[ChrisTP]

It's not a red herring, it's a major reason there is no 'flat earth' map. there are flat maps of the earth, and these are distorted. This is the reason for this thread. Step one for mapping the earth would be to literally measure long distances manually then compare the results to standard, widely used maps like Google maps.

Obviously since I'm not a flat earther I will assume that any measurements (if accurate) will match google maps. If they do not match google maps then flat earthers might be on to something and should most certainly continue manually measuring the globe to win their nobel prize for uncovering the worlds biggest conspiracy.

[stack]

What would the fe map look like if projected/wrapped around a globe?
Would the perimeter ice wall form or wrap around the globes south pole?

Something like this, if using the most common FE map, the AE:

[iamcpc]

Step one for mapping the earth would be to literally measure long distances manually then compare the results to standard, widely used maps like Google maps.

Chris,

Thank you so much for your idea. The problem that I see within the FE community is that the systems which are used to measure long distances are many times not agreed upon.

In addition how would you measure the distance to and from the great ice wall? In my FE model there is no great ice wall. Would you measure distances under the assumption that there is a great ice wall?

Something like this, if using the most common FE map, the AE:

It's the most common FE map yet people have claimed that it's based on a globe projection therefore does not count.

In an attempt to put projections aside:

That map does not corroborate observations that I've made when traveling internationally. The distance between South America and Australia for example does not match shipping times, shipping distances shipping paths, travel times, travel paths, and travel distances.

[stack]

Something like this, if using the most common FE map, the AE:

It's the most common FE map yet people have claimed that it's based on a globe projection therefore does not count.

In an attempt to put projections aside:

That map does not corroborate observations that I've made when traveling internationally. The distance between South America and Australia for example does not match shipping times, shipping distances shipping paths, travel times, travel paths, and travel distances.

I agree, it is the most common FE 'map'. And it's not a claim that it is a globe projection. It simply is a globe projection. That's how one makes the AE map, by projecting a globe:



And yes, I agree that map does not corroborate observations that I've made when traveling internationally as well.

As for icewall or no icewall, that shouldn't be a gating factor for creating a flat earth map. If such a map can be created someone can put any sort of ice wall want around it if they so desire. The trick is accurately mapping the continents first. Walls and domes can come later.

I think why the AE map is so common is because when it was first proposed not much was known about Antarctica for one. For two, it made it so the sun and moon could orbit above the earth and not drop off the west side of, let's say a Bing map, and magically pac-man and appear over on the east side.

Maybe we start with what ChrisTP showed with that gif morphing a Mercator projection into showing the correct sizes of the continents. Here's a static representation:



If you remove all of the light blue parts and then squeeze together the dark blue parts, like putting a puzzle together. Problems immediately arise in terms the accuracy of distances and you're still in the jam of how the sun moves as well as how my plane gets from San Francisco to Tokyo by going west. But maybe it's a start.

[Bad Puppy]

I think it's important when making a flat map to NOT reference any existing maps or projections whatsoever.  We all know these are based on a globe, so that's not going to help us.  I recall the flat earth community does not have a problem with the existence of weather satellites, only that they're not actually in space.  These can serve as our eyes in the sky.  Now, as long as the altitude of these satellites remains mostly constant we can see the shapes of the land masses and their distances from one another.

Actual distance isn't important at this point; just relative distance.  This can help build a bird's eye view of the world.  Since we can't assume the altitude of such devices we'll have to find another means of measuring the actual scale of the map, but that's not important.

Now, if enough photos are taken with overlapping points, it should be possible to print them, align them using the overlapping points, stitch them together, and complete a map of the Earth.

[stack]

This FEer tried without using satellites and such, but using the sun. He apparently gave up at some point. I think he screwed the pooch, as it were, right out of the gate by assuming a sun moving at 1000 mph. He was trying to use the sun to calculate distances but one would need to know the distances to calculate the speed of the sun. A double bind, if you will.

[TomInAustin]

Can we move on to more pressing points like what the first step in creating a FE map would be?

There have already been suggestions.  Plotting out a map is quite simple using know distances between points. 

I know there have been arguments about distance but they do not hold water as so much commerce depends on them.   

[spherical]

If you think about the FE model to be like a pizza, and start to draw countries and continents based on known true distances, inland and between them, this pizza will end up missing few slices. Flat Earth model has a huge problem here.  Someone (FEt) must fix this issue very soon.

[iamcpc]

If you think about the FE model to be like a pizza, and start to draw countries and continents based on known true distances, inland and between them, this pizza will end up missing few slices. Flat Earth model has a huge problem here.  Someone (FEt) must fix this issue very soon.

The biggest problem that I've seen is that, if the map is not interactive, it always get proven incorrect by

[ChrisTP]

If you think about the FE model to be like a pizza, and start to draw countries and continents based on known true distances, inland and between them, this pizza will end up missing few slices. Flat Earth model has a huge problem here.  Someone (FEt) must fix this issue very soon.

The biggest problem that I've seen is that, if the map is not interactive, it always get proven incorrect by

Right, Zoom out fully on the bing map, screenshot it and work from that screenshot instead of the website. Stop talking about interactive scales. We want a picture of the world in full that is correctly sized and shaped, not one that's distorted. if it distorts, it means the distortion is making up for a projection of a spheroid or any other shape that isn't flat. It's that simple. The bing map regardless of what you think is still a globe map not a 'flat earth' map. There is no way round that fact.

[Bad Puppy]

If you think about the FE model to be like a pizza, and start to draw countries and continents based on known true distances, inland and between them, this pizza will end up missing few slices. Flat Earth model has a huge problem here.  Someone (FEt) must fix this issue very soon.

The biggest problem that I've seen is that, if the map is not interactive, it always get proven incorrect by

Why does it have to be "interactive" to be proven correct?  That should definitely NOT be necessary for a flat earth.  And, for a globe....well, they're not interactive at all.  I'm sure there's a giant globe out there that's accurate and not interactive.

[iamcpc]

Why does it have to be "interactive" to be proven correct?  That should definitely NOT be necessary for a flat earth.  And, for a globe....well, they're not interactive at all.  I'm sure there's a giant globe out there that's accurate and not interactive.

 Because any non-interactive map is severely weakened by observations that I've made when traveling internationally. If you provide me with a non-interactive map and I guarantee that I can provide overwhelming evidence showing that it is wrong using flight times and distances for flights that I've personally taken and verified. As well as the map not  matching shipping times, shipping distances shipping paths, travel times, travel paths, and travel distances.

Right, Zoom out fully on the bing map, screenshot it and work from that screenshot instead of the website. Stop talking about interactive scales. We want a picture of the world in full that is correctly sized and shaped, not one that's distorted. if it distorts, it means the distortion is making up for a projection of a spheroid or any other shape that isn't flat. It's that simple. The bing map regardless of what you think is still a globe map not a 'flat earth' map. There is no way round that fact.

By my definition Bing maps is not distorted.

There have been advancements in technology. You are asking for a map from the 1900's. I'm saying that you should consider that, in the past 200 years, advancements have been made in cartography and now we are able to create interactive online maps which are much less distorted (by both of our definitions of distortion when referring to maps) than the maps from over 100 years ago. Why are you wanting a map which is 100 year old when you could have a new, higher tech, more accurate interactive map?

[stack]

Why are you wanting a map which is 100 year old when you could have a new, higher tech, more accurate interactive map?

No, actually only one that is about 20 years old. Yahoo! launched their 'interactive' web map service in 1998. They were basically the first to do so.

[iamcpc]

Why are you wanting a map which is 100 year old when you could have a new, higher tech, more accurate interactive map?

No, actually only one that is about 20 years old. Yahoo! launched their 'interactive' web map service in 1998. They were basically the first to do so.

Stack,

ChrisTP is asking for a non interactive still picture map in the quote below:

Yahoo maps is an interactive map made in the last 20 or so years. My point is that still image non interactive maps were used over 100 years ago and we now have the ability to make better, more accurate, maps which are interactive.

Zoom out fully on the bing map, screenshot it and work from that screenshot instead of the website. Stop talking about interactive scales.

[stack]

Why are you wanting a map which is 100 year old when you could have a new, higher tech, more accurate interactive map?

No, actually only one that is about 20 years old. Yahoo! launched their 'interactive' web map service in 1998. They were basically the first to do so.

Stack,

ChrisTP is asking for a non interactive still picture map in the quote below:

Yahoo maps is an interactive map made in the last 20 or so years. My point is that still image non interactive maps were used over 100 years ago and we now have the ability to make better, more accurate, maps which are interactive.

Zoom out fully on the bing map, screenshot it and work from that screenshot instead of the website. Stop talking about interactive scales.

I know what Chris is asking and I agree with him. The problem with your "interactive" maps you so adore is that they are globe projections regardless of zooming. Take Bing Maps for example, you've already been shown that Microsoft uses the Mercator Globe Projection. Looking at say Wyoming, it's represented as a square, that's Mercator projection at work. When in actuality, it's really a trapezoid, very slightly. But a trapezoid nonetheless. (look up the dimensions of Wyoming yourself, you'll see what I mean)

So again, the exercise here is to figure out a way to make a flat earth (as in World) map based upon a flat earth. No globe projections involved. The best place to start is with a static map like we all used to rely on 20 years ago.

[iamcpc]

So again, the exercise here is to figure out a way to make a flat earth (as in World) map based upon a flat earth. No globe projections involved. The best place to start is with a static map like we all used to rely on 20 years ago.

Here's the problem. Every single static map that has been presented you stand up and proudly say "based on globe projection! It does not count!" and throw us back in the red herring projection debate.

You even presented a FE map and then, shortly after presenting it, claimed that it was really a globe projection.

Why don't you present a map which fits your criteria for this discussion so we can finally move past this red herring debate which I have asked dozens of times for us to move past.

[ChrisTP]

Again it's not a red herring. You were presenting maps that are projections of the globe.

"Why don't you present a map which fits your criteria for this discussion so we can finally move past this red herring debate" - because it doesn't exist yet. That's the point of this thread.

[stack]

So again, the exercise here is to figure out a way to make a flat earth (as in World) map based upon a flat earth. No globe projections involved. The best place to start is with a static map like we all used to rely on 20 years ago.

Here's the problem. Every single static map that has been presented you stand up and proudly say "based on globe projection! It does not count!" and throw us back in the red herring projection debate.

I don't stand up and say that. I just merely relay the fact, for instance, that Microsoft states they use the mercator globe projection. And the whole point here is to create a flat earth map which means NO projection. There is no red herring debate because there is no debate. Projection maps are what they are, period.

You even presented a FE map and then, shortly after presenting it, claimed that it was really a globe projection.

Listen, there is no such thing as a true accurate flat earth map. So we're collectively trying to figure out how in the hell to make a true accurate flat earth map where everyone else who has ever tried has failed. So there's no FE map to present because one doesn't exist, hence this thread. Get it?

[iamcpc]

Again it's not a red herring. You were presenting maps that are projections of the globe.

 If it's not a red herring why do we keep talking about it instead of making a FE map??

"Why don't you present a map which fits your criteria for this discussion so we can finally move past this red herring debate" - because it doesn't exist yet. That's the point of this thread.

Then please present ANY map which fits the criteria as a framework for a FE map. I fear that it will show Canada North of the United States and someone will say "GLOBE PROJECTION!" thus FORCING this conversation to remain on the red herring.

Even when presented with maps in which the developer of the map does not specifically say is based on a globe projection:

"It looks kind of like a map that has a globe projection! therefore it does not count"  thus FORCING this conversation to remain on the red herring.

Listen, there is no such thing as a true accurate flat earth map. So we're collectively trying to figure out how in the hell to make a true accurate flat earth map where everyone else who has ever tried has failed. So there's no FE map to present because one doesn't exist, hence this thread. Get it?

From my perspective I am trying to present ideas for what I think could be good contenders and everyone else is talking about the projections that the maps may, or may not have.


Please present to me ANY map in which you believe the map would be a good framework for the starting of a flat earth map.

[stack]

Again it's not a red herring. You were presenting maps that are projections of the globe.

 If it's not a red herring why do we keep talking about it instead of making a FE map??

"Why don't you present a map which fits your criteria for this discussion so we can finally move past this red herring debate" - because it doesn't exist yet. That's the point of this thread.

Then please present ANY map which fits the criteria as a framework for a FE map. I fear that it will show Canada North of the United States and someone will say "GLOBE PROJECTION!" thus FORCING this conversation to remain on the red herring.

Even when presented with maps in which the developer of the map does not specifically say is based on a globe projection:

"It looks kind of like a map that has a globe projection! therefore it does not count"  thus FORCING this conversation to remain on the red herring.

Ummm, so far there is only one where I can't find documentation for, timeanddate. You've seen the list. All the others are documented globe projections. And it's not a "does not count" thing for the millionth time its that a true flat earth map should have NO projection - Again, the entire point of this thread.

Listen, there is no such thing as a true accurate flat earth map. So we're collectively trying to figure out how in the hell to make a true accurate flat earth map where everyone else who has ever tried has failed. So there's no FE map to present because one doesn't exist, hence this thread. Get it?

From my perspective I am trying to present ideas for what I think could be good contenders and everyone else is talking about the projections that the maps may, or may not have.

Please present to me ANY map in which you believe the map would be a good framework for the starting of a flat earth map.

Why don't you present a layout or even just a methodology that would be a good framework for starting a flat earth map.

For instance a member of the other site, using AE as a "model", not a map, but a model, for continental layout then used flight times between cities to calculate distances and plot the cities on the model. So many problems with this methodology I don't even know where to begin. But just as an example, when flight times in the Southern hemiplane didn't fit his model, he simply claimed those flights were fake. Went as far to claim that Qantas, for example, simply murders all the passengers on those fake flights to hide that they are fake. Lovely logic.

Many, many people have tried to create a true and accurate flat earth map that matches reality. ALL have failed. And I can see why.