Distances on Flat Earth Map

  • 57 Replies
  • 17297 Views
Distances on Flat Earth Map
« on: February 17, 2017, 04:50:41 AM »
my questions are:

1. why is the flight time between Sydney Australia and Johannesburg South Africa 14h
and the fligh time between Sydney Australia and Frankfuth Germany 22h

2. if you look at the distances in Australia: why is on the Flat Earth map the distances in direction east- west way bigger than in north south.


Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2017, 08:58:09 AM »
This map, the unofficial FE map, is a Polar Azimuthal Equidistant (PAE) projection.  Similar to the map on the UN flag.  The Azimuthal Equidistant projection can be centered on any point on earth (frequently on important cities) but the North Pole seems to be politically neutral (at least to white people).  Altho very popular with FEers, especially because it feeds the nonsense about an ice wall, congruent with Antarctica, surrounding the rim of a flat planet, it is not the "official" or definitive Flat Earth map - there is no such official map.

This map is reliable for distances only from the central point (here, the North Pole) and not from any other place, and the distortion in distance becomes worse as the distance from the center increases. 

Every world map on flat paper has some sort of distortion - in shape, distances, direction, and/or area; usually at least two of the four characteristics.  Maps of smaller portions of the world, such as of a single country, also have distortion - usually nearer the edges - but less dramatic, and maps of even smaller portions, such as of cities would have very slight distortions (probably not greater than the width of the lines used to represent highways).  IF (big if) the Earth were really flat then a map on an equally flat paper should have no distortions and not involve any "projection" but only a ratio of scale (e.g. "one inch equals ten thousand miles"), and every other map of the world would be a larger or smaller version of the very same map.


*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 17929
  • Or should I?
Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2017, 09:05:41 AM »
Jane made an accurate FE map, I'll find it tomorrow.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2017, 10:02:44 AM »
The distances for Australia are not inaccurately depicted on Gleason's.

The distances are accurate on Gleason's.

Just because flight times are different does not mean the distances are different.

Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2017, 11:15:03 AM »
The distances for Australia are not inaccurately depicted on Gleason's.

The distances are accurate on Gleason's.

Just because flight times are different does not mean the distances are different.

the planes fly faster to Johannesburg than to Frankfurt?
why do they do that, only to not reveal that the earth is flat?
 

*

LuggerSailor

  • 200
  • 12 men on the Moon, 11 of them Scouts.
Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2017, 12:46:07 PM »
The distances for Australia are not inaccurately depicted on Gleason's.

The distances are accurate on Gleason's.

Just because flight times are different does not mean the distances are different.
Jacksonville & San Diego in America and Sydney & Perth in Australia are examples that prove the Gleason map is not a map to be used for navigation. The pairs of cities in America are approximately 30 north of the equator while the Australian cities are approximately 30 south. Both pairs are separated by 35 of longitude and lo and behold, both pairs are approximately the same distance apart. The Gleason azimuth projection map distorts the size of Australia to about twice the width of America.
Gleason's map is just a Longitude and time zone ready reckoner.
LuggerSailor.
Sailor and Navigator.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2017, 03:18:29 PM »
No FEer claims to have a map that is any more than a placeholder. I don't use the azimuthal, but even mine I don't claim to be completely accurate. I do not have the resources to map out the entire world, and neither do you. You appeal to pre-measured distances, but you cannot tell me exactly how most were measured, and how many came from assumption. Plane journeys are the only really accurate measure of oversea travel from accessibility and repetition but the error bars are tremendous due to the fact they only give time, and the speed of the plane varies with everything from type of plane to jet streams. Without certainty as to those distances, rather than general figures which you assume match a RE, an accurate map is impossible.
If not, you're just as capable as any of us of mapping it. So get to it. At the very least I'd like to see a feasible method for what you propose.

The exact distances on that map don't matter because it is not accurate and it is not meant to be accurate.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2017, 03:53:27 PM »
No FEer claims to have a map that is any more than a placeholder. I don't use the azimuthal, but even mine I don't claim to be completely accurate. I do not have the resources to map out the entire world, and neither do you. You appeal to pre-measured distances, but you cannot tell me exactly how most were measured, and how many came from assumption. Plane journeys are the only really accurate measure of oversea travel from accessibility and repetition but the error bars are tremendous due to the fact they only give time, and the speed of the plane varies with everything from type of plane to jet streams. Without certainty as to those distances, rather than general figures which you assume match a RE, an accurate map is impossible.
If not, you're just as capable as any of us of mapping it. So get to it. At the very least I'd like to see a feasible method for what you propose.

The exact distances on that map don't matter because it is not accurate and it is not meant to be accurate.
We have very accurate mapping of the earth.  Please provide details of distances you believe to be incorrect.

Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2017, 06:01:34 PM »
No FEer claims to have a map that is any more than a placeholder. I don't use the azimuthal, but even mine I don't claim to be completely accurate. I do not have the resources to map out the entire world, and neither do you. You appeal to pre-measured distances, but you cannot tell me exactly how most were measured, and how many came from assumption. Plane journeys are the only really accurate measure of oversea travel from accessibility and repetition but the error bars are tremendous due to the fact they only give time, and the speed of the plane varies with everything from type of plane to jet streams. Without certainty as to those distances, rather than general figures which you assume match a RE, an accurate map is impossible.
If not, you're just as capable as any of us of mapping it. So get to it. At the very least I'd like to see a feasible method for what you propose.

The exact distances on that map don't matter because it is not accurate and it is not meant to be accurate.
We have very accurate mapping of the earth.  Please provide details of distances you believe to be incorrect.

Basicly all east west distances especially south of the equator.

Is there anyway a FE map with a scale what tells the actual distances on the map?

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 17929
  • Or should I?
Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2017, 06:53:04 PM »
Here.

I've got a map  ;D

Using a metric I've derived before on this forum:

The Earth is defined by the x and y axes, with the North Pole (for the sake of tradition) at 0, and the South at infinity. An infinite plane is used so that if you reach the South, you can come out the far side. Once the metric is used, the distance shouldn't actually be infinite. This is just our set.
Longitude is 0 along the line y=0, latitude is zero on the circle of radius 1 centred at the North pole.

Now then, our spectacularly awful looking metric. For points P1=(x1,y1), P2 = (x2,y2):

[jsTex]d(P_1,P_2) = \cos^{-1} \left( \sin \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_1^2 + y_1^2 -1}{2x_1} \right) \right) \sin \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_2^2 + y_2^2 -1}{2x_2} \right) \right) +\cos \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_1^2 + y_1^2 -1}{2x_1} \right) \right) \cos \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_2^2 + y_2^2 -1}{2x_2} \right) \right) \cos \left|\tan^{-1} \left( \frac{y_1}{x_1}  \right) - \tan^{-1} \left( \frac{y_2}{x_2} \right) \right| \right)[/jsTex]

The following map gives over half the Earth. The rest can be extended out, but it grows in size.



But remember, we're in non-Euclidean space so you have to calculate distances with the above metric.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 06:56:05 PM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

rabinoz

  • 26311
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2017, 07:02:22 PM »
The distances for Australia are not inaccurately depicted on Gleason's.
The distances are accurate on Gleason's.
Just because flight times are different does not mean the distances are different.

Get this straight Mr Totally Lacking (in evidence), the distances for Australia are not at all accurately depicted on Gleason's.

I live there and have driven around it and across it enough to know it's dimensions.

So, I for one KNOW that Australia is NOT the shape shown on the UN (or AEP) map. We don't have an accurate copy of that map to measure distances, but the shapes of the Southern Hemisphere continents seem the same as on "Gleason's Map", so for the present, I will demonstrate what I mean on that. If there is an alternate map I would be glad to use that.

To see what I mean about the E-W distances being grossly stretched on the Gleason's Map just look at these two maps of Australia.  The one on the left is from Gleason's and the one on the right on Google Earth.  I used the Google Earth as a quick way to get the shape right, but the measurement shown are from my Garmin Navigator map. I have checked this numerous times, both with map (surveyed) distances between towns and the car's odometer, which I know  is not more than 1% out (not all cars are that close - maybe Landcruisers are not that bad!).


Australia Size on Ice Wall Map,
E-W 8,700 km and N-S 3,300 km
   

Australia on Gleason's Map,
E-W 8,700 km and N-S 3,200 km
   
Australia on Google Earth,
E-W 3,700 km and N-S 3,200 km

Measurement   
   Ice Wall   Gleason's   Garmin Nav
West-East 30 Lat   
   8,700 km   8,700 km   3,700 km
Cape Yk-Wils Prom   
   3,300 km   3,200 km   3,200 km
As you can see the on both the "Ice Wall Map" and the "Gleason's Map" the shape of Australia is grossly distorted, with the East-West distance on the "Ice Wall Map" and "Gleason Map" being 8,700 km compared to a more accurate distance of 3,700 km. The distances on the "Ice Wall Map" and  "Gleason's Map" are estimated by comparing the lengths with the Equator to North Pole taken as 10,000 km.
The North-South distances agree very well, but E-W distances are grossly in error - All the distances have been rounded to the nearest 100 km.

I know the column labelled "Garmin" is correct as I have driven over much of that area (yes all the way from west to east, though not ON the 30 Lat). I have personally checked the maps, the car oddo and the "Garmin" (GPS) and all are in good agreement.

In any case, the errors are so great that there is not the slightest chance of its being caused simply by "measuring error".

And just in case someone suggests that the "Bipolar Map" is better, this is what Australia looks like on it!
Bi-polar map - Australia
;D ;D Does anyone dare suggest that Australia is that shape? If they do I'll show what the USA looks like on the Bipolar Map.  ;D ;D

Now, if you, Mr Totallackey have some better evidence, present it now!

*

Gumby

  • 819
  • I don't exist.
Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2017, 12:05:05 AM »
The distances for Australia are not inaccurately depicted on Gleason's.

The distances are accurate on Gleason's.

Just because flight times are different does not mean the distances are different.

Wrong!
Leaking again...
How dumb can you be?
I think MH370 was hijacked and the persons who did the hijacking were indeed out to prove a flat earth.

Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #12 on: February 18, 2017, 03:48:22 AM »
Here.

I've got a map  ;D

Using a metric I've derived before on this forum:

The Earth is defined by the x and y axes, with the North Pole (for the sake of tradition) at 0, and the South at infinity. An infinite plane is used so that if you reach the South, you can come out the far side. Once the metric is used, the distance shouldn't actually be infinite. This is just our set.
Longitude is 0 along the line y=0, latitude is zero on the circle of radius 1 centred at the North pole.

Now then, our spectacularly awful looking metric. For points P1=(x1,y1), P2 = (x2,y2):

[jsTex]d(P_1,P_2) = \cos^{-1} \left( \sin \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_1^2 + y_1^2 -1}{2x_1} \right) \right) \sin \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_2^2 + y_2^2 -1}{2x_2} \right) \right) +\cos \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_1^2 + y_1^2 -1}{2x_1} \right) \right) \cos \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_2^2 + y_2^2 -1}{2x_2} \right) \right) \cos \left|\tan^{-1} \left( \frac{y_1}{x_1}  \right) - \tan^{-1} \left( \frac{y_2}{x_2} \right) \right| \right)[/jsTex]

The following map gives over half the Earth. The rest can be extended out, but it grows in size.



But remember, we're in non-Euclidean space so you have to calculate distances with the above metric.

You say that is accurate map??

Where is the rest of the world?
According to that Australia in way bigger than Canada,  in reality it's not.
And also there the flight times and distances do not work.

Therefor it can not be accurate.

Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2017, 05:33:44 AM »
The distances for Australia are not inaccurately depicted on Gleason's.
The distances are accurate on Gleason's.
Just because flight times are different does not mean the distances are different.

Get this straight Mr Totally Lacking (in evidence), the distances for Australia are not at all accurately depicted on Gleason's.

I live there and have driven around it and across it enough to know it's dimensions.

So, I for one KNOW that Australia is NOT the shape shown on the UN (or AEP) map. We don't have an accurate copy of that map to measure distances, but the shapes of the Southern Hemisphere continents seem the same as on "Gleason's Map", so for the present, I will demonstrate what I mean on that. If there is an alternate map I would be glad to use that.

To see what I mean about the E-W distances being grossly stretched on the Gleason's Map just look at these two maps of Australia.  The one on the left is from Gleason's and the one on the right on Google Earth.  I used the Google Earth as a quick way to get the shape right, but the measurement shown are from my Garmin Navigator map. I have checked this numerous times, both with map (surveyed) distances between towns and the car's odometer, which I know  is not more than 1% out (not all cars are that close - maybe Landcruisers are not that bad!).


Australia Size on Ice Wall Map,
E-W 8,700 km and N-S 3,300 km
   

Australia on Gleason's Map,
E-W 8,700 km and N-S 3,200 km
   
Australia on Google Earth,
E-W 3,700 km and N-S 3,200 km

Measurement   
   Ice Wall   Gleason's   Garmin Nav
West-East 30 Lat   
   8,700 km   8,700 km   3,700 km
Cape Yk-Wils Prom   
   3,300 km   3,200 km   3,200 km
As you can see the on both the "Ice Wall Map" and the "Gleason's Map" the shape of Australia is grossly distorted, with the East-West distance on the "Ice Wall Map" and "Gleason Map" being 8,700 km compared to a more accurate distance of 3,700 km. The distances on the "Ice Wall Map" and  "Gleason's Map" are estimated by comparing the lengths with the Equator to North Pole taken as 10,000 km.
The North-South distances agree very well, but E-W distances are grossly in error - All the distances have been rounded to the nearest 100 km.

I know the column labelled "Garmin" is correct as I have driven over much of that area (yes all the way from west to east, though not ON the 30 Lat). I have personally checked the maps, the car oddo and the "Garmin" (GPS) and all are in good agreement.

In any case, the errors are so great that there is not the slightest chance of its being caused simply by "measuring error".

And just in case someone suggests that the "Bipolar Map" is better, this is what Australia looks like on it!
Bi-polar map - Australia
;D ;D Does anyone dare suggest that Australia is that shape? If they do I'll show what the USA looks like on the Bipolar Map.  ;D ;D

Now, if you, Mr Totallackey have some better evidence, present it now!

Why do you claim Gleason's has Australia as being 8700 km wide?

How far apart are degrees of longitude in your mind?

Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #14 on: February 18, 2017, 07:38:04 AM »
The distances for Australia are not inaccurately depicted on Gleason's.
The distances are accurate on Gleason's.
Just because flight times are different does not mean the distances are different.

Get this straight Mr Totally Lacking (in evidence), the distances for Australia are not at all accurately depicted on Gleason's.

I live there and have driven around it and across it enough to know it's dimensions.

So, I for one KNOW that Australia is NOT the shape shown on the UN (or AEP) map. We don't have an accurate copy of that map to measure distances, but the shapes of the Southern Hemisphere continents seem the same as on "Gleason's Map", so for the present, I will demonstrate what I mean on that. If there is an alternate map I would be glad to use that.

To see what I mean about the E-W distances being grossly stretched on the Gleason's Map just look at these two maps of Australia.  The one on the left is from Gleason's and the one on the right on Google Earth.  I used the Google Earth as a quick way to get the shape right, but the measurement shown are from my Garmin Navigator map. I have checked this numerous times, both with map (surveyed) distances between towns and the car's odometer, which I know  is not more than 1% out (not all cars are that close - maybe Landcruisers are not that bad!).


Australia Size on Ice Wall Map,
E-W 8,700 km and N-S 3,300 km
   

Australia on Gleason's Map,
E-W 8,700 km and N-S 3,200 km
   
Australia on Google Earth,
E-W 3,700 km and N-S 3,200 km

Measurement   
   Ice Wall   Gleason's   Garmin Nav
West-East 30 Lat   
   8,700 km   8,700 km   3,700 km
Cape Yk-Wils Prom   
   3,300 km   3,200 km   3,200 km
As you can see the on both the "Ice Wall Map" and the "Gleason's Map" the shape of Australia is grossly distorted, with the East-West distance on the "Ice Wall Map" and "Gleason Map" being 8,700 km compared to a more accurate distance of 3,700 km. The distances on the "Ice Wall Map" and  "Gleason's Map" are estimated by comparing the lengths with the Equator to North Pole taken as 10,000 km.
The North-South distances agree very well, but E-W distances are grossly in error - All the distances have been rounded to the nearest 100 km.

I know the column labelled "Garmin" is correct as I have driven over much of that area (yes all the way from west to east, though not ON the 30 Lat). I have personally checked the maps, the car oddo and the "Garmin" (GPS) and all are in good agreement.

In any case, the errors are so great that there is not the slightest chance of its being caused simply by "measuring error".

And just in case someone suggests that the "Bipolar Map" is better, this is what Australia looks like on it!
Bi-polar map - Australia
;D ;D Does anyone dare suggest that Australia is that shape? If they do I'll show what the USA looks like on the Bipolar Map.  ;D ;D

Now, if you, Mr Totallackey have some better evidence, present it now!

Why do you claim Gleason's has Australia as being 8700 km wide?

How far apart are degrees of longitude in your mind?

What do you think the distances are in Australia according to this map?

*

rabinoz

  • 26311
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2017, 07:29:00 PM »
Now, if you, Mr Totallackey have some better evidence, present it now!

Why do you claim Gleason's has Australia as being 8700 km wide?

How far apart are degrees of longitude in your mind?
I asked you for evidence. You have provided nothing, but here goes. We are told in "the Wiki"
Quote from: The Flat Earth Wiki
The Ice Wall
The figure of 24,900 miles is the diameter of the known world; the area which the light from the sun affects.
Now I take that this 24,900 miles (or 40,073 km) is the distance from the boundary of the known world on one side to the boundary of the known world on the other. In other words, the radius of the "equator" circle is a quarter of this or 10,018 km, and this is also very close to the accepted value for the Globe, so no arguments there.

The following values are the result of calculations based on the above size of the earth and not from "scaling the map".

So the circumference of the equator circle is 2 x π x 10,018 or 62,946 km.

On the Gleason (or Ice-Wall) map the longitude lines just run radially outwards so the radius at any latitude can be simply found from the equator radius.


1892 Gleason's Map with Equator and 30 S Latitude Circles

The radius of the 30 S lat circle is then 10,018 x (120/90) =  13,358 km and the circumference of the 30 S lat circle is then 83,928 km.
Since there are 360 of longitude around the 30 S lat circle, the degrees of longitude are 233.1 km apart.
For your information the point on the west side of Australia is almost exactly at Green Head, WA at 30S 115E and in the east is Red Rock, NSW at 30S 153.20E.

And not "in my mind", but in fact (for that map) and on my Excel spreadsheet.

Any objections? If so, please show how you arrived at your answers!

<<  ;D forgot map  ;D added Lat/Long >>
« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 09:43:27 PM by rabinoz »

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #16 on: February 18, 2017, 07:36:43 PM »
Quote
We have very accurate mapping of the earth.  Please provide details of distances you believe to be incorrect.
Please provide evidence that your mapping is as accurate as you claim. You can't just assert it is. if you're claiming something as truth, prove it.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

rabinoz

  • 26311
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2017, 08:08:41 PM »
Quote
We have very accurate mapping of the earth.  Please provide details of distances you believe to be incorrect.
Please provide evidence that your mapping is as accurate as you claim. You can't just assert it is. if you're claiming something as truth, prove it.
Please excuse my post, but I am not criticising your model and accept that your map is more accurate than any other Flat Earth map.
For one thing everywhere I have been that lat/long coordinates from the map agree with the GPS coordinates to within the accurscy of whatever map I am using.
Now GPS coordinates come from the GPS system and have no knowledge of the map, that's good enough proof for me.

In addition international aircraft can fly, out of sight of the ground, using GPS alone and arrive on the correct approach path for the specified runway.
This video by an International Airline Pilot is on the topic of map accuracy.

Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #18 on: February 19, 2017, 05:17:29 AM »
Quote
We have very accurate mapping of the earth.  Please provide details of distances you believe to be incorrect.
Please provide evidence that your mapping is as accurate as you claim. You can't just assert it is. if you're claiming something as truth, prove it.
It is not 'my' mapping.  If distances were incorrect it would be widely known, and there is nothing to show the distances known, published, tested and used are incorrect.  As you know.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #19 on: February 19, 2017, 05:32:51 AM »
Quote
It is not 'my' mapping.  If distances were incorrect it would be widely known, and there is nothing to show the distances known, published, tested and used are incorrect.  As you know.
Why? They'll be accurate enough on the small scale, which is all anyone needs to use. How exactly do you imagine it would be 'widely known' beyond your assertion?
As you know.

The only way you and Rabinoz could make such a claim is with reference to large scale flight with planes etc, but that is fraught with unreliability due to the lack of landmarks and external factors. GPS constantly adjusts based on where you are, given your seeming position there'll be slight changes as you travel, more than enough to cover the small errors over small distances, and cumulatively to do the same over large.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #20 on: February 19, 2017, 10:43:30 AM »
Quote
It is not 'my' mapping.  If distances were incorrect it would be widely known, and there is nothing to show the distances known, published, tested and used are incorrect.  As you know.
Why? They'll be accurate enough on the small scale, which is all anyone needs to use. How exactly do you imagine it would be 'widely known' beyond your assertion?
As you know.

The only way you and Rabinoz could make such a claim is with reference to large scale flight with planes etc, but that is fraught with unreliability due to the lack of landmarks and external factors. GPS constantly adjusts based on where you are, given your seeming position there'll be slight changes as you travel, more than enough to cover the small errors over small distances, and cumulatively to do the same over large.
The mapping and navigation systems we have today are capable of reliable, repetitive measurements.  Professional GPS systems are accurate to mm.  See online details of designers and users.

What evidence do you have to disagree?

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #21 on: February 19, 2017, 11:00:24 AM »
Quote
The mapping and navigation systems we have today are capable of reliable, repetitive measurements.  Professional GPS systems are accurate to mm.  See online details of designers and users.

What evidence do you have to disagree?

What evidence do you have to support it? What part of what I said was wrong? Are you ever going to give an argument or are you just going to repeat the same inane commentary over and over in almost every thread you post in?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #22 on: February 19, 2017, 11:02:41 AM »
Quote
The mapping and navigation systems we have today are capable of reliable, repetitive measurements.  Professional GPS systems are accurate to mm.  See online details of designers and users.

What evidence do you have to disagree?

What evidence do you have to support it? What part of what I said was wrong? Are you ever going to give an argument or are you just going to repeat the same inane commentary over and over in almost every thread you post in?
GPS is reliable and accurate.  You need to explain why not,

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #23 on: February 19, 2017, 12:10:24 PM »
Quote
GPS is reliable and accurate.  You need to explain why not,
No, you need to justify your claim that it is 'reliable and accurate.' There is no situation where people would believe in something just because you said so. If you believe the evidence for GPS is strong, then give the issues with the explanation I have previously given. If not, I'm content. If you do not have the evidence to support it, evidence at odds with what I've said, then how do you have an argument?

Why is it you always make such grand demands every time you post, and run away any time you're asked to put a little effort in? Respond for once.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

rabinoz

  • 26311
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #24 on: February 19, 2017, 12:22:12 PM »
Quote
It is not 'my' mapping.  If distances were incorrect it would be widely known, and there is nothing to show the distances known, published, tested and used are incorrect.  As you know.
Why? They'll be accurate enough on the small scale, which is all anyone needs to use. How exactly do you imagine it would be 'widely known' beyond your assertion?
As you know.

The only way you and Rabinoz could make such a claim is with reference to large scale flight with planes etc, but that is fraught with unreliability due to the lack of landmarks and external factors. GPS constantly adjusts based on where you are, given your seeming position there'll be slight changes as you travel, more than enough to cover the small errors over small distances, and cumulatively to do the same over large.
I have claimed that GPS agrees with the all the current maps that we use over the regions I have travelled, both in Australia and in Europe fro my own experience.

Now GPS has no connection to the map or to the ground. All the GPS can do is calculate your lat/long and elevation.

Where have you found your GPS to be in error?

You might watch this video by a commercial airline pilot about the ability of aircraft to fly by GPS positioning alone (they do have INS backup) with no reference to any ground landmarks and come back below the clouds perfectly position for their approach to the correct runway.

Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #25 on: February 19, 2017, 01:27:15 PM »
Putting aside all the nonsense off "the GPS are all lying to us".
Only by looking at the map:
The distance Sydney -  Frankfurt to the distance Sydney -  Johannesburg is 2/3 but the flight time is 3/2 (that very roughly looked at)
That would mean that the flight speed from flight speed from Sydney to Johannesburg would be 2.25times the flight speed from Sydney to Frankfurt.
How do the Feb explain this.

Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #26 on: February 19, 2017, 02:34:02 PM »
Quote
GPS is reliable and accurate.  You need to explain why not,
No, you need to justify your claim that it is 'reliable and accurate.' There is no situation where people would believe in something just because you said so. If you believe the evidence for GPS is strong, then give the issues with the explanation I have previously given. If not, I'm content. If you do not have the evidence to support it, evidence at odds with what I've said, then how do you have an argument?

Why is it you always make such grand demands every time you post, and run away any time you're asked to put a little effort in? Respond for once.
I am not asking 'people' to believe in what I say, I am asking you to look at information on GPS to understand how it works.

Your issues make no sense.  What does 'GPS constantly adjusts' mean?  Adjusts? Why should GPS need landmarks?

See http://www.gps.gov/  and  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #27 on: February 20, 2017, 11:32:42 AM »
No FEer claims to have a map that is any more than a placeholder. I don't use the azimuthal, but even mine I don't claim to be completely accurate. I do not have the resources to map out the entire world, and neither do you. You appeal to pre-measured distances, but you cannot tell me exactly how most were measured, and how many came from assumption. Plane journeys are the only really accurate measure of oversea travel from accessibility and repetition but the error bars are tremendous due to the fact they only give time, and the speed of the plane varies with everything from type of plane to jet streams. Without certainty as to those distances, rather than general figures which you assume match a RE, an accurate map is impossible.
If not, you're just as capable as any of us of mapping it. So get to it. At the very least I'd like to see a feasible method for what you propose.

The exact distances on that map don't matter because it is not accurate and it is not meant to be accurate.

Sure, nothing more than a placeholder, which is why they try to use it when claiming flight distances match a FE map and explain various parts of FET and the like?

You have enough information available to you to easily map out the world.

One starting point is noting times of the sun peak level, when the sun is due north or due south, in many locations around the world, and noting that the sun has to travel 15 degrees an hour.
You can also use pre-measured distances, or measure some yourself.

Or you can try to stitch together photos of Earth without distorting them.

The simple fact is that the reason there is no flat Earth map is because Earth isn't flat.

Quote
It is not 'my' mapping.  If distances were incorrect it would be widely known, and there is nothing to show the distances known, published, tested and used are incorrect.  As you know.
Why? They'll be accurate enough on the small scale, which is all anyone needs to use. How exactly do you imagine it would be 'widely known' beyond your assertion?
As you know.

The only way you and Rabinoz could make such a claim is with reference to large scale flight with planes etc, but that is fraught with unreliability due to the lack of landmarks and external factors. GPS constantly adjusts based on where you are, given your seeming position there'll be slight changes as you travel, more than enough to cover the small errors over small distances, and cumulatively to do the same over large.

No. GPS doesn't adjust based on where you are. The only adjustment that it makes is the time and position, based upon the data it is receiving from the satellites to calculate its position and time. It doesn't set up a different thing for different locations.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #28 on: February 20, 2017, 03:15:41 PM »
Quote
You have enough information available to you to easily map out the world.

One starting point is noting times of the sun peak level, when the sun is due north or due south, in many locations around the world, and noting that the sun has to travel 15 degrees an hour.
You can also use pre-measured distances, or measure some yourself.
Let's just start by noting this absurdity. "You can map out the world yourself." "Use pre-measured distances."
It is not mapping out the world to use an existing map. Can FEers and REers please unite to agree on this? As for measuring them out myself, would love to hear how you plan to do that.

Quote
I am not asking 'people' to believe in what I say, I am asking you to look at information on GPS to understand how it works.

Your issues make no sense.  What does 'GPS constantly adjusts' mean?  Adjusts? Why should GPS need landmarks?
Use a satnav, that's how they work. They run entirely on detecting where you are. When they detect you as being closer to another location, that's where they put you. They don't just note your starting point, and then somehow measure your velocity independently.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Distances on Flat Earth Map
« Reply #29 on: February 20, 2017, 03:39:24 PM »
Quote
You have enough information available to you to easily map out the world.

One starting point is noting times of the sun peak level, when the sun is due north or due south, in many locations around the world, and noting that the sun has to travel 15 degrees an hour.
You can also use pre-measured distances, or measure some yourself.
Let's just start by noting this absurdity. "You can map out the world yourself." "Use pre-measured distances."
It is not mapping out the world to use an existing map. Can FEers and REers please unite to agree on this? As for measuring them out myself, would love to hear how you plan to do that.

Quote
I am not asking 'people' to believe in what I say, I am asking you to look at information on GPS to understand how it works.

Your issues make no sense.  What does 'GPS constantly adjusts' mean?  Adjusts? Why should GPS need landmarks?
Use a satnav, that's how they work. They run entirely on detecting where you are. When they detect you as being closer to another location, that's where they put you. They don't just note your starting point, and then somehow measure your velocity independently.
The satnav will show your actual position as calculated from the GPS data.  Particular satnavs may show a nearest location, but this is unrelated to the received data.

See what a tablet app shows, including the location of the satellites, interesting stuff.

Look up how surveying equipment uses GPS, very accurate and repeatable.  Used across the world.

Did you look at the 2 links I posted?