Flights in the Southern Hemisphere

Flight routing and timings in the southern hermisphere work absolutely perfectly with the globe earth model and maps and with no need for huge conspiracies. Flat earth cannot even begin to come close to modelling how these actual flights that actually happen can occur on anything other than a globe.

Intellectualise all you want, but until a flight can be planned and accurately flown using an FE model, then it is nothing but a completely useless concept.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 12, 2017, 05:03:06 AM

Quote from: Gumwars on October 11, 2017, 12:14:20 PM

Here's the logical distillation of that argument:

1. If the earth is a globe, direct flights from Santiago to Sydney are possible.
2. Direct flights from Santiago to Sydney happen at least 4 times a week.
3. Therefore, the earth is a globe.

I'm sorry to nitpick, but this argument isn't actually correct.  The fact that the Santiago to Sydney flight is possible on a globe doesn't allow the conclusion that the Earth is a globe because it's ignoring any other model on which the flight is also possible.  If the premise were the flights are ONLY possible on a globe it would work, but that premise is unsupportable.

It would be correct to identify that direct flights from Santiago to Sydney are NOT possible if the Earth is flat, then to use their 4 times a week frequency to conclude that the Earth is not flat. 

Again, sorry to be pedantic, but structuring an argument is something FE'ers seem to struggle with, so I try to make sure they're only seeing correct examples.

No worries.  I disagree with your assessment, however.  We've established that a Boeing 747 does not have the range required to make that flight direct using the distance implicated by a flat earth.  In fact, we've established that the most modern commercial airliner lacks the range necessary to make that flight.  For clarity, I'll specify that my argument above is inductive.  To conclude that the earth isn't flat is deductive.

I would be interested in hearing what sort of shapes would work; is the flight possible if the earth is shaped like a cylinder?  A pyramid?  An icosahedron?  I would contend that a globe is the only likely shape where Sydney and Santiago are spaced 7000 miles apart.  However, I do agree that as far as deductive arguments go, that isn't the case with my assertion.

I'd have to actually do the math for all the other shapes that could work to know for sure, but I imagine an icosahedron or octahedron would work.  Obviously a sphere is the only likely shape, especially given the observational and mathematical support holding it up.  But a sphere isn't the only shape possible for that flight, meaning that the existence of that flight can't prove the Earth is a sphere, inductively or deductively.  It would be like saying that it is possible for a fish to be in the ocean, something is in the ocean, therefore it is a fish.  It's just not accurate logically. 

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 07:08:26 AM

Quote from: SpaceCadet on October 12, 2017, 05:39:19 AM

Why do flat earthers, when pushed with distances in the southern hemisphere immediately become defensive and say there is no accurate flat earth map. If you guys truly believe in a flat earth, why haven't you tried to make one? I understand all cartographers are in on the conspiracy and have been for thousands of years. But isn't it about time you put some effort into actually making a map and not just posting Eric Dubay youtube links?

They aren't. Cartographers don't need to confirm the shape of the Earth which they are told to be true.

I mean, if anyone around here knew even slightly how to use a map, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The equidistant azimuthal projection works fine. If it didn't, that would be more of a problem for your model. I love these threads.

I suppose it depends what you mean by 'works fine' really. Because yes, it works great for it's intended purpose. But it sort of fails as any sort of map for uses outside of those.

If you disagree I would love to hear why. But that map is useful for it's specific properties, not really good as a 'catch all' map of the world.

Can you explain in what situation it's not useful?

Quote from: SpaceCadet on October 12, 2017, 05:39:19 AM

Why do flat earthers, when pushed with distances in the southern hemisphere immediately become defensive and say there is no accurate flat earth map. If you guys truly believe in a flat earth, why haven't you tried to make one? I understand all cartographers are in on the conspiracy and have been for thousands of years. But isn't it about time you put some effort into actually making a map and not just posting Eric Dubay youtube links?

They aren't. Cartographers don't need to confirm the shape of the Earth which they are told to be true.

I mean, if anyone around here knew even slightly how to use a map, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The equidistant azimuthal projection works fine. If it didn't, that would be more of a problem for your model. I love these threads.

Are you a cartographer?

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on October 12, 2017, 07:18:34 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 07:08:26 AM

Quote from: SpaceCadet on October 12, 2017, 05:39:19 AM

Why do flat earthers, when pushed with distances in the southern hemisphere immediately become defensive and say there is no accurate flat earth map. If you guys truly believe in a flat earth, why haven't you tried to make one? I understand all cartographers are in on the conspiracy and have been for thousands of years. But isn't it about time you put some effort into actually making a map and not just posting Eric Dubay youtube links?

They aren't. Cartographers don't need to confirm the shape of the Earth which they are told to be true.

I mean, if anyone around here knew even slightly how to use a map, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The equidistant azimuthal projection works fine. If it didn't, that would be more of a problem for your model. I love these threads.

I suppose it depends what you mean by 'works fine' really. Because yes, it works great for it's intended purpose. But it sort of fails as any sort of map for uses outside of those.

If you disagree I would love to hear why. But that map is useful for it's specific properties, not really good as a 'catch all' map of the world.

Can you explain in what situation it's not useful?

There's no proper distance scale that works everywhere. You can't have 1 inch = 1 mile for instance. The *only* distances that map accurately measures are those from the North Pole to another point. If the actual Earth was shaped in that way, there would be all sorts of problems for distances in the South.

What situations do you thinks it's useful for outside of the one it's specifically designed to represent accurately? OK, actually it's a fair enough approximation of the relationship of things, so long as one accepts/understands/utilizes the fact that it's a projection of a globe. But as a flat Earth map it doesn't really work.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 11:48:11 AM

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on October 12, 2017, 07:18:34 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 07:08:26 AM

Quote from: SpaceCadet on October 12, 2017, 05:39:19 AM

Why do flat earthers, when pushed with distances in the southern hemisphere immediately become defensive and say there is no accurate flat earth map. If you guys truly believe in a flat earth, why haven't you tried to make one? I understand all cartographers are in on the conspiracy and have been for thousands of years. But isn't it about time you put some effort into actually making a map and not just posting Eric Dubay youtube links?

They aren't. Cartographers don't need to confirm the shape of the Earth which they are told to be true.

I mean, if anyone around here knew even slightly how to use a map, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The equidistant azimuthal projection works fine. If it didn't, that would be more of a problem for your model. I love these threads.

I suppose it depends what you mean by 'works fine' really. Because yes, it works great for it's intended purpose. But it sort of fails as any sort of map for uses outside of those.

If you disagree I would love to hear why. But that map is useful for it's specific properties, not really good as a 'catch all' map of the world.

Can you explain in what situation it's not useful?

There's no proper distance scale that works everywhere. You can't have 1 inch = 1 mile for instance. The *only* distances that map accurately measures are those from the North Pole to another point. If the actual Earth was shaped in that way, there would be all sorts of problems for distances in the South.

What situations do you thinks it's useful for outside of the one it's specifically designed to represent accurately? OK, actually it's a fair enough approximation of the relationship of things, so long as one accepts/understands/utilizes the fact that it's a projection of a globe. But as a flat Earth map it doesn't really work.

If you know how to use a map properly, you don't have to have a distance scale.

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on October 12, 2017, 12:04:55 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 11:48:11 AM

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on October 12, 2017, 07:18:34 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 07:08:26 AM

Quote from: SpaceCadet on October 12, 2017, 05:39:19 AM

Why do flat earthers, when pushed with distances in the southern hemisphere immediately become defensive and say there is no accurate flat earth map. If you guys truly believe in a flat earth, why haven't you tried to make one? I understand all cartographers are in on the conspiracy and have been for thousands of years. But isn't it about time you put some effort into actually making a map and not just posting Eric Dubay youtube links?

They aren't. Cartographers don't need to confirm the shape of the Earth which they are told to be true.

I mean, if anyone around here knew even slightly how to use a map, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The equidistant azimuthal projection works fine. If it didn't, that would be more of a problem for your model. I love these threads.

I suppose it depends what you mean by 'works fine' really. Because yes, it works great for it's intended purpose. But it sort of fails as any sort of map for uses outside of those.

If you disagree I would love to hear why. But that map is useful for it's specific properties, not really good as a 'catch all' map of the world.

Can you explain in what situation it's not useful?

There's no proper distance scale that works everywhere. You can't have 1 inch = 1 mile for instance. The *only* distances that map accurately measures are those from the North Pole to another point. If the actual Earth was shaped in that way, there would be all sorts of problems for distances in the South.

What situations do you thinks it's useful for outside of the one it's specifically designed to represent accurately? OK, actually it's a fair enough approximation of the relationship of things, so long as one accepts/understands/utilizes the fact that it's a projection of a globe. But as a flat Earth map it doesn't really work.

If you know how to use a map properly, you don't have to have a distance scale.

Um...wouldn't it just be easier to come out and admit you have no idea what you're talking about instead of implying it and forcing people to infer it?

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on October 12, 2017, 12:04:55 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 11:48:11 AM

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on October 12, 2017, 07:18:34 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 07:08:26 AM

Quote from: SpaceCadet on October 12, 2017, 05:39:19 AM

Why do flat earthers, when pushed with distances in the southern hemisphere immediately become defensive and say there is no accurate flat earth map. If you guys truly believe in a flat earth, why haven't you tried to make one? I understand all cartographers are in on the conspiracy and have been for thousands of years. But isn't it about time you put some effort into actually making a map and not just posting Eric Dubay youtube links?

They aren't. Cartographers don't need to confirm the shape of the Earth which they are told to be true.

I mean, if anyone around here knew even slightly how to use a map, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The equidistant azimuthal projection works fine. If it didn't, that would be more of a problem for your model. I love these threads.

I suppose it depends what you mean by 'works fine' really. Because yes, it works great for it's intended purpose. But it sort of fails as any sort of map for uses outside of those.

If you disagree I would love to hear why. But that map is useful for it's specific properties, not really good as a 'catch all' map of the world.

Can you explain in what situation it's not useful?

There's no proper distance scale that works everywhere. You can't have 1 inch = 1 mile for instance. The *only* distances that map accurately measures are those from the North Pole to another point. If the actual Earth was shaped in that way, there would be all sorts of problems for distances in the South.

What situations do you thinks it's useful for outside of the one it's specifically designed to represent accurately? OK, actually it's a fair enough approximation of the relationship of things, so long as one accepts/understands/utilizes the fact that it's a projection of a globe. But as a flat Earth map it doesn't really work.

If you know how to use a map properly, you don't have to have a distance scale.

No, it depends on what you want to use the map *for*. The AEP is a projection. So long as you understand that, you can use it just fine. But it's not a literal/exact showcase of the Earth. Once again, it's a fine map for what it's designed for, that being showing a rough approximation of the world (as all global maps do) and making every distance from the North pole to somewhere else correct.

What exactly are you proposing to do with this map that you think those limitations don't matter? Just saying "If you know what you're doing you're fine" is pretty much a tautology and definitely a worthless statement in this context.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 12:48:30 PM

If you know how to use a map properly, you don't have to have a distance scale.

Um...wouldn't it just be easier to come out and admit you have no idea what you're talking about instead of implying it and forcing people to infer it?

Is this a fancy way of you admitting you don't know how to use a map?

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 12:48:30 PM

If you know how to use a map properly, you don't have to have a distance scale.

No, it depends on what you want to use the map *for*. The AEP is a projection. So long as you understand that, you can use it just fine. But it's not a literal/exact showcase of the Earth. Once again, it's a fine map for what it's designed for, that being showing a rough approximation of the world (as all global maps do) and making every distance from the North pole to somewhere else correct.

What exactly are you proposing to do with this map that you think those limitations don't matter? Just saying "If you know what you're doing you're fine" is pretty much a tautology and definitely a worthless statement in this context.

A map only really serves one basic purpose. It's useful for that purpose.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 12, 2017, 01:27:11 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 12:48:30 PM

If you know how to use a map properly, you don't have to have a distance scale.

Um...wouldn't it just be easier to come out and admit you have no idea what you're talking about instead of implying it and forcing people to infer it?

Is this a fancy way of you admitting you don't know how to use a map?

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on October 12, 2017, 01:35:10 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 12:48:30 PM

If you know how to use a map properly, you don't have to have a distance scale.

No, it depends on what you want to use the map *for*. The AEP is a projection. So long as you understand that, you can use it just fine. But it's not a literal/exact showcase of the Earth. Once again, it's a fine map for what it's designed for, that being showing a rough approximation of the world (as all global maps do) and making every distance from the North pole to somewhere else correct.

What exactly are you proposing to do with this map that you think those limitations don't matter? Just saying "If you know what you're doing you're fine" is pretty much a tautology and definitely a worthless statement in this context.

A map only really serves one basic purpose. It's useful for that purpose.

So is the one basic purpose of a map navigation, to show geographical features, topography, political boundaries, land use, weather patterns, ocean currents, animal migrations, shipping lanes, air traffic corridors, roads, railways, or any one of the dozens of things I didn't think of off the top of my head?

Please, inform us which of those is the "one basic purpose".  Jackass.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 03:08:28 PM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 12, 2017, 01:27:11 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 12:48:30 PM

If you know how to use a map properly, you don't have to have a distance scale.

Um...wouldn't it just be easier to come out and admit you have no idea what you're talking about instead of implying it and forcing people to infer it?

Is this a fancy way of you admitting you don't know how to use a map?

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on October 12, 2017, 01:35:10 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 12:48:30 PM

If you know how to use a map properly, you don't have to have a distance scale.

No, it depends on what you want to use the map *for*. The AEP is a projection. So long as you understand that, you can use it just fine. But it's not a literal/exact showcase of the Earth. Once again, it's a fine map for what it's designed for, that being showing a rough approximation of the world (as all global maps do) and making every distance from the North pole to somewhere else correct.

What exactly are you proposing to do with this map that you think those limitations don't matter? Just saying "If you know what you're doing you're fine" is pretty much a tautology and definitely a worthless statement in this context.

A map only really serves one basic purpose. It's useful for that purpose.

So is the one basic purpose of a map navigation, to show geographical features, topography, political boundaries, land use, weather patterns, ocean currents, animal migrations, shipping lanes, air traffic corridors, roads, railways, or any one of the dozens of things I didn't think of off the top of my head?

Please, inform us which of those is the "one basic purpose".  Jackass.

To show where stuff is.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 12, 2017, 03:23:05 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 03:08:28 PM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 12, 2017, 01:27:11 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 12:48:30 PM

If you know how to use a map properly, you don't have to have a distance scale.

Um...wouldn't it just be easier to come out and admit you have no idea what you're talking about instead of implying it and forcing people to infer it?

Is this a fancy way of you admitting you don't know how to use a map?

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on October 12, 2017, 01:35:10 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 12:48:30 PM

If you know how to use a map properly, you don't have to have a distance scale.

No, it depends on what you want to use the map *for*. The AEP is a projection. So long as you understand that, you can use it just fine. But it's not a literal/exact showcase of the Earth. Once again, it's a fine map for what it's designed for, that being showing a rough approximation of the world (as all global maps do) and making every distance from the North pole to somewhere else correct.

What exactly are you proposing to do with this map that you think those limitations don't matter? Just saying "If you know what you're doing you're fine" is pretty much a tautology and definitely a worthless statement in this context.

A map only really serves one basic purpose. It's useful for that purpose.

So is the one basic purpose of a map navigation, to show geographical features, topography, political boundaries, land use, weather patterns, ocean currents, animal migrations, shipping lanes, air traffic corridors, roads, railways, or any one of the dozens of things I didn't think of off the top of my head?

Please, inform us which of those is the "one basic purpose".  Jackass.

To show where stuff is.

Well it's no wonder FE'ers can't build a map when that is the level of sophistication you bring to the process.  /slowclap

If you know how to use a map properly, you don't have to have a distance scale.

No it is only if the earth were flat that "you don't have to have a distance scale".
Were the earth flat, then any map need be just a scale representation of the flat earth with the same scale factor everywhere.

But when mapping the globe it is not possible to make a flat map that has the same scale factor all over the map.

You might read a bit on the topic:
      UTM - Universal Transverse Mercator
      Geographic Information Systems Stack Exchange, Influence of the scale factor on the projection
      Geographic Information Systems Stack Exchange, Evaluating map projection scale error

Though even on an area the size of say Australia or the USA the variation in scale factor on a projection as a secant projection can be quite small.
See: Penn State, Dept of Geography, GPS and GNSS for Geospatial Professionals, Decreasing Distortion

Such a pity that the earth is not flat. It would make many things so much simpler, but facts are facts, so we live with it!

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 12:48:30 PM

If you know how to use a map properly, you don't have to have a distance scale.

No it is only if the earth were flat that "you don't have to have a distance scale".
Were the earth flat, then any map need be just a scale representation of the flat earth with the same scale factor everywhere.

But when mapping the globe it is not possible to make a flat map that has the same scale factor all over the map.

You might read a bit on the topic:
      UTM - Universal Transverse Mercator
      Geographic Information Systems Stack Exchange, Influence of the scale factor on the projection
      Geographic Information Systems Stack Exchange, Evaluating map projection scale error

Though even on an area the size of say Australia or the USA the variation in scale factor on a projection as a secant projection can be quite small.
See: Penn State, Dept of Geography, GPS and GNSS for Geospatial Professionals, Decreasing Distortion

Such a pity that the earth is not flat. It would make many things so much simpler, but facts are facts, so we live with it!

Any map has a built in distance scale. It's in degrees.

Any map has a built in distance scale. It's in degrees.

No, the connection between locations specified in degrees of latitude/longitude depends on the shape.

The number of kilometers per degree of latitude on the Globe is quite close to being constant:

What Is the Distance Between a Degree of Latitude and Longitude?
WHAT IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN DEGREES OF LATITUDE?
Each degree of latitude is approximately 69 miles (111 kilometers) apart.

• At the equator, the distance is 68.703 miles (110.567 kilometers).
• At the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn (23.5° north and south), the distance is 68.94 miles (110.948 kilometers).
• At each of the poles, the distance is 69.407 miles (111.699 kilometers).

From: What Is the Distance Between a Degree of Latitude and Longitude?

The average is 111.13 km/°, so for most purposes 111 km/° is quite close enough.

On the "Ice-Wall" map the overall diameter we are told that "the figure of 24,900 miles is the diameter of the known world".
This spans 360° of latitude, so each degree averages 69.2 miles/° or 111.31 km/°, close enough to 69 miles/° or 111 km/°.

But the size if a degree of longitude varies widely depending on the latitude. This is true on both the Globe and "Ice-Wall" map.
On the Globe, one degree of longitude corresponds to:

WHAT IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN DEGREES OF LONGITUDE?
Unlike latitude, the distance between degrees of longitude varies greatly. They are farthest apart at the equator and converge at the poles.

• A degree of longitude is widest at the equator with a distance of 69.172 miles (111.321 kilometers).
• At 40° north or south*, the distance between a degree of longitude is 53 miles (85 kilometers).
• The distance gradually shrinks to zero as they meet at the poles.

From: What Is the Distance Between a Degree of Latitude and Longitude?

Calculating the distance on a sphere between two locations with known lat/long in degrees is not all that simple, but it is a straightforward calculation.

But on the Ice-Wall map the distance varies linearly from:

• zero at the North Pole,
• 87 km/° at 45° N,
• 175 km/° at the equator,
• 262 km/° at -45° and
• 350 km/° at the "Ice-Rim".

Simply knowing the latitude and longitude of locations does not enable distances to be calculated. The shape of the earth is also necessary.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 03:37:36 PM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 12, 2017, 03:23:05 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 03:08:28 PM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 12, 2017, 01:27:11 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 12:48:30 PM

If you know how to use a map properly, you don't have to have a distance scale.

Um...wouldn't it just be easier to come out and admit you have no idea what you're talking about instead of implying it and forcing people to infer it?

Is this a fancy way of you admitting you don't know how to use a map?

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on October 12, 2017, 01:35:10 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 12:48:30 PM

If you know how to use a map properly, you don't have to have a distance scale.

No, it depends on what you want to use the map *for*. The AEP is a projection. So long as you understand that, you can use it just fine. But it's not a literal/exact showcase of the Earth. Once again, it's a fine map for what it's designed for, that being showing a rough approximation of the world (as all global maps do) and making every distance from the North pole to somewhere else correct.

What exactly are you proposing to do with this map that you think those limitations don't matter? Just saying "If you know what you're doing you're fine" is pretty much a tautology and definitely a worthless statement in this context.

A map only really serves one basic purpose. It's useful for that purpose.

So is the one basic purpose of a map navigation, to show geographical features, topography, political boundaries, land use, weather patterns, ocean currents, animal migrations, shipping lanes, air traffic corridors, roads, railways, or any one of the dozens of things I didn't think of off the top of my head?

Please, inform us which of those is the "one basic purpose".  Jackass.

To show where stuff is.

Well it's no wonder FE'ers can't build a map when that is the level of sophistication you bring to the process.  /slowclap

Simple is good. Sorry you like to complicate things.

Simple is good. Sorry you like to complicate things.

Only if simple works!
I too like simple and with the flat earth the only simple bit is "the earth looks flat". From there on everything seems to need magic.

But, we are all waiting for your simple flat earth map that shows correct distances.
If you really like to examine the topic carefully, it is relatively easy to check the distance corresponding to a degree of longitude.

Flat earth maps are so far out that no great precision is needed.

The only assumption is that the sun moves at a constant rate (on the flat earth) around the earth. The Wiki assumes that when it tells how to find longitude:

Finding your Latitude and Longitude
Longitude
To find your longitude you just need to know how many hours apart you are from Greenwich, UK and a vertical stick to know when the sun is at its zenith over your present location.

And measuring the distance on any road that runs predominantly east-west is good enough for the distance.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 12, 2017, 03:50:43 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 03:37:36 PM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 12, 2017, 03:23:05 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 03:08:28 PM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 12, 2017, 01:27:11 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 12:48:30 PM

If you know how to use a map properly, you don't have to have a distance scale.

Um...wouldn't it just be easier to come out and admit you have no idea what you're talking about instead of implying it and forcing people to infer it?

Is this a fancy way of you admitting you don't know how to use a map?

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on October 12, 2017, 01:35:10 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 12:48:30 PM

If you know how to use a map properly, you don't have to have a distance scale.

No, it depends on what you want to use the map *for*. The AEP is a projection. So long as you understand that, you can use it just fine. But it's not a literal/exact showcase of the Earth. Once again, it's a fine map for what it's designed for, that being showing a rough approximation of the world (as all global maps do) and making every distance from the North pole to somewhere else correct.

What exactly are you proposing to do with this map that you think those limitations don't matter? Just saying "If you know what you're doing you're fine" is pretty much a tautology and definitely a worthless statement in this context.

A map only really serves one basic purpose. It's useful for that purpose.

So is the one basic purpose of a map navigation, to show geographical features, topography, political boundaries, land use, weather patterns, ocean currents, animal migrations, shipping lanes, air traffic corridors, roads, railways, or any one of the dozens of things I didn't think of off the top of my head?

Please, inform us which of those is the "one basic purpose".  Jackass.

To show where stuff is.

Well it's no wonder FE'ers can't build a map when that is the level of sophistication you bring to the process.  /slowclap

Simple is good. Sorry you like to complicate things.

Simple is fine, but "showing where stuff is" isn't adequate to meet all of the needs that people have in mapping.  I gave you a small list above, and simply "showing where stuff is" won't get the job done on most of them. 

Simple is good.  Oversimplification is bad. 

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 12, 2017, 03:50:43 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 03:37:36 PM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 12, 2017, 03:23:05 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 03:08:28 PM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 12, 2017, 01:27:11 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 12:48:30 PM

If you know how to use a map properly, you don't have to have a distance scale.

Um...wouldn't it just be easier to come out and admit you have no idea what you're talking about instead of implying it and forcing people to infer it?

Is this a fancy way of you admitting you don't know how to use a map?

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on October 12, 2017, 01:35:10 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 12:48:30 PM

If you know how to use a map properly, you don't have to have a distance scale.

No, it depends on what you want to use the map *for*. The AEP is a projection. So long as you understand that, you can use it just fine. But it's not a literal/exact showcase of the Earth. Once again, it's a fine map for what it's designed for, that being showing a rough approximation of the world (as all global maps do) and making every distance from the North pole to somewhere else correct.

What exactly are you proposing to do with this map that you think those limitations don't matter? Just saying "If you know what you're doing you're fine" is pretty much a tautology and definitely a worthless statement in this context.

A map only really serves one basic purpose. It's useful for that purpose.

So is the one basic purpose of a map navigation, to show geographical features, topography, political boundaries, land use, weather patterns, ocean currents, animal migrations, shipping lanes, air traffic corridors, roads, railways, or any one of the dozens of things I didn't think of off the top of my head?

Please, inform us which of those is the "one basic purpose".  Jackass.

To show where stuff is.

Well it's no wonder FE'ers can't build a map when that is the level of sophistication you bring to the process.  /slowclap

Simple is good. Sorry you like to complicate things.

You are quite clearly not a cartographer but demonstrably either dishonest or an idiot, possibly both.  Good work not answering anything.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 07:28:10 PM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 12, 2017, 03:50:43 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 03:37:36 PM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 12, 2017, 03:23:05 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 03:08:28 PM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on October 12, 2017, 01:27:11 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 12:48:30 PM

If you know how to use a map properly, you don't have to have a distance scale.

Um...wouldn't it just be easier to come out and admit you have no idea what you're talking about instead of implying it and forcing people to infer it?

Is this a fancy way of you admitting you don't know how to use a map?

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on October 12, 2017, 01:35:10 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 12:48:30 PM

If you know how to use a map properly, you don't have to have a distance scale.

No, it depends on what you want to use the map *for*. The AEP is a projection. So long as you understand that, you can use it just fine. But it's not a literal/exact showcase of the Earth. Once again, it's a fine map for what it's designed for, that being showing a rough approximation of the world (as all global maps do) and making every distance from the North pole to somewhere else correct.

What exactly are you proposing to do with this map that you think those limitations don't matter? Just saying "If you know what you're doing you're fine" is pretty much a tautology and definitely a worthless statement in this context.

A map only really serves one basic purpose. It's useful for that purpose.

So is the one basic purpose of a map navigation, to show geographical features, topography, political boundaries, land use, weather patterns, ocean currents, animal migrations, shipping lanes, air traffic corridors, roads, railways, or any one of the dozens of things I didn't think of off the top of my head?

Please, inform us which of those is the "one basic purpose".  Jackass.

To show where stuff is.

Well it's no wonder FE'ers can't build a map when that is the level of sophistication you bring to the process.  /slowclap

Simple is good. Sorry you like to complicate things.

You are quite clearly not a cartographer but demonstrably either dishonest or an idiot, possibly both.  Good work not answering anything.

Where was I dishonest? I answered every question.

Quote from: SpaceCadet on October 12, 2017, 05:39:19 AM

Why do flat earthers, when pushed with distances in the southern hemisphere immediately become defensive and say there is no accurate flat earth map. If you guys truly believe in a flat earth, why haven't you tried to make one? I understand all cartographers are in on the conspiracy and have been for thousands of years. But isn't it about time you put some effort into actually making a map and not just posting Eric Dubay youtube links?

They aren't. Cartographers don't need to confirm the shape of the Earth which they are told to be true.

I mean, if anyone around here knew even slightly how to use a map, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The equidistant azimuthal projection works fine. If it didn't, that would be more of a problem for your model. I love these threads.

Let's start with the dishonest BS.  Do you know how to use an equidistant azimuthal projection?  Do you know what its primarily used for?  I can tell you with certainty it isn't navigation; you would need to know what the rate of conversion is for each latitude represented on the map.  Also, this presentation:



Is used to create a 2D image from a 3D sphere.  So, dishonest?  Yes.  Did you answer any questions about what is being discussed here?  No. 

The issue is that NOWHERE in the FES archives does it state that the Gleason map is anything other than the "true" to scale representation of what a flat earth looks like.  We've gone over the matter ad nauseam and you casually chime in that we've been reading the map wrong?

So, without deflection or redirect, please answer the following question:

Are you stating that the Gleason map and the equidistant azimuthal projection are the same?

Quote from: SpaceCadet on October 12, 2017, 05:39:19 AM

Why do flat earthers, when pushed with distances in the southern hemisphere immediately become defensive and say there is no accurate flat earth map. If you guys truly believe in a flat earth, why haven't you tried to make one? I understand all cartographers are in on the conspiracy and have been for thousands of years. But isn't it about time you put some effort into actually making a map and not just posting Eric Dubay youtube links?

They aren't. Cartographers don't need to confirm the shape of the Earth which they are told to be true.

I mean, if anyone around here knew even slightly how to use a map, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The equidistant azimuthal projection works fine. If it didn't, that would be more of a problem for your model. I love these threads.

If you "love these threads", what about being a little constructive and presenting some flat earth ideas?

Sure, "The equidistant azimuthal projection works fine" for its intended purpose.

Azimuthal equidistant projection

The azimuthal equidistant projection is an azimuthal map projection. It has the useful properties that all points on the map are at proportionately correct distances from the center point, and that all points on the map are at the correct azimuth (direction) from the center point. A useful application for this type of projection is a polar projection which shows all meridians (lines of longitude) as straight, with distances from the pole represented correctly. The flag of the United Nations contains an example of a polar azimuthal equidistant projection.

Note that distances from the centre (North Pole in Ice-Wall map) scale correctly, but in general other distances suffer scale distortion.
One of the common applications of the AEP is by radio "Hams" and other long distance radio transmitters, An AEP map centred on the transmitter location will give the correct azimuth and distance to any location on earth. That is why I use NS6T, Request an Azimuthal Map to generate custiom AEP maps, such as:
On the Ice-Wall flat earth map, only North-South distances always scale correctly.
As has been pointed out numerous times East-West distances get increasing scale errors when progressing for the North Pole to the South Pole/Edge.

So the North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection is a terrible flat earth map, but it seems the best you have.

Few flat earthers are prepared to face the simple facts that we know the latitude/longitude coordinates of all major locations on earth and we know the distances between them.

If you claim that the distances are unknown, they can be ascertained approximately from the many direct intercontinental air-route flying times.

The distance errors in any flat earth map, possibly with the exception of JRowe's DET, are so bad that no great accuracy is needed to show that they cannot be correct.

So, where is this Flat Earth Map? I claim such a map is impossible, please try to prove me wrong!

Round earth charts work perfectly and are proven to work thousands of times daily for flights. FE charts/maps are non existent. Impossible to produce. The best efforts to date have simply been some sort of round earth projection. This alone has to tell you FE is bollocks?

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 07:08:26 AM

Quote from: SpaceCadet on October 12, 2017, 05:39:19 AM

Why do flat earthers, when pushed with distances in the southern hemisphere immediately become defensive and say there is no accurate flat earth map. If you guys truly believe in a flat earth, why haven't you tried to make one? I understand all cartographers are in on the conspiracy and have been for thousands of years. But isn't it about time you put some effort into actually making a map and not just posting Eric Dubay youtube links?

They aren't. Cartographers don't need to confirm the shape of the Earth which they are told to be true.

I mean, if anyone around here knew even slightly how to use a map, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The equidistant azimuthal projection works fine. If it didn't, that would be more of a problem for your model. I love these threads.

If you "love these threads", what about being a little constructive and presenting some flat earth ideas?

Sure, "The equidistant azimuthal projection works fine" for its intended purpose.

Quote from: Wikipedia

Azimuthal equidistant projection

The azimuthal equidistant projection is an azimuthal map projection. It has the useful properties that all points on the map are at proportionately correct distances from the center point, and that all points on the map are at the correct azimuth (direction) from the center point. A useful application for this type of projection is a polar projection which shows all meridians (lines of longitude) as straight, with distances from the pole represented correctly. The flag of the United Nations contains an example of a polar azimuthal equidistant projection.

So what you're saying is, sometimes we need maps that do more than "show where stuff is"?  Because I heard somewhere that "to show where stuff is" is the "one basic purpose" of mapping, and that no distance scale is required (WTF, seriously) to "use a map properly". 

If someone should ever make claims like that again, I might refer them to your post for some education.

Quote from: SpaceCadet on October 12, 2017, 05:39:19 AM

Why do flat earthers, when pushed with distances in the southern hemisphere immediately become defensive and say there is no accurate flat earth map. If you guys truly believe in a flat earth, why haven't you tried to make one? I understand all cartographers are in on the conspiracy and have been for thousands of years. But isn't it about time you put some effort into actually making a map and not just posting Eric Dubay youtube links?

They aren't. Cartographers don't need to confirm the shape of the Earth which they are told to be true.

Umm..  Are you sure that you understand what cartographers do?

I mean, if anyone around here knew even slightly how to use a map, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The equidistant azimuthal projection works fine. If it didn't, that would be more of a problem for your model. I love these threads.

If FE'ers knew even slightly how to use a map then they would realize that azimuthal projection is far more of a problem for the FE model than for the RE model.  I have no idea why FE'ers even bother with it.

Has anyone ever considered what the sea route on the flat earth map would be for a ship to go from San Diego, California to Yokosuka, Japan ?

It looks like it would be via Alaska and  Siberia ?

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 07:08:26 AM

Quote from: SpaceCadet on October 12, 2017, 05:39:19 AM

Why do flat earthers, when pushed with distances in the southern hemisphere immediately become defensive and say there is no accurate flat earth map. If you guys truly believe in a flat earth, why haven't you tried to make one? I understand all cartographers are in on the conspiracy and have been for thousands of years. But isn't it about time you put some effort into actually making a map and not just posting Eric Dubay youtube links?

They aren't. Cartographers don't need to confirm the shape of the Earth which they are told to be true.

Umm..  Are you sure that you understand what cartographers do?

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 07:08:26 AM

I mean, if anyone around here knew even slightly how to use a map, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The equidistant azimuthal projection works fine. If it didn't, that would be more of a problem for your model. I love these threads.

If FE'ers knew even slightly how to use a map then they would realize that azimuthal projection is far more of a problem for the FE model than for the RE model.  I have no idea why FE'ers even bother with it.

I do. Cartographers don't go to space to make maps.

I don't bother with it. I try to tell people not to bother with it and it's just a globular projection, yet they seem to never listen.

Quote from: markjo on October 13, 2017, 06:48:33 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 07:08:26 AM

Quote from: SpaceCadet on October 12, 2017, 05:39:19 AM

Why do flat earthers, when pushed with distances in the southern hemisphere immediately become defensive and say there is no accurate flat earth map. If you guys truly believe in a flat earth, why haven't you tried to make one? I understand all cartographers are in on the conspiracy and have been for thousands of years. But isn't it about time you put some effort into actually making a map and not just posting Eric Dubay youtube links?

They aren't. Cartographers don't need to confirm the shape of the Earth which they are told to be true.

Umm..  Are you sure that you understand what cartographers do?

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 07:08:26 AM

I mean, if anyone around here knew even slightly how to use a map, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The equidistant azimuthal projection works fine. If it didn't, that would be more of a problem for your model. I love these threads.

If FE'ers knew even slightly how to use a map then they would realize that azimuthal projection is far more of a problem for the FE model than for the RE model.  I have no idea why FE'ers even bother with it.

I do. Cartographers don't go to space to make maps.

No, but they do use satellite imagery to make more accurate and up to date maps.

I don't bother with it. I try to tell people not to bother with it and it's just a globular projection, yet they seem to never listen.

So you flat earthers claim that the earth is flat, but you have no idea as to its basic shape.

Those that believe the earth is a Globe have had maps for many centuries and I understand that the first to publish the AEP map was Al Biruni of Persia.

               Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (polar aspect)
  Creator Abū Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī (1000 approx.)
    Group Azimuthal
Property Equidistant

From: Compare Map Projections, Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (polar aspect)

But don't blame us for the majority of flat earthers choosing a bad falt earth map.
Ever thought of that simple solution to your dilemma.

Quote from: markjo on October 13, 2017, 06:48:33 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 07:08:26 AM

Quote from: SpaceCadet on October 12, 2017, 05:39:19 AM

Why do flat earthers, when pushed with distances in the southern hemisphere immediately become defensive and say there is no accurate flat earth map. If you guys truly believe in a flat earth, why haven't you tried to make one? I understand all cartographers are in on the conspiracy and have been for thousands of years. But isn't it about time you put some effort into actually making a map and not just posting Eric Dubay youtube links?

They aren't. Cartographers don't need to confirm the shape of the Earth which they are told to be true.

Umm..  Are you sure that you understand what cartographers do?

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 12, 2017, 07:08:26 AM

I mean, if anyone around here knew even slightly how to use a map, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The equidistant azimuthal projection works fine. If it didn't, that would be more of a problem for your model. I love these threads.

If FE'ers knew even slightly how to use a map then they would realize that azimuthal projection is far more of a problem for the FE model than for the RE model.  I have no idea why FE'ers even bother with it.

I do. Cartographers don't go to space to make maps.

I don't bother with it. I try to tell people not to bother with it and it's just a globular projection, yet they seem to never listen.

Meaning you know the earth is flat but have no idea what it looks like but you are sure any illustration brought by anyone is wrong but you don't know what the real earth looks like.

Got it.

Guys, this fellow is either a troll, very ignorant or both.