All About maps

  • 60 Replies
  • 4147 Views
*

faded mike

  • 1256
  • new world
Re: All About maps
« Reply #30 on: January 13, 2020, 02:04:02 PM »
If there is no possibility of a flat earth map, then there is no possibility of a flat earth.
The fact that no one can make a fixed scale map on a flat sheet of paper that correctly displays the distances between cities and continents, and relative sizes of the continents is, by itself, all that is needed to prove that the earth is not flat.
Don't forget, the Earth is kind of rippley, i think, with very big hills and valleys. Wouldn't this be a very similar obstacle to map as global.

No
The distance between seatle and boston people can easily understamd and take into account the relatovely small discrepancy between actual driving distances vs flying.

The discrepancy can be acccounted for as per geodesic surveys mentioned.

Australia to south ameroca dont work on a flat earther map.

You are trying to introduce a nonarugment purposefully in a poor attempt to validate the flat side?

Sorry.
There is no way for a flatty to make a map where three 90degree turns gets you back to start.

Yeah but I generally don't see the curvature. And you are not looking at this skeptically from an honest position to accept it if its true, am i right?  Have you driven out of your town and measured the apparent height of the buildings?


Incoorect.
Yui sir are not being honset by attempting to introduce doubt and validate a nonconcern to a susceptible few.
If you looked at your claim sceptically you woild realise the difference is near neglible if you accountd for hills and valleys or not, while the FE map is out by 1000s of km on a basic level when comparing apples-apples from point-point.
What is it that plague the susceptible few? And i wasn't trying to make your point.


Some fe have a "feeling" the earth is flat because conventional science "cant be trusted".
Youre trying to validate that mistrust by introducing doubt.
That doubt is unfounddd and irrelevant.



Dafuq you on about?
I know youre not making my point.
I found that very offensive.
" Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

I am not a druggy

Re: All About maps
« Reply #31 on: January 13, 2020, 02:06:36 PM »
Enlighten me then on your meaning/ intention.

Maybe ill guess -
Are you saying that the rockies elevation of ~4km above sea level needs to be factored in when comparing the 4,000km distance between seattle and boston?

However using a flat earth map, the distance between california and sydney aus is what?
Can you tell me?
Or australia doesnt exist?

Maybe i cant guess.
What are you on about?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2020, 02:57:46 PM by Themightykabool »

Re: All About maps
« Reply #32 on: January 13, 2020, 02:52:03 PM »
Maps are accurate for the projection system they use.
Whatever that is supposed to mean. No flat-sheet-of-paper map that covers long distances and has a fixed scale is accurate. Period.

*

rabinoz

  • 25566
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: All About maps
« Reply #33 on: January 13, 2020, 03:03:41 PM »
Enlighten me then on your meaning/ intention.

Maybe ill guess -
Are you saying that an elevation of ~4km above sea level needs to be factored in when comparing the 4,000km distance between seattle and boston?

However using a flat earth map, the distance between california and sydney aus is what?
Can you tell me?
Or australia doesnt exist?

Maybe i cant guess.
What are you on about?
On the Gleason's map the distance from Perth to Melbourne is about 5,700 km
but it is really closer to 2,722 km (calculated for perfect sphere earth).
The flight distance is quoted as about 2700 km and "Flight time from Melbourne to Perth is 4 hours 5 minutes".
I doubt the planes average about 1400 km/hr!


Re: All About maps
« Reply #34 on: January 13, 2020, 03:17:05 PM »
Enlighten me then on your meaning/ intention.

Maybe ill guess -
Are you saying that an elevation of ~4km above sea level needs to be factored in when comparing the 4,000km distance between seattle and boston?

However using a flat earth map, the distance between california and sydney aus is what?
Can you tell me?
Or australia doesnt exist?

Maybe i cant guess.
What are you on about?
On the Gleason's map the distance from Perth to Melbourne is about 5,700 km
but it is really closer to 2,722 km (calculated for perfect sphere earth).
The flight distance is quoted as about 2700 km and "Flight time from Melbourne to Perth is 4 hours 5 minutes".
I doubt the planes average about 1400 km/hr!

Ah.
Wow.
Thats a little bit more off than the 1-2% caused from elevation.

What was your point faded?
That these two examples are equivalent?

*

faded mike

  • 1256
  • new world
Re: All About maps
« Reply #35 on: January 13, 2020, 04:04:50 PM »
I was just introducing some ideas i think may be relevant.
" Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

I am not a druggy

Re: All About maps
« Reply #36 on: January 13, 2020, 04:09:43 PM »
They are not.
Do you still think it is?

And i assumed your intention, based on your replyies in other threads, is an atrempt to validate fe.
So why do you take offence if that is your goal ?

Re: All About maps
« Reply #37 on: January 13, 2020, 07:21:35 PM »
Maps are accurate for the projection system they use.
Whatever that is supposed to mean. No flat-sheet-of-paper map that covers long distances and has a fixed scale is accurate. Period.

I think it means that maps can both be projections and be accurate.

A Mercator projection of the world straightens our the lines of longitude and latitude.  If every location on the map is shown at the correct longitude and latitude using this system, then its accurate.  If for example Japan is in the Atlantic, then its inaccurate.  Thats a bit of an extreme example, but it demonstrates the point.

Re: All About maps
« Reply #38 on: January 14, 2020, 12:24:39 AM »
Whatever that is supposed to mean. No flat-sheet-of-paper map that covers long distances and has a fixed scale is accurate. Period.
It means when you take into consideration the projection that is used, rather than trying to treat it as a fixed scale, it is accurate.
For example, the common Mercartor projection, where the scale is a function of distance from the equator.

Re: All About maps
« Reply #39 on: January 14, 2020, 06:30:59 AM »
For example, the common Mercartor projection, where the scale is a function of distance from the equator.
OK sure, I see what you mean. It's "accurate" so long as you don't demand a fixed scale. My point is that if the earth were flat, you could have a fixed-scale map of it on a flat sheet of paper and have it be accurate. It isn't, so you can't.

*

faded mike

  • 1256
  • new world
Re: All About maps
« Reply #40 on: January 16, 2020, 01:52:39 PM »
Enlighten me then on your meaning/ intention.

Maybe ill guess -
Are you saying that the rockies elevation of ~4km above sea level needs to be factored in when comparing the 4,000km distance between seattle and boston?

However using a flat earth map, the distance between california and sydney aus is what?
Can you tell me?
Or australia doesnt exist?

Maybe i cant guess.
What are you on about?

If others were interested in having a discussion about possibilities, not so interested in offering my own long drawn out speculation.
" Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

I am not a druggy

Re: All About maps
« Reply #41 on: January 16, 2020, 02:14:06 PM »
If there is no possibility of a flat earth map, then there is no possibility of a flat earth.
The fact that no one can make a fixed scale map on a flat sheet of paper that correctly displays the distances between cities and continents, and relative sizes of the continents is, by itself, all that is needed to prove that the earth is not flat.
Don't forget, the Earth is kind of rippley, i think, with very big hills and valleys. Wouldn't this be a very similar obstacle to map as global.

No
The distance between seatle and boston people can easily understamd and take into account the relatovely small discrepancy between actual driving distances vs flying.

The discrepancy can be acccounted for as per geodesic surveys mentioned.

Australia to south ameroca dont work on a flat earther map.

You are trying to introduce a nonarugment purposefully in a poor attempt to validate the flat side?

Sorry.
There is no way for a flatty to make a map where three 90degree turns gets you back to start.

Yeah but I generally don't see the curvature. And you are not looking at this skeptically from an honest position to accept it if its true, am i right?  Have you driven out of your town and measured the apparent height of the buildings?

Sorry but here you started in by not saying "what if" but by laying vague claim that ripples should be given same consideration as australia-south america being 5x the reality distance.

If you wanted to explore possibilties for fun, maybe dont claim others arent honest or lack critical thinking.

*

rabinoz

  • 25566
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: All About maps
« Reply #42 on: February 16, 2020, 02:29:06 AM »
How come flat earthers don't talk about maps?
Maybe it's because they realise that they don't have a map that explains many things.

For example the usual flat-Earth map has the Southern Hemisphere west to east distances that are far too large - I know because I live in the Southern Hemisphere. This map:


Not only that but in 1911/12 Roald Amundsen and Robert Scott's expeditions to the South Pole went south along quite different meridians but both ended up in exactly the same place.
Below on the left are their routes on a polar map and on the right is a photo of Amundsen's tent taken by Scott's expedition:


Comparison of Amundsen and Scott Routes Antartic Expeditions 1911/2
         
British polar team find Amundsen's tent, 18 January 1912

But if the Earth were shaped as in the "Ice-Wall" map it would mean that Roald Amundsen and Robert Scott's expeditions would not have ended in places thousands of kilometres apart because they travelled along quite different longitudes.

We know, however, that Scott's expedition arrived at exactly the same place because they took a photo of Amundsen's tent with the Norwegian flag still flying.

*

faded mike

  • 1256
  • new world
Re: All About maps
« Reply #43 on: February 19, 2020, 10:42:59 PM »
They are not.
Do you still think it is?

And i assumed your intention, based on your replyies in other threads, is an atrempt to validate fe.
So why do you take offence if that is your goal ?
You didn't answer my q, not in this quote, did you go out of the city and measure the buildings from a distance. Do they drop behind the horizon?
" Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

I am not a druggy

Re: All About maps
« Reply #44 on: February 20, 2020, 04:37:49 AM »
Yes

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: All About maps
« Reply #45 on: February 20, 2020, 05:07:19 AM »
Reporting for duty.
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18109
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: All About maps
« Reply #46 on: February 20, 2020, 05:33:40 AM »
^^^  Hahahahaha

*

rabinoz

  • 25566
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: All About maps
« Reply #47 on: February 20, 2020, 03:07:38 PM »
They are not.
Do you still think it is?

And i assumed your intention, based on your replyies in other threads, is an atrempt to validate fe.
So why do you take offence if that is your goal ?
You didn't answer my q, not in this quote, did you go out of the city and measure the buildings from a distance. Do they drop behind the horizon?
OK do "you go out of the city and measure the buildings from a distance. Do they drop behind the horizon?"

That would be a futile exercise along a road because that "horizon" might be simply the uneven land surface.

Over water, it's a different matter because we are told that "water finds its own level" and we do find buildings "dropping behind the horizon". Here is a series of Chicago taken from increasing distances across Lake Michigan where you can see for yourself:
These are from Chicago As Seen From Around South Lake Michigan Posted on June 13, 2014 by Matthew Wolf where there is a map and more photos.

Chicago from Whiting, IN (15 miles from skyline)
   

Chicago from Burns Harbor, IN (26 miles from skyline)

The further from Chicago the and more of Chicago appears hidden!


Chicago from Michigan City,
IN (33 miles from skyline) - and the lake ate ;) 1/2 the sun too!
   

Chicago from New Buffalo,
MI (40 miles from skyline)

There is little more information available than the distance from Chicago and more would be needed to check if the hidden height agreed with expectations.

But, if Lake Michigan were flat, why would any be hidden?


Re: All About maps
« Reply #48 on: February 20, 2020, 03:31:24 PM »
They are not.
Do you still think it is?

And i assumed your intention, based on your replyies in other threads, is an atrempt to validate fe.
So why do you take offence if that is your goal ?
You didn't answer my q, not in this quote, did you go out of the city and measure the buildings from a distance. Do they drop behind the horizon?

You could also answer my questions.

Re: All About maps
« Reply #49 on: February 20, 2020, 09:48:10 PM »
There is no way for a flatty to make a map where three 90degree turns gets you back to start.

Yeah but I generally don't see the curvature. And you are not looking at this skeptically from an honest position to accept it if its true, am i right?  Have you driven out of your town and measured the apparent height of the buildings?
Curvature is not easy to see because there is virtually no "side-to-side" curve on the ocean horizon from a low altitude as in:

But viewing objects that project above water-level as they recede into the distance does clearly show that the ocean must curve.
This sort of thing:

Or are a couple of screenshots from the video below showing the Bathurst Lighthouse on Rottnest Island from two different heights above sea-level:
They were taken from Princes St, Cottesloe, Western Australia.

Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft
     
Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft
The screenshots are from this video:

Bathurst Lighthouse - The fastest flat Earth destroyer in the West.


If the ocean is flat, why is far more visible from 100 ft above sea-level than when 6 ft above sea-level.
It does look as though a "bulge of water" is between the camera and Rottnest Island.

I dont know why you bother, clearly you are preaching sense to morons.
Their only answer is I didnt see it with my own eyes so its not true.
For the rest of the world that resides in sanity, many of us have seen it with our own eyes so we know how stupid their responses are.

*

rabinoz

  • 25566
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: All About maps
« Reply #50 on: February 21, 2020, 12:51:58 AM »
I dont know why you bother, clearly you are preaching sense to morons.
Their only answer is I didnt see it with my own eyes so its not true.
For the rest of the world that resides in sanity, many of us have seen it with our own eyes so we know how stupid their responses are.
I agree with most that you say but there might be a few not so far down the "rabbit hole" that they might be "recoverable".

Your observation "Their only answer is I didn't see it with my own eyes so its not true" just so true.
To demonstrate this just look at JM Truth quite openly accusing Team Skeptic of lying about a video that Team Skeptic had personally taken on site.
It's a 1 hour 28 minute video but the relevant part is near the beginning:

Reds Rhetoric VS JM Truth - The Rocket Launch Showdown


JM Truth simply cannot accept any evidence the does not fit his "Worldview", even video evidence presented personally by the person who took the video.
But that's little different from most flat Earthers.

The Southern Hemisphere non-stop flights South Africa to/from Australia, Australia to/from South America and South America to/from South Africa do not fit the flat Earth map so some go to extraordinary lengths to claim that they are "fake".


Re: All About maps
« Reply #51 on: March 13, 2020, 02:07:39 PM »
if you use chrome you can use google earth which proves the earth is round. you can even zoom in to see your own house!
/ /soccer mom/ /anti vaxxer/ /flat earthen/ /boomer/ /blonde/ /wise/ /

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16455
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: All About maps
« Reply #52 on: March 13, 2020, 02:10:04 PM »
any finite flat surface must have an edge.
Please support your bold claim, unless you are talking about the edge that represents the surface itself.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 21156
  • All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
Re: All About maps
« Reply #53 on: March 13, 2020, 02:21:07 PM »
if you use chrome you can use google earth which proves the earth is round. you can even zoom in to see your own house!

We have proved its being not round by using google maps and a compass 1 dollar cost. You can search and find that issue.
Ignore:
Coronal Gaydafi, boydster and mr juraII:A gang killing FE'rs
NotSoSkeptical
Platonius21
Solarwind (Amoranemix)
Definitely Not Swedish (codebeta, alt of papa legba)

Backstage of Covid-19 in Italian Parliament:


*

rabinoz

  • 25566
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: All About maps
« Reply #54 on: March 13, 2020, 03:24:56 PM »
flat surface.
Please support your bold claim, unless you are talking about the edge that represents the surface itself.
According to the Oxford Dictionary:
Quote
edge
noun
    The outside limit of an object, area, or surface; a place or part farthest away from the center of something.
Which would make the periphery of a circle an edge.

But technically you are correct.
Quote
2D shapes
A 2D shape is a flat shape. We are learning about the following 2D shapes -circle, square, rectangle, triangle, pentagon, hexagon, octagon. When we talk about the properties of these shapes we look at the number of sides that each shape has and the number of corners. A corner is where 2 sides meet. E.g. a triangle has 3 straight sides and 3 corners, whereas a circle has 1 curved side but no corners.
And I should have said that "flat surface must have at least one side" - " a circle has 1 curved side but no corners".

Though:
Quote
3D  shapes
A 3D shape is a blown up shape.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
An edge is where 2 faces meet, again some can be straight, some can be curved e.g. a cube has 12 straight edges whereas a cylinder has 2 curved edges.
So, since a
Though I hardly see that it matters because the flat Earth cannot be a 2-D object so presumably it has a flat (excluding surface features) upper surface surrounded by an edge.

But, as I believe was quite apparent, the flat Earth must have uncrossable boundaries (be they edges, the "Ice-Wall" or whatever) preventing circumnavigation in some directions.

In the most widely accepted flat Earth layout (with the "Ice-Wall" around Antarctica) circumnavigation via both poles is not possible and most flat Earthers simply claim that those are faked and all such claims are lies.

*

Stash

  • 4032
Re: All About maps
« Reply #55 on: March 13, 2020, 03:25:47 PM »
if you use chrome you can use google earth which proves the earth is round. you can even zoom in to see your own house!

We have proved its being not round by using google maps and a compass 1 dollar cost. You can search and find that issue.

Actually, you didn't. If you go back through the thread here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68217.0

You'll see that it comes down to you not believing in a magnetic north and a geographic north and subsequently discarding declination. You were even shown a map of Istanbul that calculated the 5 degrees of declination for you.

Google Earth and Google maps don't unto themselves prove anything about the shape of the earth. They do, however, use a spherical earth for their projections, calculations, distances, and presentation. And they seem to be extremely accurate.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

rabinoz

  • 25566
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: All About maps
« Reply #56 on: March 13, 2020, 03:42:56 PM »
if you use chrome you can use google earth which proves the earth is round. you can even zoom in to see your own house!

We have proved its being not round by using google maps and a compass 1 dollar cost. You can search and find that issue.
"Google maps" and a "1 dollar compass" could never prove any such thing. Even the most accurate magnetic compass does not usually point to the North Pole.
Here a magnetic compass points  11 5' East  0 20' of true North in Ankara, 5 53' East 0 21' and in Istanbul, 5 42' East  0 21' - all from: NOAA: Magnetic Field Calculators.

But, whatever the magnetic declination, it has no bearing on the shape of the Earth - the magnetic declination is simply a matter of measurement.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16455
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: All About maps
« Reply #57 on: March 13, 2020, 06:03:40 PM »
"Simply a matter of measurement" is simply a matter of two thousands years of goal post moving.

"Oh north isn't north. You mean North. Its slightly off because, well it is tilted."
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Stash

  • 4032
Re: All About maps
« Reply #58 on: March 13, 2020, 06:26:54 PM »
"Simply a matter of measurement" is simply a matter of two thousands years of goal post moving.

"Oh north isn't north. You mean North. Its slightly off because, well it is tilted."

The goal post moving, or 'declination' as the rest of us refer to it, seems to have worked out exceedingly well for the past 2000+ years. And with pinpoint precision these days. What do you have that's more accurate in your world?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

rabinoz

  • 25566
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: All About maps
« Reply #59 on: March 13, 2020, 07:24:27 PM »
"Simply a matter of measurement" is simply a matter of two thousands years of goal post moving.
How else can anyone determine the many properties of the Earth than by measurement - you flat Earthers should try it sometime.
Yes, I know that Rowbotham tried it with the Sun's height and made a right royal mess of it that modern day flat Earthers all seem to disagree with and not by a small margin but buy factor of over three!

Then your Taoists tried it and quickly got turfed out because their Sun etc circling overhead could not even explain sunrises and sunsets.
And modern flat Earthers still have great difficulty explaining sunrises and sunsets so we get weird ideas like Rob Skiba's "atmoplanic lensing" and Tom Bishop's "bendy light" AKA his "Electromagnetic Accelerator" hypothesis.

Now if by "goal post" you mean the magnetic north and south poles, sure, the goal posts are moving.
But they're moving with no help from people - they do it all on their own with the south magnetic "dip" pole having a real wanderlust!

Observed south dip poles during 1903 - 2000 are yellow squares. Modeled pole locations from 1590 to 2020 are circles progressing from blue to yellow.
And the locations have been measured from 1903 and modeled before that.