Designing a Flat Earth Map

I'm guessing your're not a cartographer?

Good luck. Please bear in mind that a map (chart) is a navigation tool. If the distances on the chart are not accurate enough, there could be ships running aground or running out of fuel before they reach their destinations.

You might want to start with NYC as a hub to test feasibility, but for completeness, you will want several so you can make a mesh. Flights among NY, LAX, SCL (Santiago, Chile), and SYD, might be interesting to compare. Maybe add some European, Asian, and South African nodes later.

I'm pretty sure someone made a thread in the debate section where they used distances between cities and made triangles from them. The triangles when put together would form a bowl-shape, something that would not happen on a flat earth. You will find the same thing happening when making this map probably; you'll be missing some distances which requires a 3:d dimension to fill in, which will create multiple bowl-shapes.

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 02, 2015, 02:20:22 PM

I'm pretty sure someone made a thread in the debate section where they used distances between cities and made triangles from them. The triangles when put together would form a bowl-shape, something that would not happen on a flat earth. You will find the same thing happening when making this map probably; you'll be missing some distances which requires a 3:d dimension to fill in, which will create multiple bowl-shapes.

Perhaps, we'll see. Often long-distance measurements like that are calculated by using a RE model: it's far easier than walking it out. A bowl shape might be found if the measurements used are calculated by assuming one.
That's why I seek to use flight times. The map will no doubt be twisted compared to the ones you're used to, which could alter the 'bowl' greatly.

No, distances are usually measured using instruments in vehicles that records the travel distance. That's how cities are initially placed on maps or models. Before the city is on a map you can't use the map to determine it's position. A lot of these distances where accurately known before gps, so it had to be measured without using models.

I'm pretty sure someone made a thread in the debate section where they used distances between cities and made triangles from them. The triangles when put together would form a bowl-shape, something that would not happen on a flat earth. You will find the same thing happening when making this map probably; you'll be missing some distances which requires a 3:d dimension to fill in, which will create multiple bowl-shapes.

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 02, 2015, 02:20:22 PM

I'm pretty sure someone made a thread in the debate section where they used distances between cities and made triangles from them. The triangles when put together would form a bowl-shape, something that would not happen on a flat earth. You will find the same thing happening when making this map probably; you'll be missing some distances which requires a 3:d dimension to fill in, which will create multiple bowl-shapes.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64289.0#.Vedx3cT3aK0

Quote from: striv on September 02, 2015, 03:05:49 PM

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 02, 2015, 02:20:22 PM

I'm pretty sure someone made a thread in the debate section where they used distances between cities and made triangles from them. The triangles when put together would form a bowl-shape, something that would not happen on a flat earth. You will find the same thing happening when making this map probably; you'll be missing some distances which requires a 3:d dimension to fill in, which will create multiple bowl-shapes.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64289.0#.Vedx3cT3aK0

That's the one, thanks! And, the distances are based on flight routes, which is the same method as FEScientist will be using.

I remembered it because I think it's a brilliant demonstration of earth shape. It's the most basic and easy to understand and also very visual. And it works with almost any set of far enough cities with direct flights. No wonder all FEs stayed away, cause there's really no argument against that....

Hello.

For those who haven't read my introduction, I'm Claire. I seek to develop a Flat Earth model and show that this is indeed a feasible theory. Whether or not I'm successful remains to be seen, but one important first step will be a working map.

(Once the map is done, it will be possible to draw things like the Coriolis Force and star movements etc, to see if there is a visible pattern).

Of course, it may turn out that this is an impossible aim. Round Earth projections are certainly inaccurate. For that reason, I am starting from scratch. To do this, I will be using air flight times, and a compass (of the geometrical variety). From this, I can sketch out possible relationships between multiple cities: and from that, position landmasses in a way that works on a flat surface.

To do this, I will need your help. My internet is unfortunately very slow, and I am attending a university, which uses up much of my time.
All I need from you is links. I want to start with New York, as it has multiple airports, and it's as good an origin as any.

At minimum, please suggest certain cities I could fly to. At most, what I will do with those cities is look up the flight times to and from New York with respect to them: both is necessary. if they are particularly different, the value is useless: jet streams would be to blame. If the time taken is similar, however, we can assume distance is the prime variable. If you have the time, if you could provide this information as well, I would be very grateful.

This may not be practical. I hope it will be, however.

Good luck! However, lots of planes don't go to their destinations in a straight line, so you can't describe a linear relationship between flight time and distance.

Can you try the project with the data you already have using a globe instead of a flat map? Measure the distance between pairs of cities using a string, then compare the measured distances with the flight times.

You're on to something with your comment about the Earth being a higher-dimensional shape, but don't overthink it. You found that a flat plane (2D) doesn't work with the data you have. Next, try a sphere (3D) before worrying about anything more exotic.  Check it out. There will be some error, but if it's close, while not proof, it's more evidence that what almost everyone already knows is correct.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 21, 2015, 05:05:11 PM

Can you try the project with the data you already have using a globe instead of a flat map? Measure the distance between pairs of cities using a string, then compare the measured distances with the flight times.

You're on to something with your comment about the Earth being a higher-dimensional shape, but don't overthink it. You found that a flat plane (2D) doesn't work with the data you have. Next, try a sphere (3D) before worrying about anything more exotic.  Check it out. There will be some error, but if it's close, while not proof, it's more evidence that what almost everyone already knows is correct.

Maybe. That would still be a terrible way to develop and so test an FE hypothesis.

And this is what I mean with pseudoscience. Creating a model is done by fitting together observations and already known facts and connections. You assume from the beginning that the earth is flat, and despise of observations that proves otherwise. Sure, they are pointless if you wan't to make a flat earth model, but they are still observations, connections and facts. Despising them or blaming them on some unknown, undeveloped phenomenon is ignorant.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 21, 2015, 05:05:11 PM

Can you try the project with the data you already have using a globe instead of a flat map? Measure the distance between pairs of cities using a string, then compare the measured distances with the flight times.

You're on to something with your comment about the Earth being a higher-dimensional shape, but don't overthink it. You found that a flat plane (2D) doesn't work with the data you have. Next, try a sphere (3D) before worrying about anything more exotic.  Check it out. There will be some error, but if it's close, while not proof, it's more evidence that what almost everyone already knows is correct.

Maybe. That would still be a terrible way to develop and so test an FE hypothesis.

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 22, 2015, 07:54:17 AM

And this is what I mean with pseudoscience. Creating a model is done by fitting together observations and already known facts and connections. You assume from the beginning that the earth is flat, and despise of observations that proves otherwise. Sure, they are pointless if you wan't to make a flat earth model, but they are still observations, connections and facts. Despising them or blaming them on some unknown, undeveloped phenomenon is ignorant.

I am creating a hypothesis.

In order to test a hypothesis, I must determine what it would predict

I blame them on undeveloped phenomenon so that I may develop those phenomenon.

Hypotheses are proposed explanations for a fairly narrow set of phenomena. These reasoned explanations are not guesses — of the wild or educated variety. When scientists formulate new hypotheses, they are usually based on prior experience, scientific background knowledge, preliminary observations, and logic. For example, scientists observed that alpine butterflies exhibit characteristics intermediate between two species that live at lower elevations. Based on these observations and their understanding of speciation, the scientists hypothesized that this species of alpine butterfly evolved as the result of hybridization between the two other species living at lower elevations.

Perhaps you should falsify round earth theory before working on alternative hypotheses?

You've got one:  the earth is flat.  This is a falsifiable hypothesis.  The problem you face is that it's already falsified...
It predicts the earth is flat.  Test that hypothesis.

Here's guidance on what a good hypothesis should be: