The Truth about Map Projections

Hello. Yes I think the Earth is round. And yes I will prove it. How many arguments? 1. 

All map projections (taking the round Earth and projecting it onto a flat surface) are distorted and I'm going to tell you why.

To help us show distortions in the map projections, we are using my little friend, Tissot's indicatrix (say that 5 times fast). Basically, the Earth is getting really bad symmetrical acne.



The thing is that YOU CANNOT PROJECT A ROUND OBJECT ONTO A FLAT SURFACE.

Let's look at some projections.

Here is the classic Mercator projection.



Here are a few others.



Here's what's probably the most accurate one.



Here's another one, I don't know if I've seen it before, looks familiar.



Anyways, my point is that you cannot perfectly put the Earth on a flat surface because it is round.

*incoming people saying that the round model is distorted and all that*

Interested in seeing where this goes, because if the Earth IS indeed flat, making a 2D Map should be no issue, since we know the size and distances of land masses and oceans.

So, if someone could direct me to an accurate, non-skewed, scale accurate map, that'd be great.

Here you go, Flat earth folk. This is all you should need to make an accurate map.

Interested in seeing where this goes, because if the Earth IS indeed flat, making a 2D Map should be no issue, since we know the size and distances of land masses and oceans.

So, if someone could direct me to an accurate, non-skewed, scale accurate map, that'd be great.

As you well know, an undistorted flat map of the Earth would be as easy as pie if the Earth were flat. So where is the one true map of the flat earth? All we hear are excuses. "It's too expensive!" "It's too hard!!" "I wouldn't have a clue how to do it!!!" (well, we don't actually hear that last one actually verbalized, but that's the gist of the rest of the excuses.)

The fact remains, there's no one true map of the flat earth for the simple reason that the Earth isn't flat. No such thing is possible. It really doesn't get any easier to explain than that.

Quote from: Xenos2112 on January 27, 2016, 05:00:58 PM

Interested in seeing where this goes, because if the Earth IS indeed flat, making a 2D Map should be no issue, since we know the size and distances of land masses and oceans.

So, if someone could direct me to an accurate, non-skewed, scale accurate map, that'd be great.

As you well know, an undistorted flat map of the Earth would be as easy as pie if the Earth were flat. So where is the one true map of the flat earth? All we hear are excuses. "It's too expensive!" "It's too hard!!" "I wouldn't have a clue how to do it!!!" (well, we don't actually hear that last one actually verbalized, but that's the gist of the rest of the excuses.)

The fact remains, there's no one true map of the flat earth for the simple reason that the Earth isn't flat. No such thing is possible. It really doesn't get any easier to explain than that.

I am well aware.  Cartography is a subject that I'm quite fond of.  To quote Mr. Baggins, "I DO love maps!  I have quite a collection at home!"  And I do.  Maps from all over.  All kinds of maps, too.  Even reproductions of ancient maps.  I love 'em.  Everything about 'em.

IF the Earth were in fact flat, producing a 2D map of that would be SUPER easy in the modern age, because again, we KNOW all the distances of EVERYTHING. 

Yet when we stick it on paper it skews.

Why?

Quote from: Xenos2112 on January 27, 2016, 05:00:58 PM

Interested in seeing where this goes, because if the Earth IS indeed flat, making a 2D Map should be no issue, since we know the size and distances of land masses and oceans.

So, if someone could direct me to an accurate, non-skewed, scale accurate map, that'd be great.

As you well know, an undistorted flat map of the Earth would be as easy as pie if the Earth were flat. So where is the one true map of the flat earth? All we hear are excuses. "It's too expensive!" "It's too hard!!" "I wouldn't have a clue how to do it!!!" (well, we don't actually hear that last one actually verbalized, but that's the gist of the rest of the excuses.)

The fact remains, there's no one true map of the flat earth for the simple reason that the Earth isn't flat. No such thing is possible. It really doesn't get any easier to explain than that.

So many Flat Earth supporters talk as though the concept of a Flat Earth is going to get world-wide acceptance.  I suppose the idea then is that all navigators of ships and aircraft will navigate on a Flat Earth Map!  There is not the slightest chance of that happening until there actually is an accurate Flat Earth Map!

At present we have a globe which gives correct distances and locations anywhere on the earth's surface.  When we need a flat map, we must use the most suitable projection.  For a small area this might be the "transverse Mercator map projection" see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_Mercator_projection.

My gift to the FE society. Just add landmass, I dunno where it all goes!

Welcome to the trenches OP.

Welcome to the trenches OP.

It really is more like trench warfare than I thought from reading that.  Holy crap.  All they seem to do so far is deflect, dodge questions, or call you a clone.

Here's a simple question to answer:  How is it, that over the past 100+ years, hundreds of thousands of people have been involved in this "hoax," yet not a single whistle-blower has stepped forward?  Particularly since the "Faked" space flights and whatnot?  Tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of scientists, astronauts, workers, private contractors, their families, friends, EVERYONE INVOLVED, and not a single one has stepped forward to blow the lid off this? 

Occam's Razor, man.  The more hoops you have to jump through to make it even PLAUSIBLE, the less likely it is to be true.

Like with this map situation.  They cannot provide a flat map that is not skewed using VERIFIABLE DATA of distances, landmass locations, etc..  Why?

I await an answer.

Regards,
~Xenos, more and more firmly in the Round Earth Camp Each Passing Thread

All map projections (taking the round Earth and projecting it onto a flat surface) are distorted and I'm going to tell you why.
[...]
Anyways, my point is that you cannot perfectly put the Earth on a flat surface because it is round.

Examples don't prove anything. They just show projections that don't keep distances, but that doesn't mean there are no such examples.

If you want a real proof, you have to use some math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorema_Egregium
In simple words this theorem says that if you want to transform any surface and preserve distances (isometry), you also keep the curvature. Since a sphere has non-zero and the plane has zero curvature, no such isometry exists. Q.E.D.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 27, 2016, 08:00:14 PM

Welcome to the trenches OP.

It really is more like trench warfare than I thought from reading that.  Holy crap.  All they seem to do so far is deflect, dodge questions, or call you a clone.

Here's a simple question to answer:  How is it, that over the past 100+ years, hundreds of thousands of people have been involved in this "hoax," yet not a single whistle-blower has stepped forward?  Particularly since the "Faked" space flights and whatnot?  Tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of scientists, astronauts, workers, private contractors, their families, friends, EVERYONE INVOLVED, and not a single one has stepped forward to blow the lid off this? 

Occam's Razor, man.  The more hoops you have to jump through to make it even PLAUSIBLE, the less likely it is to be true.

Like with this map situation.  They cannot provide a flat map that is not skewed using VERIFIABLE DATA of distances, landmass locations, etc..  Why?

I await an answer.

Regards,
~Xenos, more and more firmly in the Round Earth Camp Each Passing Thread

Yep! NASA must be employing THOUSANDS of people who do nothing but photoshop photographs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. The fact that there are now MILLIONS of photographs from the last half-decade plus, mean that the conspiracy is absolutely pervasive, yet NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON has ever set a foot forward. Not to mention that you can now purchase a low-earth orbit flight for Pleasure and see it for yourself (though, unsurprisingly, no wealthy Flat Earthers have done this...). It's IDIOCY.

Quote from: Xenos2112 on January 27, 2016, 09:07:22 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 27, 2016, 08:00:14 PM

Welcome to the trenches OP.

It really is more like trench warfare than I thought from reading that.  Holy crap.  All they seem to do so far is deflect, dodge questions, or call you a clone.

Here's a simple question to answer:  How is it, that over the past 100+ years, hundreds of thousands of people have been involved in this "hoax," yet not a single whistle-blower has stepped forward?  Particularly since the "Faked" space flights and whatnot?  Tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of scientists, astronauts, workers, private contractors, their families, friends, EVERYONE INVOLVED, and not a single one has stepped forward to blow the lid off this? 

Occam's Razor, man.  The more hoops you have to jump through to make it even PLAUSIBLE, the less likely it is to be true.

Like with this map situation.  They cannot provide a flat map that is not skewed using VERIFIABLE DATA of distances, landmass locations, etc..  Why?

I await an answer.

Regards,
~Xenos, more and more firmly in the Round Earth Camp Each Passing Thread

Yep! NASA must be employing THOUSANDS of people who do nothing but photoshop photographs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. The fact that there are now MILLIONS of photographs from the last half-decade plus, mean that the conspiracy is absolutely pervasive, yet NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON has ever set a foot forward. Not to mention that you can now purchase a low-earth orbit flight for Pleasure and see it for yourself (though, unsurprisingly, no wealthy Flat Earthers have done this...). It's IDIOCY.

Don't forget the doctored photos by hobby astronomers (or faulty photos because the lens of the telescope is convex and that's why things have curve--except, ya know, I don't remember my girlfriend having THAT kind of curvature, if ya know what I mean), and all the covered up and/or falsified evidence of circumpolar navigation, circumnavigation of the Antarctic, and the hundreds of scientists and tourists that are in Antarctica every YEAR.

When that many people are in on the conspiracy, there's NO CHANCE it wouldn't be blown out of the water.

Yet, I'm keeping an open mind about it, I'm just asking for them to use the Laws of Physics to show me it's flat.  Trig shows the world is ROUND.  Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, the Universal Law of Gravity...  They tend to throw all that out.

And really, while I get the self-centr--I mean GEOCENTRIC view of the Universe (it makes you feel special, safe under the sapphire dome of "firmament" protected from all the horrors beyond), I really do think it's time to step out of the cave and use some Science, not throw it out and say "Gravity don't exist in our model," or "That's not how we see it working."  That's great.  The Universe says otherwise.  Physics says otherwise.

Show me with physics.  Show me a NON SKEWED FLAT MAP.

What did they say on X-Files?  "I WANT to believe!" (Well, not so much want to believe, but want to see the Science--CONVINCE me)

Respect to all friends, Confusion to all enemies (that's a Col. Travis quote, his last correspondence from the Alamo),
~Xenos, a Strange Man in a Strange Land

Quote from: pax on January 27, 2016, 10:37:00 PM

Quote from: Xenos2112 on January 27, 2016, 09:07:22 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 27, 2016, 08:00:14 PM

Welcome to the trenches OP.

It really is more like trench warfare than I thought from reading that.  Holy crap.  All they seem to do so far is deflect, dodge questions, or call you a clone.

Here's a simple question to answer:  How is it, that over the past 100+ years, hundreds of thousands of people have been involved in this "hoax," yet not a single whistle-blower has stepped forward?  Particularly since the "Faked" space flights and whatnot?  Tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of scientists, astronauts, workers, private contractors, their families, friends, EVERYONE INVOLVED, and not a single one has stepped forward to blow the lid off this? 

Occam's Razor, man.  The more hoops you have to jump through to make it even PLAUSIBLE, the less likely it is to be true.

Like with this map situation.  They cannot provide a flat map that is not skewed using VERIFIABLE DATA of distances, landmass locations, etc..  Why?

I await an answer.

Regards,
~Xenos, more and more firmly in the Round Earth Camp Each Passing Thread

Yep! NASA must be employing THOUSANDS of people who do nothing but photoshop photographs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. The fact that there are now MILLIONS of photographs from the last half-decade plus, mean that the conspiracy is absolutely pervasive, yet NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON has ever set a foot forward. Not to mention that you can now purchase a low-earth orbit flight for Pleasure and see it for yourself (though, unsurprisingly, no wealthy Flat Earthers have done this...). It's IDIOCY.

Don't forget the doctored photos by hobby astronomers (or faulty photos because the lens of the telescope is convex and that's why things have curve--except, ya know, I don't remember my girlfriend having THAT kind of curvature, if ya know what I mean), and all the covered up and/or falsified evidence of circumpolar navigation, circumnavigation of the Antarctic, and the hundreds of scientists and tourists that are in Antarctica every YEAR.

When that many people are in on the conspiracy, there's NO CHANCE it wouldn't be blown out of the water.

Yet, I'm keeping an open mind about it, I'm just asking for them to use the Laws of Physics to show me it's flat.  Trig shows the world is ROUND.  Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, the Universal Law of Gravity...  They tend to throw all that out.

And really, while I get the self-centr--I mean GEOCENTRIC view of the Universe (it makes you feel special, safe under the sapphire dome of "firmament" protected from all the horrors beyond), I really do think it's time to step out of the cave and use some Science, not throw it out and say "Gravity don't exist in our model," or "That's not how we see it working."  That's great.  The Universe says otherwise.  Physics says otherwise.

Show me with physics.  Show me a NON SKEWED FLAT MAP.

What did they say on X-Files?  "I WANT to believe!" (Well, not so much want to believe, but want to see the Science--CONVINCE me)

Respect to all friends, Confusion to all enemies (that's a Col. Travis quote, his last correspondence from the Alamo),
~Xenos, a Strange Man in a Strange Land

"Don't forget the doctored photos by hobby astronomers (or faulty photos because the lens of the telescope is convex and that's why things have curve--except, ya know, I don't remember my girlfriend having THAT kind of curvature, if ya know what I mean), and all the covered up and/or falsified evidence of circumpolar navigation, circumnavigation of the Antarctic, a
and the hundreds of scientists and tourists that are in Antarctica every YEAR."

The convex telescope lens bit is HILARIOUS, I hadn't heard that one before. We should start a "send a flat earther to Antarctica" kickstarter. It's a win/win.

The convex telescope lens bit is HILARIOUS, I hadn't heard that one before. We should start a "send a flat earther to Antarctica" kickstarter. It's a win/win.

Only issue with that is, once they saw for themselves, if they spoke out, they'd be labeled as a shill, sock, liar, indoctrinated, misleading, and having doctored their evidence.  It would make no difference to the community at large, I'm afraid.

They completely neglect the Circumpolar Navigation of the late 70's early 80's, all the circumnavigation of Antarctica, the works.  It's all lies, man, perpetuated by Big Globe for...

Some reason?

Hell, man, I'm still working out the WHY of the lie--and there's ALWAYS a why.  You don't just lie to do it.

Again though, I'd LOVE to see a working, non skewed full earth 2D flat map--if such a thing can be produced.

Should we start a fund raiser to gather the millions and millions of dollars that would be required to map the entire Earth?  How much would you donate, Mr. itIsSoEasyToMapAFlatEarth? 

Should we start a fund raiser to gather the millions and millions of dollars that would be required to map the entire Earth?  How much would you donate, Mr. itIsSoEasyToMapAFlatEarth?

I would think that given the fact we know the different sizes of every land mass on earth, the sizes and volume of the oceans, and their location in relation to each other, it wouldn't be all THAT hard to at least make a scale-accurate mock-up or proof that kept scale without skewing.  I mean, unless the figures that we know to be true from world travel (and yes, I've been overseas) are inaccurate, which, let's face it, that's a bit of a stretch.

Then again, I could be looking at it from the wrong perspective, it would be wonderful if someone would elaborate why using the numbers we "know" already would make it inaccurate or throw off scale--if the Earth is in fact flat, mapping it on a 2D plane should be MUCH easier than mapping it on a 3D one.

Just my two cents,
~Xenos, a Stranger in a Strange Land

Should we start a fund raiser to gather the millions and millions of dollars that would be required to map the entire Earth?  How much would you donate, Mr. itIsSoEasyToMapAFlatEarth?

This is FE concern and responsibility. Not the opposite. After all, FES does some research?

Quote from: jroa on January 28, 2016, 01:20:20 AM

Should we start a fund raiser to gather the millions and millions of dollars that would be required to map the entire Earth?  How much would you donate, Mr. itIsSoEasyToMapAFlatEarth?

I would think that given the fact we know the different sizes of every land mass on earth, the sizes and volume of the oceans, and their location in relation to each other, it wouldn't be all THAT hard to at least make a scale-accurate mock-up or proof that kept scale without skewing.  I mean, unless the figures that we know to be true from world travel (and yes, I've been overseas) are inaccurate, which, let's face it, that's a bit of a stretch.

Then again, I could be looking at it from the wrong perspective, it would be wonderful if someone would elaborate why using the numbers we "know" already would make it inaccurate or throw off scale--if the Earth is in fact flat, mapping it on a 2D plane should be MUCH easier than mapping it on a 3D one.

Just my two cents,
~Xenos, a Stranger in a Strange Land

We may as well just use round Earth maps, if we are not going to actually measure distances and such.  We are not that dishonest.  We will not claim to have a map until we actually map the Earth.  In the mean time, there are a few proposed layouts of the flat Earth that you are welcome to peruse. 

Quote from: jroa on January 28, 2016, 01:20:20 AM

Should we start a fund raiser to gather the millions and millions of dollars that would be required to map the entire Earth?  How much would you donate, Mr. itIsSoEasyToMapAFlatEarth?

This is FE concern and responsibility. Not the opposite. After all, FES does some research?

I have no responsibility to you.  You do not sign my paycheck, nor do you make me coffee and breakfast in the morning.  I don't not pay my taxes to you, and you are not listed in my will.  What makes you think that you claiming that I have a responsibility to you makes that a fact? 

Quote from: Xenos2112 on January 28, 2016, 01:45:24 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 28, 2016, 01:20:20 AM

Should we start a fund raiser to gather the millions and millions of dollars that would be required to map the entire Earth?  How much would you donate, Mr. itIsSoEasyToMapAFlatEarth?

I would think that given the fact we know the different sizes of every land mass on earth, the sizes and volume of the oceans, and their location in relation to each other, it wouldn't be all THAT hard to at least make a scale-accurate mock-up or proof that kept scale without skewing.  I mean, unless the figures that we know to be true from world travel (and yes, I've been overseas) are inaccurate, which, let's face it, that's a bit of a stretch.

Then again, I could be looking at it from the wrong perspective, it would be wonderful if someone would elaborate why using the numbers we "know" already would make it inaccurate or throw off scale--if the Earth is in fact flat, mapping it on a 2D plane should be MUCH easier than mapping it on a 3D one.

Just my two cents,
~Xenos, a Stranger in a Strange Land

We may as well just use round Earth maps, if we are not going to actually measure distances and such.  We are not that dishonest.  We will not claim to have a map until we actually map the Earth.  In the mean time, there are a few proposed layouts of the flat Earth that you are welcome to peruse.

Start with mapping what you know for certain then.  The entire North and South American continents, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and the bodies of water that connect them.  These are easily verified by anyone that's actually traveled before.  Plenty of records out there of Non-Stop Trans Atlantic Flights, shipping routes, trade routes overland...

There's nothing "dishonest" about using that information.

So, why would using THAT be a problem?

Regards (and I really should be sleeping, damn medications),
~Xenos, a Stranger in a Strange Land

Quote from: jroa on January 28, 2016, 02:11:24 AM

Quote from: Xenos2112 on January 28, 2016, 01:45:24 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 28, 2016, 01:20:20 AM

Should we start a fund raiser to gather the millions and millions of dollars that would be required to map the entire Earth?  How much would you donate, Mr. itIsSoEasyToMapAFlatEarth?

I would think that given the fact we know the different sizes of every land mass on earth, the sizes and volume of the oceans, and their location in relation to each other, it wouldn't be all THAT hard to at least make a scale-accurate mock-up or proof that kept scale without skewing.  I mean, unless the figures that we know to be true from world travel (and yes, I've been overseas) are inaccurate, which, let's face it, that's a bit of a stretch.

Then again, I could be looking at it from the wrong perspective, it would be wonderful if someone would elaborate why using the numbers we "know" already would make it inaccurate or throw off scale--if the Earth is in fact flat, mapping it on a 2D plane should be MUCH easier than mapping it on a 3D one.

Just my two cents,
~Xenos, a Stranger in a Strange Land

We may as well just use round Earth maps, if we are not going to actually measure distances and such.  We are not that dishonest.  We will not claim to have a map until we actually map the Earth.  In the mean time, there are a few proposed layouts of the flat Earth that you are welcome to peruse.

Start with mapping what you know for certain then.  The entire North and South American continents, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and the bodies of water that connect them.  These are easily verified by anyone that's actually traveled before.  Plenty of records out there of Non-Stop Trans Atlantic Flights, shipping routes, trade routes overland...

There's nothing "dishonest" about using that information.

So, why would using THAT be a problem?

Regards (and I really should be sleeping, damn medications),
~Xenos, a Stranger in a Strange Land

I know for certain how to get from my house to my job and the local grocery store.  Would you like for me to draw a map of that for you?  Would that get your panties out of your rear end? 

Quote from: Xenos2112 on January 28, 2016, 02:33:05 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 28, 2016, 02:11:24 AM

Quote from: Xenos2112 on January 28, 2016, 01:45:24 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 28, 2016, 01:20:20 AM

Should we start a fund raiser to gather the millions and millions of dollars that would be required to map the entire Earth?  How much would you donate, Mr. itIsSoEasyToMapAFlatEarth?

I would think that given the fact we know the different sizes of every land mass on earth, the sizes and volume of the oceans, and their location in relation to each other, it wouldn't be all THAT hard to at least make a scale-accurate mock-up or proof that kept scale without skewing.  I mean, unless the figures that we know to be true from world travel (and yes, I've been overseas) are inaccurate, which, let's face it, that's a bit of a stretch.

Then again, I could be looking at it from the wrong perspective, it would be wonderful if someone would elaborate why using the numbers we "know" already would make it inaccurate or throw off scale--if the Earth is in fact flat, mapping it on a 2D plane should be MUCH easier than mapping it on a 3D one.

Just my two cents,
~Xenos, a Stranger in a Strange Land

We may as well just use round Earth maps, if we are not going to actually measure distances and such.  We are not that dishonest.  We will not claim to have a map until we actually map the Earth.  In the mean time, there are a few proposed layouts of the flat Earth that you are welcome to peruse.

Start with mapping what you know for certain then.  The entire North and South American continents, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and the bodies of water that connect them.  These are easily verified by anyone that's actually traveled before.  Plenty of records out there of Non-Stop Trans Atlantic Flights, shipping routes, trade routes overland...

There's nothing "dishonest" about using that information.

So, why would using THAT be a problem?

Regards (and I really should be sleeping, damn medications),
~Xenos, a Stranger in a Strange Land

I know for certain how to get from my house to my job and the local grocery store.  Would you like for me to draw a map of that for you?  Would that get your panties out of your rear end?

That's a borderline personal attack, mate.  I've not got my knickers in a twist at all--I'm honestly trying to understand here, HELP me. 

Why would what I've suggested not work?  I WANT to understand this, I'm offering suggestions as to how you could go about it, now please, if that WON'T work, if using the numbers that are pretty easy to obtain from any trucker, sailor, hitchhiker, mountain climbers, hikers (my cousin goes on the Appalachian Trail ever year, hikes the entire length), etc. is a problem, tell me why?  These are hard numbers, set in stone, they don't change willy-nilly.  My state doesn't go from being 53,819 square miles today and 46,742 square miles the next (and before you ask, yes, I've been virtually all over the state--not over every square mile, but my former job took me to every single county the state had, and I've been on many, MANY road trips looking for, as Alton Brown would say, Good Eats).

Again, please, HELP me understand.  I asked a legitimate question, and was met with scorn and snark.  This is not good debating.  I honestly, truthfully, EARNESTLY have a desire to know why you cannot produce a map (not you personally, if you want to argue semantics, that's just a stalling tactic) from that.

Help me understand.

Totally in the Dark as to WHY the Snark and Scorn,
~Xenos, a Stranger in a VERY Strange Land

That's a borderline personal attack, mate.  I've not got my knickers in a twist at all--I'm honestly trying to understand here, HELP me. 

That is only a personal attack if you do, in fact, wear panties.  lol

Why would what I've suggested not work?  I WANT to understand this, I'm offering suggestions as to how you could go about it, now please, if that WON'T work, if using the numbers that are pretty easy to obtain from any trucker, sailor, hitchhiker, mountain climbers, hikers (my cousin goes on the Appalachian Trail ever year, hikes the entire length), etc. is a problem, tell me why?  These are hard numbers, set in stone, they don't change willy-nilly.  My state doesn't go from being 53,819 square miles today and 46,742 square miles the next (and before you ask, yes, I've been virtually all over the state--not over every square mile, but my former job took me to every single county the state had, and I've been on many, MANY road trips looking for, as Alton Brown would say, Good Eats).

Again, please, HELP me understand.  I asked a legitimate question, and was met with scorn and snark.  This is not good debating.  I honestly, truthfully, EARNESTLY have a desire to know why you cannot produce a map (not you personally, if you want to argue semantics, that's just a stalling tactic) from that.

Help me understand.

Totally in the Dark as to WHY the Snark and Scorn,
~Xenos, a Stranger in a VERY Strange Land

You can't make a precise map by looking at stars.  You have to actually go places and make measurements.  What is so confusing about this to you? 

You can't make a precise map by looking at stars. 

Maybe you can't. That doesn't mean it can't be done.

You have to actually go places and make measurements.   

So do it.

Instead of "trying" to raise $millions to map the whole world and then claiming the project is impossible because of the costs involved, start with an achievable goal, like buying (or borrowing) an antique surveyor's transit[nb]Using a purely-mechanical device like this avoids the "balck-box" aspects of computerized equipment, plus, it's cheaper! You can probably find a nice working one for a $few hundred, then you could sell it afterwards for most or all of what you paid for it (lots more if you succeed!!), if you want, or put it on display in the museum celebrating your achievement![/nb], learning how to use it, and using it with some flat-earth-believing volunteers to carefully and accurately survey the perimeter of an area of maybe ten thousand square miles (a square 100 miles by 100 miles, say). That should be enough to distinguish between the spherical earth and your alternative flat one. The field work could probably be done over a summer if you do it in a place like one of the US plains states, where there's an extensive 1-mile grid of often lightly-traveled roads.

You guys whine away about how haaaarrrddd it is, but you won't even try. Why not? Is it because you wouldn't even begin to know how to do this? Is it because you know full well what the result would be? Is it because it's much easier (and more fun) to complain about being victimized than it is to get off your butts for something you claim to believe in. You do believe in the things you say, don't you?

What is so confusing about this to you?

Nothing, bro.

What is confusing, though, is why, more than 150 years after Rowbotham and the beginning of the "modern" flat-earth movement, there's not a valid flat-earth map if the Earth really is flat. (Not really... I know the Earth isn't flat and that's why you have no valid flat-earth map, but you're the one stamping his feet and insisting it is, so the lack of a valid map is your problem.)

Remember, you still have no map. An accurate and precise map of the flat earth, or even a significantly large area, if one were possible, would put this argument to rest. So stop whining and get cracking if making your point is really what you're interested in doing! If sitting in front of a keyboard and whining about being lied to and persecuted is what you're interested in doing, then you're doing an OK job. I'd rate it about six out of ten; a lot of your stuff is merely tedious instead of being insightful and thought-provoking. Maybe that's the best you can do considering the material you have to work with.
 

Quote from: jroa on January 28, 2016, 03:24:55 AM

You can't make a precise map by looking at stars. 

Maybe you can't. That doesn't mean it can't be done.

Quote

You have to actually go places and make measurements.   

So do it.

Instead of "trying" to raise $millions to map the whole world and then claiming the project is impossible because of the costs involved, start with an achievable goal, like buying (or borrowing) an antique surveyor's transit[nb]Using a purely-mechanical device like this avoids the "balck-box" aspects of computerized equipment, plus, it's cheaper! You can probably find a nice working one for a $few hundred, then you could sell it afterwards for most or all of what you paid for it (lots more if you succeed!!), if you want, or put it on display in the museum celebrating your achievement![/nb], learning how to use it, and using it with some flat-earth-believing volunteers to carefully and accurately survey the perimeter of an area of maybe ten thousand square miles (a square 100 miles by 100 miles, say). That should be enough to distinguish between the spherical earth and your alternative flat one. The field work could probably be done over a summer if you do it in a place like one of the US plains states, where there's an extensive 1-mile grid of often lightly-traveled roads.

You guys whine away about how haaaarrrddd it is, but you won't even try. Why not? Is it because you wouldn't even begin to know how to do this? Is it because you know full well what the result would be? Is it because it's much easier (and more fun) to complain about being victimized than it is to get off your butts for something you claim to believe in. You do believe in the things you say, don't you?

Quote

What is so confusing about this to you?

Nothing, bro.

What is confusing, though, is why, more than 150 years after Rowbotham and the beginning of the "modern" flat-earth movement, there's not a valid flat-earth map if the Earth really is flat. (Not really... I know the Earth isn't flat and that's why you have no valid flat-earth map, but you're the one stamping his feet and insisting it is, so the lack of a valid map is your problem.)

Remember, you still have no map. An accurate and precise map of the flat earth, or even a significantly large area, if one were possible, would put this argument to rest. So stop whining and get cracking if making your point is really what you're interested in doing! If sitting in front of a keyboard and whining about being lied to and persecuted is what you're interested in doing, then you're doing an OK job. I'd rate it about six out of ten; a lot of your stuff is merely tedious instead of being insightful and thought-provoking. Maybe that's the best you can do considering the material you have to work with.
 

Why do you people insist that we waste our money in order to satisfy your curiosity?  It seems to me that if you were really so concerned about this map, you would be the ones footing the bill.  Either quit demanding this or that from us, or start offering to pay for the expenditures. 

Why do you people insist that we waste our money in order to satisfy your curiosity?  It seems to me that if you were really so concerned about this map, you would be the ones footing the bill.  Either quit demanding this or that from us, or start offering to pay for the expenditures.

No, no... you're still confused. I'm the one saying an accurate flat-earth map can't be made because the earth isn't flat. Accurate and extensive surveys have already been made, and they confirm that the Earth is spherical (well... close to it), which we already know from other observations and data. So there's no reason to spend additional money confirming that (again). You're the one claiming earth is flat, therefore all those surveys must be wrong, yet at the same time saying that making an accurate flat-earth map would "waste your money".

It seems like you recognize that trying to make an accurate flat-earth map is folly, which it is because it simply can't be done. Does this mean you're abandoning the charming, but quaint, idea that the Earth is flat? Or just that you prefer sitting on your butt making claims you can't back up?

Quote from: jroa on January 28, 2016, 01:57:35 PM

Why do you people insist that we waste our money in order to satisfy your curiosity?  It seems to me that if you were really so concerned about this map, you would be the ones footing the bill.  Either quit demanding this or that from us, or start offering to pay for the expenditures.

No, no... you're still confused. I'm the one saying an accurate flat-earth map can't be made because the earth isn't flat. Accurate and extensive surveys have already been made, and they confirm that the Earth is spherical (well... close to it), which we already know from other observations and data. So there's no reason to spend additional money confirming that (again). You're the one claiming earth is flat, therefore all those surveys must be wrong, yet at the same time saying that making an accurate flat-earth map would "waste your money".

It seems like you recognize that trying to make an accurate flat-earth map is folly, which it is because it simply can't be done. Does this mean you're abandoning the charming, but quaint, idea that the Earth is flat? Or just that you prefer sitting on your butt making claims you can't back up?

YESYESYES my statement staid just that, albeit with picture evidence.

Quote from: Xenos2112 on January 28, 2016, 03:14:18 AM

That's a borderline personal attack, mate.  I've not got my knickers in a twist at all--I'm honestly trying to understand here, HELP me. 

That is only a personal attack if you do, in fact, wear panties.  lol

Quote from: Xenos2112 on January 28, 2016, 03:14:18 AM

Why would what I've suggested not work?  I WANT to understand this, I'm offering suggestions as to how you could go about it, now please, if that WON'T work, if using the numbers that are pretty easy to obtain from any trucker, sailor, hitchhiker, mountain climbers, hikers (my cousin goes on the Appalachian Trail ever year, hikes the entire length), etc. is a problem, tell me why?  These are hard numbers, set in stone, they don't change willy-nilly.  My state doesn't go from being 53,819 square miles today and 46,742 square miles the next (and before you ask, yes, I've been virtually all over the state--not over every square mile, but my former job took me to every single county the state had, and I've been on many, MANY road trips looking for, as Alton Brown would say, Good Eats).

Again, please, HELP me understand.  I asked a legitimate question, and was met with scorn and snark.  This is not good debating.  I honestly, truthfully, EARNESTLY have a desire to know why you cannot produce a map (not you personally, if you want to argue semantics, that's just a stalling tactic) from that.

Help me understand.

Totally in the Dark as to WHY the Snark and Scorn,
~Xenos, a Stranger in a VERY Strange Land

You can't make a precise map by looking at stars.  You have to actually go places and make measurements.  What is so confusing about this to you?

Outside of sailors, where did I even IMPLY that you'd need to use stars?  Truckers drive on roads.  Hikers climb on trails.  There are these things called pedometers, maybe you've heard of them?

What's so confusing about THAT that you have to dodge the question?  There is data available out there, none of it involves stars, that you can use to make a flat-earth map, if it's possible.

I await an answer,
~Xenos, He of the 101.4 Fever

What completely baffles me is that the early European seafarers from say Vasco da Gama and Ferdinand Magellan on,  gradually built up data on the coordinates (lat-long) of the various continents. Before 1900 most of the earth's coastlines were mapped, ie the lat-long of enough locations was determined to enable fairly accurate maps to be drawn.

In addition to this surveyors accurately mapped the interiors of many countries.

Now, this data represents the shape and locations of most places on the real earth (flat or globe).

What I simply cannot understand is why the flat earth believers feel the need to repeat this huge amount of work in order to draw a "flat earth map". Do they think that locations have moved since they were mapped?

With this data I would think that a rudimentary map could be fairly readily produced.
Mind you, in my, admittedly biased opinion, that map would end up like the "UN" map, but that simply does not fit the real earth.

That is the whole point I have tried to make a number of times,
Some more detail in:

In all this discussion,
I have assumed that locations on the flat earth are still identified by latitude and longitude. That is certainly the impression that I get from Rowbotham and from Tom Bishop's writings in resurrecting the "archives".

What I simply cannot understand is why the flat earth believers feel the need to repeat this huge amount of work in order to draw a "flat earth map". Do they think that locations have moved since they were mapped?

I know you have reading comprehension problems, and I hope you seek help for that, but if you read the thread slowly and examine each sentence carefully, you will discover that it is the roudies in this thread and many others who are insisting that we collect all of this data in order to produce an accurate flat Earth map.