The Truth about Map Projections

Quote from: rabinoz on January 28, 2016, 10:45:21 PM

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. 

Ad hominem attack is ad hominem.  I'm noticing a lot of that from you.  Not a great thing to do.  Not a great way to win people to your position.  In fact, quite polarizing.

In addition, THIS "Roundie" has been suggesting you use existing hard data that is available to map out what is known.

Pretty much the same thing everyone else in this thread has been saying.  You know, the suggestion that you got snippy with me about and said I had my panties up my rear end (also an ad hominem attack, regardless of what type of undergarments I choose to wear or not wear)?

So, I ask again, no dodges, no digs, no quips, WHY can you not use information that is already out there on landmasses, distances, sizes of states, countries, and continents, distances between them, etcetera and so forth, to create a scale accurate, non-skewed, flat-earth map?

Again, no deflections, no dodges, no quips, digs, attacks, smart-offs, snide remarks.  Just a straight, honest answer as to why that will or will not work.

Regards, and WAITING,
~Xenos, Still Running a Fever

Quote from: rabinoz on January 28, 2016, 10:45:21 PM

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. 

My whole point is that many (maybe not you personally) seem to be expecting the Flat Earth to be accepted by the population at large in the not too distant future.

To expect that when (as you are at pains to assert) there is no accurate map of the flat earth does seem ludicrous.  The reason often given for this lack of a map would seem to be lack of data as to the location of places on earth, so I probably should not have directed this to you so much, but to the whole "flat earth movement" for not having a reasonably accurate map.

Here are my questions about it, and I hope they will get some attention from the RE-ers:
1. What if the stars (and the GPS satellites) are actually wrongly mapped? That won't be something, well, weird. Let me explain: Ptolemy's map of stars was wrong, and he used that map and the observations by other astronomers from the cities to determine the coordinates of cities. Needless to say, he got the wrong results, but it took thousands of years time to discover that error. How do you know that's not exactly what's going on here (and you see different stars in Australia than on the north hemisphere!)?
2. The shortest path from the South America to Australia, according to the globe, is obviously across Antarctica. So, even if the Earth is round, we are still not using the shortest path. Have you, RE-ers who use the distance calculations in arguments, verified that your calculations do not actually give the hypothesed paths across Antarctica?
3.What is more likely: that the Earth is round, or that people who have done the measurements believed that the Earth is round and made mistakes in the measurements simply because they were biased?

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?

Actually jroa, you are completely wrong. You CAN make a VERY precise map of the Earth with the stars. You, like other FEers, don't know the first thing about astronomy and make foolish claims like this.

The Celestial Sphere DIRECTLY corresponds (1:1) with the Earth. ALL stars' declinations correspond EXACTLY to the latitude on the Earth (North/South). All you need is an accurate watch to know where you are on Earth. This is how sailors navigated on the oceans for THOUSANDS of years. This is an indisputable FACT.

If you have Polaris (89° N) above you, you are at EXACTLY 89° N on Earth. If you have Rigel (Orion, -8° S) above you, you are at EXACTLY 8° S on Earth... and so on. That is the easy part - sextants. All you need is an accurate clock to determine EXACTLY where you are East/West. That was the hard part historically.

Even sailors hundreds and thousands of years ago knew this. Don't tell me FEers aren't even THAT smart!!!

Here are my questions about it, and I hope they will get some attention from the RE-ers:
1. What if the stars (and the GPS satellites) are actually wrongly mapped? That won't be something, well, weird.

If the stars were mapped wrong, then using the data from the maps to point telescopes wouldn't work. The locations from celestial maps do work to routinely and accurately point telescopes at objects in the sky, and, conversely, to identify objects based on their position in the sky. Ergo, the maps must be correct.

If the GPS satellites weren't where they were predicted to be, then your location calculated by the GPS would be wrong. That should be easy enough to verify; when your GPS says you're at or near some location, are you at or near that location?

Let me explain: Ptolemy's map of stars was wrong, and he used that map and the observations by other astronomers from the cities to determine the coordinates of cities. Needless to say, he got the wrong results, but it took thousands of years time to discover that error. How do you know that's not exactly what's going on here (and you see different stars in Australia than on the north hemisphere!)?

I'd like a citation for the comments about Ptolemy and his maps, please. I'm not familiar with this and it sounds interesting.

As to the last question, again, we know that current maps of the stars are correct because they work. You can use the data from them (or, often, catalogs of the data they're made from), to find things in the sky, and they're right where they are predicted to be by the maps or catalogs.

2. The shortest path from the South America to Australia, according to the globe, is obviously across Antarctica. So, even if the Earth is round, we are still not using the shortest path. Have you, RE-ers who use the distance calculations in arguments, verified that your calculations do not actually give the hypothesed paths across Antarctica?

It's easy enough to do using a string and a globe. A great circle from Sydney to pretty much anywhere in South America doesn't get closer than a few hundred miles of the coast of Antarctica. From Perth, in far western Australia, to the eastern cities in South America, the great circle route does cross the Antarctic continent, but are there any flights between those locations?

3.What is more likely: that the Earth is round, or that people who have done the measurements believed that the Earth is round and made mistakes in the measurements simply because they were biased?

That one's easy. The Earth is spherical. If there were consistent and significant mistakes in the measurements, shipping and air schedules would be consistently and significantly wrong, and fuel requirements would be consistently and significantly miscalculated, with potentially disastrous results. Do you have any information that such problems routinely occur?

Why does everyone keep dodging my question?

Is it that difficult to answer (without snark, snippy, sarcasm, vitriol, etc.)?

Seems Like I'm Always Waiting,
~Xenos, Good Thing He Don't Hold His Breath

Here are my questions about it, and I hope they will get some attention from the RE-ers:
1. What if the stars (and the GPS satellites) are actually wrongly mapped? That won't be something, well, weird. Let me explain: Ptolemy's map of stars was wrong, and he used that map and the observations by other astronomers from the cities to determine the coordinates of cities. Needless to say, he got the wrong results, but it took thousands of years time to discover that error. How do you know that's not exactly what's going on here (and you see different stars in Australia than on the north hemisphere!)?

You blithely say "Ptolemy's map of stars was wrong", no that is not true.  It will not be as accurate as present star maps, and many stars will have moved noticeably since them. 
Ptolemy's problem was not that his star map, or his (and earlier astronomers') planetary motions was wrong. 
His problem was that he was trying to fit the motions of the sun, moon and planets into circles around the earth!

Of course thousands of astronomers have studied the sky since then and have built up a much more accurate sky map.  It still must be stressed though that the stars are not quite stationary.  All appear to gradually change location due to the precession of the earth's axis and many (especially Barnard's Star with the "fastest") have quite measurable real motions.

Quote from: FlatEarthDenial 2. The shortest path from the South America to Australia, according to the globe, is obviously across Antarctica. So, even if the Earth is round, we are still not using the shortest path. Have you, RE-ers who use the distance calculations in arguments, verified that your calculations do not actually give the hypothesed paths across Antarctica? The only direct Australia to South America flight I know goes form Sydney to Santiago.  The great circle route is shown to the right!  That route does not go very close to Antarctica at all! The actual flight path taken on any particular journey will depend on the predicted winds.  The jet stream (West to East) averages around 180 km/h, so can have a big effect on flight time and fuel requirements.  So the route may choose to fly in the jet stream from Sydney to Santiago and avoid in on the return journey. Even so, commercial passenger would avoid Antarctica fro a number of reasons: In the event of an emergency landing they would be far from rescue services. They would be required to carry polar survival gear. Temperatures can be so low at high altitude that jet fuel can freeze!

3.What is more likely: that the Earth is round, or that people who have done the measurements believed that the Earth is round and made mistakes in the measurements simply because they were biased?

The basic measurements as to equatorial and polar circumferences have been repeated so often since Eratosthenes' time that I don't see much chance of error.  Some of the earliest accurate measurements were done by an Islamic Geographer, Astronomer and Surveyor around 1,000 AD!  Look up Al-Biruni, one of the greatest scholars of the medieval Islamic period and regarded the father of "geodesic surveying".

A lot of measurements are based on surveying methods.

Quote from: FlatEarthDenial on January 29, 2016, 05:03:28 AM

Here are my questions about it, and I hope they will get some attention from the RE-ers:
1. What if the stars (and the GPS satellites) are actually wrongly mapped? That won't be something, well, weird. Let me explain: Ptolemy's map of stars was wrong, and he used that map and the observations by other astronomers from the cities to determine the coordinates of cities. Needless to say, he got the wrong results, but it took thousands of years time to discover that error. How do you know that's not exactly what's going on here (and you see different stars in Australia than on the north hemisphere!)?

You blithely say "Ptolemy's map of stars was wrong", no that is not true.  It will not be as accurate as present star maps, and many stars will have moved noticeably since them. 
Ptolemy's problem was not that his star map, or his (and earlier astronomers') planetary motions was wrong. 
His problem was that he was trying to fit the motions of the sun, moon and planets into circles around the earth!

Of course thousands of astronomers have studied the sky since then and have built up a much more accurate sky map.  It still must be stressed though that the stars are not quite stationary.  All appear to gradually change location due to the precession of the earth's axis and many (especially Barnard's Star with the "fastest") have quite measurable real motions.

So, basically your whole premise here is false.

Quote from: FlatEarthDenial 2. The shortest path from the South America to Australia, according to the globe, is obviously across Antarctica. So, even if the Earth is round, we are still not using the shortest path. Have you, RE-ers who use the distance calculations in arguments, verified that your calculations do not actually give the hypothesed paths across Antarctica? The only direct Australia to South America flight I know goes form Sydney to Santiago.  The great circle route is shown to the right!  That route does not go very close to Antarctica at all! The actual flight path taken on any particular journey will depend on the predicted winds.  The jet stream (West to East) averages around 180 km/h, so can have a big effect on flight time and fuel requirements.  So the route may choose to fly in the jet stream from Sydney to Santiago and avoid in on the return journey. Even so, commercial passenger would avoid Antarctica fro a number of reasons: In the event of an emergency landing they would be far from rescue services. They would be required to carry polar survival gear. Temperatures can be so low at high altitude that jet fuel can freeze!

So, again your whole premise here is false.

Quote from: FlatEarthDenial

3.What is more likely: that the Earth is round, or that people who have done the measurements believed that the Earth is round and made mistakes in the measurements simply because they were biased?

The basic measurements as to equatorial and polar circumferences have been repeated so often since Eratosthenes' time that I don't see much chance of error.  Some of the earliest accurate measurements were done by an Islamic Geographer, Astronomer and Surveyor around 1,000 AD!  Look up Al-Biruni, one of the greatest scholars of the medieval Islamic period and regarded the father of "geodesic surveying".

A lot of measurements are based on surveying methods.

Also check out the route from an actual New Zealand air traffic controller (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64740.0)

BTW, THE most accurate map that FEers can make that will minimize "important" distortions is taking the azimuthal equidistant projection (UN type map) with the N.Pole in the middle and splicing the LAND MASSES from the UN map with the S.Pole in the middle at the equator. So, for S.America and southern Africa, draw a box that starts at the equator and goes down to encompass the southern part of the continent. Splice the N.UN map and the box together. For Australia, do the same thing starting at Sumatra(?) and encompassing New Zealand. The LAND distance measurements will be MUCH more correct. It would be the "best" FE map.

The problems of course would be:

• The longitude lines would not be straight.
• The oceans south of the equator would be too big (the fish don't care about FE maps).
• Antarctica's shape would be wrong (but we don't hear them complaining about current FE maps)
• Flight/shipping distances would be wrong (but they are now anyways)

So, basically use this map down to the equator:


Then from the equator on this map, make "boxes" around S.America, southern Africa, and ~Australia:


The result will look like this one with the problems listed above:


(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65369)