019, 11:56:34 AM
I heard about a funny (probably apocryphal) conversation between 2 teachers:

Teacher 1: "Well, you see, there is no absolute truth"
Teacher 2: "Really? That must make it hard for you to mark exam papers..."

Some things are not absolute truth: "The Beatles were the greatest musical group in history".
I hold that to be true, I have some pretty good evidence in terms of their popularity, critical success and influence...but it's a subjective opinion.
There is no objective measure of "greatest".

"Paris is the capital of France" - that is not subjective. It's a definition. France, a sovereign entity, have defined Paris as their capital.
Me claiming the capital is Marseilles doesn't make it so.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: iamcpc on April 18, 2019, 05:36:25 PM

You lost me with your last paragraphs. There is no such thing as truth? What do you mean by truth?

My first name is Ryan. That is the truth. That is the name my momma gave me. How am I being programmed?

1+1=2 is a conspiracy? You are kinda an odd duck. These are more definitional things. We agree upon conventions so that communication becomes easier.

What are you trying to say here? That determinism is dead? That absolute knowledge is impossible? That everything is subjective?

Please clarify?



My point is that no one can claim that anything is the TRUTH. You use your name as an example.

There is a person who has a mystery name.

He says that his name is Ryan and I say that his name is Albert.
His presents a birth certificate with the name Ryan on it. I claim that it is fabricated.
I present a birth certificate with the name Albert on it. He claims that it is fabricated.
Another person comes along and says we are both lying and the mystery man's name is Alex and he comes with his own birth certificate with the name Alex on it.
Now another person comes along and says he knows this mystery person and his name is Joseph.

What is the TRUTH?

I used the mathematical equation 1+1 = 2 because I believe that something of that nature is as close to TRUTH as we can come.

Yet, like the name thing, I can put the 1+1=2 person in a group of people all claiming different things about that equation and show that it's not the TRUTH that 1+1=2. It's just very widely accepted among a vast majority of the population, myself included.

Widely accepted by the vast majority of the population <> TRUTH.


Because there is no such thing as TRUTH things like courts don't go based on FACTS and TRUTHS they go based on evidence (which is not TRUTH) to try to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a person committed a crime. If they get a guilty verdict it does not mean that the person committed the crime. It means that a jury perceived the doubt as unreasonable (but there ALWAYS is doubt). I am of the belief that TRUTH has 0% doubt.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on April 18, 2019, 07:37:26 PM
Here is a truth. Someone or something who has a username of iamcpc just made a post previous to mine. That is fact, evidence, and truth. Undeniable. 0% doubt.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 18, 2019, 09:39:03 PM
My point is that no one can claim that anything is the TRUTH.
Yes, they can. Anyone can.

The statement “My given first name is Ryan” has a truth value. It is either true or false.
You saying or believing it’s Albert doesn’t affect that truth value. You producing a document claiming something else doesn’t either. The truth is the truth regardless of your beliefs.

Not all statements have a truth value
“The Beatles were the greatest band ever”
Doesn’t. It is subjective. There is no objective measure of “greatness”. That’s why debates about music/films/sport are interesting, there is no definitive “true” answer.

Some statements have a truth value but it’s hard or impossible to determine:
“There is life elsewhere in the universe”.

That is either true or false. But we don’t know which. You may have an opinion as may I and the debate may be interesting but the honest answer right now is we don’t know. At some point in the future we might find out.



I used the mathematical equation 1+1 = 2 because I believe that something of that nature is as close to TRUTH as we can come.

Courts work on the basis of guilty “beyond reasonable doubt” because determining truth can be impossible. But that doesn’t mean there is no absolute truth on a matter. A person accused of a crime is either guilty or innocent. Determining which may be difficult but that doesn’t mean there is no absolute truth about which it is. It just means you don’t know the truth for certain. But truth exists independently of your beliefs and knowledge.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: iamcpc on April 18, 2019, 11:17:39 PM
My point is that no one can claim that anything is the TRUTH.
Yes, they can. Anyone can.
[/quote]

Claiming something is truth <> something being truth. They are totally different. I can claim my name is "Qr_%steatas" that does not make it TRUTH.

The statement “My given first name is Ryan” has a truth value. It is either true or false.
You saying or believing it’s Albert doesn’t affect that truth value. You producing a document claiming something else doesn’t either. The truth is the truth regardless of your beliefs.

One example of why a "my name is _______" statement is not TRUTH:

If I say my first name is "Qr_%steatas" it has no truth value whatsoever. It is not TRUTH. It is not FALSE. It is 100% unknown if that is my name or not.
If I say my first name is "Ryan" it has no truth value whatsoever. It is not TRUTH. It is not FALSE. It is 100% unknown if that is my name or not.


A second example of why a "my name is ___________" statement is not TRUTH
The statement “My given first name is Ryan” is not TRUTH. What if you were born and given the name Albert. Then, after being given the name Albert, were given up to adoption to someone who called you Ryan. You grew up without ever knowing of said adoption. Therefore if you claim your given name was Ryan and the doctor who delivered you said your name is Albert he signed your birth certificate which he presents who is telling the TRUTH?

I can easily say my name is something that it is not. If someone comes along and provides a photo ID, birth certificate, facebook page etc all showing that the person's name is Albert it is more likely that his name is Albert but still not TRUTH that his name is albert.


Not all statements have a truth value
“The Beatles were the greatest band ever”
Doesn’t. It is subjective. There is no objective measure of “greatness”. That’s why debates about music/films/sport are interesting, there is no definitive “true” answer.

There is no such thing as truth value. There is only a percentage of people who have accepted something.
80% of the earth's population have accepted that 1+1 =2
19% of the earth's population has never been taught any math and they live a hut with a dirt floor or in a jungle somewhere
1% of the earth's population has accepted that 1+1 <> 2


10% of the earth's population accepts that the Beatles were the greatest
50% of the earth's population accepts that some other band than the Beatles are the greatest
40% of the earth's population has never heard of the Beatles



Some statements have a truth value but it’s hard or impossible to determine:
“There is life elsewhere in the universe”.
That is either true or false. But we don’t know which. You may have an opinion as may I and the debate may be interesting but the honest answer right now is we don’t know. At some point in the future we might find out.

50% of the earth's population accepts that there is life elsewhere in the universe
50% of the earth's population accepts that there is no other life in the universe outside of Earth.
Where is the TRUTH value???







Courts work on the basis of guilty “beyond reasonable doubt” because determining truth can be impossible. But that doesn’t mean there is no absolute truth on a matter. A person accused of a crime is either guilty or innocent. Determining which may be difficult but that doesn’t mean there is no absolute truth about which it is. It just means you don’t know the truth for certain. But truth exists independently of your beliefs and knowledge.

My argument is that determining TRUTH is ALWAYS impossible. Instead of talking in terms of TRUTH we should talk in percentage of people who have accepted something.

If 12 jurors accept someone is guilty and they are all on the jury at the time then the person is found guilty. It's not TRUTH that the person is guilty just that 100% of a random sampling of 12 people were able to be persuaded to accept that the doubts about the person's guilt were unreasonable.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: QED on April 19, 2019, 02:49:49 AM

You lost me with your last paragraphs. There is no such thing as truth? What do you mean by truth?

My first name is Ryan. That is the truth. That is the name my momma gave me. How am I being programmed?

1+1=2 is a conspiracy? You are kinda an odd duck. These are more definitional things. We agree upon conventions so that communication becomes easier.

What are you trying to say here? That determinism is dead? That absolute knowledge is impossible? That everything is subjective?

Please clarify?



My point is that no one can claim that anything is the TRUTH. You use your name as an example.

There is a person who has a mystery name.

He says that his name is Ryan and I say that his name is Albert.
His presents a birth certificate with the name Ryan on it. I claim that it is fabricated.
I present a birth certificate with the name Albert on it. He claims that it is fabricated.
Another person comes along and says we are both lying and the mystery man's name is Alex and he comes with his own birth certificate with the name Alex on it.
Now another person comes along and says he knows this mystery person and his name is Joseph.

What is the TRUTH?

I used the mathematical equation 1+1 = 2 because I believe that something of that nature is as close to TRUTH as we can come.

Yet, like the name thing, I can put the 1+1=2 person in a group of people all claiming different things about that equation and show that it's not the TRUTH that 1+1=2. It's just very widely accepted among a vast majority of the population, myself included.

Widely accepted by the vast majority of the population <> TRUTH.


Because there is no such thing as TRUTH things like courts don't go based on FACTS and TRUTHS they go based on evidence (which is not TRUTH) to try to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a person committed a crime. If they get a guilty verdict it does not mean that the person committed the crime. It means that a jury perceived the doubt as unreasonable (but there ALWAYS is doubt). I am of the belief that TRUTH has 0% doubt.

Right, that’s what I thought. So you do not believe in absolute truth. Welcome to the club. Nothing can be absolutely known. When we talk about truth, we really mean that it is true to a reasonable standard of certainty. We then operate under the assumption that it is true, unless we find evidence which overturns it.

This is a reasonable approach to life in my opinion. It doesn’t mean we won’t sometimes be wrong, but at least we can make progress.

The other alternative is a position called hard solipsism - which is the logical dead end of insisting that something must be absolutely true before you will believe it to be true. That is a bad idea for you.

The hard solipsist does not know if reality is true, or if anything around him is real. Therefore, logically, his actions make no difference. He will kill, rape, torture, or do none of these things - because nothing is true. It does not matter. Including you. You do not matter.

Or

You can accept the reasonable position that things can be True to a reasonable standard. I exist. You exist. The world exists. Certain laws exist. Like 1+1=2.

Sure anyone can CLAIM endlessly that these things are not reasonably true. But folks claim all sorts of stupid shit. “Your name is TowelDuck.” That don’t mean my opinion is as valid as your driver’s license. Not all evidence is equal. Plus, there are mechanism set in place for evaluating whether shit people say is likely true. We call those mechanisms the scientific method. It is the most reliable method we have found to do this.

And every time I write “scientific method,” Pete acquires one more involuntary twitch.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 19, 2019, 06:29:00 AM
I think you guys are mixing up truth with your ability to discern the truth.
iamcpc asks:

Quote
50% of the earth's population accepts that there is life elsewhere in the universe
50% of the earth's population accepts that there is no other life in the universe outside of Earth.
Where is the TRUTH value???

The truth value is unknown but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Either there is life out there or there isn’t. Some people claim there absolutely must be, some people claim there absolutely can’t be. The fact is we don’t really know right now but there either is or there isn’t.
If there is then there is. It can’t be “true” for me and “false” for you. We can have different opinions but one of us must be wrong. The truth about it is absolute.

People debate whether we went to the moon. Well, we either did or we didn’t. Apollo 11 is a historical event which either occurred or it didn’t. Two people may disagree about that but, again, one of them is wrong. Armstrong either stepped on the moon or he didn’t, the truth of that can’t change from person to person.

Those sorts of truths are absolute even if it’s impossible to discern the truth absolutely. Things like who was the greatest musician / sportsman / actor are not absolute because there is no objective measure of “greatness”.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: QED on April 19, 2019, 10:03:20 AM
I think you guys are mixing up truth with your ability to discern the truth.
iamcpc asks:

Quote
50% of the earth's population accepts that there is life elsewhere in the universe
50% of the earth's population accepts that there is no other life in the universe outside of Earth.
Where is the TRUTH value???

The truth value is unknown but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Either there is life out there or there isn’t. Some people claim there absolutely must be, some people claim there absolutely can’t be. The fact is we don’t really know right now but there either is or there isn’t.
If there is then there is. It can’t be “true” for me and “false” for you. We can have different opinions but one of us must be wrong. The truth about it is absolute.

People debate whether we went to the moon. Well, we either did or we didn’t. Apollo 11 is a historical event which either occurred or it didn’t. Two people may disagree about that but, again, one of them is wrong. Armstrong either stepped on the moon or he didn’t, the truth of that can’t change from person to person.

Those sorts of truths are absolute even if it’s impossible to discern the truth absolutely. Things like who was the greatest musician / sportsman / actor are not absolute because there is no objective measure of “greatness”.

I disagree that there is absolute truth on philosophical grounds. It is impossible to devise an experiment which can identify whether what you are experiencing is real, or if you are just a brain in a vat, and “reality” is an illusion imposed by an external agent (think The Matrix). Since this experiment cannot be performed, evidence does not exist which demonstrates absolute truth.

Despite this conundrum, I choose to believe that this is probably not the case, and reality does exist. It seems unlikely that the entire universe is a figment of my own brain. Nevertheless, there is no mechanism to prove this is actually true, so absolute knowledge is unattainable because reality is not verifiable.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 19, 2019, 11:21:55 AM
All you’ve done there, QED, is repeat the assertion that we can’t know absolutely what the truth is. And I agree.
But I maintain that the truth exists independently of that.

If I tell you that outside your house there’s a lion who will eat you if you step out the door then that is either true or it isn’t. I can present all kinds of evidence for the lion and you may or may not accept that but ultimately the lion is either there or it isn’t. If the lion is there and you step outside the door then you’re going to get eaten no matter what you believe. Your belief about the lion and your ability to know absolutely the truth of whether the lion is there is independent of whether you’re going to get eaten by a bloody great lion if you go outside.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: QED on April 19, 2019, 01:08:23 PM
All you’ve done there, QED, is repeat the assertion that we can’t know absolutely what the truth is. And I agree.
But I maintain that the truth exists independently of that.

If I tell you that outside your house there’s a lion who will eat you if you step out the door then that is either true or it isn’t. I can present all kinds of evidence for the lion and you may or may not accept that but ultimately the lion is either there or it isn’t. If the lion is there and you step outside the door then you’re going to get eaten no matter what you believe. Your belief about the lion and your ability to know absolutely the truth of whether the lion is there is independent of whether you’re going to get eaten by a bloody great lion if you go outside.

Ahh, I see your argument now. What you are really claiming is the existence of the three logical absolutes, and that these must exist independently of any thinking agent.

Yes, I use them as the fundamental pillar of truth - but they are unprovable. There is no experiment you can devise which could demonstrate that something does NOT have a well defined truth value - precisely because it may just be beyond our reach. Hence, we cannot demonstrate that the 3 are true, and must assume them. They are unfalsifiable.

A or not A. The first absolute.

Yes, a logical statement must have a truth value.

Really? How do you know? How can you rule out a third option.

Well, QED, what else could there be? Either A or not A. There IS no third option!

How do you know this, grasshopper?

Because I can’t think of one.

That is an argument from ignorance fallacy. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: iamcpc on April 19, 2019, 02:55:14 PM
The truth value is unknown but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

I disagree. In order to claim that something is TRUTH you have to know that it is TRUTH.

Here is a truth. Someone or something who has a username of iamcpc just made a post previous to mine. That is fact, evidence, and truth. Undeniable. 0% doubt.

"Someone or something who has a username of iamcpc just made a post previous to mine. "


That is not TRUTH.

Here's an example of one way that statement is FALSE:
We could be living in a simulation. There could be no post.


"Someone or something who has a username of iamcpc just made a post previous to mine. "
Here's an example of a second way that statement is FALSE:
Someone or something with a different username than IAMCPC could have made those posts and the website could have gotten hacked and the hacker replaced the real posters name with IAMCPC.

The TRUTH very well could be that no one with a username of iamcpc has ever posted on this forum.


If I tell you that outside your house there’s a lion who will eat you if you step out the door then that is either true or it isn’t. I can present all kinds of evidence for the lion and you may or may not accept that but ultimately the lion is either there or it isn’t. If the lion is there and you step outside the door then you’re going to get eaten no matter what you believe. Your belief about the lion and your ability to know absolutely the truth of whether the lion is there is independent of whether you’re going to get eaten by a bloody great lion if you go outside.

belief that there is a lion + perception that there is a lion <> TRUTH that there is a lion
It's IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to have any sort of ability to know absolutely the truth

What if you see a "lion" and it turns out to be a very large dog which looks like a lion? The TRUTH is not that there is a lion yet your belief and perception say there is a lion.


(https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/12742575_f520.jpg)


What if you are hallucinating? Then you "seeing" a "lion" is not TRUTH. The TRUTH is not that there is a lion yet your belief and perception say there is a lion.

What if you exist in a simulation? The TRUTH is that there is no "lion". The TRUTH is not that there is a lion yet your belief and perception say there is a lion.

What if it's not a lion but instead a lion which was bred with a tiger creating a liger? The TRUTH is not that there is a lion yet your belief and perception say there is a lion.  Google it. I would say they are real but that would be claiming to know a TRUTH.
I believe that it's highly possible that they are real. It's not a TRUTH that they are real.

(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/news/2017/02/23/liger-tigon/02-liger-tigon.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: Bikini Polaris on April 19, 2019, 05:25:47 PM
A or not A. The first absolute.

Yes, a logical statement must have a truth value.

The conversation is maybe overshooting the epistemological requirements of a flat earth map, but since your nickname is QED, may I point you to this little theorem stating there exist true statements that aren't neither provable nor disprovable. It's due to Kurt Gödel, you can find it here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/index.html
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: markjo on April 19, 2019, 06:01:41 PM
The truth value is unknown but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

I disagree. In order to claim that something is TRUTH you have to know that it is TRUTH.
In a vain attempt to get this thread back on topic, would you be willing to accept the notion that, although not absolutely true, something can still accurate enough to be useful on a practical, day-to-day basis (as in accurate maps)?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: QED on April 19, 2019, 08:26:50 PM
A or not A. The first absolute.

Yes, a logical statement must have a truth value.

The conversation is maybe overshooting the epistemological requirements of a flat earth map, but since your nickname is QED, may I point you to this little theorem stating there exist true statements that aren't neither provable nor disprovable. It's due to Kurt Gödel, you can find it here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/index.html

I am well aware of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, yet I appreciate you referencing it.

What the theorem proves is that given a generalized logical system, it is always possible to identify logical statements subject to that system that do not have a well-defined truth value.

The classic example: this statement is false.

Hence you see, there is no condition on these statements regarding their truth value - indeed within the logical system the truth value is unknowable.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 19, 2019, 09:53:52 PM
The truth value is unknown but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
I disagree.
Ironically, you disagreeing is irrelevant - that's exactly my point.

Quote
In order to claim that something is TRUTH you have to know that it is TRUTH.

Well, as I think we are agreeing you can't know what is true in the strictest sense. But as I keep saying, truth is absolute and is not affected by your or my or anyone else's beliefs.

It doesn't matter whether you believe there's a lion outside or whether you don't. It doesn't matter how certain you feel that there is or isn't.
The statement "there is a lion outside" has a truth value. The fact you don't know for certain what that value is doesn't matter.
If the statement is true then you're still getting eaten no matter what you believe.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: Jeppspace on April 19, 2019, 10:08:18 PM
Despite this conundrum, I choose to believe that this is probably not the case, and reality does exist. It seems unlikely that the entire universe is a figment of my own brain. Nevertheless, there is no mechanism to prove this is actually true, so absolute knowledge is unattainable because reality is not verifiable.

The Smiths have been at you again. Don't worry mate, it's all very real.  8)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: iamcpc on April 19, 2019, 10:31:39 PM
In a vain attempt to get this thread back on topic, would you be willing to accept the notion that, although not absolutely true, something can still accurate enough to be useful on a practical, day-to-day basis (as in accurate maps)?

I made my view on the existence of accurate maps of the earth very clear in this post:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11747.msg189455#msg189455




It doesn't matter whether you believe there's a lion outside or whether you don't. It doesn't matter how certain you feel that there is or isn't.
The statement "there is a lion outside" has a truth value. The fact you don't know for certain what that value is doesn't matter.
If the statement is true then you're still getting eaten no matter what you believe.

The statement "there is a lion outside" only has TRUTH if there is a lion outside. If there is no lion outside then that statement is FALSE. If we don't know if there is a lion outside and someone says "there is a lion outside" then if that statement is true or false is unknown.

truth is absolute and is not affected by your or my or anyone else's beliefs.

You can't say that TRUTH is absolute when no one has been able to present one thing which is TRUE. People presented things that very likely could be TRUE. They also have a very small likely hood of being FALSE.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: stack on April 19, 2019, 10:35:22 PM
Back to Flat Earth Maps. In another thread, I took issue with a specific wiki entry titled “World Geodetic System 1984"

https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

But it’s all probably more relevant here.

In it I find some very specific quote mining and misleading sentiments. Here’s is the recent exchange:

Quote from: stack
If I'm to understand this, FECORE's one 'experiment' funded by membership so far (No other experiments have seemingly taken place) found that, for instance, the 10's of km's in distance measurements show the WGS84 to be off by 6 inches at the shortest distance and less than 2 feet at the longest? Am I mistaken in interpretation?

https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

Nothing in the wiki article addresses the fact that FECORE basically validated WGS84. And we all know that the WGS84 is based upon the ellipsoid. Even the Utah article you always cite with the catchy Title, "The Earth is Not Round!", is actually referring the fact that it isn't round, it's an ellipsoid. From the article:

"NAD83 became the statewide datum standard beginning in 1997...UTM NAD83 is a projected coordinate system that represents physical locations abstracted to a flat, cartesian coordinate system. The UTM NAD83 projection uses the GRS80 ellipsoid and a center-of-the-earth anchor point as its datum, both of which are slightly different than the WGS datum."

You really should clean up that wiki entry, it's wildly misleading verging on being outright disingenuous.

Tom’s response:

The article goes over what the anchor points and datums are. "The Earth is Not Round!" sounds pretty clear to me. If the article was about WGS84 distributing round earth measurements the title of the article would be "The Earth is Round!"

Quote
Geographic coordinates use latitude and longitude values to define positions on the 3D surface of the earth, which is of course, best modeled as an ellipsoid, not a sphere.

...

Latitude and Longitude are useless for measuring distance and area

...

Web Mercator's significant weakness is that measurements of distance and area in its native coordinates are completely unusable.

It says that RE is based on longitude and latitude. The article then says that latitude and longitude are not used.

I would recommend taking it to another thread, as it is off-topic to the subject of gyroscopes and is distracting. Please start a new thread and tell us how this system works if latitude and longitude measurements are not used. I am sure that several others in the community would like to know.

Seemingly the argument is that the ellipsoid based earth model/datum is inaccurate when it comes to flat maps. I guess, therefore flat maps are the real representation of the shape of the earth, flat? I’m guessing b/c I’m not really sure exactly what the wiki entry is arguing for. But I guess if my guess is correct, then it might be easy to create a flat earth map by simply pasting all these State Plane type maps together and boom! Flat Earth map.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: iamcpc on April 19, 2019, 10:43:30 PM

Seemingly the argument is that the ellipsoid based earth model/datum is inaccurate when it comes to flat maps. I guess, therefore flat maps are the real representation of the shape of the earth, flat? I’m guessing b/c I’m not really sure exactly what the wiki entry is arguing for. But I guess if my guess is correct, then it might be easy to create a flat earth map by simply pasting all these State Plane type maps together and boom! Flat Earth map.

How anyone can claim that an accurate map which depicts the earth as a flat plane does not exist when literally when literally BILLIONS of people every year, myself included, navigating the earth using a map which depicts the earth as a flat plane. I've linked dozens of them in this thread. It all goes back to the core there is no TRUTH.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: stack on April 19, 2019, 11:02:42 PM

Seemingly the argument is that the ellipsoid based earth model/datum is inaccurate when it comes to flat maps. I guess, therefore flat maps are the real representation of the shape of the earth, flat? I’m guessing b/c I’m not really sure exactly what the wiki entry is arguing for. But I guess if my guess is correct, then it might be easy to create a flat earth map by simply pasting all these State Plane type maps together and boom! Flat Earth map.

How anyone can claim that an accurate map which depicts the earth as a flat plane does not exist when literally when literally BILLIONS of people every year, myself included, navigating the earth using a map which depicts the earth as a flat plane. I've linked dozens of them in this thread. It all goes back to the core there is no TRUTH.

I may have not phrased it correctly. Mostly b/c I'm not entirely clear what the wiki is specifically arguing or trying to assert. Flat maps are plenty accurate. The gist is, how are most recognized navigational maps derived? The wiki seems to allude to these State Plane maps (sans longitude & latitude) as perhaps more accurate and not based on spherical/ellipsoid maps, but somehow based solely on a flat earth. Hence, if that is the case, why not paste them all together and you've got yourself a highly accurate flat earth map? Additionally, is the wiki entry even remotely accurate in its depictions/assertions?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 20, 2019, 05:58:14 AM
You can't say that TRUTH is absolute when no one has been able to present one thing which is TRUE. People presented things that very likely could be TRUE. They also have a very small likely hood of being FALSE.
Again, truth is independent of your or my ability to discern what the truth is.
Person A believes the lion is outside, Person B does not - despite being able to see the lion through the window, he believes it’s a mirage or a model lion or whatever.
If Person A and B both go outside then their fate is the same because the truth is independent of their beliefs.

Dragging this back to FE, the shape of the earth is what it is. The truth of that is independent of your beliefs about that, or mine.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: QED on April 20, 2019, 01:53:45 PM
You can't say that TRUTH is absolute when no one has been able to present one thing which is TRUE. People presented things that very likely could be TRUE. They also have a very small likely hood of being FALSE.
Again, truth is independent of your or my ability to discern what the truth is.
Person A believes the lion is outside, Person B does not - despite being able to see the lion through the window, he believes it’s a mirage or a model lion or whatever.
If Person A and B both go outside then their fate is the same because the truth is independent of their beliefs.

Dragging this back to FE, the shape of the earth is what it is. The truth of that is independent of your beliefs about that, or mine.

I do understand what you are saying. Look here though: you do not KNOW that it is a requirement for things to have a definite truth value. You DONT know this, you’re assuming it is the case. You assume the logical absolutes are true. You have to - they are unfalsifiable.

It is not possible to verify the absolutes are correct, because absolute knowledge is elusive.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: jimmycrack on April 23, 2019, 05:15:57 AM
Here is one for ya.

Johannesburg to Sydney - 11.75 hour flight
Los Angeles to Shanghai - 13.5 hour flight

Which one of these looks further?

Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: iamcpc on April 23, 2019, 04:41:17 PM
Here is one for ya.

Johannesburg to Sydney - 11.75 hour flight
Los Angeles to Shanghai - 13.5 hour flight

Which one of these looks further?

This topic has been discussed hundreds of times. The flat disk model is considerably weakened by known flight times/distances, known travel times/distances, known shipping times/distances. This is why I presented an alternate model in which the earth is represented as a flat plane and is much less weakened by these things



For supporters of the models that are severely weakened by this evidence and these observations I got all the rebuttals from a flight time superthread. (Pick any one of your rebuttals from the list below) Here's a link:

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




-Because the angles of a triangle drawn between three flight paths = 180 degrees the earth is flat.
-Because the angles of a triangle drawn between three flight paths = 179.99984 degrees the earth is slightly concave.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg121615#msg121615



-Distances between two cities which are far apart is unknown
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg121996#msg121996


-Flight GPS systems are inaccurate
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122030#msg122030
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122441#msg122441


-GPS systems are based on a round earth therefore will give measurements/distances which support a round earth.
-Aircraft are using instruments which assume round earth coordinates which will support a round earth.
-There is no flat earth map.
-The difference in flight time is based off of flight speed which has yet to be proven.
-The airplane speed and range is based off round systems therefore will give speeds and ranges which support a round earth
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122359#msg122359


-plane speed measurements are unreliable
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122364#msg122364

-there are no flat earth flight programs, systems, GPS etc because the flat earth aircraft navigation fund is nonexistent.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122369#msg122369


-Triangulation as a measurement of distance can be inaccurate because the "known" locations used for triangulation are based on a round earth system
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122410#msg122410


-there are almost an infinite number of continental configurations (If a flight disproves flat earth continental configuration 23985729387592873 you then need to test continental configuration 23985729387592874).
-Groundspeed measurement instruments use a round earth coordinate system therefore will give results which support a round earth
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122411#msg122411


-proof is needed that mile measurements on a highway are accurate
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122423#msg122423

-Google maps is based on a round earth coordinate system
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122433#msg122433

-any navigation system based on longitude and latitude is a round earth navigation system (which is most likely used in all navigation systems)
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122655#msg122655

-any map, navigation, or measurement system which uses Latitude and Longitude in any way is inaccurate
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122664#msg122664

-That's not the map of the earth (a variant of there is no map of the earth)
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122672#msg122672
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: inquisitive on April 25, 2019, 02:23:36 PM
Please provide details of errors in the WGS84 model used by cartographers across the world.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: TomInAustin on May 03, 2019, 04:57:06 PM
As there is no flat earth map I thought I'd have a go at making one
I had a look on Google Maps and used that as my source for distances between places.
Obviously if you don't accept those distances as accurate then that's going to be a problem from the start but given that Google Maps is used by millions of people to get around you'd think we'd know about it if their maps were wrong.

I took some US Cities - I used mainland US partly because it's continental so we get away from complexities about measuring distances across oceans. I picked them fairly arbitrarily but I wanted them far apart as this is where we should see most difference between a flat earth and a globe.

I started with Seattle. Final image is at the bottom of this post.

The distance between Seattle to New York is 2405 Miles
So I drew a black circle diameter 2405 pixels. Seattle is the centre. New York must be somewhere on that circle.

New York to Dallas is 1368 miles. I picked an arbitrary point on the circle surrounding Seattle - to the right of the circle as New York is due East of Seattle. I called that point New York and drew a red circle 1368 pixels around that point.
So Dallas must be somewhere on that red circle.

Seattle to Dallas is 1684 miles so I drew another blue circle around Seattle of diameter 1684 pixels. Dallas must be somewhere on that blue circle

So, Dallas must be on the intersection between the red and blue circles.
There are 2 possibilities as the circles intersect in 2 places. Dallas is south of both New York and Seattle though so I've picked the lower one and called that Dallas.

So now we know where Seattle, New York and Dallas are in relation to one another.
I've marked the cities with rough X's and labelled them.
Now what happens if we add a 4th city?

I picked Minneapolis as it is fairly central to the above 3 cities.
The distance from Minneapolis to
New York is 1020 miles
Seattle is 1384 miles
Dallas is 1389 miles.

So I've drawn green circles with the corresponding number of pixels around those 3 cities.
Minneapolis must be somewhere on each of those green circles so it must be at the intersection of them.

The problem is the three green circles don't all intersect at any point. So either:
1) The distances on Google Maps are wrong
2) I have made an error somewhere in my reasoning or method
3) The earth isn't flat.

Are there any other possibilities?

(https://i.ibb.co/zVdBcqm/FEMap.jpg)


I did this exercise using Google Sketch-up and published mileage from the airlines.  The results were as expected.  North of the equator it worked reasonably well but it collapsed when southern cities were attempted.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: Gazza711 on May 03, 2019, 09:51:26 PM
I repeated the above for a few cities in the UK - I even repeated the error, I used the distances as the diameter, not the radius.
I'm not going to post all the details, you can check the distances for yourself.
Interestingly, here we do get a point where the green circles meet which must be where Oxford is.

(https://i.ibb.co/sC0SgqQ/FEMap-England.jpg)

My conclusion from this is
1) The method I am using is valid
2) The distances as given by Google Maps are likely to be accurate.
3) The difference between a flat earth and a globe earth in terms of accurate mapping is less noticeable over smaller distances, which is as you'd expect.
I would say google maps is more a mercator map for flight purposes used on a public platform. Hope that helps.
I was thinking of a better idea. See if ships follow the great curve for shorter distances across large amounts of water. Aviation uses this rule. If water travel doesnt then we need to research ship travel. Like chile curving down to antarctica and up to new zealand. Thats a typical airline route debated alot about.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: 0192773 on May 04, 2019, 12:17:51 AM
I am confused as to why you used google maps. Google Maps is clearly based on a Round Earth Theory. If you zoom out far enough, Google Maps is shown as an image of a round earth. Additionally, it is possible to navigate back to your starting point (even on the most zoomed in level) if you have the patience to scroll enough.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: Bikini Polaris on May 04, 2019, 12:27:18 AM
I did this exercise using Google Sketch-up and published mileage from the airlines.  The results were as expected.  North of the equator it worked reasonably well but it collapsed when southern cities were attempted.

Since 90% of humans live in the Northern Hemisphere, flat earth maps must be convincing only above the equator. Obviously an Australian would be offended to see his island warped as it is in Rowbotham's map.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: spherical on May 10, 2019, 07:58:21 PM
Agreed, southern hemisphere FE map fails tremendously.  The inventors of FE thought people from southern hemisphere are native dumb people that can not read or write, and would never contest such very wrong map and statements.  They just forget the 11% world population down there are not monkeys, there are plenty of universities, very large cities, heavy industry, research centers, scientists.  Antarctica is packed with research groups from all over the world.  Everything related to the Southern Hemisphere, South Pole and Antarctica literally kills any FE statements.  They also count with people from North Hemisphere never traveled overseas, never stepped inside an airplane, can't use a calculator, can't do trigonometry, never studied physics (never studied anything), never gazed the universe through a telescope.  The FE southern hemisphere map is a literal attack to human intelligence.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 11, 2019, 04:08:02 AM
I did this exercise using Google Sketch-up and published mileage from the airlines.  The results were as expected.  North of the equator it worked reasonably well but it collapsed when southern cities were attempted.

Since 90% of humans live in the Northern Hemisphere, flat earth maps must be convincing only above the equator. Obviously an Australian would be offended to see his island warped as it is in Rowbotham's map.

Pull up Rowbotham's map. Australia is its normal size there. The map you usually see online is a globe projection.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: ChrisTP on May 11, 2019, 10:29:24 AM
I did this exercise using Google Sketch-up and published mileage from the airlines.  The results were as expected.  North of the equator it worked reasonably well but it collapsed when southern cities were attempted.

Since 90% of humans live in the Northern Hemisphere, flat earth maps must be convincing only above the equator. Obviously an Australian would be offended to see his island warped as it is in Rowbotham's map.

Pull up Rowbotham's map. Australia is it's normal size there. The map you usually see online is a globe projection.
Australia isn't the only place in the southern hemisphere and the map you're refering to also destroys Argentina's shape and size considerably.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: Macarios on May 11, 2019, 03:05:59 PM
Pull up Rowbotham's map. Australia is its normal size there. The map you usually see online is a globe projection.

Which one? The Wiki shows only two.
Australia doesn't look like Australia at all, Africa doesn't look like Africa, South America doesn't look like South America:

Rowbotham's map from 1841

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/3/3d/Rowbotham_Map.jpg/600px-Rowbotham_Map.jpg)

Rowbotham's map from 1873

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/a/ad/Rowbotham%27s_Flat_Earth_Map_of_the_World_-_1873.png/601px-Rowbotham%27s_Flat_Earth_Map_of_the_World_-_1873.png)

In reality the same method used to correctly map the British Isles, North America and Europe was used to map Australia and South America. :)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: Why Not on May 11, 2019, 03:18:47 PM
And while us Australians might be disappointed to see our country so distorted. The New Zealanders will be happy to know that they're actually living one island that is almost the size of Australia and not the two tiny islands they have been lead to believe they are on.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: spherical on May 11, 2019, 03:48:55 PM
Pull up Rowbotham's map. Australia is its normal size there. The map you usually see online is a globe projection.

Tom, can you please be dear and post here two easy things, according to FE map:

1) The direct physical distance from Perth to Sidney in Australia
2) The direct physical distance from Perth (AU) to Cape Town in Africa

The numbers don't need to be very precise, any 10 km error is acceptable.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Map
Post by: iamcpc on May 13, 2019, 06:45:43 PM
Pull up Rowbotham's map. Australia is its normal size there. The map you usually see online is a globe projection.

Tom, can you please be dear and post here two easy things, according to FE map:

1) The direct physical distance from Perth to Sidney in Australia
2) The direct physical distance from Perth (AU) to Cape Town in Africa

The numbers don't need to be very precise, any 10 km error is acceptable.



Spherical,

A problem here is that, based on my research and observations, that a vast majority of the community here believes something along the lines of:

1.  There is no FE map.
2. What you are calling a FE map is just an idea or concept that has not been tested or investigated.
3. If you ask 10 different people it's comment to get 10 different ideas about the flat earth so, among those 10 people, there are 5-6 different maps and then 4-5 models which can't be mapped.



That's the entire point of this thread. There are visual representations of different flat earth models and ideas but no one official flat earth map. There is not even a group of FE maps that a majority of the community can agree on.