[timothyleary]

Hey everyone,

So, I am pretty sure that everyone here has agreed at some point that Google Maps works. You can select a and b and get between them using your transportation of choice.

Google have recently changed their web version of maps to a globe. I am not saying the Earth is a globe because Google says so, so please read on...

On Google's flat version of maps, it shows that Greenland is huge. Like really huge. on their flat version (still available on Android) Greenland is almost the same size as Africa. On their new version of web maps, Greenland is dwarfed by Africa.

As I understand it, this is an issue with transposing round Earth to a flat surface. The way Google chose to do this was to have a scale that changed depending on where you were looking on the map at the time, therefore making things further from the equator appear bigger than they are.

So, why am I posting this? Good question sir! I wanted to find out how it is possible that, assuming the Earth is flat, Greenland appears to be as big as Africa when the scale could not possibly change.

If scale changes then it shows that there is a difference in curvature.

Please note that I am not trying to start an argument here, I am trying to understand. This is just something that has triggered my interest lately.

[Round Eyes]

Hey everyone,

So, I am pretty sure that everyone here has agreed at some point that Google Maps works. You can select a and b and get between them using your transportation of choice.

Google have recently changed their web version of maps to a globe. I am not saying the Earth is a globe because Google says so, so please read on...

On Google's flat version of maps, it shows that Greenland is huge. Like really huge. on their flat version (still available on Android) Greenland is almost the same size as Africa. On their new version of web maps, Greenland is dwarfed by Africa.

As I understand it, this is an issue with transposing round Earth to a flat surface. The way Google chose to do this was to have a scale that changed depending on where you were looking on the map at the time, therefore making things further from the equator appear bigger than they are.

So, why am I posting this? Good question sir! I wanted to find out how it is possible that, assuming the Earth is flat, Greenland appears to be as big as Africa when the scale could not possibly change.

If scale changes then it shows that there is a difference in curvature.

Please note that I am not trying to start an argument here, I am trying to understand. This is just something that has triggered my interest lately.

unfortunately i dont think there is an answer to your question.  there is no official/verified flat earth map, so if you are going to compare the sizes you are left to round earth sources, so we wont agree with that. what further makes it more difficult is that its not a very populated area in the sense of roads/travel and being able identify distance by means of car time, airplane travel times from one side to the other, etc.

[timothyleary]

unfortunately i dont think there is an answer to your question.  there is no official/verified flat earth map, so if you are going to compare the sizes you are left to round earth sources, so we wont agree with that. what further makes it more difficult is that its not a very populated area in the sense of roads/travel and being able identify distance by means of car time, airplane travel times from one side to the other, etc.

So are you saying that we don't know how big Greenland is compared to Africa?

Do we not know that Greenland is much, much smaller, regardless of the Earth shape you believe in?

What about Norway and Samalia? (greenland is the most obvious example, but there are many northern countries that look too large when compared to countries or other areas near the equator)

[Round Eyes]

unfortunately i dont think there is an answer to your question.  there is no official/verified flat earth map, so if you are going to compare the sizes you are left to round earth sources, so we wont agree with that. what further makes it more difficult is that its not a very populated area in the sense of roads/travel and being able identify distance by means of car time, airplane travel times from one side to the other, etc.

So are you saying that we don't know how big Greenland is compared to Africa?

Do we not know that Greenland is much, much smaller, regardless of the Earth shape you believe in?

What about Norway and Samalia? (greenland is the most obvious example, but there are many northern countries that look too large when compared to countries or other areas near the equator)

you are basing this on what?  thats my point, we dont have an official flat earth map that has been verified yet, so these exercises are pointless. 

[Bad Puppy]

Hey everyone,

So, I am pretty sure that everyone here has agreed at some point that Google Maps works. You can select a and b and get between them using your transportation of choice.

Google have recently changed their web version of maps to a globe. I am not saying the Earth is a globe because Google says so, so please read on...

On Google's flat version of maps, it shows that Greenland is huge. Like really huge. on their flat version (still available on Android) Greenland is almost the same size as Africa. On their new version of web maps, Greenland is dwarfed by Africa.

As I understand it, this is an issue with transposing round Earth to a flat surface. The way Google chose to do this was to have a scale that changed depending on where you were looking on the map at the time, therefore making things further from the equator appear bigger than they are.

So, why am I posting this? Good question sir! I wanted to find out how it is possible that, assuming the Earth is flat, Greenland appears to be as big as Africa when the scale could not possibly change.

If scale changes then it shows that there is a difference in curvature.

Please note that I am not trying to start an argument here, I am trying to understand. This is just something that has triggered my interest lately.

If you're referring to the size differential of northern hemisphere countries vs southern hemisphere countries, you're probably looking at the Mercator projection of the earth.  Since there is no way of accurately reproducing a spherical map onto a rectangle without distortion, different projection formulas will produce different distortions.  The Gall-Peters projection distorts the shapes, but maintains correct sizes relative to one another.

I'm still waiting for a flat planet to be projected onto a flat map, for which there should be no distortion.

[iamcpc]

I wanted to find out how it is possible that, assuming the Earth is flat, Greenland appears to be as big as Africa when the scale could not possibly change.

The scale does change. I was able to use the 2d non globe map and zoom into Greenland and see the scale much smaller than when i zoomed into Africa.

If scale changes then it shows that there is a difference in curvature.

Not necessarily. Florida is the flattest state in America. If I look at a road atlas for the state the scale changes dramatically when looking at a map of say Orlando. This huge change in scale does not equate to huge difference in elevation or curvature.

[Bad Puppy]

Why would flat earthers trust a map from Google?  It's based on a globe.  Their 2d projection is based on the Mercator projection, which is based on a globe.

Assuming the earth is flat, google maps is not accurate and shouldn't be used by flat earthers.  Why not use Gleason's map, for example?

[timothyleary]

The scale does change. I was able to use the 2d non globe map and zoom into Greenland and see the scale much smaller than when i zoomed into Africa.

This is kind of my point. If Earth is flat, and Google Maps can be trusted as a source of getting people from A to B, then it can't change. I am hoping to get some sort of answer as to how this could be if we are to assume the Earth is flat

[DocHolliday]

The scale does change. I was able to use the 2d non globe map and zoom into Greenland and see the scale much smaller than when i zoomed into Africa.

This is kind of my point. If Earth is flat, and Google Maps can be trusted as a source of getting people from A to B, then it can't change. I am hoping to get some sort of answer as to how this could be if we are to assume the Earth is flat

You're falling into one of the traps of arguing logically with conspiracy theorists. They deny the existence of any FE map. That is to say, they haven't found a map that accurately depicts these things yet.

Which is one place where the RE theory beats FE. Globalists can point to a map and make predictions about flight times, walking times, and orbital times that turn out to be very accurate when compared to actual travel times.

When the model fits the experimental data, trust the model.

However, the FE's are looking for an accurate enough model. They are working from approximately the time of the ancient Egyptians or perhaps earlier. Pre ancient greeks at least.  At which rate it will be around 4500CE before they figure out what the rest of mankind had already found. By which time the rest of us will be playing hockey on the moons of Saturn, if not further.

But it's their time to waste.

[stack]

Assuming the earth is flat, google maps is not accurate and shouldn't be used by flat earthers.  Why not use Gleason's map, for example?

It’s my understanding that all FE maps are globe projections. This includes the mono-polar, bi-polar and Gleason maps, as well as others. In essence, there’s no such thing as an FE map. 

[Rushy]

Assuming the earth is flat, google maps is not accurate and shouldn't be used by flat earthers.  Why not use Gleason's map, for example?

It’s my understanding that all FE maps are globe projections. This includes the mono-polar, bi-polar and Gleason maps, as well as others. In essence, there’s no such thing as an FE map.

It's actually the other way around. There's no such thing as globular maps. Any globes you see are simply globular projections of a flat earth.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

Assuming the earth is flat, google maps is not accurate and shouldn't be used by flat earthers.  Why not use Gleason's map, for example?

It’s my understanding that all FE maps are globe projections. This includes the mono-polar, bi-polar and Gleason maps, as well as others. In essence, there’s no such thing as an FE map.

It's actually the other way around. There's no such thing as globular maps. Any globes you see are simply globular projections of a flat earth.

So producing a map of the flat earth that accurately locates and sizes the continents in the Southern Hemisphere along with time zones and distances across the Antarctic should be no problem right?

[stack]

It's actually the other way around. There's no such thing as globular maps. Any globes you see are simply globular projections of a flat earth.

Curious. Then why are all Flat Earth maps Globe projections?

[Rushy]

Assuming the earth is flat, google maps is not accurate and shouldn't be used by flat earthers.  Why not use Gleason's map, for example?

It’s my understanding that all FE maps are globe projections. This includes the mono-polar, bi-polar and Gleason maps, as well as others. In essence, there’s no such thing as an FE map.

It's actually the other way around. There's no such thing as globular maps. Any globes you see are simply globular projections of a flat earth.

So producing a map of the flat earth that accurately locates and sizes the continents in the Southern Hemisphere along with time zones and distances across the Antarctic should be no problem right?

Yes, the UN uses it as its primary symbol these days.

[stack]

Yes, the UN uses it as its primary symbol these days.

Revised:

[Dr Van Nostrand]

Assuming the earth is flat, google maps is not accurate and shouldn't be used by flat earthers.  Why not use Gleason's map, for example?

It’s my understanding that all FE maps are globe projections. This includes the mono-polar, bi-polar and Gleason maps, as well as others. In essence, there’s no such thing as an FE map.

It's actually the other way around. There's no such thing as globular maps. Any globes you see are simply globular projections of a flat earth.

So producing a map of the flat earth that accurately locates and sizes the continents in the Southern Hemisphere along with time zones and distances across the Antarctic should be no problem right?

Yes, the UN uses it as its primary symbol these days.

I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting anyone else's position.

Are you saying that the UN Logo is an accurate representation of the sizing and location of the major continents?

[Rushy]

Assuming the earth is flat, google maps is not accurate and shouldn't be used by flat earthers.  Why not use Gleason's map, for example?

It’s my understanding that all FE maps are globe projections. This includes the mono-polar, bi-polar and Gleason maps, as well as others. In essence, there’s no such thing as an FE map.

It's actually the other way around. There's no such thing as globular maps. Any globes you see are simply globular projections of a flat earth.

So producing a map of the flat earth that accurately locates and sizes the continents in the Southern Hemisphere along with time zones and distances across the Antarctic should be no problem right?

Yes, the UN uses it as its primary symbol these days.

I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting anyone else's position.

Are you saying that the UN Logo is an accurate representation of the sizing and location of the major continents?

Do you believe the UN would choose an inaccurate map as their primary logo?

[stack]

Do you believe the UN would choose an inaccurate map as their primary logo?

No, I don't believe they would choose an inaccurate map as their logo. They chose the correct one, an Azimuthal Globe Projection Map.

[HorstFue]

It's actually the other way around. There's no such thing as globular maps. Any globes you see are simply globular projections of a flat earth.

If I say, each and every accurate map is a globular map, how do we solve this disagreement?
Evidence? I see overwhelming evidence on the globe side.

All maps in use for navigation are build on spherical coordinates. On the vast majority of these maps you can derive spherical coordinates directly, others mostly include an advice how to transpose coordinates, for others general advice is available.

Each and every day millions of car drivers, navigators on ships and planes, even cyclists, hikers and explorers verify distances and directions with their odometers and compasses. I never noticed any frequent complaints about inaccurate maps.

There's not only one mapping service producing maps, don't know how many in total, but never heard about any significant inconsistencies between maps from chart service 'A' compared with chart service 'B' (if any, than it's about some details missing). I myself concurrently used sea charts from different chart services, found no issues.

And now the best: Openstreetmap
That's an open source crowd workers project. Over 1 million contributers are registered now. Additional contributions from a vast number of geolocation services, donations from many - also governmental - organizations are put together in one global (!) mapping database. All fits together with no significant issues. Myriads of maps are produced from the data and thus verified by millions of users of these maps.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

Assuming the earth is flat, google maps is not accurate and shouldn't be used by flat earthers.  Why not use Gleason's map, for example?

It’s my understanding that all FE maps are globe projections. This includes the mono-polar, bi-polar and Gleason maps, as well as others. In essence, there’s no such thing as an FE map.

It's actually the other way around. There's no such thing as globular maps. Any globes you see are simply globular projections of a flat earth.

So producing a map of the flat earth that accurately locates and sizes the continents in the Southern Hemisphere along with time zones and distances across the Antarctic should be no problem right?

Yes, the UN uses it as its primary symbol these days.

I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting anyone else's position.

Are you saying that the UN Logo is an accurate representation of the sizing and location of the major continents?

Do you believe the UN would choose an inaccurate map as their primary logo?

Awesome question...

I believe the UN logo is a stylized image of an azimuth projection used for cosmetic effect, like the Pepsi logo or the Nike swoosh.
That's what I believe.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not sure you've been clear.
You believe the UN logo is the physical map of the flat earth revealing the fact that the distance from Perth to Brisbane is twice the distance of NYC to Sacramento (a secret they've kept for centuries.)

We all understand that there is disagreement in the FET community on this level of detail. We are all entitled to our opinions in areas of disagreement.