# Flat Map in Google Map

• 139 Replies
• 32245 Views

#### JackBlack

• 22873
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #30 on: July 09, 2019, 04:10:03 AM »
Your baseless claiming me being wrong
It isn't a baseless claim.
It is a fact which I have backed up.

The values you were using were accurate to 0.01 km.
The error you obtained was incorrect as it was based upon incorrect math.
The actual error between pretending Earth is flat and using the RE distances from google was 0.87 km. This is well above the error limit of 0.01 km.
The error from a much larger area was 15.30 km. Again, this is well above the error limit.

If we instead treat Earth as round, we get errors of 0.001 km and 0.002 km. This is below the error limit of 0.01 km.

This shows that Google is not using FE distances.

You ignoring this fact and ignoring these errors won't magically make them go away.

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 26054
• Soul Transformer
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #31 on: July 09, 2019, 04:19:37 AM »
Your baseless claiming me being wrong
It isn't a baseless claim.
It is a fact which I have backed up.

The values you were using were accurate to 0.01 km.
The error you obtained was incorrect as it was based upon incorrect math.
The actual error between pretending Earth is flat and using the RE distances from google was 0.87 km. This is well above the error limit of 0.01 km.
The error from a much larger area was 15.30 km. Again, this is well above the error limit.

If we instead treat Earth as round, we get errors of 0.001 km and 0.002 km. This is below the error limit of 0.01 km.

This shows that Google is not using FE distances.

You ignoring this fact and ignoring these errors won't magically make them go away.
Error limit isn't 0.01 km. It is the limit in your brain / or CPU. you cannot write a length directly in nature as an error limit. because this length does not matter according to the calculated size. The value you write means 10 meters. for example, if you take a tour around the equator and find it 20 kilometers in length, a 20-kilometer error is a reasonable mistake compared 40.000kms . But if you're building a football field, it would be disastrous to make a 10-meter mistake. Are you building a football field? you have nothing to do with scientific thought from afar. repeating the same wrong things doesn't magically make them right. It just proves you are in a cave of ignorancy denying to learn anything at all.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Ignored:
Jura2
Bulma

I知 I a globalist AI.

?

#### inquisitive

• 5108
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #32 on: July 09, 2019, 04:31:02 AM »
<blabbing>
If you want to talk about other thread then write on other thread. Stop blabbing. I had banned and constantly targeted by angry globularists prevent me answer all of you, because I have my own life and job. I can't spend all my time your childish questions. I am only writing the issues whih I see it deserves to it. I am not unemployed like you angry globularists, thanks God. Since The earth is flat hence google is using flat map.
Explained here.  https://support.esri.com/en/technical-article/000009982

Google Maps and Microsoft Virtual Earth use a Mercator projection based on the World Geodetic System (WGS) 1984 geographic coordinate system (datum). This Mercator projection supports spheres only

Nope. Do not make word salad. Supporting something and using something without paying its copyright is different things. Mercador projection is using flat map datas without paying and supporting the spheres. Mercador should to shame on itself.
This is fact, it is how all maps are made.
Wrong. I made a map completely free of other maps only by using aircraft flight times.
which did not use flights in the southern hemisphere and is hardly a way of mapping the earth in detail.

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 26054
• Soul Transformer
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #33 on: July 09, 2019, 04:35:31 AM »
<blabbing>
If you want to talk about other thread then write on other thread. Stop blabbing. I had banned and constantly targeted by angry globularists prevent me answer all of you, because I have my own life and job. I can't spend all my time your childish questions. I am only writing the issues whih I see it deserves to it. I am not unemployed like you angry globularists, thanks God. Since The earth is flat hence google is using flat map.
Explained here.  https://support.esri.com/en/technical-article/000009982

Google Maps and Microsoft Virtual Earth use a Mercator projection based on the World Geodetic System (WGS) 1984 geographic coordinate system (datum). This Mercator projection supports spheres only

Nope. Do not make word salad. Supporting something and using something without paying its copyright is different things. Mercador projection is using flat map datas without paying and supporting the spheres. Mercador should to shame on itself.
This is fact, it is how all maps are made.
Wrong. I made a map completely free of other maps only by using aircraft flight times.
which did not use flights in the southern hemisphere and is hardly a way of mapping the earth in detail.
All southern hemiplane has placed with all of the verified flights. Sorry, do not remind me hoax routes. I am enough adult till to don't get them.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Ignored:
Jura2
Bulma

I知 I a globalist AI.

#### JackBlack

• 22873
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #34 on: July 09, 2019, 04:38:20 AM »
Error limit isn't 0.01 km.
That is the accuracy of the values.
As such, that is the "error limit" (or close to it).

you cannot write a length directly in nature as an error limit.
Yes you can.
You not liking absolute error doesn't mean it doesn't exit.
Plenty of things have such an error.
A good calibrated scale has an absolute error, based upon the precision of the display. The same applies to a thermometer or a rule.
I have a set of calipers that can accurately read up to 15 cm to an accuracy greater than 0.2 mm.

The error will depend upon what you are using to measure the value.
If you use something extremely error prone like flight times you will get massive errors.
If you use GPS or proper surveying equipment, you will get much smaller errors, even over very long distances.

So no, the "error limit" is roughly 0.01 km.
Even if I am generous and increase it to 0.1 km, the errors are still much larger.

you have nothing to do with scientific thought from afar.
No that would be you.
I recognise that the 2 values are different, due to the fact they do not agree within uncertainty.
I recognise that the values for a RE are not different due to the fact that they do agree within uncertainty.
You instead appeal to some fantasy error limit to pretend the 2 values match.
You are the one who is ignoring how science works.
Science doesn't just pull a number from no where and say this is the error limit, any values inside this limit are the same.
Especially as that error limit would be useless for so many things.

If you want to pretend to be scientific, please explain how you arrived at that 0.5%, rather than the 0.01 km.

repeating the same wrong things doesn't magically make them right. It just proves you are in a cave of ignorancy denying to learn anything at all.
So why do you do it so often?

Seriously, why even pretend with this argument?
We all know you reject a RE. What benefit do you get from lying and pretending the FE and RE distances match for Europe?

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 26054
• Soul Transformer
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #35 on: July 09, 2019, 04:39:57 AM »
Error limit isn't 0.01 km.
That is the accuracy of the values.
As such, that is the "error limit" (or close to it).
Your baseless claim does not magically make it true. Source? What is your source of you can get 0.01 km as error limit in a distance about 1000 kms. I did not read your remained blabbings because you are repeatedly saying same baseless claims does not magically make them true.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Ignored:
Jura2
Bulma

I知 I a globalist AI.

#### JackBlack

• 22873
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #36 on: July 09, 2019, 04:52:57 AM »
Your baseless claim does not magically make it true.
Again, not my baseless claim.
They are the values provided.
Notice how these values change only in increments of 0.01 km?
That shows that is what these values are accurate to.
You can claim that RE isn't saying the correct values, but that is entirely separate to saying that RE and FE values agree.

Now again, what is the source of your 0.5%?

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 26054
• Soul Transformer
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #37 on: July 09, 2019, 04:57:20 AM »
Your baseless claim does not magically make it true.
Again, not my baseless claim.
They are the values provided.
Notice how these values change only in increments of 0.01 km?
That shows that is what these values are accurate to.
You can claim that RE isn't saying the correct values, but that is entirely separate to saying that RE and FE values agree.

Now again, what is the source of your 0.5%?

You did not show a source of where your magic 0,01 kms error limit for thousand of kilometre measurement come from? Haven't you? You are saying it is not baseless but you are just showing your blabbing  as a source.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Ignored:
Jura2
Bulma

I知 I a globalist AI.

#### JackBlack

• 22873
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #38 on: July 09, 2019, 05:02:41 AM »
You did not show a source of where your magic 0,01 kms error limit for thousand of kilometre measurement come from? Haven't you? You are saying it is not baseless but you are just showing your blabbing  as a source.
You ignoring the source doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It was the accuracy of the numbers provided.

Meanwhile, you haven't shown your source for 0.5%.
Where did you pull that from?

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 26054
• Soul Transformer
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #39 on: July 09, 2019, 05:08:42 AM »
You did not show a source of where your magic 0,01 kms error limit for thousand of kilometre measurement come from? Haven't you? You are saying it is not baseless but you are just showing your blabbing  as a source.
You ignoring the source doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It was the accuracy of the numbers provided.

Meanwhile, you haven't shown your source for 0.5%.
Where did you pull that from?

Nope. It was not the accuracy of the numbers. I can write them without a number after coma. Does it make all of them true? Your being ignorant and a blaming machine isn't my mistake.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Ignored:
Jura2
Bulma

I知 I a globalist AI.

#### Macarios

• 2093
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #40 on: July 09, 2019, 05:48:22 AM »
Ok, I did it:

The (45,0), (45,15), (51,15), (51,0) really has the measures:
a = 1047.84 km
b = 1177.71 km
c = 667.17 km
With diagonals of 1296.70 km

If we find chords of those arc distances we will have:
a = 1046.66
b = 1176.03
c = 666.86

Diagonal will be SQRT(ab + c2) = 1294.45

The corresponding arc for that chord is 1296.69.

Our error here is (1296.69 - 1296.70) / 1296.70 = -0.000007711 = -0.00077%.
Input values were rounded to two decimals and that produced the error of 0.01.

We can say that Google Maps uses arcs of the great circles to show distances.

EDIT: Google also uses more than just two decimals.

I know you wrote it as a joke, but because the calculation is correct, the majority will think it's real. we observe this only in Europe. Especially it is almost impossible to do the same calculation in China, Russia, South America or Australia. at least in theory. we need to try.

I mean, when we select four points with the same shell area on different continents, the error limit will be higher. I do not think it will remain within the limits of error. ahou. I will torturing your sphere map after looked other threads while you read and think this words.

I understand how convenient it would be if it was just a joke, but I will have to disappoint you.
Sorry, my friend.
Calculation is correct because it uses shapes and measures from reality.

And that smiley was just for the EDIT line, not for the whole reply.

~~~~~

I believe you mentioned a bigger polygon, so let's take one all over the Northern hemisphere.

Somewhere in:
South America: Carora, Venezuela - 10N 70W
Africa: Pariang, South Sudan - 10N 30E
Europe: St. Petersburg, Russia - 60N 30E
North America: Kangirsuk, Canada - 60N 70W

In miles:
a = 3112.11
b = 6767.50
c = 3454.67
Diagonals are 5961.39

Arc distances have chords like this:
a = 3032.59
b = 5973.05
c = 3346.09

Straight diagonal is SQRT(ab + c2) = 5413.88

The corresponding arc on the surface is 5961.38

As you can see, the difference is 0.01 again.

~~~~~

I am not here to mock you, or anyone else.
Especially not if facts could suffer that way.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 26054
• Soul Transformer
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #41 on: July 09, 2019, 05:56:59 AM »
Ok, I did it:

The (45,0), (45,15), (51,15), (51,0) really has the measures:
a = 1047.84 km
b = 1177.71 km
c = 667.17 km
With diagonals of 1296.70 km

If we find chords of those arc distances we will have:
a = 1046.66
b = 1176.03
c = 666.86

Diagonal will be SQRT(ab + c2) = 1294.45

The corresponding arc for that chord is 1296.69.

Our error here is (1296.69 - 1296.70) / 1296.70 = -0.000007711 = -0.00077%.
Input values were rounded to two decimals and that produced the error of 0.01.

We can say that Google Maps uses arcs of the great circles to show distances.

EDIT: Google also uses more than just two decimals.

I know you wrote it as a joke, but because the calculation is correct, the majority will think it's real. we observe this only in Europe. Especially it is almost impossible to do the same calculation in China, Russia, South America or Australia. at least in theory. we need to try.

I mean, when we select four points with the same shell area on different continents, the error limit will be higher. I do not think it will remain within the limits of error. ahou. I will torturing your sphere map after looked other threads while you read and think this words.

I understand how convenient it would be if it was just a joke, but I will have to disappoint you.
Sorry, my friend.
Calculation is correct because it uses shapes and measures from reality.

And that smiley was just for the EDIT line, not for the whole reply.

~~~~~

I believe you mentioned a bigger polygon, so let's take one all over the Northern hemisphere.

Somewhere in:
South America: Carora, Venezuela - 10N 70W
Africa: Pariang, South Sudan - 10N 30E
Europe: St. Petersburg, Russia - 60N 30E
North America: Kangirsuk, Canada - 60N 70W

In miles:
a = 3112.11
b = 6767.50
c = 3454.67
Diagonals are 5961.39

Arc distances have chords like this:
a = 3032.59
b = 5973.05
c = 3346.09

Straight diagonal is SQRT(ab + c2) = 5413.88

The corresponding arc on the surface is 5961.38

As you can see, the difference is 0.01 again.

~~~~~

I am not here to mock you, or anyone else.
Especially not if facts could suffer that way.

Congratulations. You've proved the maps being imaginary but not real. because the actual world map is not smooth, the amount of error should be more than this is written.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Ignored:
Jura2
Bulma

I知 I a globalist AI.

?

#### Themightykabool

• 11187
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #42 on: July 09, 2019, 06:36:32 AM »
<blabbing>
If you want to talk about other thread then write on other thread. Stop blabbing. I had banned and constantly targeted by angry globularists prevent me answer all of you, because I have my own life and job. I can't spend all my time your childish questions. I am only writing the issues whih I see it deserves to it. I am not unemployed like you angry globularists, thanks God. Since The earth is flat hence google is using flat map.
Explained here.  https://support.esri.com/en/technical-article/000009982

Google Maps and Microsoft Virtual Earth use a Mercator projection based on the World Geodetic System (WGS) 1984 geographic coordinate system (datum). This Mercator projection supports spheres only

Nope. Do not make word salad. Supporting something and using something without paying its copyright is different things. Mercador projection is using flat map datas without paying and supporting the spheres. Mercador should to shame on itself.
This is fact, it is how all maps are made.
Wrong. I made a map completely free of other maps only by using aircraft flight times.

Riiiiiight.
You see No issue with that methodology?

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 26054
• Soul Transformer
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #43 on: July 09, 2019, 06:41:19 AM »
<blabbing>
If you want to talk about other thread then write on other thread. Stop blabbing. I had banned and constantly targeted by angry globularists prevent me answer all of you, because I have my own life and job. I can't spend all my time your childish questions. I am only writing the issues whih I see it deserves to it. I am not unemployed like you angry globularists, thanks God. Since The earth is flat hence google is using flat map.
Explained here.  https://support.esri.com/en/technical-article/000009982

Google Maps and Microsoft Virtual Earth use a Mercator projection based on the World Geodetic System (WGS) 1984 geographic coordinate system (datum). This Mercator projection supports spheres only

Nope. Do not make word salad. Supporting something and using something without paying its copyright is different things. Mercador projection is using flat map datas without paying and supporting the spheres. Mercador should to shame on itself.
This is fact, it is how all maps are made.
Wrong. I made a map completely free of other maps only by using aircraft flight times.

Riiiiiight.
You see No issue with that methodology?

Does it has to be?
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Ignored:
Jura2
Bulma

I知 I a globalist AI.

#### Macarios

• 2093
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #44 on: July 09, 2019, 06:44:38 AM »
Ok, I did it:

The (45,0), (45,15), (51,15), (51,0) really has the measures:
a = 1047.84 km
b = 1177.71 km
c = 667.17 km
With diagonals of 1296.70 km

If we find chords of those arc distances we will have:
a = 1046.66
b = 1176.03
c = 666.86

Diagonal will be SQRT(ab + c2) = 1294.45

The corresponding arc for that chord is 1296.69.

Our error here is (1296.69 - 1296.70) / 1296.70 = -0.000007711 = -0.00077%.
Input values were rounded to two decimals and that produced the error of 0.01.

We can say that Google Maps uses arcs of the great circles to show distances.

EDIT: Google also uses more than just two decimals.

I know you wrote it as a joke, but because the calculation is correct, the majority will think it's real. we observe this only in Europe. Especially it is almost impossible to do the same calculation in China, Russia, South America or Australia. at least in theory. we need to try.

I mean, when we select four points with the same shell area on different continents, the error limit will be higher. I do not think it will remain within the limits of error. ahou. I will torturing your sphere map after looked other threads while you read and think this words.

I understand how convenient it would be if it was just a joke, but I will have to disappoint you.
Sorry, my friend.
Calculation is correct because it uses shapes and measures from reality.

And that smiley was just for the EDIT line, not for the whole reply.

~~~~~

I believe you mentioned a bigger polygon, so let's take one all over the Northern hemisphere.

Somewhere in:
South America: Carora, Venezuela - 10N 70W
Africa: Pariang, South Sudan - 10N 30E
Europe: St. Petersburg, Russia - 60N 30E
North America: Kangirsuk, Canada - 60N 70W

In miles:
a = 3112.11
b = 6767.50
c = 3454.67
Diagonals are 5961.39

Arc distances have chords like this:
a = 3032.59
b = 5973.05
c = 3346.09

Straight diagonal is SQRT(ab + c2) = 5413.88

The corresponding arc on the surface is 5961.38

As you can see, the difference is 0.01 again.

~~~~~

I am not here to mock you, or anyone else.
Especially not if facts could suffer that way.

Congratulations. You've proved the maps being imaginary but not real. because the actual world map is not smooth, the amount of error should be more than this is written.

Imaginary?
You saw the accuracy.

Inform yourself on Spherical Geometry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_geometry).
It will help you understand Geodesy a bit better. Much more than just two decimals can be used there.

« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 06:47:32 AM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 26054
• Soul Transformer
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #45 on: July 09, 2019, 06:53:09 AM »
Ok, I did it:

The (45,0), (45,15), (51,15), (51,0) really has the measures:
a = 1047.84 km
b = 1177.71 km
c = 667.17 km
With diagonals of 1296.70 km

If we find chords of those arc distances we will have:
a = 1046.66
b = 1176.03
c = 666.86

Diagonal will be SQRT(ab + c2) = 1294.45

The corresponding arc for that chord is 1296.69.

Our error here is (1296.69 - 1296.70) / 1296.70 = -0.000007711 = -0.00077%.
Input values were rounded to two decimals and that produced the error of 0.01.

We can say that Google Maps uses arcs of the great circles to show distances.

EDIT: Google also uses more than just two decimals.

I know you wrote it as a joke, but because the calculation is correct, the majority will think it's real. we observe this only in Europe. Especially it is almost impossible to do the same calculation in China, Russia, South America or Australia. at least in theory. we need to try.

I mean, when we select four points with the same shell area on different continents, the error limit will be higher. I do not think it will remain within the limits of error. ahou. I will torturing your sphere map after looked other threads while you read and think this words.

I understand how convenient it would be if it was just a joke, but I will have to disappoint you.
Sorry, my friend.
Calculation is correct because it uses shapes and measures from reality.

And that smiley was just for the EDIT line, not for the whole reply.

~~~~~

I believe you mentioned a bigger polygon, so let's take one all over the Northern hemisphere.

Somewhere in:
South America: Carora, Venezuela - 10N 70W
Africa: Pariang, South Sudan - 10N 30E
Europe: St. Petersburg, Russia - 60N 30E
North America: Kangirsuk, Canada - 60N 70W

In miles:
a = 3112.11
b = 6767.50
c = 3454.67
Diagonals are 5961.39

Arc distances have chords like this:
a = 3032.59
b = 5973.05
c = 3346.09

Straight diagonal is SQRT(ab + c2) = 5413.88

The corresponding arc on the surface is 5961.38

As you can see, the difference is 0.01 again.

~~~~~

I am not here to mock you, or anyone else.
Especially not if facts could suffer that way.

Congratulations. You've proved the maps being imaginary but not real. because the actual world map is not smooth, the amount of error should be more than this is written.

Imaginary?
You saw the accuracy.

Inform yourself on Spherical Geometry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_geometry).
It will help you understand Geodesy a bit better. Much more than just two decimals can be used there.

It doesn't work in Russia and China at all. It is completely imaginary. Because aircrafts are in Chinese running in so called low speeds in China. Actually they use all their speed but map is wrong and imaginary. It clearly is imaginary. It doesn't work.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Ignored:
Jura2
Bulma

I知 I a globalist AI.

#### Macarios

• 2093
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #46 on: July 09, 2019, 07:04:15 AM »
It doesn't work in Russia and China at all. It is completely imaginary. Because aircrafts are in Chinese running in so called low speeds in China. Actually they use all their speed but map is wrong and imaginary. It clearly is imaginary. It doesn't work.

The reason why it doesn't work in China is because Chinese government forbids accurate maps "for national security reasons".
They even have contract with Google to avoid correct positions of anything in China.

On the other hand, using position in Russia didn't ruin our last calculation.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 07:06:19 AM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 26054
• Soul Transformer
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #47 on: July 09, 2019, 08:37:17 AM »
It doesn't work in Russia and China at all. It is completely imaginary. Because aircrafts are in Chinese running in so called low speeds in China. Actually they use all their speed but map is wrong and imaginary. It clearly is imaginary. It doesn't work.

The reason why it doesn't work in China is because Chinese government forbids accurate maps "for national security reasons".
They even have contract with Google to avoid correct positions of anything in China.

On the other hand, using position in Russia didn't ruin our last calculation.

Theorically. But even so measurements in Russia are wrong. It does not overlap with reality.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Ignored:
Jura2
Bulma

I知 I a globalist AI.

?

#### Themightykabool

• 11187
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #48 on: July 09, 2019, 09:05:41 AM »
<blabbing>
If you want to talk about other thread then write on other thread. Stop blabbing. I had banned and constantly targeted by angry globularists prevent me answer all of you, because I have my own life and job. I can't spend all my time your childish questions. I am only writing the issues whih I see it deserves to it. I am not unemployed like you angry globularists, thanks God. Since The earth is flat hence google is using flat map.
Explained here.  https://support.esri.com/en/technical-article/000009982

Google Maps and Microsoft Virtual Earth use a Mercator projection based on the World Geodetic System (WGS) 1984 geographic coordinate system (datum). This Mercator projection supports spheres only

Nope. Do not make word salad. Supporting something and using something without paying its copyright is different things. Mercador projection is using flat map datas without paying and supporting the spheres. Mercador should to shame on itself.
This is fact, it is how all maps are made.
Wrong. I made a map completely free of other maps only by using aircraft flight times.

Riiiiiight.
You see No issue with that methodology?

Does it has to be?

Possibly because d = vt and your method doesnt acount for wind vector, landings and take off taxing, and such.
Or planes use knotts.
Or because theres no airport for every city.

#### Macarios

• 2093
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #49 on: July 09, 2019, 02:18:25 PM »
It doesn't work in Russia and China at all. It is completely imaginary. Because aircrafts are in Chinese running in so called low speeds in China. Actually they use all their speed but map is wrong and imaginary. It clearly is imaginary. It doesn't work.

The reason why it doesn't work in China is because Chinese government forbids accurate maps "for national security reasons".
They even have contract with Google to avoid correct positions of anything in China.

On the other hand, using position in Russia didn't ruin our last calculation.

Theorically. But even so measurements in Russia are wrong. It does not overlap with reality.

Russia may have the same "national security problem" (or it had in the past)
but this is what Google Maps shows today:

45N 45E - near Velichayevskoye
45N 135E - just east of Ariadnoye
70N 135E - just west of Ust-Kuyga
70N 45E - in the sea NW from Bugrino (or NE from Murmansk)

Arcs of great circles (surface distances) in miles:
a = 1933.99
b = 4145.61
c = 1727.34
Diagonals = 3341.28

Chords of the coresponding arcs:
a = 1914.82
b = 3958.77
c = 1713.67

SQRT(ab + c2) = 3242.99
Corresponding arc = 3341.28

Doesn't work?
Looks like it does.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

#### JackBlack

• 22873
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #50 on: July 09, 2019, 02:49:02 PM »
Nope. It was not the accuracy of the numbers. I can write them without a number after coma.
And that just means you are discarding some of the accuracy, which is what you are doing anyway.

The simple fact is the numbers you provided are accurate to 10 m.
You wanting to change that to pretend it matches a FE wont make it so.

Again, pretending Earth is flat results in significant error, well outside this 10 m range.
Accepting it is round results in insignificant error, well within this 10 m range.

Now, do you have any justification for your 0.5% error? Or is that just the number you made up which might sound reasonable and allows you to pretend FE distances match?

?

#### inquisitive

• 5108
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #51 on: July 09, 2019, 11:59:15 PM »
<blabbing>
If you want to talk about other thread then write on other thread. Stop blabbing. I had banned and constantly targeted by angry globularists prevent me answer all of you, because I have my own life and job. I can't spend all my time your childish questions. I am only writing the issues whih I see it deserves to it. I am not unemployed like you angry globularists, thanks God. Since The earth is flat hence google is using flat map.
Explained here.  https://support.esri.com/en/technical-article/000009982

Google Maps and Microsoft Virtual Earth use a Mercator projection based on the World Geodetic System (WGS) 1984 geographic coordinate system (datum). This Mercator projection supports spheres only

Nope. Do not make word salad. Supporting something and using something without paying its copyright is different things. Mercador projection is using flat map datas without paying and supporting the spheres. Mercador should to shame on itself.
This is fact, it is how all maps are made.
Wrong. I made a map completely free of other maps only by using aircraft flight times.
That is not a proper map, just some places.  Find out how cartographers uses GPS and the WGS-84 model.

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 26054
• Soul Transformer
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #52 on: July 10, 2019, 12:47:49 AM »
<blabbing>
If you want to talk about other thread then write on other thread. Stop blabbing. I had banned and constantly targeted by angry globularists prevent me answer all of you, because I have my own life and job. I can't spend all my time your childish questions. I am only writing the issues whih I see it deserves to it. I am not unemployed like you angry globularists, thanks God. Since The earth is flat hence google is using flat map.
Explained here.  https://support.esri.com/en/technical-article/000009982

Google Maps and Microsoft Virtual Earth use a Mercator projection based on the World Geodetic System (WGS) 1984 geographic coordinate system (datum). This Mercator projection supports spheres only

Nope. Do not make word salad. Supporting something and using something without paying its copyright is different things. Mercador projection is using flat map datas without paying and supporting the spheres. Mercador should to shame on itself.
This is fact, it is how all maps are made.
Wrong. I made a map completely free of other maps only by using aircraft flight times.
That is not a proper map, just some places.  Find out how cartographers uses GPS and the WGS-84 model.

It is map just does not show ground and sea lines. cartographers has to use my map instead GPS and WGS-84 BS.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Ignored:
Jura2
Bulma

I知 I a globalist AI.

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 26054
• Soul Transformer
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #53 on: July 10, 2019, 12:51:04 AM »
Nope. It was not the accuracy of the numbers. I can write them without a number after coma.
And that just means you are discarding some of the accuracy, which is what you are doing anyway.

The simple fact is the numbers you provided are accurate to 10 m.
You wanting to change that to pretend it matches a FE wont make it so.

Again, pretending Earth is flat results in significant error, well outside this 10 m range.
Accepting it is round results in insignificant error, well within this 10 m range.

Now, do you have any justification for your 0.5% error? Or is that just the number you made up which might sound reasonable and allows you to pretend FE distances match?

1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Ignored:
Jura2
Bulma

I知 I a globalist AI.

?

#### inquisitive

• 5108
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #54 on: July 10, 2019, 01:59:35 AM »
<blabbing>
If you want to talk about other thread then write on other thread. Stop blabbing. I had banned and constantly targeted by angry globularists prevent me answer all of you, because I have my own life and job. I can't spend all my time your childish questions. I am only writing the issues whih I see it deserves to it. I am not unemployed like you angry globularists, thanks God. Since The earth is flat hence google is using flat map.
Explained here.  https://support.esri.com/en/technical-article/000009982

Google Maps and Microsoft Virtual Earth use a Mercator projection based on the World Geodetic System (WGS) 1984 geographic coordinate system (datum). This Mercator projection supports spheres only

Nope. Do not make word salad. Supporting something and using something without paying its copyright is different things. Mercador projection is using flat map datas without paying and supporting the spheres. Mercador should to shame on itself.
This is fact, it is how all maps are made.
Wrong. I made a map completely free of other maps only by using aircraft flight times.
That is not a proper map, just some places.  Find out how cartographers uses GPS and the WGS-84 model.

It is map just does not show ground and sea lines. cartographers has to use my map instead GPS and WGS-84 BS.
Please explain more, does not make sense.

#### JackBlack

• 22873
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #55 on: July 10, 2019, 02:01:56 AM »
Your 10m explanation has not a scientific explanation but just your thoughts.
No, it isn't just my thoughts.
It is based upon the accuracy of the data provided.
You can do a more accurate error analysis if you want to determine a better value, but it will be no where near what you need.

This is how error works in science.
They don't just pull a number out of thin air and declare that to be the error limit.
Instead they use the uncertainty of the data they have. That can be limitations in the instruments or a precision limit in values reported in the literature.

The only part I am leaving out is combining the multiple error ranges to produce the final uncertainty.
But if you want, I can do that as well.
Lets use the small area shall we?
I will even be generous and take the error as 10 m, rather than the far more common approach of the error being half the least significant digit reported without uncertainty.
So that means each reported value (except the first, but for simplicity I will include that) has an uncertainty of 20 m.

Now we could just go and try to add the errors up for each step, but that will likely over estimate it. (admittedly, that is what I first went to do, but I stopped myself when I got to y and started to reuse values.) Let's do it the more scientific way.

First, what is our final formula?
Well, if the top length is a, and the bottom length is b, and the side length is c, what do we do?
First we find x, the extra bit on the side of the bottom. This is (b-a)/2.
Then we find the height h, by taking the square root of the different between c^2 and x^2.
i.e. h^2=c^2-x^2.
Then we find y, the length of the top, plus the extra bit on the bottom. This is a+x=a+(b-a)/2=(a+b)/2.
Now we find d, the diagonal, by finding the square root of h^2+y^2
d^2=h^2+y^2
=c^2-x^2+y^2
=c^2-(b-a)^2/4+(a+b)^2/4
=c^2-(b^2-2ab+a^2)/4+(a^2+2ab+b^2)/4
=c^2+(-b^2+2ab-a^2)/4+(a^2+2ab+b^2)/4
=c^2+(-b^2+2ab-a^2+a^2+2ab+b^2)/4
=c^2+(4ab)/4
=c^2+ab
So d=sqrt(c^2+ab)

Note: While I am saying percentage error, I will express the percentage error in fractional form. i.e. 100%=1, 5%=0.05
Also note: While I am providing the values to some number of s.f. Excel will use more than reported.

Now this is represented nice and simply as a function of the original values.
So the first step to figuring out the errors, we note that we are multiplying values (even if it is just by itself). When multiplying, the percentage errors add.
This means for c^2, we first find the percentage error of 3.00E-05, and multiply it by 2 to get the percentage error in c^2 of 6.00E-05.
Then we multiply this by c^2 to get the absolute error in c^2, so we end up with 445129 km^2 with an uncertainty of 27 km^2.
Now we add the percentage errors in a and b of 1.91E-05 and 1.70E-05 to get 3.61E-05, the percentage error in ab.
This gives us ab as 1234051 km^2 with an uncertainty of 45 km^2.
Then as we add the 2 values together, we add the absolute errors, to get d^2 as 1679180.799 km^2 ith an uncertainty of 71 km^2.
Now for the last step we find the square root.
For this we need to use percentage errors again and similar to how squaring doubled the percentage error, square rooting will cut it in half.
That means we take our percentage error of 4.24E-05 and cut in half to get 2.12E-05.
This means we end up with d as 1295.832 km with an uncertainty of 0.027 km, or 0.03 km.

Quite close to the 0.01 km I started with, much smaller than the actual difference between the 2 values, confirming that these values are in fact different and much smaller than your magic 0.5%, which is pulled from nowhere.

If you take the more common approach of adding errors in quadrature and using 0.005 km as the starting point as half the least significant digit, you end up with a final error of 0.01 km, just like I started with.

So no, I am following the scientific approach to errors.
Using this approach, the values for the diagonals assuming Earth is flat and off the map are different.
However the values for the diagonals assuming Earth is round and off the map are equal within uncertainty.

You are using a completely unscientific method of just asserting the error is 0.5% without paying any attention to the accuracy of the initial data.
In some cases that will be a massive overestimate. In others it will be a massive underestimate.
There is nothing scientific about just asserting it is 0.5%.

You repeatedly insulting me wont change how uncertainties work.

Are you sure you aren't confusing it with a p value of 0.05?
If so, that is to expand the uncertainty based upon more complex statistics to produce a 95% confidence interval.
Some fields will use other confidence intervals, such as 99% or 99.5%.
But there is no widely held 0.5%

So again, can you justify your 0.5%?

Me not answering about my education doesn't mean it is absent, it means it is irrelevant.
I don't need to appeal to credentials to back up my claims.
I don't need to appeal to a PhD or multiple scientific publications in scientific journals.
If someone needs to appeal to academic credentials it shows they can't defend their position.

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 26054
• Soul Transformer
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #56 on: July 10, 2019, 03:38:10 AM »
So again, can you justify your 0.5%?
yes. It is the result of my observation on many scientific measurements. It 's hard to believe you' re exhausting yourself for things like this. Your talking "again and again" just proves how you are cornered and trying to get rid of it by posting longer and longer things. Mister, nobody read it.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Ignored:
Jura2
Bulma

I知 I a globalist AI.

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 26054
• Soul Transformer
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #57 on: July 10, 2019, 03:42:15 AM »
<blabbing>
If you want to talk about other thread then write on other thread. Stop blabbing. I had banned and constantly targeted by angry globularists prevent me answer all of you, because I have my own life and job. I can't spend all my time your childish questions. I am only writing the issues whih I see it deserves to it. I am not unemployed like you angry globularists, thanks God. Since The earth is flat hence google is using flat map.
Explained here.  https://support.esri.com/en/technical-article/000009982

Google Maps and Microsoft Virtual Earth use a Mercator projection based on the World Geodetic System (WGS) 1984 geographic coordinate system (datum). This Mercator projection supports spheres only

Nope. Do not make word salad. Supporting something and using something without paying its copyright is different things. Mercador projection is using flat map datas without paying and supporting the spheres. Mercador should to shame on itself.
This is fact, it is how all maps are made.
Wrong. I made a map completely free of other maps only by using aircraft flight times.
That is not a proper map, just some places.  Find out how cartographers uses GPS and the WGS-84 model.

It is map just does not show ground and sea lines. cartographers has to use my map instead GPS and WGS-84 BS.
Please explain more, does not make sense.

that is, there are enough cities on all continents on the map. The coastline can be drawn by taking the distance of any city to the beach from anywhere and minimizing the average error and proportioning it with the flat-round index in that area. this can be done with any graphic editing program that allows stretching, shortening and rotating on an image.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Ignored:
Jura2
Bulma

I知 I a globalist AI.

?

#### Themightykabool

• 11187
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #58 on: July 10, 2019, 03:50:12 AM »
1.
Possibly because d = vt and your method doesnt acount for wind vector, landings and take off taxing, and such.
2.
Or planes use knotts.
3.
Or because theres no airport for every city.

I see an "answer" for 3.

#### JackBlack

• 22873
##### Re: Flat Map in Google Map
« Reply #59 on: July 10, 2019, 04:09:10 AM »
It is the result of my observation on many scientific measurements.
This in no way justifies it.

I don't care about other experiments you have carried out. They have no bearing on this one.
Why should we use 0.5% as our error limit when clearly the more valid option is 0.01 km, or 0.03 if I am being generous?

I have clearly shown how to use the scientific approach to arrive at the error limit I have used.
Yet you just pull a number out of no where.

Where your experiments anything like what we are doing now?

If not, they are irrelevant.