REs Please Explain

Quote from: jroa on February 16, 2014, 11:14:48 AM

Who uses a map of the entire Earth to get from one place to another?  Probably not very many people, whether they are RE or FE.  Yet, you people, for some reason, insist that you should be able to make a short trip using only a FE map, and if you can't, then it must be false.

Sometimes you people surprise me, but not when it comes to maps.  RE'ers are like a broken record, saying the same things over and over.

how about planning a trip say from west to east australia for example. Going by that portion of your map australia is about 6 times wider west to east than it is north to south.

I might not use a map of the whole Earth to go from Omaha to Las Vegas, but if I'm going from Omaha to Moscow I probably will, @ least to figure out basic distance & time. The same goes for the Falklands to Sydney. If I'm going that far, I'm probably going to consult a world map for basic distance & time, certainly if I'm going by sea. After those calculations, I'll consult navigational charts of the waters through which I must go (& which are made assuming sphericity & the measurements attendant on that, btw). IOW, the whole trip will be made assuming the earth is round, & those are the scientific presuppositions that will be made.

Quote from: glokta on February 16, 2014, 11:24:58 AM

Quote from: jroa on February 16, 2014, 11:14:48 AM

Who uses a map of the entire Earth to get from one place to another?  Probably not very many people, whether they are RE or FE.  Yet, you people, for some reason, insist that you should be able to make a short trip using only a FE map, and if you can't, then it must be false.

Sometimes you people surprise me, but not when it comes to maps.  RE'ers are like a broken record, saying the same things over and over.

how about planning a trip say from west to east australia for example. Going by that portion of your map australia is about 6 times wider west to east than it is north to south.

How about it?  Please plan a trip and tell us if your trip was accurate.  Thanks.

Again, you display your ignorance of high school geography. A Mercator map is not a FE map. Nor are navigational charts FE maps. They are very detailed 2D presentations of a 3D concept.

My point is that a Mercator projection displays the continents with the North pole at the top and the south pole at the bottom.  I don't remember any FE'er presenting this map before, other than the bi-polar map which can loosely be associated with a Mercator projection.

Well, then, why did you bring up a Mercator projection is you are going to just dismiss it?

I don't remember ever seeing a globe in the cockpit of an airplane...

But we have presented maps.    Just because you do not like them, that does not mean that we do not provide them.

One again, you assume the scale of our FE maps is linear.

Quote from: inquisitive on February 16, 2014, 11:00:26 AM

Link to recognised site please. 

Here you go.

Quote from: inquisitive on February 16, 2014, 11:00:26 AM

Do all distances agree with actual measured ones?

OK, where's the scale on it?

Where are the lat and long coordinates?

I don't understand what you mean by that.  Of course, it would not be a map if it did not represent the actual Earth.

Who uses a map of the entire Earth to get from one place to another?  Probably not very many people, whether they are RE or FE.  Yet, you people, for some reason, insist that you should be able to make a short trip using only a FE map, and if you can't, then it must be false.

Sometimes you people surprise me, but not when it comes to maps.  RE'ers are like a broken record, saying the same things over and over.

I can't back up any claim about D-day, except to assume there were millions involved as we are told, which is why I said, 'so we are told.'
Apparently there were a lot of soldiers involved in it all. My point though, still stands.

I could think of a few other reasons why they don't get it.. unless they are taking the piss - which is plausible. Mrs Afla156Melb is convinced they are just a bunch of bored geeks who like a good argument.

They do understand English, I think it's more a form of http://www.helpguide.org/mental/schizophrenia_symptom.htm

'Distance is variable'  Please explain.

Quote from: inquisitive on February 16, 2014, 02:03:02 PM

'Distance is variable'  Please explain.

Basically means according to the map me and Jroa posted that the closer you get to the center (The North) the bigger you get in physical size relative to the ground you are standing upon (The South), the farthest reaches of Earth is at Antarctica where the south pole is. If you look at my map above 10 degrees is 5% of 200 degrees.

So for example if I was at 200 degrees I would be 200% bigger then at 100 degrees so the World would appear to be 12,500 miles around instead of 25,000 miles, except that it wouldn't be because if I traveled to the south pole the 200% (maximum) would become 10% (minimum) and the average would be 100% between both of them. So mathematically size all works out if you know that each degree you travel from the North pole your relative size will decrease in relation to your longitude or latitude. Antarctica is the farthest point you can get south in the world but you can never get smaller then 10% without going to the other side. Antarctica is about 10% the size of the Earth in width which say's this is correct. North America would be 172 longitude by 154 degrees latitude which means you would add 74 degrees at an average of 163 degrees which would equal a 163% size boost so 74 degrees would be about 4,625 miles wide which would be pretty correct if you were measuring diagonally. Width should be 154% or about 94.5% of 2/3rds the diagonal which would be about 2884 miles. going from Coast to coast in diagonal direction this is also correct. Finally height should be about 28 degrees or about 1945 miles straight x 186% or about 3617 total miles. However I'm not sure if I'm completely accurate but I'm pretty close. Mapping this to a perfect sphere works very well which is why I think we are in a perfect sphere that is inside of a cube.

Quote from: inquisitive on February 16, 2014, 02:03:02 PM

'Distance is variable'  Please explain.

Basically means according to the map me and Jroa posted that the closer you get to the center (The North) the bigger you get in physical size relative to the ground you are standing upon (The South), the farthest reaches of Earth is at Antarctica where the south pole is. If you look at my map above 10 degrees is 5% of 200 degrees.

So for example if I was at 200 degrees I would be 200% bigger then at 100 degrees so the World would appear to be 12,500 miles around instead of 25,000 miles, except that it wouldn't be because if I traveled to the south pole the 200% (maximum) would become 10% (minimum) and the average would be 100% between both of them. So mathematically size all works out if you know that each degree you travel from the North pole your relative size will decrease in relation to your longitude or latitude. Antarctica is the farthest point you can get south in the world but you can never get smaller then 10% without going to the other side. Antarctica is about 10% the size of the Earth in width which say's this is correct. North America would be 172 longitude by 154 degrees latitude which means you would add 74 degrees at an average of 163 degrees which would equal a 163% size boost so 74 degrees would be about 4,625 miles wide which would be pretty correct if you were measuring diagonally. Width should be 154% or about 94.5% of 2/3rds the diagonal which would be about 2884 miles. going from Coast to coast in diagonal direction this is also correct. Finally height should be about 28 degrees or about 1945 miles straight x 186% or about 3617 total miles. However I'm not sure if I'm completely accurate but I'm pretty close. Mapping this to a perfect sphere works very well which is why I think we are in a perfect sphere that is inside of a cube.

Quote from: Sculelos on February 16, 2014, 04:04:54 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 16, 2014, 02:03:02 PM

'Distance is variable'  Please explain.

Basically means according to the map me and Jroa posted that the closer you get to the center (The North) the bigger you get in physical size relative to the ground you are standing upon (The South), the farthest reaches of Earth is at Antarctica where the south pole is. If you look at my map above 10 degrees is 5% of 200 degrees.

So for example if I was at 200 degrees I would be 200% bigger then at 100 degrees so the World would appear to be 12,500 miles around instead of 25,000 miles, except that it wouldn't be because if I traveled to the south pole the 200% (maximum) would become 10% (minimum) and the average would be 100% between both of them. So mathematically size all works out if you know that each degree you travel from the North pole your relative size will decrease in relation to your longitude or latitude. Antarctica is the farthest point you can get south in the world but you can never get smaller then 10% without going to the other side. Antarctica is about 10% the size of the Earth in width which say's this is correct. North America would be 172 longitude by 154 degrees latitude which means you would add 74 degrees at an average of 163 degrees which would equal a 163% size boost so 74 degrees would be about 4,625 miles wide which would be pretty correct if you were measuring diagonally. Width should be 154% or about 94.5% of 2/3rds the diagonal which would be about 2884 miles. going from Coast to coast in diagonal direction this is also correct. Finally height should be about 28 degrees or about 1945 miles straight x 186% or about 3617 total miles. However I'm not sure if I'm completely accurate but I'm pretty close. Mapping this to a perfect sphere works very well which is why I think we are in a perfect sphere that is inside of a cube.

You're arguments get more wacko by the day.. do you pay someone to come u with them or is this your own work?

I commend your creativity!