Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 10:52:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Mar 30, 2015 10:56:17 GMT
Yes, you're right. This is just an azimuthal map projection.  Here is a link: Azimuthal map projectionHere are some important quotes from the article. However, it is important to bear in mind what a map projection means: Map projection |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 14:00:38 GMT
Yes, you're right. This is just an azimuthal map projection. Here is a link: Azimuthal map projectionHere are some important quotes from the article. However, it is important to bear in mind what a map projection means: Map projectionTHIS is a terrific post. Very insightful! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 15:50:44 GMT
I'm still convinced that this "azimuthal equidistant" map is the closest to the reality. It isn't the absolute truth, since it is just a "squished" ball earth.
But the layout, I believe, is generally accurate. It can't be trusted for size of continents, however.
|
|
|
|
Post by caesar on Apr 3, 2015 17:44:18 GMT
Yes I too think this is a quite acurate map of the land we know - I covered some flight routes and all seem to match perfectly on this layout.
this is not my video
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 17:53:18 GMT
Yes I too think this is a quite acurate map of the land we know - I covered some flight routes and all seem to match perfectly on this layout. this is not my video Thank you so much, caesar! I always enjoyed your videos very much. When I get home, I'm going to check these out. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by efrohi on Apr 4, 2015 5:38:36 GMT
I always wondering about the fly paths. The plane fly straight and on the map is a curve. That was one of the reasons i study the flat earth Theory.
lol ... imagine, you can have two maps, one shows a curve when you fly straight the other one shows a straight line when you fly a straight line ...
Ehhh, ok, i take the curvy one ... Lol ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2015 11:30:46 GMT
I always wondering about the fly paths. The plane fly straight and on the map is a curve. That was one of the reasons i study the flat earth Theory. lol ... imagine, you can have two maps, one shows a curve when you fly straight the other one shows a straight line when you fly a straight line ... Ehhh, ok, i take the curvy one ... Lol ... Yes, very well said. I would expect a little bit of a curve on a ball earth, to get the shortest distance in sphere geometry. But not the extreme curve you always see. When you're flying on an airplane, and sometimes they give you the little screen with the flight path, and I would always notice that the plane is going way north, so far north compared to what you would expect. It always shocked me. But on a flat earth, that route makes perfect sense. It is the direct straight line on a flat earth. |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 4, 2015 12:05:24 GMT
I always wondering about the fly paths. The plane fly straight and on the map is a curve. That was one of the reasons i study the flat earth Theory. lol ... imagine, you can have two maps, one shows a curve when you fly straight the other one shows a straight line when you fly a straight line ... Ehhh, ok, i take the curvy one ... Lol ... Yes, very well said. I would expect a little bit of a curve on a ball earth, to get the shortest distance in sphere geometry. But not the extreme curve you always see. When you're flying on an airplane, and sometimes they give you the little screen with the flight path, and I would always notice that the plane is going way north, so far north compared to what you would expect. It always shocked me. But on a flat earth, that route makes perfect sense. It is the direct straight line on a flat earth. Actually, since they say all maps are projections and systematic transformation of the latitudes and longitudes of locations on the surface of a sphere or an ellipsoid into locations on a plane, then it is clear why you see the flight paths curved the way you describe. If you look at a globe you won't need a curved flight path as the sphere is curved itself, but when it is projected onto a flat surface as on a map, it should be curved to roughly follow the spherical curvature. All the maps people use are flat, that is why we see all the distortions, at least that is the official position on this. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2015 12:09:07 GMT
Yes, very well said. I would expect a little bit of a curve on a ball earth, to get the shortest distance in sphere geometry. But not the extreme curve you always see. When you're flying on an airplane, and sometimes they give you the little screen with the flight path, and I would always notice that the plane is going way north, so far north compared to what you would expect. It always shocked me. But on a flat earth, that route makes perfect sense. It is the direct straight line on a flat earth. Actually, since they say all maps are projections and systematic transformation of the latitudes and longitudes of locations on the surface of a sphere or an ellipsoid into locations on a plane, then it is clear why you see the flight paths curved the way you describe. If you look at a globe you won't need a curved flight path as the sphere is curved itself, but when it is projected onto a flat surface as on a map, it should be curved to roughly follow the spherical curvature. All the maps people use are flat, that is why we see all the distortions, at least that is the official position on this. Yes, that makes sense. It is amazing how everything is done indeed on flat maps anyway, and has always been that way. If the earth were a ball, you'd think they would just use geometric ball animations to show what is really going on. |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 4, 2015 12:26:25 GMT
Actually, since they say all maps are projections and systematic transformation of the latitudes and longitudes of locations on the surface of a sphere or an ellipsoid into locations on a plane, then it is clear why you see the flight paths curved the way you describe. If you look at a globe you won't need a curved flight path as the sphere is curved itself, but when it is projected onto a flat surface as on a map, it should be curved to roughly follow the spherical curvature. All the maps people use are flat, that is why we see all the distortions, at least that is the official position on this. Yes, that makes sense. It is amazing how everything is done indeed on flat maps anyway, and has always been that way. If the earth were a ball, you'd think they would just use geometric ball animations to show what is really going on. Also, I am puzzled why they chose the Mercator cylindrical map projection over the North Pole azimuthal equidistant projection. How is it better or easier to read? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2015 18:30:38 GMT
Well, don't be too hasty. Here is a video which claims the OPPOSITE:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2015 19:32:52 GMT
Yes, that makes sense. It is amazing how everything is done indeed on flat maps anyway, and has always been that way. If the earth were a ball, you'd think they would just use geometric ball animations to show what is really going on. Also, I am puzzled why they chose the Mercator cylindrical map projection over the North Pole azimuthal equidistant projection. How is it better or easier to read? Good point. Maybe they thought the north pole projection would be too obviously hinting that the earth is flat.  |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 5, 2015 10:26:00 GMT
Well, don't be too hasty. Here is a video which claims the OPPOSITE: Yes, I see very well Zhib's point and he makes logical remarks. I have said many times that both maps are distorted. Map projections are always distorted. This is by definition. However, this Oslo - Anchorage example doesn't seem to work on his map either. Also, Auckland, New Zealand- Santiago, Chile is much shorter on his map, when in reality it is not such a short flight. Auckland - Santiago appears to be ~ 4 times shorter than Oslo - Anchorage on his map. He should address that too. Not to mention that if his map were true they should fly over Africa and southern Argentina, because it is the shortest route from Oslo to Anchorage. Actually, I checked the flights on skyscanner and they are not direct flights. Most have connections in London or Paris, and then they fly Seattle to Anchorage. By the way, on his map the flight from London to Seattle should be over South America, but in reality it isn't. His question why they are not done over the Arctic is still valid, but his version of the map doesn't explain why they don't fly over Africa or South America to get to Alaska. Look at the map below:  |
|
|
|
Post by martenhernebring on Apr 6, 2015 23:06:12 GMT
I am still open to both maps. Nothing has been proved for me. Flight times is easy to fake. My guess would be that North and South pole travel both are impossible so no need to go there as Boylan says.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2015 0:54:11 GMT
I am still open to both maps. Nothing has been proved for me. Flight times is easy to fake. My guess would be that North and South pole travel both are impossible so no need to go there as Boylan says. Yes, the flight times are surely easy to fake, since we don't have an exact map. I do believe that the azimuthal equidistant is the right orientation. But the exact sizes and distances of the land masses, might be very different. Thus, the flight times have to determine the map, and not the other way around. Also, with things like "one way flights" that have secret fuel stops, that means there's a lot of trickery going on with even flight times and distances. |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 7, 2015 7:42:25 GMT
I am still open to both maps. Nothing has been proved for me. Flight times is easy to fake. My guess would be that North and South pole travel both are impossible so no need to go there as Boylan says. Please try to debunk this: Arctic Sightseeing Flight Antarctica flightsEUR 444 to the North pole and back by plane (polar basic ticket) $1199 for an Antarctica sightseeing tour by plane in economy class departing from Melbourne. Fly to the South Pole |
|
|
|
Post by martenhernebring on Apr 7, 2015 8:51:29 GMT
Jess: I also believe that map is right based on the midsummer sun in the Arctic region.
LIT: The glacier on the second photo to the arctic looks like the biggest glacier on Iceland Vattjajökul.
The next plane to the Antarctic goes in 220 days and should be fully booked by then.
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 7, 2015 9:08:45 GMT
Jess: I also believe that map is right based on the midsummer sun in the Arctic region. LIT: The glacier on the second photo to the arctic looks like the biggest glacier on Iceland Vattjajökul. The next plane to the Antarctic goes in 220 days and should be fully booked by then. Yeah, right. I would suggest to anyone who doubts Antarctica or the North pole exist first to try to get there before denying it. Matt Boylan, in my opinion, is just joking or intentionally lying. Not sure why. Maybe he wants to believe it is true. Why should I believe Matt and doubt everyone else? His space hoax analysis is much more plausible than the other stuff he claims. He is yet to prove his claims. You can say the same way that no one can go to the Pitcairn islands or some other distant place. As for the South Pole, if anyone wants to prove it doesn't exist, why don't they interview the people who work there or at least find something suspicious about them? Making up stuff and insisting it is true is mere trolling. There are people who crossed Antarctica or so they say. Apparently, they were allowed to do it too. Saying it is impossible and not willing to test your claim is kind of pointless. I realize that it could be faked, but anyone who claims that has to prove it, and they haven't even tried to go there. Matt claims he was denied, but again he has no proof of that. |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 14, 2015 14:45:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 15, 2015 23:01:14 GMT
Azimuthal Equidistant "Modified"How's this for the flight paths' solution...? 
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2015 14:01:36 GMT
Azimuthal Equidistant "Modified"How's this for the flight paths' solution...? That's not too bad, actually. That would fit about 8 hours from New York to Paris, and about about 13 hours from Sydney to Santiago, and Johannesburg to Melbourne so often stopping in Dubai. |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 16, 2015 14:52:07 GMT
mattCan you try to do the same but with the following map? I think the sizes of the continents are more correct on this map. On the other one, there are some huge discrepancies. 
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 16, 2015 15:12:29 GMT
I can try it, but it may take some time. The other one was one I started on that was first a Mercator projection. We will see...
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 16, 2015 15:18:41 GMT
mattWell, in my opinion the map I posted is much more correct. The other one is greatly distorted.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 16, 2015 15:21:43 GMT
mattWell, in my opinion the map I posted is much more correct. The other one is greatly distorted. Oh, ok - you mean just shifting the locations? Yes the other is distorted - I distorted it. Makes everything "closer"... |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 16, 2015 16:07:38 GMT
mattThe other one is based on the UN flat Earth map, which is distorted in such a way that the continents are not the correct size. Shifting them around is okay as long as the continents don't change their sizes. Also, they need to be placed according to latitude at least. Otherwise, it is a complete mess. Africa is not bigger than Asia, nor is Australia that big either. Anyway, you can also look at this map for the approximate sizes and just shift them around a disc. You can choose either one, just make sure to keep their real size. I know someone might argue that we don't know their real size and we can't trust the data, but let's assume we do. 
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 16, 2015 16:41:36 GMT
mattThe other one is based on the UN flat Earth map, which is distorted in such a way that the continents are not the correct size. Shifting them around is okay as long as the continents don't change their sizes. Also, they need to be placed according to latitude at least. Otherwise, it is a complete mess. Africa is not bigger than Asia, nor is Australia that big either. Anyway, you can also look at this map for the approximate sizes and just shift them around a disc. You can choose either one, just make sure to keep their real size. I know someone might argue that we don't know their real size and we can't trust the data, but let's assume we do. That is a really neat image LIT! - how did you come up with it? Do you have a hi-res version? |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 16, 2015 18:50:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 16, 2015 20:36:52 GMT
mattThat map is called Dymaxion map or Fuller map. You can read more about it on wikipedia or elsewhere. The point is to preserve the shapes and the sizes of the continents. The Dymaxion Map is the only flat map of the entire surface of the earth that reveals our planet as it really is an island in one ocean without any visible distortion of the relative shapes and sizes of the land areas, and without splitting any continents. Dymaxion mapFuller map Here is another interesting one too: Peirce quincuncial map
|
|
