Maps

  • 61 Replies
  • 5818 Views
?

dado

  • 107
Maps
« on: September 26, 2011, 03:46:56 PM »
With the new "alternative" maps now in focus, could you FEs please post all the maps you have, and decide the model you want to go for.
We REs can't dispute your maps if you are going to be changing them every once in a while...

Since you believe in FE, it would be fairly simple to come up with a single model, right? I mean I don't see no "alternative REs models"... There is only one, round Earth :)
And since we live on ONE earth, there should be only one FE model...
« Last Edit: September 26, 2011, 03:48:38 PM by dado »

Re: Maps
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2011, 05:50:46 PM »
please refer to Master Willmores map,
i believe it is one on the "truest" maps

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12253
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Maps
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2011, 06:07:22 PM »
new
The only thing that's new here is you. Go back to lurking.

Also, if you don't know of disagreements between RE scientists, Wikipedia would be a nice starting point for your research. An example dear to my heart is gravitation.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Maps
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2011, 06:39:51 PM »
I mean I don't see no "alternative REs models"

Really?

And FYI, we don't have a unilateral theory simply because, how could we? We can't exactly get funding for FE research.

?

dado

  • 107
Re: Maps
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2011, 05:49:11 AM »
so, I'm back and I still see no decision on a FE map.
How can we argue your theories if you always leave room to change stuff when you are cornered?
In any case, there are several maps that I have seen here, you have to believe in one of them, as, saying the Earth is flat doesn't mean a whole lot if you can't present us with a graphical representation of FE.

Re: Maps
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2011, 06:36:32 AM »
See Flat Earth Debate » The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers.

The matter is settled, but not by the persons who want to distort geometry (PizzazPlanet) or who claim thta the distances are wrong (Tausami). Have fun!
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

Re: Maps
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2011, 06:37:14 AM »
I mean I don't see no "alternative REs models"

Really?

And FYI, we don't have a unilateral theory simply because, how could we? We can't exactly get funding for FE research.

If you were given a research grant, what would you research exactly?
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Maps
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2011, 06:56:12 AM »

We REs can't dispute your maps if you are going to be changing them every once in a while...


You have hit upon the whole reason they have several maps. They use different ones to counter different arguments.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Maps
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2011, 06:57:57 AM »
please refer to Master Willmores map,
i believe it is one on the "truest" maps

No, it has been disproved by the impossibility of sun movement that would have to exist if that map were true. Also that aircraft would need to double back on themselves flying from the USA to Japan.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

Thork

Re: Maps
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2011, 07:03:20 AM »
PizzaPlanet and I explained maps to you more than once. The fact that the answer made you confused and angry doesn't mean there aren't any FE maps. ALL MAPS ARE PROJECTIONS OF A FLAT EARTH.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51550.msg1264180#msg1264180

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Maps
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2011, 07:10:00 AM »
PizzaPlanet and I explained maps to you more than once. The fact that the answer made you confused and angry doesn't mean there aren't any FE maps. ALL MAPS ARE PROJECTIONS OF A FLAT EARTH.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51550.msg1264180#msg1264180

Didn't you admit that you were a troll and not really a FE believer? Oh yes, that's right, you did. So why are you advocating a Flat Earth? I'm confooooosed.  :-*
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

Thork

Re: Maps
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2011, 07:13:07 AM »
You have called every FEr on this site a troll at one point of another. If we are all trolls, surely only an absolute moron would continue to post here arguing with us that the earth is round. I'm confooooosed.

What I am doing is simply accusing Mr Davis of being a troll

Xenu proves himself a troll.

Verrine/Archibald: authority on trolling

So we've gone from baseless statement of "fact" to "in my opinion."  That's a start, at least.
Semantics. Troll harder.

James trolling

Interesting. The question was asked on this page, less than 50 hours ago.
... this is just you trolling ... troll-be-gone... troll baiting

All of us except Tom do. He's too bad at trolling to ...

people like Parsifal and Ski would scream that his post should be ignored ... reveals them to be trolls.

Different circumstances allow for different view distances.
Trolling revealed.

The believers list would be empty. All of them are trolls

You use the word troll in almost every single post. It doesn't mean anything when you use it. Its just a declaration of your inability to construct a reasoned reply.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 07:58:24 AM by Thork »

Re: Maps
« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2011, 08:08:34 AM »
PizzaPlanet and I explained maps to you more than once. The fact that the answer made you confused and angry doesn't mean there aren't any FE maps. ALL MAPS ARE PROJECTIONS OF A FLAT EARTH.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51550.msg1264180#msg1264180

Your stupidity doesn't make me angry.

The fact that you confuse a flat projection with a spherical projection doesn't bother me.

I find your lack of understantding of the most basic geometry very amusing. I particularly liked the mercator projection of the Earth where the Behring staits was on both sides of the map (may be there are 2 Behring straits in FE?)

I just must confess that I am dumbfounded by your lazyness: you avoid giving explainations and you point to irrelevant wikipedia.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Maps
« Reply #14 on: December 15, 2011, 10:47:49 AM »
ALL MAPS ARE PROJECTIONS OF A FLAT EARTH.

If the earth is flat, you don't need any projections at all, only a scale factor.

Re: Maps
« Reply #15 on: December 15, 2011, 10:54:33 AM »
ALL MAPS ARE PROJECTIONS OF A FLAT EARTH.

If the earth is flat, you don't need any projections at all, only a scale factor.
With under 100 posts, Erland destroys FET in one sentence. Kudos.

Flat means approximately two-dimensional. Maps are flat. The FET is flat. The FET should map directly onto a map without distortion. No, Australia wouldn't be "squished" as Tom contends in the "bi-polar" map. No, you can't have the distance around Antarctica Circle greater than the distance around the Equator in the "U. N. Logo" map. FET fails.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Maps
« Reply #16 on: December 15, 2011, 11:15:29 AM »
ALL MAPS ARE PROJECTIONS OF A FLAT EARTH.

If the earth is flat, you don't need any projections at all, only a scale factor.
With under 100 posts, Erland destroys FET in one sentence. Kudos.

Flat means approximately two-dimensional. Maps are flat. The FET is flat. The FET should map directly onto a map without distortion. No, Australia wouldn't be "squished" as Tom contends in the "bi-polar" map. No, you can't have the distance around Antarctica Circle greater than the distance around the Equator in the "U. N. Logo" map. FET fails.

Its impossible to start with accurate distances on a globe and turn it into a 100% accurate map without holes or distortion, so we will never see a FE map that works with both distances and distortion because the earth is not flat...  Not to mention that the only starting place that they have are maps, because i assume that none of them are cartographers.  So it would be impossible for them to produce an FE map when all they have a RE maps (ones that are distorted when flattened).

So there is no winning this debate, its physically impossible to produce a flat and accurate map of the entire planet, which is why there currently are none even in RE.

?

Thork

Re: Maps
« Reply #17 on: December 15, 2011, 11:38:03 AM »
ALL MAPS ARE PROJECTIONS OF A FLAT EARTH.

If the earth is flat, you don't need any projections at all, only a scale factor.
That is explained too.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51550.msg1264187#msg1264187

The link is a 25 page thread. Most of the obvious stuff has already been answered.

And excuse CockTower. He hands out the equivalent of forum blowjobs like a 2 cent whore to almost anyone who thinks the earth is round and he doesn't wash between noobs.

Oooh, something shiny. Excuse me.

Re: Maps
« Reply #18 on: December 15, 2011, 11:39:54 AM »
ALL MAPS ARE PROJECTIONS OF A FLAT EARTH.

If the earth is flat, you don't need any projections at all, only a scale factor.
With under 100 posts, Erland destroys FET in one sentence. Kudos.

Flat means approximately two-dimensional. Maps are flat. The FET is flat. The FET should map directly onto a map without distortion. No, Australia wouldn't be "squished" as Tom contends in the "bi-polar" map. No, you can't have the distance around Antarctica Circle greater than the distance around the Equator in the "U. N. Logo" map. FET fails.

Its impossible to start with accurate distances on a globe and turn it into a 100% accurate map without holes or distortion, so we will never see a FE map that works with both distances and distortion because the earth is not flat...  Not to mention that the only starting place that they have are maps, because i assume that none of them are cartographers.  So it would be impossible for them to produce an FE map when all they have a RE maps (ones that are distorted when flattened).

So there is no winning this debate, its physically impossible to produce a flat and accurate map of the entire planet, which is why there currently are none even in RE.
How are standard projection maps such as Mercator not flat or inaccurate? Don't forget that these projects are often careful to show latitudes and longitudes, so the distortion is accurately shown.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Maps
« Reply #19 on: December 15, 2011, 11:54:06 AM »
ALL MAPS ARE PROJECTIONS OF A FLAT EARTH.

If the earth is flat, you don't need any projections at all, only a scale factor.
With under 100 posts, Erland destroys FET in one sentence. Kudos.

Flat means approximately two-dimensional. Maps are flat. The FET is flat. The FET should map directly onto a map without distortion. No, Australia wouldn't be "squished" as Tom contends in the "bi-polar" map. No, you can't have the distance around Antarctica Circle greater than the distance around the Equator in the "U. N. Logo" map. FET fails.

Its impossible to start with accurate distances on a globe and turn it into a 100% accurate map without holes or distortion, so we will never see a FE map that works with both distances and distortion because the earth is not flat...  Not to mention that the only starting place that they have are maps, because i assume that none of them are cartographers.  So it would be impossible for them to produce an FE map when all they have a RE maps (ones that are distorted when flattened).

So there is no winning this debate, its physically impossible to produce a flat and accurate map of the entire planet, which is why there currently are none even in RE.
How are standard projection maps such as Mercator not flat or inaccurate? Don't forget that these projects are often careful to show latitudes and longitudes, so the distortion is accurately shown.

They are distorted?  You can account for the distortion but they are inaccurate, you are simply accounting for it.  All flat maps are either distorted or innacurate, regardless if that is accounted for in the map or not.  On a fe there would be no distortion.

Re: Maps
« Reply #20 on: December 15, 2011, 12:44:18 PM »
They are distorted?  You can account for the distortion but they are inaccurate, you are simply accounting for it.  All flat maps are either distorted or innacurate, regardless if that is accounted for in the map or not.  On a fe there would be no distortion.
Fine. Some projections are distorted with data to account for the distortion.

Now what about globes or Google Earth? Aren't they accurate representations of the Earth?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Thork

Re: Maps
« Reply #21 on: December 15, 2011, 12:48:46 PM »
Now what about globes or Google Earth? Aren't they accurate representations of the Earth?

Google Earth definitely isn't. And does anyone use globes for navigation, or do they prefer something flat ... like a map?

Re: Maps
« Reply #22 on: December 15, 2011, 12:58:44 PM »
Now what about globes or Google Earth? Aren't they accurate representations of the Earth?

Google Earth definitely isn't. And does anyone use globes for navigation, or do they prefer something flat ... like a map?
1) Please provide an example of ANYWHERE where GE is inaccurate.
2) Irrelevant. The question was are globes, such as http://www.amazon.com/The-Science-Source-Seasonal-Display/dp/B005HYPS3S/ref=sr_1_1?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1323982657&sr=1-1, accurate representations of the Earth.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Thork

Re: Maps
« Reply #23 on: December 15, 2011, 01:04:08 PM »
1) If you'd had clicked the link I provided you would be confronted by a common anomaly straight away. You might also use GE to have a quick look around Antartica. Oh, you can't they haven't mapped it. Coincidence? RErs like their coincidences.
2) How would anyone know? No one uses them for anything that would prove them inaccurate (or accurate for that matter). People don't navigate with them or survey with them or do anything other than spin, them close their eyes and hope they won't be spending their next vacation in the Pacific Ocean. People don't rely on globes, because they intuitively don't trust them. A map kind of seems more logical. Its how you see the world. Flat.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 01:05:49 PM by Thork »

Re: Maps
« Reply #24 on: December 15, 2011, 01:06:30 PM »
Now what about globes or Google Earth? Aren't they accurate representations of the Earth?

Google Earth definitely isn't. And does anyone use globes for navigation, or do they prefer something flat ... like a map?

Navigating with a globe would require a rather large globe, and maps provide more detail for a smaller area.

As for measuring distances across the earth, I prefer a globe.  Try measuring from the southern tip of S. America to the southern most point of Africa, or from Madagascar to Korea, any two random points far apart, on a map versus a globe. 

?

Thork

Re: Maps
« Reply #25 on: December 15, 2011, 01:10:02 PM »
Try using a ruler on a globe.

As you say, maps are more accurate. Flat maps.

Also it depends on your map. Get an 'equal distance' map and its easy. Get an equal area map and your task just became much harder. This is why we have different maps with different projections and why all maps are a projection of a flat earth, tailored for the users convenience.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Maps
« Reply #26 on: December 15, 2011, 01:10:37 PM »
They are distorted?  You can account for the distortion but they are inaccurate, you are simply accounting for it.  All flat maps are either distorted or innacurate, regardless if that is accounted for in the map or not.  On a fe there would be no distortion.
Fine. Some projections are distorted with data to account for the distortion.

Now what about globes or Google Earth? Aren't they accurate representations of the Earth?

Yeah both globes and google earth are accurate, which is why maps of the entire earth are not accurate.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Maps
« Reply #27 on: December 15, 2011, 01:12:02 PM »
Try using a ruler on a globe.

As you say, maps are more accurate. Flat maps.

Also it depends on your map. Get an 'equal distance' map and its easy. Get an equal area map and your task just became much harder. This is why we have different maps with different projections and why all maps are a projection of a flat earth, tailored for the users convenience.

No maps are a flat projections of a round earth, hence as maps get of a larger area they get more and more distorted.

?

Thork

Re: Maps
« Reply #28 on: December 15, 2011, 01:13:59 PM »
You seem to be throwing around a lot of baseless assumptions.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Maps
« Reply #29 on: December 15, 2011, 01:19:31 PM »
You seem to be throwing around a lot of baseless assumptions.

Grab a globe, then a map.  As the map get of a larger area it looks less and less like a globe, and usually has an Antarctica the size of asia (thats because it is a flat projection of a round object, regardless of it being accurate or not).  As for the accuracy of google earth, it seems to correlate exactly with my GPS distances, so its not baseless, but you may refuse to accept it.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 01:21:17 PM by OrbisNonSufficit »