totallackey

Re: What is agreed upon?
« Reply #60 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.

Re: What is agreed upon?
« Reply #61 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.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline GreatATuin

  • *
  • Posts: 294
  • It's turtles all the way down
    • View Profile
Re: What is agreed upon?
« Reply #62 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.
Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

you guys just read what you want to read

Re: What is agreed upon?
« Reply #63 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.

Re: What is agreed upon?
« Reply #64 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.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Re: What is agreed upon?
« Reply #65 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.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 819
    • View Profile
Re: What is agreed upon?
« Reply #66 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?

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 926
    • View Profile
Re: What is agreed upon?
« Reply #67 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.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

totallackey

Re: What is agreed upon?
« Reply #68 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.

totallackey

Re: What is agreed upon?
« Reply #69 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.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2020, 03:41:28 PM by totallackey »

Re: What is agreed upon?
« Reply #70 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.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Re: What is agreed upon?
« Reply #71 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.

Re: What is agreed upon?
« Reply #72 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...
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline GreatATuin

  • *
  • Posts: 294
  • It's turtles all the way down
    • View Profile
Re: What is agreed upon?
« Reply #73 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?
Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

you guys just read what you want to read

totallackey

Re: What is agreed upon?
« Reply #74 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?

totallackey

Re: What is agreed upon?
« Reply #75 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.

Re: What is agreed upon?
« Reply #76 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).

Re: What is agreed upon?
« Reply #77 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?
« Last Edit: March 24, 2020, 11:45:04 AM by robinofloxley »

*

Offline GreatATuin

  • *
  • Posts: 294
  • It's turtles all the way down
    • View Profile
Re: What is agreed upon?
« Reply #78 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'ĂȘtre of this forum?
Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

you guys just read what you want to read