#### ICanScienceThat

• 328
##### Re: Mapping the Earth
« Reply #20 on: June 27, 2019, 04:23:27 PM »
You sir are the one who says look a distorted map! The earth is a sphere! Yet, when presented with a map with no distortion you won't flip 180 degrees and say look! a map with no distortion! The earth is flat!

I'm telling you that I believe that both ways of thinking are false.
I said no such thing. I said, "If the Earth is a sphere, there is no possible way to draw an undistorted 2D map of it. If the Earth is flat, an undistorted 2D map should be no problem. So present us such an undistorted 2D map, and we have our answer. Lacking such a map, we can continue to conclude that the Earth simply is not flat."

Please read that back. Notice how I did NOT say that a distorted map proves a sphere. I said quite specifically that an undistorted 2D map should be no problem for a flat Earth. Let me clarify that right now. If you can produce an accurate, undistorted 2D map of the Earth, I will concede ahead of time that this would be a genuine breakthrough. Would it "prove" that the Earth is flat? Not all by itself, but this would be a tremendous piece of evidence. This would be a paradigm shift in the flat Earth movement. It would be worth real money. I know of a guy offering \$40,000 for such a thing.

If you can produce such a thing, I promise to re-evaluate EVERYTHING I have studied so far in relation to flat Earth. I promise to promote this new map. I will feature it on YouTube, and I will add comments to my existing videos about just how important a map like that would be.

That's real objectivity. That's honesty.

So now, let's be honest. Do you honestly think the map you linked is "undistorted"? If you think that, I'd challenge you to imagine a flight from New York to London. I would certainly call such a flight path significantly "distorted." Don't you agree?

#### iamcpc

• 819
##### Re: Mapping the Earth
« Reply #21 on: June 27, 2019, 04:44:26 PM »
I said no such thing. I said, "If the Earth is a sphere, there is no possible way to draw an undistorted 2D map of it.

If there is no possible way to draw an undistorted 2D map of a sphere and I have presented you with an undistroted 2d map of the earth are you saying that you honestly now believe the earth is not a sphere?

Please note there is an undistorted 2D map of the earth shown below. Based on your logic it it impossible that the earth is a sphere based on the existence of this map

If the Earth is flat, an undistorted 2D map should be no problem. So present us such an undistorted 2D map, and we have our answer.

Please note the map below is an undistorted 2d map:

Lacking such a map, we can continue to conclude that the Earth simply is not flat."

1. Here is another example of you making conclusions about the shape of the earth based on map distortions which I've already explained multiple times is a flawed way of thinking
2. We are not lacking such a map. Please see the map shown below:

« Last Edit: June 27, 2019, 04:47:53 PM by iamcpc »

#### ICanScienceThat

• 328
##### Re: Mapping the Earth
« Reply #22 on: June 27, 2019, 04:45:32 PM »
I said no such thing. I said, "If the Earth is a sphere, there is no possible way to draw an undistorted 2D map of it.

If there is no possible way to draw an undistorted 2D map of a sphere and I have presented you with an undistroted 2d map of the earth are you saying that you honestly now believe the earth is not a sphere?

If the Earth is flat, an undistorted 2D map should be no problem. So present us such an undistorted 2D map, and we have our answer. Lacking such a map, we can continue to conclude that the Earth simply is not flat."

I feel like you didn't make it to the end of my previous post. Allow me to repeat:
So now, let's be honest. Do you honestly think the map you linked is "undistorted"? If you think that, I'd challenge you to imagine a flight from New York to London. I would certainly call such a flight path significantly "distorted." Don't you agree?

#### iamcpc

• 819
##### Re: Mapping the Earth
« Reply #23 on: June 27, 2019, 04:53:39 PM »
I feel like you didn't make it to the end of my previous post. Allow me to repeat:
So now, let's be honest. Do you honestly think the map you linked is "undistorted"? If you think that, I'd challenge you to imagine a flight from New York to London. I would certainly call such a flight path significantly "distorted." Don't you agree?

I don't have enough experience with the undistorted map (which you said was impossible if the earth was a sphere) to map a flight path on it.

How is it that there is a map which accurately shows the sizes of all the countries on earth in 2D without an interactive scale? I'm really starting to believe that the existence of the map shown below is more evidence which supports a flat earth.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Undistorted 2d map^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If the Earth is a sphere, there is no possible way to draw an undistorted 2D map of it.

I believe you have checkmated yourself with this logic.

In addition I don't think that an interactive scale on an interactive map is distortion at all. If I look at a highway almanac the scale changes from state to state. If we were going to put an interactive highway almanac on the internet it would REQUIRE an interactive scale.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2019, 05:01:44 PM by iamcpc »

#### Tim Alphabeaver

• 214
• That's no beaver
##### Re: Mapping the Earth
« Reply #24 on: June 27, 2019, 05:02:20 PM »
I don't have enough experience with the undistorted map (which you said was impossible if the earth was a sphere) to map a flight path on it.
You don't need much experience. A cursory glance shows that going from South Africa to South America requires crossing the whole of Europe and North America. Or, as I pointed out earlier, that North America is about thrice as close to Antarctica as South Africa. To get from New Zealand to Antarctica on this map, you'd need to travel North West (or whatever the equivalent cardinal directions are on this map), and yet you claim it's undistorted?

It also seems to have Russia around the same size as Africa, which is completely wrong.

What is your definition of "undistorted"? Because clearly having countries the correct size, distance away from each other, or direction relative to each other aren't in your definition.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2019, 05:06:32 PM by Tim Alphabeaver »
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

#### iamcpc

• 819
##### Re: Mapping the Earth
« Reply #25 on: June 27, 2019, 07:13:53 PM »

What is your definition of "undistorted"? Because clearly having countries the correct size, distance away from each other, or direction relative to each other aren't in your definition.

I had already linked a map, with an interactive changing scale, in which the countries were the correct size, distance apart etc. It was rejected because it had an interactive scale which changes depending on which country you look at. So I presented a map which did not have an interactive scale in the the countries were more to scale which was not interactive.

It also seems to have Russia around the same size as Africa, which is completely wrong.

I don't know how to calculate the internal area of an abstract shape such as the borders of Russia on that map so I don't know if it is the correct size or not.

You don't need much experience. A cursory glance shows that going from South Africa to South America requires crossing the whole of Europe and North America.

This is not a map used by airlines to map flight paths. I had already shown a map which almost all flights are mapped on but, because it has an interactive scale, it was rejected.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2019, 07:16:49 PM by iamcpc »

#### Tim Alphabeaver

• 214
• That's no beaver
##### Re: Mapping the Earth
« Reply #26 on: June 27, 2019, 07:20:31 PM »

What is your definition of "undistorted"? Because clearly having countries the correct size, distance away from each other, or direction relative to each other aren't in your definition.

I had already linked a map, with an interactive changing scale, in which the countries were the correct size, distance apart etc. It was rejected because it had an interactive scale which changes depending on which country you look at. So I presented a map which did not have an interactive scale in the the countries were more to scale which was not interactive.

It also seems to have Russia around the same size as Africa, which is completely wrong.

I don't know how to calculate the internal area of an abstract shape such as the borders of Russia on that map so I don't know if it is the correct size or not.

You don't need much experience. A cursory glance shows that going from South Africa to South America requires crossing the whole of Europe and North America.

This is not a map used by airlines to map flight paths. I had already shown a map which almost all flights are mapped on but, because it has an interactive scale, it was rejected.

I don't know how to calculate the internal area from the map either. I can however just put some paper over my screen, trace around Russia and overlay it on Africa, and see that there's zero chance that Africa is twice the area that Russia is on that map, like it should be.

**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

#### Tim Alphabeaver

• 214
• That's no beaver
##### Re: Mapping the Earth
« Reply #27 on: June 27, 2019, 07:25:31 PM »
I had already linked a map, with an interactive changing scale, in which the countries were the correct size, distance apart etc. It was rejected because it had an interactive scale which changes depending on which country you look at. So I presented a map which did not have an interactive scale in the the countries were more to scale which was not interactive.
The only other link I saw you link was Bing maps, which uses the Mercator projection (at least when you zoom out far). The Mercator projection is certainly distorted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Distortion
« Last Edit: June 27, 2019, 07:27:44 PM by Tim Alphabeaver »
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

#### iamcpc

• 819
##### Re: Mapping the Earth
« Reply #28 on: June 27, 2019, 07:34:29 PM »
I had already linked a map, with an interactive changing scale, in which the countries were the correct size, distance apart etc. It was rejected because it had an interactive scale which changes depending on which country you look at. So I presented a map which did not have an interactive scale in the the countries were more to scale which was not interactive.
The only other link I saw you link was Bing maps, which uses the Mercator projection (at least when you zoom out far). The Mercator projection is certainly distorted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Distortion

My definition of undistorted when referring to a map:

1. The map must have countries the correct size (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level).
2. Countries should be the correct distance away from each other (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level)
3. Countries should be the correct direction relative to each other
4. The map must be able to be used to accurately navigate every country on earth

Bing maps has all of those listed above but was rejected because it has an interactive scale. I've only really done a lot of extensive traveling in North America, South America, and Europe so I can't corroborate the accuracy of #4 in Africa, Asia, and Australia but, based on my sample data, I will assume that you can.

#### Tim Alphabeaver

• 214
• That's no beaver
##### Re: Mapping the Earth
« Reply #29 on: June 27, 2019, 07:42:28 PM »
I had already linked a map, with an interactive changing scale, in which the countries were the correct size, distance apart etc. It was rejected because it had an interactive scale which changes depending on which country you look at. So I presented a map which did not have an interactive scale in the the countries were more to scale which was not interactive.
The only other link I saw you link was Bing maps, which uses the Mercator projection (at least when you zoom out far). The Mercator projection is certainly distorted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Distortion

My definition of undistorted when referring to a map:

1. The map must have countries the correct size (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level).
2. Countries should be the correct distance away from each other (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level)
3. Countries should be the correct direction relative to each other
4. The map must be able to be used to accurately navigate every country on earth

Bing maps has all of those listed above but was rejected because it has an interactive scale. I've only really done a lot of extensive traveling in North America, South America, and Europe so I can't corroborate the accuracy of #4 in Africa, Asia, and Australia but, based on my sample data, I will assume that you can.
Bing uses the Mercator projection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Distortion
Look at the size of Greenland. It fails #1 miserably.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

#### iamcpc

• 819
##### Re: Mapping the Earth
« Reply #30 on: June 27, 2019, 07:53:54 PM »
I had already linked a map, with an interactive changing scale, in which the countries were the correct size, distance apart etc. It was rejected because it had an interactive scale which changes depending on which country you look at. So I presented a map which did not have an interactive scale in the the countries were more to scale which was not interactive.
The only other link I saw you link was Bing maps, which uses the Mercator projection (at least when you zoom out far). The Mercator projection is certainly distorted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Distortion

My definition of undistorted when referring to a map:

1. The map must have countries the correct size (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level).
2. Countries should be the correct distance away from each other (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level)
3. Countries should be the correct direction relative to each other
4. The map must be able to be used to accurately navigate every country on earth

Bing maps has all of those listed above but was rejected because it has an interactive scale. I've only really done a lot of extensive traveling in North America, South America, and Europe so I can't corroborate the accuracy of #4 in Africa, Asia, and Australia but, based on my sample data, I will assume that you can.
Bing uses the Mercator projection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Distortion
Look at the size of Greenland. It fails #1 miserably.

Not it does not. The scale is interactive. Do I really need to save the image of bing maps that i'm looking at now showing that greenland is about 2k miles from north to south and a second screenshot of bing maps showint that 2k miles is like a third of the height of Africa? Do you know what an interactive map is with an interactive scale is?

The scale of the map changes based on where you look and how far you zoom in.

Even Google maps, which depicts the earth as a sphere has an interactive scale which changes based on where you look and how far you zoom in.

« Last Edit: June 27, 2019, 07:57:14 PM by iamcpc »

#### ICanScienceThat

• 328
##### Re: Mapping the Earth
« Reply #31 on: June 27, 2019, 08:00:43 PM »
I had already linked a map, with an interactive changing scale, in which the countries were the correct size, distance apart etc. It was rejected because it had an interactive scale which changes depending on which country you look at. So I presented a map which did not have an interactive scale in the the countries were more to scale which was not interactive.
The only other link I saw you link was Bing maps, which uses the Mercator projection (at least when you zoom out far). The Mercator projection is certainly distorted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Distortion

My definition of undistorted when referring to a map:

1. The map must have countries the correct size (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level).
2. Countries should be the correct distance away from each other (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level)
3. Countries should be the correct direction relative to each other
4. The map must be able to be used to accurately navigate every country on earth

Bing maps has all of those listed above but was rejected because it has an interactive scale. I've only really done a lot of extensive traveling in North America, South America, and Europe so I can't corroborate the accuracy of #4 in Africa, Asia, and Australia but, based on my sample data, I will assume that you can.

1) The first test I'm going to apply to your "undistorted map" is "Can I measure distances between major cities and verify that they match accepted values?" It's simple enough to look up flight times to verify that the distances are at least in the plausible range. I will not consider this map "undistorted" unless a single, static scale can be used to represent these distances.
2) The next test would be to check whether those flights match up with real-world flights at all. For example, if we were to fly from New York to London, the course should take us Eastward over the Atlantic Ocean. If we end up flying West across Canada and Russia along the way, somebody is going to notice.
3) Next up, I'm going to look for pac-manning. Those are situations where you fly off one edge of the map and appear on the other. Like in your most recent attempt, if I fly out of New York across the Atlantic Ocean, I'll fly off the top of the map and then appear again flying down off the top of the map on the left - near Europe.
4) The Bing map shows this effect quite plainly. Perhaps it's more "Defender" than "Pac-Man," but the problem is the same. You should see that on the left and right edges of the map, flying off one edge makes you appear back on the other edge. You can drag-scroll it left/right to move where that boundary is. Place the US right in the middle. Fly East out of NY to London. Fly West out of LA to Tokyo. How do you get from Tokyo to London? Can we fly West off the edge of the map and appear on the right side again?

If you could solve these issues, you'd have REAL progress. If you somehow made that work, we'd next want to check the location and orientations of things.
5) Is the latitude and longitude of each major city correct? These can be verified by the Sun & Stars.
6) Is the relative direction from one city to the next correct?

In short, I want the equivalent of a God's eye view of the flat Earth. A top-down image that looks as if it were a photograph taken from a great distance above the plane.

These are the reasons that you cannot make an undistorted 2D map of a sphere. It's geometrically impossible. You need to cut it somewhere, and most projections stretch it as well.

Both of the maps you have presented so far are massively distorted. They both exhibit cuts (pac-manning) and stretching. Those are distortions.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2019, 08:02:34 PM by ICanScienceThat »

• 219
• Belief does not make something a theory.
##### Re: Mapping the Earth
« Reply #32 on: June 27, 2019, 08:09:10 PM »
iamcpc, Perhaps you could add equatorial lines to that map while you're at it.  Would Brazil be as cold as Canada in this map?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
...circles do not exist and pi is not 3.14159...

Quote from: totallackey
Do you have any evidence of reality?

#### Tim Alphabeaver

• 214
• That's no beaver
##### Re: Mapping the Earth
« Reply #33 on: June 27, 2019, 08:33:23 PM »
Not it does not. The scale is interactive. Do I really need to save the image of bing maps that i'm looking at now showing that greenland is about 2k miles from north to south and a second screenshot of bing maps showint that 2k miles is like a third of the height of Africa? Do you know what an interactive map is with an interactive scale is?
Ahh I see, so it only gets the sizes correct when you're zoomed in far enough that it's not showing any other countries, but it can't show direction or distance in this zoomed-in format. Why not just stitch together all of these zoomed-in images into a full flat map that has the correct sizes and distances? The answer is: you can't. That's why it distorts when you zoom out.

I think we're pretty much agreeing here: the Earth is locally flat-ish, so if you zoom in you lose a lot of the distortion and you can do small distances and sizes accurately, but when you actually want to map a significant portion of the Earth on a flat map, you are guaranteed distortion.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

#### iamcpc

• 819
##### Re: Mapping the Earth
« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2019, 12:01:31 AM »
iamcpc, Perhaps you could add equatorial lines to that map while you're at it.  Would Brazil be as cold as Canada in this map?

I'm not an experience cartographer so I would not be able to do that for you. I'm sorry

#### ICanScienceThat

• 328
##### Re: Mapping the Earth
« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2019, 03:30:02 AM »
iamcpc, Perhaps you could add equatorial lines to that map while you're at it.  Would Brazil be as cold as Canada in this map?

I'm not an experience cartographer so I would not be able to do that for you. I'm sorry
Shall we sum this whole thing up then?

1) Do you now understand and agree that the 2 maps you have posted are distorted?
2) Do you now understand and agree that these maps are too distorted to answer the criticism that the flat Earth has no undistorted map?

#### iamcpc

• 819
##### Re: Mapping the Earth
« Reply #36 on: June 28, 2019, 04:51:59 PM »
Shall we sum this whole thing up then?

1) Do you now understand and agree that the 2 maps you have posted are distorted?
2) Do you now understand and agree that these maps are too distorted to answer the criticism that the flat Earth has no undistorted map?

My definition of undistorted when referring to a map:

1. The map must have countries the correct size (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level).
2. Countries should be the correct distance away from each other (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level)
3. Countries should be the correct direction relative to each other
4. The map must be able to be used to accurately navigate every country on earth

Bing maps, by my definition, is not distorted.

Other people here say that it is distorted because it has an interactive scale. This is a difference of opinion.

Even google maps which represents the earth as a sphere has an interactive scale which changes based on where you look and your zoom level.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 04:56:53 PM by iamcpc »

#### ICanScienceThat

• 328
##### Re: Mapping the Earth
« Reply #37 on: June 28, 2019, 05:07:56 PM »
Ok iamcpc. Your definition of "distorted" is different from mine. That seems valid. By your definition, your maps are not distorted. Great.
So let's circle back to the reason we're talking about distortion in the first place:

Hi!

I did a bit of Research on the Flat Earth Theory in the last couple of months and in all that time I haven't got a good answer to a Question I think is one of the main Things I am skeptical about with that Theory.

It's about the Flat Earth Map. Maths tells us that you can't map out a sphere, there are Proofs for that, so no map of the earth is correct. The different maps obtained by projections (as claimed) all have one thing in common: They are distorted.
Some got correct angles and others correct lengths but they can't have both at the same time.

Now to my Question: If the earth is flat, we should have a map that has got both of those Attributes, in other words we should be able to have a perfect map of the earth without any distortion. Is there such a map?

If there is, I'm fully convinced that you're right, because the only way we could have a perfect map is when the earth is flat.

Reading that back, using honesty, objectivity, and every possible measure of fairness; your definition of "distorted" does not seem to match the original poster's. He says specifically, "Some got correct angles and others correct lengths but they can't have both at the same time." He was pretty clear what he was asking for here. The angles on the Bing map are correct - sort of, but not really. They are useful for navigation because they are correct in the sense of compass directions, but if you were to make a triangle out of 3 cities with very different latitudes, you'd see the angles of the triangle don't work out. The lengths are correct, only if you account for the dynamic scale.

The original poster did not mention the cuts, but I'd like to add the cuts. Any 3D shape can be squashed out flat with some amount of stretching, but no matter how much stretching you do, math says a 3D closed volume MUST be cut in order to lay it out flat. The OP talks about, "Maths tells us that you can't map out a sphere," and this is part of what they are talking about, so I think this extension is fair. (It isn't really required, but it's easier to see cuts than stretches.)

The point of the original post was very clear. "If the earth is flat, we should have a map that has got both of those Attributes, in other words we should be able to have a perfect map of the earth without any distortion. Is there such a map?"
They are not asking for a map that can be used to navigate. They are asking for a map that shows how a flat Earth could actually work. Your maps do not do this. Your maps show how a globe Earth works.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 05:09:44 PM by ICanScienceThat »

#### iamcpc

• 819
##### Re: Mapping the Earth
« Reply #38 on: June 28, 2019, 06:23:52 PM »

The point of the original post was very clear. "If the earth is flat, we should have a map that has got both of those Attributes, in other words we should be able to have a perfect map of the earth without any distortion. Is there such a map?"
They are not asking for a map that can be used to navigate. They are asking for a map that shows how a flat Earth could actually work. Your maps do not do this. Your maps show how a globe Earth works.

In my opinion interactive maps like bing which have an interactive scale which changes based on where you look and what level you are zoomed into have  correct angles and correct lengths. When someone says that Greenland is the same size as Africa they are looking at the scale of the interactive map associated with another country instead of the interactive scale associated with Greenland.

#### ICanScienceThat

• 328
##### Re: Mapping the Earth
« Reply #39 on: June 28, 2019, 06:39:23 PM »

The point of the original post was very clear. "If the earth is flat, we should have a map that has got both of those Attributes, in other words we should be able to have a perfect map of the earth without any distortion. Is there such a map?"
They are not asking for a map that can be used to navigate. They are asking for a map that shows how a flat Earth could actually work. Your maps do not do this. Your maps show how a globe Earth works.

In my opinion interactive maps like bing which have an interactive scale which changes based on where you look and what level you are zoomed into have  correct angles and correct lengths. When someone says that Greenland is the same size as Africa they are looking at the scale of the interactive map associated with another country instead of the interactive scale associated with Greenland.
So in short, your posts are not relevant to the OP's question then?
Your maps do NOT show how a flat Earth could work. If you'd like to assert otherwise, I'd like to hear how.