There is no accurate map

Any maps you have in your car or in an Atlas somewhere are inaccurate. This is because cartographers and map makers have, over the years, made accurate distance measurements and found that they cannot be displayed accurately on a flat sheet of paper.  This is, all by itself, very strong evidence that the earth not flat because, if it were flat, their measurements could be accurately displayed on a flat map.

As evidence of this, I show below a map of the United States along with calipers that are used for the scale of the map. The calipers show the distance in pixels between the various cities of San Diego, California; Miami, Florida; Portland, Oregon; and Portland, Maine.



For scaling purposes, we use the Miami, Florida to Portland, Oregon distance to establish this map scale of 4352 km = 755 pixels, where 5352 km is the established distance in km from Miami to Portland.

The established distances are taken from maptools.com and the map itself was taken from worldatlas.com

The image below shows the distances between the various cities in pixels, then the distances in km using the scale above, and then for comparison,  actual established distances between the cities:



You can see that the map error is as great as 14.4%, which is because the earth is not flat.

The reason why maps are wrong is that they try to show the world according to the round world projection, but this is not the truth. if you show the world in a circle, this time all cities will be in their true place. I did, perfectly matched. but a sphere map can never be accurate. projection versus reality, you understand?

The reason why maps are wrong is that they try to show the world according to the round world projection, but this is not the truth. if you show the world in a circle, this time all cities will be in their true place. I did, perfectly matched. but a sphere map can never be accurate. projection versus reality, you understand?

So you are better than cartographers across the earth and you dismiss the WGS-84 model?

Quote from: wise on July 12, 2019, 02:03:47 PM

The reason why maps are wrong is that they try to show the world according to the round world projection, but this is not the truth. if you show the world in a circle, this time all cities will be in their true place. I did, perfectly matched. but a sphere map can never be accurate. projection versus reality, you understand?

So you are better than cartographers across the earth and you dismiss the WGS-84 model?

their base is wrong. they may be much more specialized, but they fail because they try to adapt the real flat world to something spherical. I believe there are good mappers at there, but being good at something doesn't mean not failing.

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2019, 02:06:46 PM

Quote from: wise on July 12, 2019, 02:03:47 PM

The reason why maps are wrong is that they try to show the world according to the round world projection, but this is not the truth. if you show the world in a circle, this time all cities will be in their true place. I did, perfectly matched. but a sphere map can never be accurate. projection versus reality, you understand?

So you are better than cartographers across the earth and you dismiss the WGS-84 model?

their base is wrong. they may be much more specialized, but they fail because they try to adapt the real flat world to something spherical. I believe there are good mappers at there, but being good at something doesn't mean not failing.

Even though all of those failing mappers make maps that are used to safely & successfully move humans and goods all around the world everyday and planes are not falling out of the sky and ships aren't stranded at sea because they were using maps made by failing mappers?

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2019, 02:06:46 PM

Quote from: wise on July 12, 2019, 02:03:47 PM

The reason why maps are wrong is that they try to show the world according to the round world projection, but this is not the truth. if you show the world in a circle, this time all cities will be in their true place. I did, perfectly matched. but a sphere map can never be accurate. projection versus reality, you understand?

So you are better than cartographers across the earth and you dismiss the WGS-84 model?

their base is wrong. they may be much more specialized, but they fail because they try to adapt the real flat world to something spherical. I believe there are good mappers at there, but being good at something doesn't mean not failing.

They start with an unknown shape and find what it is.  Even the angle of the sun has shown the true shape for many years.

Quote from: inquisitive on July 12, 2019, 02:06:46 PM

Quote from: wise on July 12, 2019, 02:03:47 PM

The reason why maps are wrong is that they try to show the world according to the round world projection, but this is not the truth. if you show the world in a circle, this time all cities will be in their true place. I did, perfectly matched. but a sphere map can never be accurate. projection versus reality, you understand?

So you are better than cartographers across the earth and you dismiss the WGS-84 model?

their base is wrong. they may be much more specialized, but they fail because they try to adapt the real flat world to something spherical. I believe there are good mappers at there, but being good at something doesn't mean not failing.

Show me an "accurate" "Flat Earth Map" containing Australia!
If you can't I could ask how I could know quite accurate distances for many long distance trips I did all over the country.

I used a Globe map and its distances agreed very well with my measured didtances.

The reason why maps are wrong is that they try to show the world according to the round world projection

That is total baloney.  The map I showed in the original post is not a projection. It is just a rendering on a flat sheet of paper (or flat computer screen) that is as good an approximation as can be made, since an accurate flat map of a round earth is impossible.

Quote from: wise on July 12, 2019, 02:03:47 PM

The reason why maps are wrong is that they try to show the world according to the round world projection

That is total baloney.  The map I showed in the original post is not a projection. It is just a rendering on a flat sheet of paper (or flat computer screen) that is as good an approximation as can be made, since an accurate flat map of a round earth is impossible.

It is projection too. You don't know it because you are under fraudment. Are you thinking Canada is bigger in shown your map? Canada has to be shrinked instead of enlarged.

Quote from: Platonius21 on July 12, 2019, 05:17:14 PM

That is total baloney.  The map I showed in the original post is not a projection. It is just a rendering on a flat sheet of paper (or flat computer screen) that is as good an approximation as can be made, since an accurate flat map of a round earth is impossible.

It is projection too. You don't know it because you are under fraudment. Are you thinking Canada is bigger in shown your map? Canada has to be shrinked instead of enlarged.

Stop talking baloney!
Platonius21 did not show any map of Canada! So why do you write rubbish like "Are you thinking Canada is bigger in shown your map? Canada has to be shrinked instead of enlarged."?

He showed a map of the United States! And he wrote that !

a map of the United States

Now write a sensible answer for Platonius21!

Quote from: wise on July 12, 2019, 11:05:09 PM

Quote from: Platonius21 on July 12, 2019, 05:17:14 PM

That is total baloney.  The map I showed in the original post is not a projection. It is just a rendering on a flat sheet of paper (or flat computer screen) that is as good an approximation as can be made, since an accurate flat map of a round earth is impossible.

It is projection too. You don't know it because you are under fraudment. Are you thinking Canada is bigger in shown your map? Canada has to be shrinked instead of enlarged.

Stop talking baloney!
Platonius21 did not show any map of Canada! So why do you write rubbish like "Are you thinking Canada is bigger in shown your map? Canada has to be shrinked instead of enlarged."?

He showed a map of the United States! And he wrote that !

Quote from: Platonius21

a map of the United States

Now write a sensible answer for Platonius21!

What? Are you baloney?

He shawn this projected map:



We clearly see that Canada is going enlarging, and the Alaska in fact smaller than shown in the projection map. But he has used same map detail took from mercador projection. We can easy prove it. Lets take two lines of the map from Platinus21 provided:

First line: Somewhere from north of Vancouer to somewhere north Quebec. Read it from google and write on it. 4179,73kms.



Second line: From san Fransisco to eastmost point of North carolina. 4114,98kms.



Inother say, lengths of first and second lines are close.



But the first line in "PROJECTORY MAP" is appearently longer and longer than the second one. because it is a projection.

Now, grow up, agree the earth's being flat and stop to be a baloney.

Let's go to COPENHAGEN

Last March's equinox:
Sunrives >> 6:13 AM
Sunleaves >> 6:22 PM
Solar noon >> 12.13 PM

https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/denmark/copenhagen?month=3&year=2019


Last September's equinox:
Sunrives >> 6:56 AM
Sunleaves >> 7:06 PM
Solar noon >> 1.02 PM

https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/denmark/copenhagen?month=9&year=2018

If the longitude lines (points) from south to north are assumed 'vertical' -not curved to follow the sunlight's boundary- NO maps -RE & FE- can answer such sun reality contradictions except PHEW FE Map :')

But the first line in "PROJECTORY MAP" is appearently longer and longer than the second one. because it is a projection.

Call it a projection map or whatever you want. It still proves my point: The distances are not accurate because the earth is not flat, and it is impossible to show them accurately on a flat sheet of paper.

Let's go to COPENHAGEN

No let's not go to Copenhagen.  Keep this thread on topic. It's not about Equinox, it's about all current maps on a sheet of paper being inaccurate because the earth is not flat. And that phew map is phooey!

Quote from: wise on July 13, 2019, 03:16:00 AM

But the first line in "PROJECTORY MAP" is appearently longer and longer than the second one. because it is a projection.

Call it a projection map or whatever you want. It still proves my point: The distances are not accurate because the earth is not flat, and it is impossible to show them accurately on a flat sheet of paper.

If you place the cities incorrectly, the distances will be incorrect. If you place cities according to the flat earth map, but not the globularist so called map, then the map will be corrected. so it should look like this:



Look how it is perfectly overlaps Gleason's flat earth map. And this is yours:



Sto to excusing and start to use flat earth map. Then everything goes okay! 

In Northern Hemisphere Gleason will fit better than Mercator.

It is because on both Gleason and Globe all meridians converge to North Pole.





What if you try the same with South Atlantic, between Africa and South America?


.

Oper wasn't talking about south but if it would the issue then we can deal with all king of anger of globularism.



Do you want to place these times on a flat map, and on a globe map; and see which one more accuracy?

Internet ping times prove that globularist map in south just an imagination. Again, Gleason's map works well. What do you have other than 3-4 liar aircraft company ticket sell office?

Quote from: Platonius21 on July 13, 2019, 04:38:53 AM

Quote from: wise on July 13, 2019, 03:16:00 AM

But the first line in "PROJECTORY MAP" is appearently longer and longer than the second one. because it is a projection.

Call it a projection map or whatever you want. It still proves my point: The distances are not accurate because the earth is not flat, and it is impossible to show them accurately on a flat sheet of paper.

If you place the cities incorrectly, the distances will be incorrect. If you place cities according to the flat earth map, but not the globularist so called map, then the map will be corrected. so it should look like this:



Look how it is perfectly overlaps Gleason's flat earth map. And this is yours:



Sto to excusing and start to use flat earth map. Then everything goes okay! 

Come to a consensus on one and we will see.

Quote from: wise on July 13, 2019, 07:06:23 AM

Quote from: Platonius21 on July 13, 2019, 04:38:53 AM

Quote from: wise on July 13, 2019, 03:16:00 AM

But the first line in "PROJECTORY MAP" is appearently longer and longer than the second one. because it is a projection.

Call it a projection map or whatever you want. It still proves my point: The distances are not accurate because the earth is not flat, and it is impossible to show them accurately on a flat sheet of paper.

If you place the cities incorrectly, the distances will be incorrect. If you place cities according to the flat earth map, but not the globularist so called map, then the map will be corrected. so it should look like this:



Look how it is perfectly overlaps Gleason's flat earth map. And this is yours:



Sto to excusing and start to use flat earth map. Then everything goes okay! 

Come to a consensus on one and we will see.

You can use Gleason's map. Actually my map is better because updated but has not finished. I recommend you use Gleason's map in everywhere in the earth. It works perfectly.

You can use Gleason's map. Actually my map is better because updated but has not finished. I recommend you use Gleason's map in everywhere in the earth. It works perfectly.

No! Gleason's map Time Chart does not work "perfectly" anywhere except close to the North Pole.

Wise, you just say empty words like, "my map is better" and "Gleason's map . . . . works perfectly" with no evidence to back it up!

Here is "Gleason's Map":

"Gleason's Map: 1892 new standard map of the world

Now just as one example, compare the widths of the USA and Australia in that "map":

United States on Gleasons Map: 4300 km wide

Australia on Gleasons Map: 3994 km wide

Sizes of Australia/United States

So the USA (at 4300 km) is wider than Australia (at 3994 km) but look just compare the widths on the Gleason's map.

And just compare the shape of Australia determined by surveyors measurements in the 1800s with the shape of Australia on current maps - they are virtually the same.

Map of Australia published in 1855

Map of Australia published from Garmin GPS

But the proportions of Australia on the "Gleason's Map" are obviously grossly distorted.

"Gleason's Map" is simply a North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection of the Globe and was patented and published as a "Time-Chart" NOT an accurate map of the earth.

Oper wasn't talking about south but if it would the issue then we can deal with all king of anger of globularism.



Do you want to place these times on a flat map, and on a globe map; and see which one more accuracy?

Internet ping times prove that globularist map in south just an imagination. Again, Gleason's map works well. What do you have other than 3-4 liar aircraft company ticket sell office?

There's something very wrong with the ping times on the Gleason map:

Santiago to Sydney is about 1/3 longer in distance than Istanbul to Sydney. Yet the ping time is slightly less, 321 ms versus 332 ms respectively.

Yet on a globe map:

Santiago to Sydney = 7000 miles
Istanbul to Sydney =  9200 miles

The ping times match the globe earth distances better than the Gleason map distances. Maybe using ping times is a bad idea.

But the first line in "PROJECTORY MAP" is appearently longer and longer than the second one. because it is a projection.

Now, grow up, agree the earth's being flat and stop to be a baloney.

The projection of a sphere onto a flat surface does produce distortions like you pointed out. That is the point.
If Earth was flat there wouldn't be these issues.
The fact that the projections have these distortions show that Earth isn't flat.

If you place the cities incorrectly, the distances will be incorrect. If you place cities according to the flat earth map, but not the globularist so called map, then the map will be corrected.

No it will still be incorrect as the FE map is still just a projection of the RE.

Try it for locations further away from the north pole, like comparing Sydney to Perth and Sydney to Santiago.
Then the FE map truly fails.
Any correction will be roughly correct for a small region.
But if you use accurate numbers, it still fails.

But lets just use the map you provided.
South America should be only ~5000 km wide.
But that map you provided has it roughly twice as wide as the US or Canada.
So no, it is not correct.

Last March's equinox:

Earth's elliptical orbit around the sun has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

You can use Gleason's map. Actually my map is better because updated but has not finished. I recommend you use Gleason's map in everywhere in the earth. It works perfectly.

Gleason map is rubbish just like your map is rubbish.

Brazil is about 4316 km wide as you can see from this figure:

Using the scale of 440km = 58pixels, the width of 569 pixels shows Brazil 4316 km wide.

So then looking at the Gleason map here:

you can see that on the Gleason map Brazil is 161 pixels wide which means the scale on the Gleason map is 4316 km = 161 pixels

Using that scale then the distance across Canada of 104 pixels corresponds to 2788 km which is far different than the 4179 you show.

The Gleason map is rubbish as a map for a flat earth just like your "map" is rubbish.

It is impossible to have a fixed scale map of the earth on a sheet of paper because the earth is not flat.

It's like the title of this thread: There is no accurate map of the earth on a flat sheet of paper. Because the earth is not flat!!

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on July 13, 2019, 01:24:34 PM

Quote from: wise on July 13, 2019, 07:06:23 AM

Quote from: Platonius21 on July 13, 2019, 04:38:53 AM

Quote from: wise on July 13, 2019, 03:16:00 AM

But the first line in "PROJECTORY MAP" is appearently longer and longer than the second one. because it is a projection.

Call it a projection map or whatever you want. It still proves my point: The distances are not accurate because the earth is not flat, and it is impossible to show them accurately on a flat sheet of paper.

If you place the cities incorrectly, the distances will be incorrect. If you place cities according to the flat earth map, but not the globularist so called map, then the map will be corrected. so it should look like this:



Look how it is perfectly overlaps Gleason's flat earth map. And this is yours:



Sto to excusing and start to use flat earth map. Then everything goes okay! 

Come to a consensus on one and we will see.

You can use Gleason's map. Actually my map is better because updated but has not finished. I recommend you use Gleason's map in everywhere in the earth. It works perfectly.

Wow! Antarctica is huge! If Gleason's map is truly accurate, it must be larger than all the other continents put together!!!

Oper wasn't talking about south but if it would the issue then we can deal with all king of anger of globularism.

Do you want to place these times on a flat map, and on a globe map; and see which one more accuracy?

Internet ping times are meaningless as measures of distance between cities! They depend entirely on where the undersea cable run and how busy those routes are:

Submarine Cable Map of the world

There are no direct cables between Australia and either South America or South Africa!

Sydney: 49.0 ms
Los Angeles: 228.9 ms
Sao Paulo: 442.9 ms
Johannesburg: 546.8 ms

And the ping times from Brisbane, Australia, just demonstrate that.

Internet ping times prove that globularist map in south just an imagination. Again, Gleason's map works well.

Internet ping times prove nothing more than that you have no idea what you are talking about!

What do you have other than 3-4 liar aircraft company ticket sell office?

None of QANTAS, LATAM Airlines, South African Airlines or New Zealand Airlines are liar airlines and if you keep claiming that it proves that you are yourself one!

Gleason map is rubbish just like your map is rubbish.

Technically it is a good projection of Earth.
But it is only good when you recognise it as a projection of a Round Earth.

Wow! Antarctica is huge! If Gleason's map is truly accurate, it must be larger than all the other continents put together!!!

Antarctica is already so. What you mean?

Gleason map is rubbish just like your map is rubbish.

Technically it is a good projection of Earth.

Which of you do say true? Rubbish of good projection?

Which of you do say true? Rubbish of good projection?

If you read the message entirely you would know.
If you want it to be a too scale map of the entire Earth with a single scale throughout, it is horrible. That would be for a FE.
However if you have it as a projection of a round Earth with the associated distortion of doing that projection it is a good projection.

Quote from: wise on July 13, 2019, 11:01:26 PM

Which of you do say true? Rubbish of good projection?

If you read the message entirely you would know.
If you want it to be a too scale map of the entire Earth with a single scale throughout, it is horrible. That would be for a FE.
However if you have it as a projection of a round Earth with the associated distortion of doing that projection it is a good projection.

I am not asking you only. You are talking opposite of himself. So you have to convince other, not to me. Since you have programmed only reply to me, replying to me. Look, not me, he is here awaiting your explanation, not me, get it rabblack?