Width of Countries

If FE is true, and the earth is a disk, then how come Europe is so much bigger that Australia? wouldn't Australia be stretched across the disk making it longer, and Europe squashed making it much smaller? We have accurate measurements showing Europe is much wider that Australia, so how come it looks smaller on the disk map?

If FE is true, and the earth is a disk, then how come Europe is so much bigger that Australia? wouldn't Australia be stretched across the disk making it longer, and Europe squashed making it much smaller? We have accurate measurements showing Europe is much wider that Australia, so how come it looks smaller on the disk map?

I don't believe in a Flat Earth but if you are comparing country sizes on a map/atlas then you are getting Proper Gandered.

Quote from: o866276 on March 30, 2017, 12:39:01 PM

If FE is true, and the earth is a disk, then how come Europe is so much bigger that Australia? wouldn't Australia be stretched across the disk making it longer, and Europe squashed making it much smaller? We have accurate measurements showing Europe is much wider that Australia, so how come it looks smaller on the disk map?

I don't believe in a Flat Earth but if you are comparing country sizes on a map/atlas then you are getting Proper Gandered.

Good atlases, such as "The Times Atlas" are not all that far out, but I have high resolution copies of these maps:
The shapes and dimensions on those survey maps agree quite closely with modern maps, and they certainly make any flat earth map look ridiculous.

I have scaled the width of Australia on the 30° parallel of latitude as 3,643 km and
the width of Australia on the 30° parallel of latitude from Google Earth is 3,666 km, maybe the 1855 map's not bad!
On the North Polar AEP map that distance is about  8,700 km .
I have driven West to East across Australia enough times to know that that figure is rubbish!

Why are you in the Q&A section with your RE stuff?

Why are you in the Q&A section with your RE stuff?

We want answers - we're not getting them in the debate forum - most Flat Earth theorists seem to be afraid to defend themselves in there.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 31, 2017, 08:27:08 AM

Why are you in the Q&A section with your RE stuff?

We want answers - we're not getting them in the debate forum - most Flat Earth theorists seem to be afraid to defend themselves in there.

Who is we, do you have worms?

The Q & A section of the forum is not for debates. People want the FE answers to their questions, posting the RE answers is pointless.

If FE is true, and the earth is a disk, then how come Europe is so much bigger that Australia? wouldn't Australia be stretched across the disk making it longer, and Europe squashed making it much smaller? We have accurate measurements showing Europe is much wider that Australia, so how come it looks smaller on the disk map?

To which map are you referring?  We do not claim that all distances or dimensions are 100% accurate in any map. 

Quote from: Novarus on April 04, 2017, 09:02:12 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 31, 2017, 08:27:08 AM

Why are you in the Q&A section with your RE stuff?

We want answers - we're not getting them in the debate forum - most Flat Earth theorists seem to be afraid to defend themselves in there.

Who is we, do you have worms?

The Q & A section of the forum is not for debates. People want the FE answers to their questions, posting the RE answers is pointless.

Then where are the FE answers?

If FE is true, and the earth is a disk, then how come Europe is so much bigger that Australia? wouldn't Australia be stretched across the disk making it longer, and Europe squashed making it much smaller? We have accurate measurements showing Europe is much wider that Australia, so how come it looks smaller on the disk map?

Open a flat earth map and see how they overlap.

I've got a map 

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

Quote from: Jane on September 01, 2016, 01:50:14 PM

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.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR THE FE!!

Quote from: Jane on November 25, 2016, 10:35:03 AM

I've got a map 

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

Quote from: Jane on September 01, 2016, 01:50:14 PM

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.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR THE FE!!

So now Australia is 3 times the size of the US. THESE MAPS keep getting better and better - I'll have to amend my drivers license to account for my non-euclidean height. I don't quite remember tripling in size when I lie down in Melbourne, but I guess it must be happening.

You didn't use the metric, the map is accurate.

You didn't use the metric, the map is accurate.

And it's such a lovely metric that certainly does work on that map.
Trouble is, it's all well and good to bandy about words like "non-euclidian" because any observer in such a space would perceive it as normal, right?
This makes it a terribly nice idea, but a nicely terrible fact - sure it can be explained, but it can't be proven.

I think if you proposed this to any geophysicist or mathematician, they would be much happier with the statement that "a metre in Toronto is the same distance as a metre in Johannesburg and a metre in Sydney" and so on.

And once again, the Flat Earth theorists can't say math is the instrument of the devil when it proves them wrong and it is the word of Holy messengers when it helps them explain their own models.
Religiously hyperbolic of course, but you get my meaning.

You can't have it both ways.

Yes I can.

Yes I can.

Do all the distance measuring instruments we use know about this "metric"?  Just askin' It is Q&A after all.

Yes.