[Peter Winfield]

Round earth theory has a very precise and accurate map of the earth, but there is no equivalent for flat earth theory. In fact there seem to be multiple conflicting versions of the flat earth map.

All this round earth data must be faked from the real (flat earth) data. So there must be a simple way of creating round earth data from flat earth data.

If we can work out how they do this, we can create a very detailed map of the flat earth using their faked data.

So why can't we work out how they do this?

[iamcpc]

Round earth theory has a very precise and accurate map of the earth, but there is no equivalent for flat earth theory. In fact there seem to be multiple conflicting versions of the flat earth map.

All this round earth data must be faked from the real (flat earth) data. So there must be a simple way of creating round earth data from flat earth data.

If we can work out how they do this, we can create a very detailed map of the flat earth using their faked data.

So why can't we work out how they do this?

There are many people who think the earth is flat who believe there is a map. Why there is no standard map is because there there a dozens, if not hundreds, of people each with their own perceptions and beliefs. For example, on the other forums, someone adopted a more biblical flat earth model in which Jerusalem was the center of the universe, and the world.

Another thing is that there are measurements and observations which weaken many of the maps. Because there is no map which is not weakened by measurements and observations the majority of the community has not agreed on a map.

[jack44556677]

So why can't we work out how they do this?

That, of course, is not the issue.

You need to understand that cartography is not for determining the shapes of things.   It is for direction and (estimated) duration.  That is how they (maps) are built, and why.

There are small amounts of topographical maps of course, but we don't do these for the ocean's surface (only land, sometimes including some of the land beneath the ocean).

Making a map, and determining the shape of something (especially something that you are standing on, and is too large to measure in one go) are fundamentally different challenges.

Inferring the shape of the world because you took trips on or above it, is stupid.  To determine the shape of the entire world, it must be rigorously and repeatedly measured (no, just riding on a vehicle to get there and timing it is not adequate).

Maps are a military asset, which is one of the many reasons that the maps in the average citizen's hands are always incorrect, historically.  This was a large part of keeping poor european slaves/"commoners" from going to north america during/on from the middle ages.

I know of no one on either side (FE or RE) seriously involved in topographical cartography and I agree that it is an oversight.  In any case, it is a large undertaking and there are bigger fish to fry currently (especially for independent researchers).

[Iceman]

I know of no one on either side (FE or RE) seriously involved in topographical cartography and I agree that it is an oversight.  In any case, it is a large undertaking and there are bigger fish to fry currently (especially for independent researchers).

Ok, but have you looked? I know literally hundreds of people who work in a combination of topographic, hydrographic, and geologic mapping. Many of these people are even addressing temporal changes to maps given ongoing continental uplift, water level changes and coastline erosion.

These maps affect multi-billion dollar shipping industry productivity and safety, not to mention provide early warning for at-risk real estate that may be imminently affected by geo hazards such as flooding, landsliding, and bluff erosion.

Take a while to look at the multi-jurisdictional collaboration on research around the great lakes - including the establishment and refinement of a vertical datum.

[Peter Winfield]

So why can't we work out how they do this?

That, of course, is not the issue.

It is an issue for me. I want to understand why all that highly detailed RE data can't be converted into accurate FE data.

I know of no one on either side (FE or RE) seriously involved in topographical cartography and I agree that it is an oversight.

There are many thousands of people involved in geographic data handling on the RE side, so the fact that there are none on the FE side is more than just an oversight, it is a clear indication that it is not actually possible to create a cartographically accurate map of the FE.

[SteelyBob]

Because there is no map which is not weakened by measurements and observations the majority of the community has not agreed on a map.

And yet there are no measurements or observations that ‘weaken’ the RE model. Why might that be?

[iamcpc]

Because there is no map which is not weakened by measurements and observations the majority of the community has not agreed on a map.

And yet there are no measurements or observations that ‘weaken’ the RE model. Why might that be?

There are FE maps which are NOT weakened by measurements and observations but they are not widely accepted in the FE community because:


1. It has a south pole and a north pole. Any person who believes the earth only has one pole would reject this model.
2. It does not have a great circular ice wall. Any person who believes that the earth has a great ice wall rejects this model.
3. It does not have any additional continents. Any person who believes there are continents other than the ones on a standard map rejects this model.
4. It does not have Jerusalem in the center.
5. It is not shaped like a circle.

[Mark Antony]

Round earth theory has a very precise and accurate map of the earth

Who developed this map and where can I find it? I'm interested to know what makes a map "round"

[stack]

Because there is no map which is not weakened by measurements and observations the majority of the community has not agreed on a map.

And yet there are no measurements or observations that ‘weaken’ the RE model. Why might that be?

There are FE maps which are NOT weakened by measurements and observations...

Which FE maps are you referring to?

[Peter Winfield]

Round earth theory has a very precise and accurate map of the earth

Who developed this map and where can I find it? I'm interested to know what makes a map "round"

The data has been collected over hundreds of years. A quick google shows many sites that have geographic data sets, here is one https://globalmaps.github.io/.

I used the term "round" because of the widespread use of FE/RE on this forum to denote the two different understandings of the shape of the Earth. These maps are "round" because they describe every point on the map as a 3D coordinate which are (pretty much) arranged in a sphere. A FE model (if it existed) would show the coordinates as (pretty much) arranged in a plane, with very minimal deviation for heights & depths.

Go to maps.google.com to visually explore a small part of the available map data.

[Peter Winfield]

There are FE maps which are NOT weakened by measurements and observations but they are not widely accepted in the FE community

We are approaching "No True Scotsman" territory.

[iamcpc]

Which FE maps are you referring to?

https://www.bing.com/maps represents the earth as a FLAT 2d surface with an interactive scale. I've used maps similar to this to navigate many different continents during my travels so I can corroborate, based on my observations, that a model of the earth like this does appear to be correct.

[Peter Winfield]

https://www.bing.com/maps represents the earth as a FLAT 2d surface with an interactive scale. I've used maps similar to this to navigate many different continents during my travels so I can corroborate, based on my observations, that a model of the earth like this does appear to be correct.

Look at the distance marker at the bottom right. Now scroll up without changing the zoom and notice that the bar gets longer and the distances get smaller even though the zoom is the same.

Now try scrolling left until you reach the edge of the map.

[SteelyBob]

Which FE maps are you referring to?

https://www.bing.com/maps represents the earth as a FLAT 2d surface with an interactive scale. I've used maps similar to this to navigate many different continents during my travels so I can corroborate, based on my observations, that a model of the earth like this does appear to be correct.

That's not a FE map. That is a flat map of a round earth. It is a projection, with all the errors one would expect from a projection. As with most attempts to display the earth on a flat piece of paper (or screen), the further away from the equator you get, the more exaggerated distances appear. If you zoom out to show as much of the world as you can, the problem becomes apparent very quickly. Yes, when zoomed in they can show you a scale that will work pretty well, but when you zoom out...not so much. Look at Alaska, for example. Looking North-South, Alaska spans roughly 55N to 70N, a distance of around 900nm. Australia, on the other hand, spans from roughly 10S to 40S. But on Bing, as with many other projections, the two appear to be roughly the same distance.

Likewise, the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line on your Bing map - it's a great circle, which would be curved on that projection.

A flat earth would be a wonderful thing from a cartography point of view - so much simpler. Shortest distances would be straight lines. Headings and distances would be easily measurable at any scale...a complete doddle. Problem is, the world stubbornly refuses to be representable on a flat surface, and there's a good reason for that - it's spherical.

[stevecanuck]

You need to understand that cartography is not for determining the shapes of things.

Yes it is. That and placement on the earth as well as the size of continents and islands. That's the very definition of cartography.

It is for direction

Direction from any point on earth to any other point is a byproduct of placement.

and (estimated) duration.

Duration? Duration of what?

That is how they (maps) are built, and why.

There are small amounts of topographical maps of course,

No, maps exist by the millions.

but we don't do these for the ocean's surface (only land, sometimes including some of the land beneath the ocean).

Yes we do. Every airline that flies overseas uses maps to determine distance and direction. (I'm assuming you meant "use" rather than "do").

Making a map, and determining the shape of something (especially something that you are standing on, and is too large to measure in one go) are fundamentally different challenges.

No, making a map IS determining the shape. It's two ways of saying the same thing.

Inferring the shape of the world because you took trips on or above it, is stupid.  To determine the shape of the entire world, it must be rigorously and repeatedly measured (no, just riding on a vehicle to get there and timing it is not adequate).

You just described surveying. Untold millions of surveys have been done. Reducing the concept to driving a vehicle around is absurd.

Maps are a military asset, which is one of the many reasons that the maps in the average citizen's hands are always incorrect, historically.

Uh, no. Any time I've used a map it's been accurate.

This was a large part of keeping poor european slaves/"commoners" from going to north america during/on from the middle ages.

The middle ages started in the 5th century. Nobody in Europe knew America even existed.

I know of no one on either side (FE or RE) seriously involved in topographical cartography and I agree that it is an oversight.  In any case, it is a large undertaking and there are bigger fish to fry currently (especially for independent researchers).

I worked in the oil industry and it has to know EXACT locations and topography - all the time. They employ surveyors - all the time. They create maps containing location and topographical information - all the time.

[iamcpc]

That's not a FE map. That is a flat map of a round earth. It is a projection

I could easily say that it's not. I could say it's a flat map of a flat earth.  The earth is round therefore that is not a flat earth map.

You could show me a globe and I could say that's not a map of the Globe earth. The earth is flat therefore it is not a map of the globe earth. It's a projection of the flat earth put onto a sphere.

Also this is not a reason why the FE community would reject such a map.

with all the errors one would expect from a projection. As with most attempts to display the earth on a flat piece of paper (or screen), the further away from the equator you get, the more exaggerated distances appear. If you zoom out to show as much of the world as you can, the problem becomes apparent very quickly. Yes, when zoomed in they can show you a scale that will work pretty well, but when you zoom out...not so much. Look at Alaska, for example. Looking North-South, Alaska spans roughly 55N to 70N, a distance of around 900nm. Australia, on the other hand, spans from roughly 10S to 40S. But on Bing, as with many other projections, the two appear to be roughly the same distance.

The map I linked solves for those distance discrepancies with an interactive scale.  Also this is not a reason why the FE community would reject such a map.

Likewise, the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line on your Bing map - it's a great circle, which would be curved on that projection.

In a large number of the FE models the distance between two points very far away is unknown or the way they are measured are inaccurate so this is not a reason why the FE community would reject such a map.


This discussion is about why the FE community can't agree more unanimously on a map of the earth (regardless of what shape the earth may, or may not be). Not about how the earth is a sphere so all maps of the earth are round earth maps not FE maps.

As stated before the main reasons a majority of the FE community would reject such a map are listed below

1. It has a south pole and a north pole. Any person who believes the earth only has one pole would reject this model.
2. It does not have a great circular ice wall. Any person who believes that the earth has a great ice wall rejects this model.
3. It does not have any additional continents. Any person who believes there are continents other than the ones on a standard map rejects this model.
4. It does not have Jerusalem in the center.
5. It is not shaped like a circle.

[SteelyBob]

The map I linked solves for those distance discrepancies with an interactive scale.  Also this is not a reason why the FE community would reject such a map.

That is absolutely a reason to reject a map. If the earth is flat, why does a flat map of it need a variable scale? If it's got a variable scale, that means different countries, continents etc have distorted sizes - that's not much of a map, is it? If the earth is flat, it should be possible to create a flat map of it with a single scale, where bearings and distances are perfectly accurate / to scale.

But it can't be done, and there's a good reason for that.

[stack]

That's not a FE map. That is a flat map of a round earth. It is a projection

I could easily say that it's not. I could say it's a flat map of a flat earth.  The earth is round therefore that is not a flat earth map.

You could show me a globe and I could say that's not a map of the Globe earth. The earth is flat therefore it is not a map of the globe earth. It's a projection of the flat earth put onto a sphere.

You could say those things. But the problem is that Bing, as an example, uses a globe projection. So Microsoft's starting point is that of a spherical earth. Technically, it is a map of a globe earth. So you would be incorrect to say it isn't. At least from Microsoft's perspective. Now whether that means the earth is a globe or not is a whole other enchilada.

Also this is not a reason why the FE community would reject such a map.

My guess, and I don't know for sure but have read this in many places, is that the Bing map, again, using that as an example, is rejected by the FE community as an FE map because it requires the "Pac Man" model. As in someone traveling off one side of the map would have to be magically transported to enter on the opposing side of the map. Hence the "Pac Man" analogy.

You've expressed before something about an "infinite repeating" model. Which still poses the problem of having kind of a magical multiverse arrangement whereby if I go one way and you go the opposite way to get to the same destination there would be two of the same destination, me in one version, you in another.

[Peter Winfield]

This discussion is about why the FE community can't agree more unanimously on a map of the earth.

This discussion (which I started) is about creating a projection from RE data to FE data, and why nobody in the FE community has done it.

In order to fake all the RE data, there must be a single projection from (real) FE data to (fake) RE data. And it should be relatively easy to work out what this projection is by comparing RE data with the real (FE) data on the ground.

So the question is why nobody in the FE community has ever done this. It is not that there are multiple maps that the FE community can't agree on, it is that there literally no usable maps of the flat Earth. If there were, it would be possible to work out this projection and create highly detailed flat Earth maps.

[Elyn95]

I don't think there is a standard RE map. There seem to be several different ones if you look for them. Many of them offer a very euro-centric view of the world with Europe given greater space than is accurate. How can RE maps be assumed "accurate" if they have these inbuilt biases? FE maps should avoid this pitfall I think.
BTW I'm new so go easy on me!