The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Norm77 on February 25, 2020, 02:45:56 PM

Title: What is agreed upon?
Post by: Norm77 on February 25, 2020, 02:45:56 PM
For RE, there is usually general agreement 8n all aspects. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, gravity exists, etc. I've noticed that in FE, there are so many different models and theories. Ice wall, no ice wall, but an infinite plane, earth sits on the back of a giant turtle, Maturin(the giant turtle) stands on the back of four elephants, gravity does exists, gravity does not exist it's upward acceleration, etc. I guess what I'm wondering, is there anything - other than the earth being flat - that all flat earthers agree on?
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on February 25, 2020, 04:27:52 PM
For RE, there is usually general agreement 8n all aspects. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, gravity exists, etc. I've noticed that in FE, there are so many different models and theories. Ice wall, no ice wall, but an infinite plane, earth sits on the back of a giant turtle, Maturin(the giant turtle) stands on the back of four elephants, gravity does exists, gravity does not exist it's upward acceleration, etc. I guess what I'm wondering, is there anything - other than the earth being flat - that all flat earthers agree on?
There is a general agreement among flat earthers that the earth is not a globe.

Other than that, I am not sure.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: iamcpc on February 25, 2020, 04:54:51 PM
For RE, there is usually general agreement 8n all aspects. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, gravity exists, etc. I've noticed that in FE, there are so many different models and theories. Ice wall, no ice wall, but an infinite plane, earth sits on the back of a giant turtle, Maturin(the giant turtle) stands on the back of four elephants, gravity does exists, gravity does not exist it's upward acceleration, etc. I guess what I'm wondering, is there anything - other than the earth being flat - that all flat earthers agree on?
There is a general agreement among flat earthers that the earth is not a globe.

Other than that, I am not sure.


In addition there is a general idea that there are most likely flaws in the RE system of us flying through space while spinning super fast orbiting the sun while a moon orbits us.

Other than that there are so many different models. It really discredits the entire movement and it's one of my biggest pet peeves.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on February 27, 2020, 08:11:03 AM
broken record time: one cannot feel velocity, only acceleration, and the centripetal acceleration we feel as we revolve and rotate is minuscule.

OP, if you read the wiki I think most the FErs here buy into it. The hierchy seems to be Tom, then the mods, then the followers, and Tom apparently is in charge of the wiki. It has stuff like how (not) gravity works and the sun/moon patterns, etc. there is no agreed upon map here, but individual FErs May have their own idea about what map is correct.

The excuse for this is of course, the cabal is against us, we can’t get any good data because we can’t go past the ice wall, we can’t build rockets, etc.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: Parallax on February 27, 2020, 09:32:50 PM
It's varied. Generally everyone agrees with the ice wall, because it keeps in the oceans. What's beyond the ice wall itself is a mystery.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: iamcpc on February 27, 2020, 09:38:39 PM
OP, if you read the wiki I think most the FErs here buy into it. The hierchy seems to be Tom, then the mods, then the followers, and Tom apparently is in charge of the wiki. It has stuff like how (not) gravity works and the sun/moon patterns, etc. there is no agreed upon map here, but individual FErs May have their own idea about what map is correct.


The wiki only really presents one FE model when, in reality, there are at least a dozen.

It's varied. Generally everyone agrees with the ice wall, because it keeps in the oceans. What's beyond the ice wall itself is a mystery.

This is not true. There are at least half of the FE models that I've found in which the oceans are kept in place by something other than an ice wall.

In the infinite earth FE models there is nothing but infinity holding the oceans in.
In the biblical FE models the firmament is holding in the oceans
There are several FE models in which the ocean is being held in by a dome
There are even FE models which don't have a dome, firmament, or great ice wall and what is holding the oceans in place is something unknown or some other force or even gravity
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: Parallax on February 27, 2020, 09:56:16 PM
Well I wasn't meaning literally everyone, but the majority believe in the ice wall. The evidence is there really, as are the photos.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: Roundy on February 27, 2020, 11:00:13 PM
For RE, there is usually general agreement 8n all aspects. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, gravity exists, etc.

It's easy to say there's "usually general agreement" about various aspects of a model, then name just 3 examples, but two of those examples have analogues in FE (Earth is flat, sun revolves around a fixed point above Earth) and one of them is actually so contentious even among REers that it can't really be said to be a sure thing; it's odd that they can be so sure something exists and fall so far short of explaining (or even agreeing, ironically enough given the central point of your post) what it even is.

You're gonna have to do better.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: Bikini Polaris on March 09, 2020, 11:06:17 AM
I think they do agree on the reality of time zones and usually they think the Sun is quite close to us. I mean, I have never saw a FE denying those two things (and they really deny so many things)
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 09, 2020, 01:08:13 PM
For RE, there is usually general agreement 8n all aspects. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, gravity exists, etc.

It's easy to say there's "usually general agreement" about various aspects of a model, then name just 3 examples, but two of those examples have analogues in FE (Earth is flat, sun revolves around a fixed point above Earth) and one of them is actually so contentious even among REers that it can't really be said to be a sure thing; it's odd that they can be so sure something exists and fall so far short of explaining (or even agreeing, ironically enough given the central point of your post) what it even is.

You're gonna have to do better.
I'd say the difference is the (relatively) simple model of a spinning globe earth orbiting a distant sun with a moon orbiting it and with the axis of spin inclined does explain observations pretty well. It explains night and day, seasons, the way the celestial objects move in the night sky, eclipses. The FE model has to explain all these things using different and unexplained phenomena. The angular size of the moon and sun should constantly vary in your model for example, but it doesn't. And while our understanding of gravity might not be complete, our model of it does a pretty good job of explaining and predicting the movement of bodies. I don't believe there's a FE equivalent.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: Bikini Polaris on March 09, 2020, 01:41:04 PM
I'd say the difference is the (relatively) simple model of a spinning globe earth orbiting a distant sun with a moon orbiting it and with the axis of spin inclined does explain observations pretty well. It explains night and day, seasons, the way the celestial objects move in the night sky, eclipses. The FE model has to explain all these things using different and unexplained phenomena. The angular size of the moon and sun should constantly vary in your model for example, but it doesn't. And while our understanding of gravity might not be complete, our model of it does a pretty good job of explaining and predicting the movement of bodies. I don't believe there's a FE equivalent.

Now this makes me think they also agree there's a worldwide conspiracy from the sixties and involving citizens and technician from all around the... world that produces the same kind of pictures in a consistent way.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: GreatATuin on March 09, 2020, 11:14:06 PM
I'd say the difference is the (relatively) simple model of a spinning globe earth orbiting a distant sun with a moon orbiting it and with the axis of spin inclined does explain observations pretty well. It explains night and day, seasons, the way the celestial objects move in the night sky, eclipses. The FE model has to explain all these things using different and unexplained phenomena. The angular size of the moon and sun should constantly vary in your model for example, but it doesn't.

The angular size of the moon and sun do vary in a globe earth model, and it does for example accurately predict if a solar eclipse is going to be total, or annular when the angular size of the moon is slightly smaller.

Of course the variation is barely noticeable for the naked eye, and it varies much less than would be expected in a FE model, unless you bend the laws of optics to match the observation.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: GreatATuin on March 14, 2020, 08:25:29 AM
For RE, there is usually general agreement 8n all aspects. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, gravity exists, etc. I've noticed that in FE, there are so many different models and theories. Ice wall, no ice wall, but an infinite plane, earth sits on the back of a giant turtle, Maturin(the giant turtle) stands on the back of four elephants, gravity does exists, gravity does not exist it's upward acceleration, etc. I guess what I'm wondering, is there anything - other than the earth being flat - that all flat earthers agree on?
There is a general agreement among flat earthers that the earth is not a globe.

Other than that, I am not sure.

This is not surprising. Agreeing on virtually anything else would be the first step towards accepting a single flat Earth model, in which it would be much easier to find impossibilities or inconsistencies, either within the model itself or between the model and observations that can be easily made in the world as we see it.

I mean, we don't even have a definitive map of what it's supposed to look like. Humans have been making maps for centuries, and no one could ever come up with a correct, definitive map of the Earth if it were flat?
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 14, 2020, 02:16:57 PM
For RE, there is usually general agreement 8n all aspects. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, gravity exists, etc. I've noticed that in FE, there are so many different models and theories. Ice wall, no ice wall, but an infinite plane, earth sits on the back of a giant turtle, Maturin(the giant turtle) stands on the back of four elephants, gravity does exists, gravity does not exist it's upward acceleration, etc. I guess what I'm wondering, is there anything - other than the earth being flat - that all flat earthers agree on?
There is a general agreement among flat earthers that the earth is not a globe.

Other than that, I am not sure.

This is not surprising. Agreeing on virtually anything else would be the first step towards accepting a single flat Earth model, in which it would be much easier to find impossibilities or inconsistencies, either within the model itself or between the model and observations that can be easily made in the world as we see it.

I mean, we don't even have a definitive map of what it's supposed to look like. Humans have been making maps for centuries, and no one could ever come up with a correct, definitive map of the Earth if it were flat?
I am not sure what you mean, as all maps are flat.

And all flat maps are very definitive.

It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 14, 2020, 02:50:32 PM
For RE, there is usually general agreement 8n all aspects. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, gravity exists, etc. I've noticed that in FE, there are so many different models and theories. Ice wall, no ice wall, but an infinite plane, earth sits on the back of a giant turtle, Maturin(the giant turtle) stands on the back of four elephants, gravity does exists, gravity does not exist it's upward acceleration, etc. I guess what I'm wondering, is there anything - other than the earth being flat - that all flat earthers agree on?
There is a general agreement among flat earthers that the earth is not a globe.

Other than that, I am not sure.

This is not surprising. Agreeing on virtually anything else would be the first step towards accepting a single flat Earth model, in which it would be much easier to find impossibilities or inconsistencies, either within the model itself or between the model and observations that can be easily made in the world as we see it.

I mean, we don't even have a definitive map of what it's supposed to look like. Humans have been making maps for centuries, and no one could ever come up with a correct, definitive map of the Earth if it were flat?
I am not sure what you mean, as all maps are flat.

And all flat maps are very definitive.

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

Well I find that a strange statement. If I asked you to measure the distance between say New York and Boston with a flat map and demanded to know the answer accurate to +/- 5 nanometers, I assume you'd agree that can't be done, at best you'd manage +/- a few tens or hundreds of metres. On the other hand if I asked you to measure a precision part from a racing engine and you told me the answer to the nearest 10 metres, the answer would be correct, but meaningless. It's all a matter of scale and accuracy of measurement. It's the same argument about the horizon looking flat from close to sea level. The earth is just big. Really, really big and scale makes all the difference. On that scale, looking at the horizon, you're looking at a tiny, tiny fraction of the earth, so of course it would look flat on a globe earth. Similarly with a map covering a few hundred or even a few thousand square miles, compared with the nearly 200 million square miles of earth's surface, the distances you can measure with a ruler are likely to be indistinguishable from those you would find on a globe, It's only when you start to put the entire earth on a flat surface that the differences between a flat and a globe model appear. You can't extrapolate from a flat map of Maine being accurate to then claim this implies a flat map of the earth is accurate. On a globe earth, a flat map of Maine is not accurate, but when you take into account measuring error tolerances, you're not going to be able to tell the difference.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: GreatATuin on March 14, 2020, 02:52:30 PM
For RE, there is usually general agreement 8n all aspects. The earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, gravity exists, etc. I've noticed that in FE, there are so many different models and theories. Ice wall, no ice wall, but an infinite plane, earth sits on the back of a giant turtle, Maturin(the giant turtle) stands on the back of four elephants, gravity does exists, gravity does not exist it's upward acceleration, etc. I guess what I'm wondering, is there anything - other than the earth being flat - that all flat earthers agree on?
There is a general agreement among flat earthers that the earth is not a globe.

Other than that, I am not sure.

This is not surprising. Agreeing on virtually anything else would be the first step towards accepting a single flat Earth model, in which it would be much easier to find impossibilities or inconsistencies, either within the model itself or between the model and observations that can be easily made in the world as we see it.

I mean, we don't even have a definitive map of what it's supposed to look like. Humans have been making maps for centuries, and no one could ever come up with a correct, definitive map of the Earth if it were flat?
I am not sure what you mean, as all maps are flat.

And all flat maps are very definitive.

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

You have heard about map projections, haven't you? All flat maps are somewhat inaccurate, but if the area that's mapped is small enough, it can be neglected.

There is no definitive map of the flat Earth. I'll quote the FAQ (https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions) of this very site : "Here is picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, Flat Earth".
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: Tumeni on March 14, 2020, 04:58:27 PM
I am not sure what you mean, as all maps are flat.
And all flat maps are very definitive.
It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.

The same can be said of any technical drawing, architect's drawing, or schematic of a device or item of manufacture.

All have, at least until the advent of CAD, been drawn on flat sheets of paper, as a representation of a 3D object.

That maps are drawn the same way does not make what they represent flat.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 14, 2020, 06:54:30 PM
It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.
Can you show me an accurate flat map of the whole earth? By accurate I mean that distances between places on the map and the shapes and areas of countries all match the reality.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 16, 2020, 12:14:33 PM
I am not sure what you mean, as all maps are flat.

And all flat maps are very definitive.

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

Well I find that a strange statement. If I asked you to measure the distance between say New York and Boston with a flat map and demanded to know the answer accurate to +/- 5 nanometers, I assume you'd agree that can't be done, at best you'd manage +/- a few tens or hundreds of metres.
Good thing you are not setting the standards of accuracy...

C'mon...why introduce a "nanometer," as a standard of accuracy?

No one has or will ever do this.
On the other hand if I asked you to measure a precision part from a racing engine and you told me the answer to the nearest 10 metres, the answer would be correct, but meaningless. It's all a matter of scale and accuracy of measurement.
Yeah, it would (as a matter of fact, IT IS) be meaningless, so again, why bring it up?
It's the same argument about the horizon looking flat from close to sea level. The earth is just big. Really, really big and scale makes all the difference. On that scale, looking at the horizon, you're looking at a tiny, tiny fraction of the earth, so of course it would look flat on a globe earth. Similarly with a map covering a few hundred or even a few thousand square miles, compared with the nearly 200 million square miles of earth's surface, the distances you can measure with a ruler are likely to be indistinguishable from those you would find on a globe, It's only when you start to put the entire earth on a flat surface that the differences between a flat and a globe model appear. You can't extrapolate from a flat map of Maine being accurate to then claim this implies a flat map of the earth is accurate. On a globe earth, a flat map of Maine is not accurate, but when you take into account measuring error tolerances, you're not going to be able to tell the difference.
It is not the same.

All maps are flat for a reason.

All flat maps are accurate to the point we have used them for 100's of years.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 16, 2020, 12:25:41 PM
It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.
Can you show me an accurate flat map of the whole earth? By accurate I mean that distances between places on the map and the shapes and areas of countries all match the reality.
Shapes is not an objective criteria.

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

Distances is an objective criteria and all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: stack on March 16, 2020, 06:11:57 PM
It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.
Can you show me an accurate flat map of the whole earth? By accurate I mean that distances between places on the map and the shapes and areas of countries all match the reality.
Shapes is not an objective criteria.

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

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

Pretty much every map we come across seems to be based upon a globe projection, think Mercator as an example, with a globe coordinate system and globe distances. Do you have a world map that does not use a globe projection, globe coordinate system, and globe distances? If so, please present it here.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 17, 2020, 09:44:04 AM
Name one large area on earth that is accurately depicted on any map in regard to shape.

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

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

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

(https://i.ibb.co/y84kqj5/Mercator.jpg)

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

(https://i.ibb.co/7bdY9yx/Scale.jpg)

One is well over twice the distance of the other. Why would that be?
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 17, 2020, 10:53:08 AM
I am not sure what you mean, as all maps are flat.

And all flat maps are very definitive.

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

Shapes is not an objective criteria.

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

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

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

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

(https://i.imgur.com/uatVpIV.png)
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 17, 2020, 10:54:47 AM
It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.
Can you show me an accurate flat map of the whole earth? By accurate I mean that distances between places on the map and the shapes and areas of countries all match the reality.
Shapes is not an objective criteria.

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

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

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

Did Mercator even come up with his projection first?
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 17, 2020, 10:57:55 AM
I am not sure what you mean, as all maps are flat.

And all flat maps are very definitive.

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

Shapes is not an objective criteria.

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

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

OK, so here's a flat map. It's Bing. I've dropped 4 pins on the map (just type the coordinates into the search bar) at specific positions (lat/long), a (45,60), b (45,-60), c (-45,60) and d (-45,-60). I've used Bing maps built in measuring tool (right click "Measure Distance" on Windows) to measure the distances between these points.
  • It's a flat map
  • Since length ab = length cd and length ac = length bd and length ad = length cb, this must be a rectangle
  • Since it is a rectangle, the red triangle is a right angled triangle
  • Since it is a right angled triangle, cd2 + db2 = cb2 (pythagoras)
  • Length cb should be (according to pythagoras) 13066km, but according to Bing, it it 15410km. That's 2344km (18%) gone AWOL

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

(https://i.imgur.com/uatVpIV.png)
It is highly convenient you chose a route that would never be capable of independent verification.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 17, 2020, 11:44:59 AM
I am not sure what you mean, as all maps are flat.

And all flat maps are very definitive.

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

Shapes is not an objective criteria.

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

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

OK, so here's a flat map. It's Bing. I've dropped 4 pins on the map (just type the coordinates into the search bar) at specific positions (lat/long), a (45,60), b (45,-60), c (-45,60) and d (-45,-60). I've used Bing maps built in measuring tool (right click "Measure Distance" on Windows) to measure the distances between these points.
  • It's a flat map
  • Since length ab = length cd and length ac = length bd and length ad = length cb, this must be a rectangle
  • Since it is a rectangle, the red triangle is a right angled triangle
  • Since it is a right angled triangle, cd2 + db2 = cb2 (pythagoras)
  • Length cb should be (according to pythagoras) 13066km, but according to Bing, it it 15410km. That's 2344km (18%) gone AWOL

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

(https://i.imgur.com/uatVpIV.png)
It is highly convenient you chose a route that would never be capable of independent verification.

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

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

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

You made a claim that "all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria". I showed you one which clearly doesn't, so you question the distances and you've shifted the goalposts and this is now about whether or not Bing is accurate.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 17, 2020, 11:57:23 AM
Did Mercator even come up with his projection first?
Why do you think he came up with it at all?
Why is any projection necessary? If the earth is flat and a map is flat no projection is needed.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 17, 2020, 12:23:37 PM
Well you can choose to accept the figures I've given or follow what I did and independently verify for yourself that these distances are what Bing gives you.
It is the idea that none of the lines you drew on the Bing map match a traveled route of any sort.
If you accept the values I've given, then I guess you are then questioning Bing's ability to give you a distance to within 18% of the correct value. Feel free to pick a random journey and compare the distance you travelled to Bing's estimate. I'd be surprised to find an 18% difference.
I'd like for you to identify an actual journey.

I doubt you find a huge error, because all flat maps are pretty doggone accurate.
The differences between a projection on to flat surface and the sphere/spheroid it was projected from simply aren't measurable unless the projected map covers a significant proportion of the original sphere, so anything which would show a difference is bound to be on a scale where you'd say "highly convenient".
It is highly convenient when you pick lines that haven't been traveled in the annals of humakind.
You made a claim that "all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria". I showed you one which clearly doesn't, so you question the distances and you've shifted the goalposts and this is now about whether or not Bing is accurate.
No, you've done nothing of the sort.

You pulled some goalposts in off a playing field that has never existed.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 17, 2020, 12:26:18 PM
Did Mercator even come up with his projection first?
Why do you think he came up with it at all?
I don't.
Why is any projection necessary? If the earth is flat and a map is flat no projection is needed.
The word "projection," is necessary.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 17, 2020, 01:01:26 PM
Well you can choose to accept the figures I've given or follow what I did and independently verify for yourself that these distances are what Bing gives you.
It is the idea that none of the lines you drew on the Bing map match a traveled route of any sort.

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

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

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


I doubt you find a huge error, because all flat maps are pretty doggone accurate.
The differences between a projection on to flat surface and the sphere/spheroid it was projected from simply aren't measurable unless the projected map covers a significant proportion of the original sphere, so anything which would show a difference is bound to be on a scale where you'd say "highly convenient".
It is highly convenient when you pick lines that haven't been traveled in the annals of humakind.
You made a claim that "all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria". I showed you one which clearly doesn't, so you question the distances and you've shifted the goalposts and this is now about whether or not Bing is accurate.
No, you've done nothing of the sort.

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

Not really, it's very similar to how flat earthers claim there are no photos from space, someone provides one and the response is the photo is not to be trusted, so it's then an argument about trust in the source, it's no longer about whether or not a photo exists. I've shown you a flat map (you say they're accurate) with distances which don't add up. You're casting doubt about these distances. I'm telling you these are what Bing gives you. You either trust Bing or you don't. Whether anyone in history has travelled this route is irrelevant if the map is trustworthy and Bing's distances are trustworthy.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 17, 2020, 01:04:55 PM
The word "projection," is necessary.
Necessary for what?
And I note you've ignored my post above where I've shown that two lines of the same length on a map represent very different real world distances. Why would that be?
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: GreatATuin on March 17, 2020, 10:44:44 PM
All maps are flat for a reason.

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

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

Because for most use cases, the distortion that results of the projection can be neglected. And for the rest of cases, people know the distances aren't really proportional.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 19, 2020, 10:55:38 AM
Well you can choose to accept the figures I've given or follow what I did and independently verify for yourself that these distances are what Bing gives you.
It is the idea that none of the lines you drew on the Bing map match a traveled route of any sort.

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

A map with a linear scale for distances between points exists specifically to aid in travel.
If you can suggest 4 other locations on earth at least 8000km apart where the distances between all 4 points are accurately known, please do and we'll go from there.
I am confident in your ability to identify any of them.
If you accept the values I've given, then I guess you are then questioning Bing's ability to give you a distance to within 18% of the correct value. Feel free to pick a random journey and compare the distance you travelled to Bing's estimate. I'd be surprised to find an 18% difference.
I'd like for you to identify an actual journey.

What constitutes an actual journey? Air and sea journeys vary according to wind and current and there isn't a road straight enough or long enough to make this a worthwhile exercise.
Then why did you start?
I doubt you find a huge error, because all flat maps are pretty doggone accurate.
The differences between a projection on to flat surface and the sphere/spheroid it was projected from simply aren't measurable unless the projected map covers a significant proportion of the original sphere, so anything which would show a difference is bound to be on a scale where you'd say "highly convenient".
It is highly convenient when you pick lines that haven't been traveled in the annals of humakind.
You made a claim that "all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria". I showed you one which clearly doesn't, so you question the distances and you've shifted the goalposts and this is now about whether or not Bing is accurate.
No, you've done nothing of the sort.

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

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

Considering there is no way to verify an error of what you claim to be 18 percent, it remains just your opinion.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 19, 2020, 10:57:42 AM
The word "projection," is necessary.
Necessary for what?
And I note you've ignored my post above where I've shown that two lines of the same length on a map represent very different real world distances. Why would that be?
Necessary to use the word "projection," to maintain the illusion of globe.

I didn't ignore it.

You didn't include any visible art.

At least any I can see on my monitor.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 19, 2020, 11:57:16 AM
Necessary to use the word "projection," to maintain the illusion of globe.
I see. So cartographers down the centuries are in on all this too, are they? The earth is flat, maps are flat. So it should be fairly simple to make an accurate map of the earth. But no. They decided to deliberately distort it for...reasons? And they made up a whole lot of different ways of doing so? Sheesh.

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

Odd. I use imgbb and it's fine for me. But OK, I'll attach them.
Mercator is the projection with the two yellow lines on which are the same length. You said that maps are accurate so those lines should represent the same distance. But they don't. See the "scale" image which shows that one is over double the distance of the other in real life.
Why would that be?
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 19, 2020, 12:25:50 PM
Necessary to use the word "projection," to maintain the illusion of globe.
I see. So cartographers down the centuries are in on all this too, are they? The earth is flat, maps are flat. So it should be fairly simple to make an accurate map of the earth. But no. They decided to deliberately distort it for...reasons? And they made up a whole lot of different ways of doing so? Sheesh.
I doubt cartographers have any input as to the writing content placed on their end product...

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

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

Odd. I use imgbb and it's fine for me. But OK, I'll attach them.
Mercator is the projection with the two yellow lines on which are the same length. You said that maps are accurate so those lines should represent the same distance. But they don't. See the "scale" image which shows that one is over double the distance of the other in real life.
Why would that be?
I'll check em out.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 19, 2020, 12:28:43 PM
Mercator is the projection with the two yellow lines on which are the same length. You said that maps are accurate so those lines should represent the same distance. But they don't. See the "scale" image which shows that one is over double the distance of the other in real life.
Why would that be?
I just looked at the images...first thing that stands out to me is you are not encompassing the same amount of longitudinal distance in the lines.

So, they cannot possibly represent the same length.

Optical illusion.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 19, 2020, 12:51:10 PM
Hmm. Not sure I understand what you're saying but those lines are the same length and direction. I literally copied and pasted the same line to a new location. If the map is accurate - you started this by saying flat maps are accurate - then they should represent the same distance.
But they don't. Why not?

I mean, the actual answer is that the map isn't accurate. Flat maps on this scale cannot be accurate. There is a reason for that...
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: GreatATuin on March 19, 2020, 01:27:57 PM
Necessary to use the word "projection," to maintain the illusion of globe.
I see. So cartographers down the centuries are in on all this too, are they? The earth is flat, maps are flat. So it should be fairly simple to make an accurate map of the earth. But no. They decided to deliberately distort it for...reasons? And they made up a whole lot of different ways of doing so? Sheesh.
I doubt cartographers have any input as to the writing content placed on their end product...

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

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

If not, well, maybe the translation in the Wikipedia article can help you understand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_1569_world_map#legend3
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 20, 2020, 10:55:46 AM
Hmm. Not sure I understand what you're saying but those lines are the same length and direction. I literally copied and pasted the same line to a new location. If the map is accurate - you started this by saying flat maps are accurate - then they should represent the same distance.
But they don't. Why not?

I mean, the actual answer is that the map isn't accurate. Flat maps on this scale cannot be accurate. There is a reason for that...
Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 20, 2020, 10:57:04 AM
Well you can choose to accept the figures I've given or follow what I did and independently verify for yourself that these distances are what Bing gives you.
It is the idea that none of the lines you drew on the Bing map match a traveled route of any sort.

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

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

I'm not for one second claiming Bing's measurement tool uses a linear scale. I make no claim whatsoever about how these distances are determined, I'm just pointing out that this flat map from Bing has a built in measurement tool which purports to tell you accurate distances between any two points. What I have shown you is that using this tool in combination with the map gives you paradoxical distances which are impossible to reconcile if you believe this flat map is an accurate representation of reality.

If you doubt these distances, then you are not doubting me, you are doubting Bing's ability to measure accurately.

If you can suggest 4 other locations on earth at least 8000km apart where the distances between all 4 points are accurately known, please do and we'll go from there.
I am confident in your ability to identify any of them.

Sure I can easily identify another 4 locations for you, but I'm confident if I propose another 4, you'll object to them as well and we'll just keep going round in circles. On the other hand I guarantee you if you can come up with 4 points at least 8000km apart with known distances between all of them (assuming we both agree the distances are correct - shouldn't be too hard), you'll get no objection from me and we can progress the discussion.

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

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

I started because you made a generic claim about all flat maps and their accuracy. You added the requirement for this to be "an actual journey" afterwards. Part of the problem with this is that "an actual journey" is a very vague term and only you really know what you mean by it, I can only guess. Some examples would help.

I doubt you find a huge error, because all flat maps are pretty doggone accurate.
The differences between a projection on to flat surface and the sphere/spheroid it was projected from simply aren't measurable unless the projected map covers a significant proportion of the original sphere, so anything which would show a difference is bound to be on a scale where you'd say "highly convenient".
It is highly convenient when you pick lines that haven't been traveled in the annals of humakind.
You made a claim that "all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria". I showed you one which clearly doesn't, so you question the distances and you've shifted the goalposts and this is now about whether or not Bing is accurate.
No, you've done nothing of the sort.

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

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

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

It's not my opinion at all. Opinion doesn't come into it, this is maths, pure and simple. The figures coming from Bing unambiguously show an 18% difference between Bing's measured distances and a calculated distance on an assumed flat earth, using pythagoras.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 20, 2020, 10:57:38 AM
Necessary to use the word "projection," to maintain the illusion of globe.
I see. So cartographers down the centuries are in on all this too, are they? The earth is flat, maps are flat. So it should be fairly simple to make an accurate map of the earth. But no. They decided to deliberately distort it for...reasons? And they made up a whole lot of different ways of doing so? Sheesh.
I doubt cartographers have any input as to the writing content placed on their end product...

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

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

If not, well, maybe the translation in the Wikipedia article can help you understand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_1569_world_map#legend3
Can you read the post again and understand my question was quite specific and mentioned nothing of the language used, just specific words?

Thank you.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 20, 2020, 11:04:04 AM
Well you can choose to accept the figures I've given or follow what I did and independently verify for yourself that these distances are what Bing gives you.
It is the idea that none of the lines you drew on the Bing map match a traveled route of any sort.

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

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

I'm not for one second claiming Bing's measurement tool uses a linear scale.
Yet I was quite specific in what I wrote about maps that do make use of a linear scale.
I make no claim whatsoever about how these distances are determined, I'm just pointing out that this flat map from Bing has a built in measurement tool which purports to tell you accurate distances between any two points.
Purports being the operative word.

The fact you cannot confirm it is a measuring tool based on linear measurement might be a good clue...
What I have shown you is that using this tool in combination with the map gives you paradoxical distances which are impossible to reconcile if you believe this flat map is an accurate representation of reality.
No you haven't.

You said you did, but did that:

1. using lines representing distances that no one would ever be able to independently confirm as they don't represent actual routes of travel; and,
2. personally failing to confirm the type of measuring tool you purport represents reality.
If you doubt these distances, then you are not doubting me, you are doubting Bing's ability to measure accurately.
Oh no...make no mistake...

I am clearly doubting you also.
If you can suggest 4 other locations on earth at least 8000km apart where the distances between all 4 points are accurately known, please do and we'll go from there.
I am confident in your ability to identify any of them.
Sure I can easily identify another 4 locations for you, but I'm confident if I propose another 4, you'll object to them as well and we'll just keep going round in circles. On the other hand I guarantee you if you can come up with 4 points at least 8000km apart with known distances between all of them (assuming we both agree the distances are correct - shouldn't be too hard), you'll get no objection from me and we can progress the discussion.
Well, a good place to start would be an identified route.

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

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

I started because you made a generic claim about all flat maps and their accuracy. You added the requirement for this to be "an actual journey" afterwards. Part of the problem with this is that "an actual journey" is a very vague term and only you really know what you mean by it, I can only guess. Some examples would help.
Examples of what?

8000 km air routes?

8000 km shipping routes?

You definitely know these things to exist.
I doubt you find a huge error, because all flat maps are pretty doggone accurate.
The differences between a projection on to flat surface and the sphere/spheroid it was projected from simply aren't measurable unless the projected map covers a significant proportion of the original sphere, so anything which would show a difference is bound to be on a scale where you'd say "highly convenient".
It is highly convenient when you pick lines that haven't been traveled in the annals of humakind.
You made a claim that "all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria". I showed you one which clearly doesn't, so you question the distances and you've shifted the goalposts and this is now about whether or not Bing is accurate.
No, you've done nothing of the sort.

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

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

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

It's not my opinion at all. Opinion doesn't come into it, this is maths, pure and simple. The figures coming from Bing unambiguously show an 18% difference between Bing's measured distances and a calculated distance on an assumed flat earth, using pythagoras.
Nah...still just your opinion.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 20, 2020, 12:10:46 PM
Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.
Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.
And Google Maps is generally acknowledged to be accurate. People use it every day to get around.
So why do they do that? Are they "in on it"?
And this is the point. Flat maps, at a large scale, are NOT accurate.
The two lines on the Mercator projection are the same length and direction. But in real life those lines represent two very different distances.
Because the Mercator map is a projection which tries to project the reality of a spherical earth onto a 2D plane of a map.

Were the earth flat projections would not be necessary. And maps on large scales would be accurate.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 20, 2020, 01:14:20 PM
Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.
Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.
Well, you weren't using a flat map then.

Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: GreatATuin on March 20, 2020, 02:13:40 PM
Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.
Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.
Well, you weren't using a flat map then.

Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?

So, we're back to the original point.

If Google Maps and Bing are not flat maps, and you finally realize they're a projection of a sphere in two dimensions... Please show us an actual, and accurate, map of the flat earth.

And if possible, to get back once again to the origin of this thread - agreed upon among flat earthers. According to the FAQ of TFES, such a thing does not exist. Why would it be so hard to make a flat map of a flat earth?
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 20, 2020, 02:23:45 PM
I make no claim whatsoever about how these distances are determined, I'm just pointing out that this flat map from Bing has a built in measurement tool which purports to tell you accurate distances between any two points.
Purports being the operative word.

The fact you cannot confirm it is a measuring tool based on linear measurement might be a good clue...

I don't really care how it works or what it's based on so long as it is accurate. Since I'm on the RE side of the fence, if I'm to believe the tool is accurate, I'm not inclined to believe it's based on a linear scale, but however it works, it's a built in tool being used on an indisputably flat map, which is what you want me to use surely.

What I have shown you is that using this tool in combination with the map gives you paradoxical distances which are impossible to reconcile if you believe this flat map is an accurate representation of reality.
No you haven't.

You said you did, but did that:

1. using lines representing distances that no one would ever be able to independently confirm as they don't represent actual routes of travel; and,
2. personally failing to confirm the type of measuring tool you purport represents reality.

I don't purport or claim anything here. Bing's tool claims accuracy and therefore purports to represent reality. You keep pushing this back onto me and what I claim and make out this is somehow just down to my opinion. I'm just reporting what I find here, if you don't like it then either I've made a mistake and reported falsely what I've found (certainly possible, although I assure you if that's the case, no deliberate intent on my part), or perhaps you don't believe Bing's tool is reporting correct distances, I'm not really sure quite what your position is to be honest.

If you doubt these distances, then you are not doubting me, you are doubting Bing's ability to measure accurately.
Oh no...make no mistake...

I am clearly doubting you also.

Fair enough, can you separate out for me where you doubt me? Have I misreported the distances from Bing? Is my mathematical analysis faulty? Something else?


Then why did you start?

I started because you made a generic claim about all flat maps and their accuracy. You added the requirement for this to be "an actual journey" afterwards. Part of the problem with this is that "an actual journey" is a very vague term and only you really know what you mean by it, I can only guess. Some examples would help.
Examples of what?

8000 km air routes?

8000 km shipping routes?

You definitely know these things to exist.

Sure. OK then, if I can find 4 airports, each with a direct flight to all the other 3 airports and 8000+ km apart, that satisfies the requirement does it?

Next problem is how to find the distances between the airports. I can just use Bing maps or Google maps, presumably that's out of the question, so what's your solution?

It's not my opinion at all. Opinion doesn't come into it, this is maths, pure and simple. The figures coming from Bing unambiguously show an 18% difference between Bing's measured distances and a calculated distance on an assumed flat earth, using pythagoras.
Nah...still just your opinion.

No sorry, not following you. I've reported some findings, no opinions involved. I've applied some mathematical reasoning to demonstrate that these findings lead to a paradox. That's just maths. What opinion(s) do you think am I expressing here?

The logical argument I'm putting forward here is simply this: If the measured distances are accurate then the surface cannot be a flat plane. The proposition (the measured distances are accurate) is either true or false. If it is true and the argument is valid, then the conclusion (the surface cannot be a flat plane) is also true. How is this my opinion?
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 20, 2020, 02:33:27 PM
Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.
Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.
Well, you weren't using a flat map then.

Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?

So, we're back to the original point.

If Google Maps and Bing are not flat maps, and you finally realize they're a projection of a sphere in two dimensions... Please show us an actual, and accurate, map of the flat earth.

And if possible, to get back once again to the origin of this thread - agreed upon among flat earthers. According to the FAQ of TFES, such a thing does not exist. Why would it be so hard to make a flat map of a flat earth?

The reason I tend to refer to Bing rather than Google maps in this forum is simply that when you zoom out with Bing you do actually end up with a flat map on screen (I believe it's a Mercator projection), unlike Google. And there's at least one FEr on here who thinks that makes a big difference and a zoomed out Bing map is trustworthy whereas a zoomed out Google map is not. Both have interactive distance measuring tools built in and surprise, surprise, they agree with each other.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: GreatATuin on March 20, 2020, 02:34:48 PM
Necessary to use the word "projection," to maintain the illusion of globe.
I see. So cartographers down the centuries are in on all this too, are they? The earth is flat, maps are flat. So it should be fairly simple to make an accurate map of the earth. But no. They decided to deliberately distort it for...reasons? And they made up a whole lot of different ways of doing so? Sheesh.
I doubt cartographers have any input as to the writing content placed on their end product...

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

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

If not, well, maybe the translation in the Wikipedia article can help you understand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_1569_world_map#legend3
Can you read the post again and understand my question was quite specific and mentioned nothing of the language used, just specific words?

Thank you.

You didn't even read, did you?

I'm not sure if Mercator used the word "projection" or its translation in latin. But it's not very relevant, as he did write: "to spread on a plane the surface of the sphere". How do you call that in English? A projection.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: iamcpc on March 20, 2020, 03:03:38 PM

OK, so here's a flat map. It's Bing. I've dropped 4 pins on the map (just type the coordinates into the search bar) at specific positions (lat/long), a (45,60), b (45,-60), c (-45,60) and d (-45,-60). I've used Bing maps built in measuring tool (right click "Measure Distance" on Windows) to measure the distances between these points.
  • It's a flat map
  • Since length ab = length cd and length ac = length bd and length ad = length cb, this must be a rectangle
  • Since it is a rectangle, the red triangle is a right angled triangle
  • Since it is a right angled triangle, cd2 + db2 = cb2 (pythagoras)
  • Length cb should be (according to pythagoras) 13066km, but according to Bing, it it 15410km. That's 2344km (18%) gone AWOL

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

CLAIM: Since length ab = length cd and length ac = length bd and length ad = length cb, this must be a rectangle
TRUTH: Based on the interactive scale of Bing maps the distance represented by the line AB does not equal the distance of the line represented by CD

CLAIM: Since it is a rectangle, the red triangle is a right angled triangle
TRUTH: Based on the interactive scale of Bing maps the red triangle is not a right triangles

CLAIM: Length cb should be (according to pythagoras) 13066km, but according to Bing, it it 15410km. That's 2344km (18%) gone AWOL
TRUTH: This was debunked by the two facts listed above
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 20, 2020, 03:30:07 PM

OK, so here's a flat map. It's Bing. I've dropped 4 pins on the map (just type the coordinates into the search bar) at specific positions (lat/long), a (45,60), b (45,-60), c (-45,60) and d (-45,-60). I've used Bing maps built in measuring tool (right click "Measure Distance" on Windows) to measure the distances between these points.
  • It's a flat map
  • Since length ab = length cd and length ac = length bd and length ad = length cb, this must be a rectangle
  • Since it is a rectangle, the red triangle is a right angled triangle
  • Since it is a right angled triangle, cd2 + db2 = cb2 (pythagoras)
  • Length cb should be (according to pythagoras) 13066km, but according to Bing, it it 15410km. That's 2344km (18%) gone AWOL

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

CLAIM: Since length ab = length cd and length ac = length bd and length ad = length cb, this must be a rectangle
TRUTH: Based on the interactive scale of Bing maps the distance represented by the line AB does not equal the distance of the line represented by CD

According to Bing, length ab = 8398km and length cd = 8398km. In my book that makes ab = cd
According to Bing, length ac = 10010km and length bd = 10010km. In my book that makes ac = bd
According to Bing, length ad = 15410km and length cb = 15410km. In my book that makes ad = cb


CLAIM: Since it is a rectangle, the red triangle is a right angled triangle
TRUTH: Based on the interactive scale of Bing maps the red triangle is not a right triangles

Ok then, here's a riddle for you: I have a shape with 4 corners and 4 sides. The top and bottom sides are the same length, the left and right sides are the same lengths and if I connect top left to bottom right and bottom left to top right I find that these two diagonals have identical lengths. What shape am I describing?

Don't bother about scales, interactive or otherwise, what shape am I describing?


CLAIM: Length cb should be (according to pythagoras) 13066km, but according to Bing, it it 15410km. That's 2344km (18%) gone AWOL
TRUTH: This was debunked by the two facts listed above
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: Tumeni on March 20, 2020, 03:30:31 PM
Based on the interactive scale of Bing maps the distance represented by the line AB does not equal the distance of the line represented by CD

How do you know this for certain, and what distances do you think are represented by these lines?
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 20, 2020, 04:07:30 PM
Well, you weren't using a flat map then.

Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?
I used two things. A flat map - the Mercator projection. And Google Maps which does, for the sake of accuracy, show the earth as a globe as you show out. I used it because the distances it gives are generally agreed to be accurate. But fine, if you want a mapping tool that doesn't do that - Bing doesn't. So here's a couple of screen grabs from Bing maps with roughly the same distances. I've attached the image till you sort out your computer.

These two lines are the same direction and length but according to Bing they represent very different distances.
Why is that? The answer is because Bing is projecting the 3D Globe Earth onto a 2D map. And there is no way to do that accurately at large scales. Google gets around that problem by representing the earth in its true form, the globe, at larger scales. Bing does it by changing the scale it shows depending on where you are looking.

On large scales maps are not accurate. The reason for that is there is no way to perfectly represent a 3D Globe on a 2D map. Something has to give. Different projections deal with that in different ways but each one has to be a compromise. And the only reason projections are needed at all is...because the earth isn't flat. If it were then you could easily represent the earth in its true form in a map.
The fact you can't should tell you something...
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 20, 2020, 04:50:44 PM
Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.
Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.
Well, you weren't using a flat map then.

Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?

So, we're back to the original point.

If Google Maps and Bing are not flat maps, and you finally realize they're a projection of a sphere in two dimensions... Please show us an actual, and accurate, map of the flat earth.

And if possible, to get back once again to the origin of this thread - agreed upon among flat earthers. According to the FAQ of TFES, such a thing does not exist. Why would it be so hard to make a flat map of a flat earth?
Allow me to clarify.

All maps that are presented on paper and utilize linear measures for scaling are accurate.

There are plenty of accurate flat maps like this.

As far as the OP is concerned, I already answered that question.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 20, 2020, 05:02:35 PM
Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.
Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.
Well, you weren't using a flat map then.

Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?

So, we're back to the original point.

If Google Maps and Bing are not flat maps, and you finally realize they're a projection of a sphere in two dimensions... Please show us an actual, and accurate, map of the flat earth.

And if possible, to get back once again to the origin of this thread - agreed upon among flat earthers. According to the FAQ of TFES, such a thing does not exist. Why would it be so hard to make a flat map of a flat earth?
Allow me to clarify.

All maps that are presented on paper and utilize linear measures for scaling are accurate.

There are plenty of accurate flat maps like this.

As far as the OP is concerned, I already answered that question.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

I can't distinguish any difference between a zoomed out Bing map and a scanned mercator projection paper map. So would you consider a zoomed out Bing map to be an accurate flat map?
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: GreatATuin on March 20, 2020, 05:13:07 PM
Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.
Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.
Well, you weren't using a flat map then.

Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?

So, we're back to the original point.

If Google Maps and Bing are not flat maps, and you finally realize they're a projection of a sphere in two dimensions... Please show us an actual, and accurate, map of the flat earth.

And if possible, to get back once again to the origin of this thread - agreed upon among flat earthers. According to the FAQ of TFES, such a thing does not exist. Why would it be so hard to make a flat map of a flat earth?
Allow me to clarify.

All maps that are presented on paper and utilize linear measures for scaling are accurate.

There are plenty of accurate flat maps like this.

Please show one of the entire world.

Then compare the sizes of, say, Greenland vs Brazil, India, Australia. Or Svalbard vs Sri Lanka. Or Iceland vs Gabon. Let's see if it matches reality. If it does, let's see if there are other problems.

Quote
As far as the OP is concerned, I already answered that question.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Wait - have you just written that some flat earthers don't agree on the very principle of a flat earth? No wonder it will be hard to agree on a map then.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 20, 2020, 05:25:06 PM
All maps that are presented on paper and utilize linear measures for scaling are accurate.
There are plenty of accurate flat maps like this.

Not of the whole earth there aren't. As I said, Bing have to change the scale depending on what you're looking at. Why do you think that is?

Quote
Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.
Wow. Nearly all?
I'm going to have to change my sig again...
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 20, 2020, 05:29:15 PM
All maps that are presented on paper and utilize linear measures for scaling are accurate.
There are plenty of accurate flat maps like this.

Not of the whole earth there aren't. As I said, Bing have to change the scale depending on what you're looking at. Why do you think that is?

Quote
Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.
Wow. Nearly all?
I'm going to have to change my sig again...

At the risk of a slap on the wrist for a low content post - this is absolutely priceless. Made my day!
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 23, 2020, 12:13:51 PM
Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.
Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.
Well, you weren't using a flat map then.

Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?

So, we're back to the original point.

If Google Maps and Bing are not flat maps, and you finally realize they're a projection of a sphere in two dimensions... Please show us an actual, and accurate, map of the flat earth.

And if possible, to get back once again to the origin of this thread - agreed upon among flat earthers. According to the FAQ of TFES, such a thing does not exist. Why would it be so hard to make a flat map of a flat earth?
Allow me to clarify.

All maps that are presented on paper and utilize linear measures for scaling are accurate.

There are plenty of accurate flat maps like this.

As far as the OP is concerned, I already answered that question.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

I can't distinguish any difference between a zoomed out Bing map and a scanned mercator projection paper map. So would you consider a zoomed out Bing map to be an accurate flat map?
Not having the benefit of viewing a comparison of the two, I cannot answer this question.

I still do not agree there is just cause to label them as projections.

I think the word projection is a bunch of malarkey.

No one can truly know what shape a country is as a whole.

The important thing is to have accurate distance within a relatively small margin of error.

All flat maps accomplish this.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 23, 2020, 12:19:25 PM
Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.
Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.
Well, you weren't using a flat map then.

Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?

So, we're back to the original point.

If Google Maps and Bing are not flat maps, and you finally realize they're a projection of a sphere in two dimensions... Please show us an actual, and accurate, map of the flat earth.

And if possible, to get back once again to the origin of this thread - agreed upon among flat earthers. According to the FAQ of TFES, such a thing does not exist. Why would it be so hard to make a flat map of a flat earth?
Allow me to clarify.

All maps that are presented on paper and utilize linear measures for scaling are accurate.

There are plenty of accurate flat maps like this.

Please show one of the entire world.
Why?

What is a legitimate purpose of a map?
Then compare the sizes of, say, Greenland vs Brazil, India, Australia. Or Svalbard vs Sri Lanka. Or Iceland vs Gabon. Let's see if it matches reality. If it does, let's see if there are other problems.
As if you have any

PERSONAL

idea of the shapes of any country.

You don't.
Quote
As far as the OP is concerned, I already answered that question.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Wait - have you just written that some flat earthers don't agree on the very principle of a flat earth?
Yes, there are some flat earthers who don't agree on a flat earth, believing it to be concave at the edges.
No wonder it will be hard to agree on a map then.
As if RE agrees on a world map...
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 23, 2020, 12:23:27 PM
All maps that are presented on paper and utilize linear measures for scaling are accurate.
There are plenty of accurate flat maps like this.

Not of the whole earth there aren't.
So?

When was the last time you personally utilized a map of the WHOLE world to conduct a daily itinerary?

I will take the opportunity to answer this for you and the rest of the members here...

ANSWER = NEVER!!!
As I said, Bing have to change the scale depending on what you're looking at. Why do you think that is?
Because they can get away with it.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 23, 2020, 01:07:46 PM
All maps that are presented on paper and utilize linear measures for scaling are accurate.
There are plenty of accurate flat maps like this.

Not of the whole earth there aren't.
So?
So why do you think that is?
The earth is flat, yes? Maps are flat. With all the surveying work that has been done down the centuries it shouldn't be difficult for an accurate map of the whole earth to be made. If small scale maps are accurate and cover the whole earth, or certainly most of it, then it shouldn't be hard for them to be stitched together to make a flat map of the whole earth.

Why isn't it possible?

Quote
As I said, Bing have to change the scale depending on what you're looking at. Why do you think that is?
Because they can get away with it.

I genuinely have no idea what you mean by that.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: GreatATuin on March 23, 2020, 01:52:07 PM

Please show one of the entire world.
Why?

What is a legitimate purpose of a map?

To represent all or part of the world. Do you mean a map can only be used to plan an itinerary? It's a very common use indeed, but certainly not the only one.

In our case, we want to have a representation of the world. Making a flat map of a flat Earth should be extremely easy, even trivial. You'd just have to scale down the real thing. Why isn't there a map of the flat Earth that every FE'r agrees upon then?

Quote
Then compare the sizes of, say, Greenland vs Brazil, India, Australia. Or Svalbard vs Sri Lanka. Or Iceland vs Gabon. Let's see if it matches reality. If it does, let's see if there are other problems.
As if you have any

PERSONAL

idea of the shapes of any country.

You don't.

I was asking about sizes, not shapes. You can get a personal idea of the size of a country by travelling to this country.

Quote
Quote
As far as the OP is concerned, I already answered that question.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Wait - have you just written that some flat earthers don't agree on the very principle of a flat earth?
Yes, there are some flat earthers who don't agree on a flat earth, believing it to be concave at the edges.
No wonder it will be hard to agree on a map then.
As if RE agrees on a world map...

A round earth is, by definition, not flat. To make a flat map of a world that's not flat, you need a transformation. This transformation is called a map projection. There are many different map projections, and which one you choose depends largely on what you want to do with it. None of them is really more wrong or more accurate than another - they are just different representations of the same thing.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 23, 2020, 02:07:51 PM

I can't distinguish any difference between a zoomed out Bing map and a scanned mercator projection paper map. So would you consider a zoomed out Bing map to be an accurate flat map?
Not having the benefit of viewing a comparison of the two, I cannot answer this question.

I still do not agree there is just cause to label them as projections.

I think the word projection is a bunch of malarkey.


It doesn't really matter what you choose to label them, but the commonly accepted term is projection. Conceptually a projection is a very simple process, for example, wrap a cylinder of paper around a globe and transfer the markings on the globe to the paper, which is then unwrapped. A cylindrical projection. An equirectangular cylindrical projection is dead simple, every position on the globe you just transfer to the same latitude (y) and longitude (x) on to squared paper.

Since this is a simple mathematical process, far easier to program a computer to do the work for you. It's not malarkey, it's maths.


No one can truly know what shape a country is as a whole.


Don't see why not. If you have a large database of feature locations where you know the latitude and longitude of each one and know what type of feature it is (road, river, coastline) and which territory it is part of (US state, country etc.) you can plot these on a globe and see the shape for yourself. Or you can just trust that others have done this already and buy yourself a globe or use Google Earth/Google maps etc.


The important thing is to have accurate distance within a relatively small margin of error.

All flat maps accomplish this.

Well if you are talking about large scale flat maps covering small areas, then nobody is disagreeing with you, but "all flat maps" necessarily include maps of the whole earth and there are lots of these, so for example Mercator, Mollweide, Winkel tripel, and that old favorite, the Azimulthal Equidistant. They all look very different, and contradictory, so they can't all be accurate, yet they are all flat maps.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 23, 2020, 02:15:03 PM
They all look very different, and contradictory, so they can't all be accurate, yet they are all flat maps.
The point I'm trying to explain to lackey is that none of them are accurate.
Any map projection is, by definition, inaccurate in some way. Because you have to map the reality - a globe - onto a plane - a map.
I'll leave as an exercise for the reader to think about why projections are needed and why no accurate map of the whole earth exists.
If the earth is flat it should be trivial, it's just about scaling. So why is there no flat map of the earth which accurately represents the reality of measured distances.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 23, 2020, 02:34:45 PM
They all look very different, and contradictory, so they can't all be accurate, yet they are all flat maps.
The point I'm trying to explain to lackey is that none of them are accurate.
Any map projection is, by definition, inaccurate in some way. Because you have to map the reality - a globe - onto a plane - a map.
I'll leave as an exercise for the reader to think about why projections are needed and why no accurate map of the whole earth exists.
If the earth is flat it should be trivial, it's just about scaling. So why is there no flat map of the earth which accurately represents the reality of measured distances.

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse things, so to be clear, yes I agree, none of them are accurate. I was simply trying to challenge lackey's statement that all flat maps are accurate, pointing out that logically speaking, they can't all be.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: iamcpc on March 23, 2020, 03:10:38 PM
The point I'm trying to explain to lackey is that none of them are accurate.


You honestly believe after literally hundreds of years of navigating this planet and hundreds of years of advancement in cartography that there is no accurate map????

I've been blessed to have traveled extensively and I used modern mapping technology and I couldn't disagree with you more. Is there a reason why you think that modern mapping technology, with an interactive scale, is not accureate?
Have you traveled internationally and used nothing but modern mapping technology, with an interactive scale to navigate?
Have you driven distances and compared your odometer do distances from  modern mapping technology, with an interactive scale?
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: ChrisTP on March 23, 2020, 03:19:09 PM
You honestly believe after literally hundreds of years of navigating this planet and hundreds of years of advancement in cartography that there is no accurate map????
I'm pretty sure he believes our current maps of earth are accurate but that these aren't 'flat earth' maps and if they were, they would then not be accurate. They are flat in that they've been drawn onto flat surfaces sure, but people know generally we've accounted for this projection distortion. if a photo could be taken from space of the flat earth as a whole, the visual layout you see in that photo should be able to be used as a map, but such a thing doesn't exist and all 'flat' maps of the whole world are distortions of reality which again, we know has been accounted for.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 23, 2020, 03:31:56 PM
All maps that are presented on paper and utilize linear measures for scaling are accurate.
There are plenty of accurate flat maps like this.

Not of the whole earth there aren't.
So?
So why do you think that is?
Because maps of the whole world are not necessary.
The earth is flat, yes?
Correct.
Maps are flat.
Correct.
With all the surveying work that has been done down the centuries it shouldn't be difficult for an accurate map of the whole earth to be made. If small scale maps are accurate and cover the whole earth, or certainly most of it, then it shouldn't be hard for them to be stitched together to make a flat map of the whole earth.
Adding a level of, "Ah, shucks...it is easy because I say it is..." doesn't truly make it simple.
Why isn't it possible?
Who says it isn't?
Quote
As I said, Bing have to change the scale depending on what you're looking at. Why do you think that is?
Because they can get away with it.

I genuinely have no idea what you mean by that.
Well, when you can get away with something because most people will never have had a reason or need to follow up on what you are doing, it is probably natural to just do whatever you want.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 23, 2020, 03:38:27 PM

Please show one of the entire world.
Why?

What is a legitimate purpose of a map?

To represent all or part of the world. Do you mean a map can only be used to plan an itinerary? It's a very common use indeed, but certainly not the only one.
The only legitimate reason to use a map is to plan a trip.

Looking at it for leisure or admiration of the coloring is superfluous use.
In our case, we want to have a representation of the world. Making a flat map of a flat Earth should be extremely easy, even trivial. You'd just have to scale down the real thing. Why isn't there a map of the flat Earth that every FE'r agrees upon then?
I think it is even easier for a person having no experience or background in cartography to make astounding claims about how easy it is do.

Then compare the sizes of, say, Greenland vs Brazil, India, Australia. Or Svalbard vs Sri Lanka. Or Iceland vs Gabon. Let's see if it matches reality. If it does, let's see if there are other problems.
As if you have any

PERSONAL

idea of the shapes of any country.

You don't.

I was asking about sizes, not shapes. You can get a personal idea of the size of a country by travelling to this country.[/quote]
Size has everything to do with shape.


As far as the OP is concerned, I already answered that question.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Wait - have you just written that some flat earthers don't agree on the very principle of a flat earth? [/quote]
Yes, there are some flat earthers who don't agree on a flat earth, believing it to be concave at the edges.
No wonder it will be hard to agree on a map then.
As if RE agrees on a world map...

A round earth is, by definition, not flat. To make a flat map of a world that's not flat, you need a transformation. This transformation is called a map projection. There are many different map projections, and which one you choose depends largely on what you want to do with it. None of them is really more wrong or more accurate than another - they are just different representations of the same thing.
Well, I would think when you guys come up with one that you guys agree upon, then it might be time for you guys to come demanding one we guys agree upon.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 23, 2020, 03:59:37 PM
The point I'm trying to explain to lackey is that none of them are accurate.


You honestly believe after literally hundreds of years of navigating this planet and hundreds of years of advancement in cartography that there is no accurate map????
It's not a matter of belief. It's impossible to make one. If you disagree then can you please post one, if it exists?
All I'm asking for is a map of the earth which accurately portrays shapes and distances.
You mention "interactive scale" a few times. Why is that needed? As you move a Bing map when you zoom out the scale changes.
Why is that?
Flat earth. Flat map. Making an accurate map is just a matter of scaling.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 23, 2020, 04:15:11 PM
The only legitimate reason to use a map is to plan a trip.
Looking at it for leisure or admiration of the coloring is superfluous use.

Well I've used maps for all sorts of reasons, for example to figure out the boundaries of a piece of land I was considering purchasing or to figure out the potential impact on me of some proposed nearby development. I used a very large online map of the entire USA to figure out a good place to go to watch the 2017 eclipse because I needed to see the entirety of the eclipse path to narrow down the choices. When I was planning a trip to New Zealand, I used an actual physical globe to visualize the entire route for a whole number of different options (there are loads of them) so I could decide which one I liked best (chose to go via Hong Kong in the end).

Quote

As far as the OP is concerned, I already answered that question.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Wait - have you just written that some flat earthers don't agree on the very principle of a flat earth?

Yes, there are some flat earthers who don't agree on a flat earth, believing it to be concave at the edges.

That's not actually what you originally said. You said "Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe", implying that at least some flat earthers agree that the earth is a globe, which I think is what's causing the astonished responses from everyone.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 23, 2020, 04:28:24 PM
Because maps of the whole world are not necessary.
And yet they exist. But they're not accurate. Why?

Quote
Adding a level of, "Ah, shucks...it is easy because I say it is..." doesn't truly make it simple.

It's not easy because I say it is. It's easy, or at least possible, because geometry.
If the earth is flat and maps are flat then you should be able to represent the entire earth accurately on a flat map.
But I've yet to see one.

Quote
Why isn't it possible?
Who says it isn't?

Me. I'm saying it's not possible. And I've shown it's not possible. I've shown the Bing map of the earth and two lines of the same length and direction represent completely different distances. As you move the map the scale keeps changing.
Because the Bing map is a projection. All large scale maps are a projection. Because they are trying to represent the reality of a globe on a 2D surface which is not possible to do perfectly. Google Maps gets around this by representing the earth as a globe as you zoom out.
I wonder why they'd do that...
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: GreatATuin on March 23, 2020, 09:17:34 PM

To represent all or part of the world. Do you mean a map can only be used to plan an itinerary? It's a very common use indeed, but certainly not the only one.
The only legitimate reason to use a map is to plan a trip.

Go tell, for example, weather forecasters or seismologists they have no business using a map.

Quote
Quote
A round earth is, by definition, not flat. To make a flat map of a world that's not flat, you need a transformation. This transformation is called a map projection. There are many different map projections, and which one you choose depends largely on what you want to do with it. None of them is really more wrong or more accurate than another - they are just different representations of the same thing.
Well, I would think when you guys come up with one that you guys agree upon, then it might be time for you guys to come demanding one we guys agree upon.

Has anyone "disagreed" with the Mercator projection used by Bing and Google Maps?
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 24, 2020, 10:32:49 AM
The only legitimate reason to use a map is to plan a trip.
Looking at it for leisure or admiration of the coloring is superfluous use.

Well I've used maps for all sorts of reasons, for example to figure out the boundaries of a piece of land I was considering purchasing or to figure out the potential impact on me of some proposed nearby development.
Well, all of what you mention has to do with boundaries and measurements.

I was probably in error for not exactly clarifying the total issue of measurements.
I used a very large online map of the entire USA to figure out a good place to go to watch the 2017 eclipse because I needed to see the entirety of the eclipse path to narrow down the choices.
A trip.
When I was planning a trip to New Zealand, I used an actual physical globe to visualize the entire route for a whole number of different options (there are loads of them) so I could decide which one I liked best (chose to go via Hong Kong in the end).
A trip.
Quote

As far as the OP is concerned, I already answered that question.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Wait - have you just written that some flat earthers don't agree on the very principle of a flat earth?

Yes, there are some flat earthers who don't agree on a flat earth, believing it to be concave at the edges.

That's not actually what you originally said. You said "Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe", implying that at least some flat earthers agree that the earth is a globe, which I think is what's causing the astonished responses from everyone.
Clarification no longer allowed?
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: totallackey on March 24, 2020, 10:40:18 AM

I can't distinguish any difference between a zoomed out Bing map and a scanned mercator projection paper map. So would you consider a zoomed out Bing map to be an accurate flat map?
Not having the benefit of viewing a comparison of the two, I cannot answer this question.

I still do not agree there is just cause to label them as projections.

I think the word projection is a bunch of malarkey.


It doesn't really matter what you choose to label them, but the commonly accepted term is projection. Conceptually a projection is a very simple process, for example, wrap a cylinder of paper around a globe and transfer the markings on the globe to the paper, which is then unwrapped. A cylindrical projection. An equirectangular cylindrical projection is dead simple, every position on the globe you just transfer to the same latitude (y) and longitude (x) on to squared paper.
Since all things over our head (as is the case of anything viewed from a flat x/y would be) appear to be moving in a cylinder, it would not surprise me that a mirror image would be transferred when looking at things from a top down perspective.

That doesn't translate to mean a globe is somehow involved in being projected onto a flat surface.
Since this is a simple mathematical process, far easier to program a computer to do the work for you. It's not malarkey, it's maths.
Yes, that of a flat x/y coordinate system.

No one can truly know what shape a country is as a whole.


Don't see why not. If you have a large database of feature locations where you know the latitude and longitude of each one and know what type of feature it is (road, river, coastline) and which territory it is part of (US state, country etc.) you can plot these on a globe and see the shape for yourself. Or you can just trust that others have done this already and buy yourself a globe or use Google Earth/Google maps etc.
That means you are projecting a cylindrical view on top of a sphere.

Not accurate.

The important thing is to have accurate distance within a relatively small margin of error.

All flat maps accomplish this.

Well if you are talking about large scale flat maps covering small areas, then nobody is disagreeing with you, but "all flat maps" necessarily include maps of the whole earth and there are lots of these, so for example Mercator, Mollweide, Winkel tripel, and that old favorite, the Azimulthal Equidistant. They all look very different, and contradictory, so they can't all be accurate, yet they are all flat maps.
Getting back to my point of the facetious demand of FE producing an accurate map.

RE cannot seem to come to a consensus of what it is they truly want.
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 24, 2020, 11:01:17 AM
That's not actually what you originally said. You said "Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe", implying that at least some flat earthers agree that the earth is a globe, which I think is what's causing the astonished responses from everyone.
Clarification no longer allowed?

Sure, I was just pointing out that I think that's how others (me included) interpreted your original answer and why we found it a strange thing to read. If that's not what you meant and how you meant it to be read then fair enough, of course you can clarify it (well fair enough as far as I'm concerned that is).
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: robinofloxley on March 24, 2020, 11:40:05 AM

No one can truly know what shape a country is as a whole.


Don't see why not. If you have a large database of feature locations where you know the latitude and longitude of each one and know what type of feature it is (road, river, coastline) and which territory it is part of (US state, country etc.) you can plot these on a globe and see the shape for yourself. Or you can just trust that others have done this already and buy yourself a globe or use Google Earth/Google maps etc.
That means you are projecting a cylindrical view on top of a sphere.

Not accurate.


Well not exactly. The feature locations are just expressed as pairs of numbers, latitude and longitude. There's no shape really, just pairs of numbers. You can choose to plot those on a flat surface or on a globe or on some other odd shaped surface if you like. You can project a sphere onto a cylinder and since that is a reversible process, you can certainly project a cylinder onto a sphere and you can always unwrap a cylinder to a flat surface. You can do the same with a cone instead of a cylinder if you want to.

However you do it, this process is generally known as projection and all the professional maps I've ever seen are some form of projection from a globe. Sometimes the name of the projection is quoted on the map, sometimes it isn't, but you can often go to the publisher and find the information from there. You could argue which came first the chicken or the egg - i.e. do we project from a flat map to a globe or a globe to a flat map, but to me, the fact that if you take any flat map and project it back to a globe using the correct reverse projection, you end up with the same globe you would from any other map with a completely different projection says that the globe is the correct representation. There is only one globe representation, but many flat maps with very different layouts.


Well if you are talking about large scale flat maps covering small areas, then nobody is disagreeing with you, but "all flat maps" necessarily include maps of the whole earth and there are lots of these, so for example Mercator, Mollweide, Winkel tripel, and that old favorite, the Azimulthal Equidistant. They all look very different, and contradictory, so they can't all be accurate, yet they are all flat maps.
Getting back to my point of the facetious demand of FE producing an accurate map.

RE cannot seem to come to a consensus of what it is they truly want.

Oh I think that's quite simple. If I want a true representation, I have my globe, but a globe large enough for me to use on a day trip somewhere is utterly impractical, so a large scale map will do just fine, since I live in the UK, if I want a long walk, I might take an Ordnance Survey map which uses a Transverse Mercator projection. On the other hand, if I want to make a cross country flight, I'll take a UK VFR Chart which uses a Lambert Conical Projection because this is a projection more suitable for aviation flight planning. Each type of map has it's own set of limitations and they vary from map to map, so it's a case of matching your needs to the pros and cons of each type of map and choosing the most appropriate for the task.

Where RE and FE adherents differ is that if you believe in RE, you know that a universal, accurate complete flat map of the earth is impossible, whereas if the earth is truly flat, this is not only possible. but it should be borderline trivial to produce. Yet where is it?
Title: Re: What is agreed upon?
Post by: GreatATuin on March 24, 2020, 11:06:15 PM
Because maps of the whole world are not necessary.

This is very interesting: because you have no need for them, no one should ever need them nor make them? Or just be curious enough to map it for the sake of science?

Wouldn't a map of the whole world be useful to discuss the shape of the world, which is, as far as I know, the raison d'être of this forum?