Or "see, yet another thing that gets presented as fact (the standard map) misrepresents reality and almost nobody knows or admits it. Another example of why you can't trust so called scientists!?!"
Yes, they do. They'll bring you the Gleason Projection and say this is exactly what their model predicts. The way you break a Flerf is to do this same exercise with the Southern hemisphere. Because according to their model, the distances should continue to get larger south of the equator, whereas on the globe they will shrink again just like we see here.
Actually, I’m pretty sure that there is a conspiracy theory that believes Australia isn’t real. I think it also started out as a joke somewhere, but I’m not sure.
I'd heard about r/finlandconspiracy (unrelated to flerfs), but Australia is a new one!
If only there was some way they could travel and confirm. Oh well!
lol, and I think there’s one about New Zealand because it’s not included on every map, but I’m not really sure, it could just be a joke. But I watched a YouTube video about the Australian one, but that was a few years ago ago. I really can’t remember
I had no idea about the Finland conspiracy. That’s really funny.
A kilogram is an actual physical weight because gravity changes or something science shit I don't understand. Therefore the kilogram is not actually constent. That means the kilogram is fake, if the kilogram is fake that also means the kilometer is also fake, because it has kilo in the word. That means like the kilogram the kilometer is not constant so it changes depending on when they measured it.
When you use my "explanation" cite me as factual evidence flat eathers.
Their argument that the earth is flat kinda is supported by this. The North Pole is the center of the flat earth so distances getting shorter the closer you get to the North Pole would make sense. The problem is this also happens when you go south of the equator, but because hardly anyone lives in the southern hemisphere as well as much less land mass. They feel they can just ignore this.
Yes, maps were made for sailing, Mercator's map is the one we most commonly use so much of earth is distorted. A better map is the Peter's map that shows sizes better there are even ones built off his projection that are better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall%E2%80%93Peters_projection
To be clear, the most mainstream flat earth beliefs involves the North Pole being at the center of the flat earth. So the distances getting smaller as it gets further from the equator and closer to the pole, supports this belief.
The problem is of course this exact thing also happens when you get south of the equator and head towards the South Pole, but because so few people live in the southern hemisphere, and such little landmass exists down there, they feel comfortable ignoring this and treating it as something that can be completely ignored.
Well find me a real person from this so-called "southern hemisphere" who can tell me they've personally seen distances further from the equator line get shorter! That's right you can't because it's a conspiracy..
What's that? You're Argentinian and you can attest... well you must be in on it then! Liar!
Nobody on earth lives in Argentina or Australia! The idea that they can both see the southern cross at the same time is gobbledygook, unless you are talking about my patented Azimuthal Grid of Vision(tm)! It's where everyone on Earth has their own personal view of the celestial heavens based on their current physical location. What globers treat as circumstantial evidence that the Earth is a ball, is actually the glorious work of Yahweh. It's a small deception given to us to prove our faith, just like dinosaur bones, and uranium. It's all covered in the Book of Enoch.
They think there's no way of knowing what other planets even are. Projections of light or optical illusions are the two main camps. The only unifying belief is that they aren't actual physical worlds.
I can sure explain this. The earth is a flat trapezium and that explains the different measures. Also no idea what km is. My go to measure is distance is milfs.
Not a flat earther, but to be clear, in their “model” of a flat earth where the North Pole is the center, the distances would shrink the closer you get to the North Pole.
The problem is this same effect happens as you get closer to the South Pole, where they just assume it gets bigger instead of smaller resulting in a 72k mile long ice wall
The existence of the "long ice wall" is well documented. You should educate yourself by reading the books of the geographer George R.R. Martin. You should also watch the scientific documentary (73 episodes) based on those books.
I'm familiar with that crackpot, he almost had me believing in dragons and blood magic too, but luckily Professor Dave Explains on youtube set me straight.
The basics: No map is a perfectly accurate representation of geography because there's no way to perfectly represent 3D objects on a 2D plane. All maps will be off to some degree in terms of shape, size, and distance. There are different approaches that sacrifice some of those aspects more or less than the others, and those are called map projections. The Mercator projection is one of the most commonly-encountered for world maps, and is notable for the large distortion of size at the poles, to the degree that Greenland looks as big as Africa when it is actually many times smaller.
That’s not entirely true—it is possible to accurately represent 3D objects with a Gaussian curvature of 0 on a 2D plane. Spheres, though, have a Gaussian curvature of 1/r2 where r is the radius of the sphere.
Being rectangular it's a plus since, it can easily be folded and it fit nicely on screens.
Also it's continuous, unlike others projections that are splitter in multiple sections m
It did what it was intended to do, helping sailors navigate the ocean, so calling it shit is a little bit much. A map/projection is only as good as what it was designed for after all (and infographic maps definitely weren't in Mercator's mind)
That's Mercator. The one and only map projection that has any real use, other than entertainment.
So, Greenland isn't bigger than Africa? Who cares! Greenland isn't green either, nobody other than the people who live there gives a single fuck about Greenland.
We use maps to get from one place to the other. The Mercator projection preserves angles, and when you steer a ship you really want to know what angle you should be reading on your compass.
I've never heard this word pronounced before until last week. In my head, I read it as mer-ka-tor but the person pronounced it as mer-cater and it blew my mind.
That teacher is wrong. The Mercator projection retains directions (that's why it was chosen, because it was useful in maritimal navegation back then), but there are a lot more equally valid
I was slightly acquainted with Steve Waterman (who btw seemed to think he had found a paradox at the heart of physics because he did not understand Galilean relativity). I heard he died, but no details.
And now I'm imagining an analogous thread posted by inhabitants of hyperbolic space, involving horospheres, shapes whose intrinsic geometry is Euclidean
That’s actually rectangular but not flat. Rectangular really just means you can put a 2D coordinate system on it, which you can here. Flat in this sense references the concept in differential geometry, the mathematical framework used by relativity. Flat spaces are so defined by the behaviour of geodesics, the shortest paths between points, and specifically flat spaces have straight lines as geodesics. In your image, the shortest paths are still not straight lines. A sphere’s surface is curved (geodesics are not straight lines), and one of the fundamental properties of differential geometry is that isomorphisms (ie a 2D map of a sphere’s surface) cannot change flat/curved status.
ty!! there’s no way to translate 3D on a 2D plane without some sort of mathematical distortion. 2D maps are meant to be useful, not an accurate representation of earth
People using this to argue against Mercator simply don't know how to read a map. The horizontal dimension isn't km, it's degrees of longitude. A horizontal line of a fixed length, anywhere you put it on the Mercator projection, is the same amount of degrees of longitude. The longer lines you see further north on this map are indeed more degrees of longitude, just not km because degrees of longitude change based on latitude. But Mercator never claimed they were km, it's labelled as Long.° which it is, if you thought otherwise it's your own fault for reading the map wrong.
The top line represents the distance between those points following the shortest path on a great circle route, but it is not the actual path that would be taken. The actual path you would take would involve an arc basically touching the North Pole, which in this specific map would be difficult to visualize as it would basically have the yellow line heading north east or NNE, disappearing off the screen and coming back down off the screen and it would appear to be coming from the north west or NNW.
In summary the lines just represent the shortest distance between those points, but not the actual paths that would be taken.
The shortest distance between the points on the map, would be an arc on a mercator projection, yes. The graphics used in this picture aren't lines through the earth either, they are just being used to create an inside joke for people in the know to laugh at people who don't understand the pitfalls of 3D to 2D map projections.
Franklin actually eat his boots on his reconnaissance tour, where he took the train to Manitoba first, and then went to the arctic on foot. That is when he got hungry and boiled his own leather boots.
When he came back on the Terror some years later he had wrapped his feet in Marmalade and crisps sandwiches to be better prepared.
I know, and also your additional information made me chuckle!
I was raised in Spilsby, his hometown, I remember asking my dad who he was and got told he was a moron and a failure, I was surprised by his reaction to the question, he didn't seem to favour the man who had seemingly earned a statue we'd see every day, so I have always been interested in him and arctic exploration in general.
Years later I found myself delivering building supplies to the HQ of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, got to sit in some vehicles and asked some questions about the logistics of their work, very interesting. Made me wish I had tried harder in school.
Maybe it was just my obsessive map collecting from old National Geographics, but growing up int he 90s, I swear I saw Robinson far more commonly than Mercator. I went to a Catholic school in Pennsylvania, USA, so we weren't typically swimming in money to get the latest projections.
Was Mercator really more common as a teaching tool back then?
Mercator is technically more accurate when it comes to real use cases like navigation, where the Robinson just looks cleaner. Also grew up in the 90s in a South Philly Catholic school, before moving east and going to a public school, I saw a mix of both.
It would be fuckin hilarious if we both went to Saint Monica’s tho, I could ask you if you remember sister Denise 🤣
Heh. I'm from the other end of the state. JFK (Jail For Kids) in the Pittsburgh diocese.
I get the intention of Mercator and it is great at what it does, but Robinson and its descendants are better for giving kids a real feel for how the world looks.
There just seems to be this meme online that we were all fed Mercator all the time as kids (oftentimes with the addition (implied or explicit) that its purpose is to make the Global South look less important). That was just never my experience and I was always the kind of kid who was overly into maps. I just wonder how many people really remember the projections that they most often see, if my memory is faulty, or my experience was atypical.
EDIT: I just wonder how much of it was fed by that one episode from West Wing.
I mean the same logic could be applied to making Russia look significantly more intimidating than it actually is size wise.
The internet has a habit of bringing us in contact with completely different education systems that put emphasis on different things. For example in my grade schools we were taught about the holocaust, at some point we went on a field trip and showed up to this auditorium where we heard a holocaust survivor speak about their experience, I think her name was Esther. We had a specific holocaust and genocide studies class in high school. You would think other kids got similar experiences, but then I found out there is like 20 states that have no requirements in regards to teaching about the holocaust.
Does that mean it's not covered? Probably not, but it probably leads to a pretty diverse spectrum of education surrounding the subject. Possibly being more influenced by biases.
Then it's just, how much do you really remember from school? Flat earthers prey on these gaps in knowledge and do their best to exploit it. They'd ask simple questions that sound innocent, but turn out to be malicious.
"What percent of the earth is water?"
The stat that might pop up in peoples minds is 70%, but that's not right, less than 1% of the total mass is water, but 70% of the surface is covered in water.
They fish for the 70% answer, and will even praise people who give it, asking similar questions with the goal of making you question your own reality, then feeding you some Youtube playlists, and people to follow that know "the real truth"
But did the teacher actually tell you the earth was 70% water? They might have, they might not feel like there is a meaningful difference, but that simple discrepancy can lead someone down some pretty dark rabbit holes, and dark sides of the internet.
This is bullshit, the yellow line is about 6500 kilometers, the green is 7000 km and the red is around 7500 km. In order to be the distances in the image it should be an arch, not a straight line.
To explain why: imagine cutting the globe into slices like an orange. The lines at the top of this map go across more slices, which is why they're longer on the map. But the slices get narrower from the equator to the poles, until eventually their left and right edges meet at the pole. So even though the lines go across more slices, because those slices are narrower near the poles, it's less distance.
3d objects don’t like being in 2d representations. We can technically get rid of all projections considering everyone has a computer in their pocket that can represent the globe as it is in reality, but realistically the Mercator projection still has some uses in navigation in the event you were sailing and say GPS went down, but someone relying on the Mercator map and celestial navigation probably won’t have the same disconnect that a child observing the earth as a big ol cylinder might.
The lines are meant to represent the distance on a great circle route and not the straight line distance on a Mercator, I’m not exactly sure where you are getting the Crimea aspect of it? The title makes no mention of it, and the map itself doesn’t indicate Crimea is part of Russia
Russias border would still but up against crimea, considering the lines themselves aren't perfect I won't immediately assume malicious intent, but maybe the OP's username being Vlad and their account being private changes that a bit.
Seems to be a still from a video, but I can't find the source.
Ive been anti-mercator projection for like 20 years at this point and have seen many good examples of its crazy distortion near the poles but this is surprisingly one the best example ive seen.
Why use any projection when we literally just have globes. Or computers in our pocket that can represent the earth as it actually is.
Believe it or not the Mercator projection is still slightly superior than the Robinson projection in real use cases like navigation due to latitude and longitude lines, but the Robinson one just looks neater.
Just how many people in Russia work full time making pointless Reddit posts, trying to insert themselves into the conversation in the most desperate ways possible.
meanwhile the flat earthers
Do they actually have an explanation for this
They'll say this is the evidence that shows that the earth is flat.
Or "see, yet another thing that gets presented as fact (the standard map) misrepresents reality and almost nobody knows or admits it. Another example of why you can't trust so called scientists!?!"
Yes, they do. They'll bring you the Gleason Projection and say this is exactly what their model predicts. The way you break a Flerf is to do this same exercise with the Southern hemisphere. Because according to their model, the distances should continue to get larger south of the equator, whereas on the globe they will shrink again just like we see here.
Edit: corrected typo "protection" to "projection"
Some flerfers literally believe the southern hemisphere is a lie.
do they think we made Australia up as a joke???
Actually, I’m pretty sure that there is a conspiracy theory that believes Australia isn’t real. I think it also started out as a joke somewhere, but I’m not sure.
I'd heard about r/finlandconspiracy (unrelated to flerfs), but Australia is a new one!
If only there was some way they could travel and confirm. Oh well!
lol, and I think there’s one about New Zealand because it’s not included on every map, but I’m not really sure, it could just be a joke. But I watched a YouTube video about the Australian one, but that was a few years ago ago. I really can’t remember
I had no idea about the Finland conspiracy. That’s really funny.
https://youtu.be/qciVXUHTN10?t=955 how it was created
This
They don't know how much a kilometer is, so I'm sure they'll make up that less kilometers is actually more.
Easy.
A kilogram is an actual physical weight because gravity changes or something science shit I don't understand. Therefore the kilogram is not actually constent. That means the kilogram is fake, if the kilogram is fake that also means the kilometer is also fake, because it has kilo in the word. That means like the kilogram the kilometer is not constant so it changes depending on when they measured it.
When you use my "explanation" cite me as factual evidence flat eathers.
I’ve been exclusively engaging with flat earth content on facebook.
They believe gravity isn’t real - and that density or something dumb like that is why things feel weight
How do they explain that when they jump, They fall back down to earth?
flat earthers and usaers are different things
Oh really? Do you think flat earthers outside usa constitute a measurable group?
haha, nice one
I mean, for these three specific points yes, they put the north pole in the center and the distances on the northern hemisphere would roughly line up.
Their argument that the earth is flat kinda is supported by this. The North Pole is the center of the flat earth so distances getting shorter the closer you get to the North Pole would make sense. The problem is this also happens when you go south of the equator, but because hardly anyone lives in the southern hemisphere as well as much less land mass. They feel they can just ignore this.
...same one we have? Map isnt accurate to real life
They use their own "flat earth" projection. Its bullshit, but in a different way.
Earth is like a rectangular paper, bend its sides to infinity without tearing it, and you get Earth. Simple geometry, bro.
They'll just outright deny this and call it "fake"
Yes, they say that maps dont accurately show how continents are shaped and distributed in relation to each other.
Yes, maps were made for sailing, Mercator's map is the one we most commonly use so much of earth is distorted. A better map is the Peter's map that shows sizes better there are even ones built off his projection that are better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall%E2%80%93Peters_projection
Bonus West Wing clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVX-PrBRtTY
Edit: Oh this is a flat earth circlejerk, got it now, well I keep post up lol.
yes: “this is not the flat earth map, this is the globe map.”
(okay it's a cylinder map, but why split hairs? curved is curved)
If i want to play the devil advocate, this could just mean that our maps are wrong
To be clear, the most mainstream flat earth beliefs involves the North Pole being at the center of the flat earth. So the distances getting smaller as it gets further from the equator and closer to the pole, supports this belief.
The problem is of course this exact thing also happens when you get south of the equator and head towards the South Pole, but because so few people live in the southern hemisphere, and such little landmass exists down there, they feel comfortable ignoring this and treating it as something that can be completely ignored.
Well find me a real person from this so-called "southern hemisphere" who can tell me they've personally seen distances further from the equator line get shorter! That's right you can't because it's a conspiracy..
What's that? You're Argentinian and you can attest... well you must be in on it then! Liar!
Nobody on earth lives in Argentina or Australia! The idea that they can both see the southern cross at the same time is gobbledygook, unless you are talking about my patented Azimuthal Grid of Vision(tm)! It's where everyone on Earth has their own personal view of the celestial heavens based on their current physical location. What globers treat as circumstantial evidence that the Earth is a ball, is actually the glorious work of Yahweh. It's a small deception given to us to prove our faith, just like dinosaur bones, and uranium. It's all covered in the Book of Enoch.
The South Pole is on the reverse side of the flat Earth.
Do flat earthers think that other planets are flat?
They think there's no way of knowing what other planets even are. Projections of light or optical illusions are the two main camps. The only unifying belief is that they aren't actual physical worlds.
“Other planets? Other than what?”
Imagine thinking every planet is a disc that is perfectly facing us at all times to maintain its appearance as round.
It's right in the name "plane-t".
I can sure explain this. The earth is a flat trapezium and that explains the different measures. Also no idea what km is. My go to measure is distance is milfs.
I am yet to meet someone IRL who is unironically a flat earther.
I am starting to believe that some people on the internet are just doing it for the memes
Poor sheep
Flat earthers HATE this ONE trick!
Not a flat earther, but to be clear, in their “model” of a flat earth where the North Pole is the center, the distances would shrink the closer you get to the North Pole.
The problem is this same effect happens as you get closer to the South Pole, where they just assume it gets bigger instead of smaller resulting in a 72k mile long ice wall
The existence of the "long ice wall" is well documented. You should educate yourself by reading the books of the geographer George R.R. Martin. You should also watch the scientific documentary (73 episodes) based on those books.
I'm familiar with that crackpot, he almost had me believing in dragons and blood magic too, but luckily Professor Dave Explains on youtube set me straight.
Mercator projection side effect
Im looking this term so i can find in YT. Thank you.
The basics: No map is a perfectly accurate representation of geography because there's no way to perfectly represent 3D objects on a 2D plane. All maps will be off to some degree in terms of shape, size, and distance. There are different approaches that sacrifice some of those aspects more or less than the others, and those are called map projections. The Mercator projection is one of the most commonly-encountered for world maps, and is notable for the large distortion of size at the poles, to the degree that Greenland looks as big as Africa when it is actually many times smaller.
That’s not entirely true—it is possible to accurately represent 3D objects with a Gaussian curvature of 0 on a 2D plane. Spheres, though, have a Gaussian curvature of 1/r2 where r is the radius of the sphere.
Vsauce explains it in a video, I just don’t know which one anymore
This one.
https://youtu.be/2lR7s1Y6Zig?si=rdzF-sk0Mk9u79kS
r/WeKnowAboutMercator
and we'll keep repeating it until you choose a projection that isn't shit
They all are.
Only true answer
Robinson is really good for simple visual representations. Most maps posted here would be better if they used Robinson.
Even Dymaxion.
Strebe Asymmetric 2011 map is amazing
It's a true area projection, while still maintaining the shapes of landmasses as much as possible by pushing the distortion into the oceans.
Please make a better projection that preserves the angles. And that's also rectangular.
Why would it need to be rectangular?
Being rectangular it's a plus since, it can easily be folded and it fit nicely on screens.
Also it's continuous, unlike others projections that are splitter in multiple sections m
It did what it was intended to do, helping sailors navigate the ocean, so calling it shit is a little bit much. A map/projection is only as good as what it was designed for after all (and infographic maps definitely weren't in Mercator's mind)
I'm OK with Mercator if it's just for sailing across the ocean
That's Mercator. The one and only map projection that has any real use, other than entertainment.
So, Greenland isn't bigger than Africa? Who cares! Greenland isn't green either, nobody other than the people who live there gives a single fuck about Greenland.
We use maps to get from one place to the other. The Mercator projection preserves angles, and when you steer a ship you really want to know what angle you should be reading on your compass.
Ok then use it for steering ships when you're out there with just a compass. Use Robinson for everything else.
search mollweide projection
Azimuthal Equidistance
I've never heard this word pronounced before until last week. In my head, I read it as mer-ka-tor but the person pronounced it as mer-cater and it blew my mind.
Well maybe, I'm not into Jazz though so
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVX-PrBRtTY
Teacher: Its the only way to accurately put a globe on a flat paper
Me: Are you sure its not just to mess with me forever?
Teacher: Yea, that too
That teacher is wrong. The Mercator projection retains directions (that's why it was chosen, because it was useful in maritimal navegation back then), but there are a lot more equally valid
Relevant XKCD
really was a shame about watermann
I was slightly acquainted with Steve Waterman (who btw seemed to think he had found a paradox at the heart of physics because he did not understand Galilean relativity). I heard he died, but no details.
oh, i meant the aggressive hostility to relativity, galileo, and algebra, yeah. the forum tried so hard to walk him through it.
beautiful map, but a deeply dishonest guy about the weirdest things
didnt know he died.
it's coming back to me – he thought calling an equation “invariant” meant that everything in it was fixed
oh man, were you one of the ones who were there trying to help step by step? Long time no see!
if there was a group effort to help him, I wasn't there, no
Go tell that to Mrs Pickett, I think that was around 2008 lol
Shes retired. How do I go about taking her pension away?
There is no way to accurately put a globe onto flat paper.
No, but I will ride and die for Dymaxion. It’s so cool, and who cares about oceanic integrity.
I do. Let me draw some distances across oceans like OP did, between a place in Europe and South America.
Well then you’ll love the oceanic Dymaxion that unfolds centered on the South Pacific to show the oceans as one contiguous body of water.
There is, just not a flat piece of rectangular paper /s
Fun fact it’s actually the “flat” part that’s impossible. You can use rectangular paper so long as it’s not flat.
And now I'm imagining an analogous thread posted by inhabitants of hyperbolic space, involving horospheres, shapes whose intrinsic geometry is Euclidean
I'm talking about something like this
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EXVtaB2U4AI4br_.jpg
It's flat, just not rectangular
That’s actually rectangular but not flat. Rectangular really just means you can put a 2D coordinate system on it, which you can here. Flat in this sense references the concept in differential geometry, the mathematical framework used by relativity. Flat spaces are so defined by the behaviour of geodesics, the shortest paths between points, and specifically flat spaces have straight lines as geodesics. In your image, the shortest paths are still not straight lines. A sphere’s surface is curved (geodesics are not straight lines), and one of the fundamental properties of differential geometry is that isomorphisms (ie a 2D map of a sphere’s surface) cannot change flat/curved status.
ty!! there’s no way to translate 3D on a 2D plane without some sort of mathematical distortion. 2D maps are meant to be useful, not an accurate representation of earth
what teacher says that? No globe projection is accurate
But steel is heavier than feathers
People using this to argue against Mercator simply don't know how to read a map. The horizontal dimension isn't km, it's degrees of longitude. A horizontal line of a fixed length, anywhere you put it on the Mercator projection, is the same amount of degrees of longitude. The longer lines you see further north on this map are indeed more degrees of longitude, just not km because degrees of longitude change based on latitude. But Mercator never claimed they were km, it's labelled as Long.° which it is, if you thought otherwise it's your own fault for reading the map wrong.
I always downvote Mercator / true size maps.
Idk many people are still discovering we don’t live on a huge cylinder
It's a sphere just a cylinder with a helmet and a butt cheek?
All my homies hate the Mercator Projection
I always downvote Mercator
/ true size maps.Someone discovering Mercator's project again.
But this time it is someone using it as an entry point to make a sneaky Russian propaganda post, so at least there's that.
Mustn't be there arcs instead of straight lines, or are those lines through the earth?
These lines are arcs
But they do not show the shortest path on the surface?
Correct, they show the shortest path on the map
The top line represents the distance between those points following the shortest path on a great circle route, but it is not the actual path that would be taken. The actual path you would take would involve an arc basically touching the North Pole, which in this specific map would be difficult to visualize as it would basically have the yellow line heading north east or NNE, disappearing off the screen and coming back down off the screen and it would appear to be coming from the north west or NNW.
In summary the lines just represent the shortest distance between those points, but not the actual paths that would be taken.
The shortest distance between the points on the map, would be an arc on a mercator projection, yes. The graphics used in this picture aren't lines through the earth either, they are just being used to create an inside joke for people in the know to laugh at people who don't understand the pitfalls of 3D to 2D map projections.
But hey, at least I can sail the ocean more conveniently using this map
You’ll be pleasantly surprised if you attempt the Northwest or Northeast passage though.
only 3 more winters eating our own boots, nearly there chaps.
Franklin actually eat his boots on his reconnaissance tour, where he took the train to Manitoba first, and then went to the arctic on foot. That is when he got hungry and boiled his own leather boots.
When he came back on the Terror some years later he had wrapped his feet in Marmalade and crisps sandwiches to be better prepared.
I know, and also your additional information made me chuckle!
I was raised in Spilsby, his hometown, I remember asking my dad who he was and got told he was a moron and a failure, I was surprised by his reaction to the question, he didn't seem to favour the man who had seemingly earned a statue we'd see every day, so I have always been interested in him and arctic exploration in general.
Years later I found myself delivering building supplies to the HQ of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, got to sit in some vehicles and asked some questions about the logistics of their work, very interesting. Made me wish I had tried harder in school.
Crimea is not Russia.
literally posted by /u/Vlad-228-666 lmao
if anyone is confused this map apparently only shows latitudes within russian borders
Yeah this is weird propaganda
Seemingly innocent Russian propaganda posts can just fuck right off.
Maybe it was just my obsessive map collecting from old National Geographics, but growing up int he 90s, I swear I saw Robinson far more commonly than Mercator. I went to a Catholic school in Pennsylvania, USA, so we weren't typically swimming in money to get the latest projections.
Was Mercator really more common as a teaching tool back then?
Mercator is technically more accurate when it comes to real use cases like navigation, where the Robinson just looks cleaner. Also grew up in the 90s in a South Philly Catholic school, before moving east and going to a public school, I saw a mix of both.
It would be fuckin hilarious if we both went to Saint Monica’s tho, I could ask you if you remember sister Denise 🤣
Heh. I'm from the other end of the state. JFK (Jail For Kids) in the Pittsburgh diocese.
I get the intention of Mercator and it is great at what it does, but Robinson and its descendants are better for giving kids a real feel for how the world looks.
There just seems to be this meme online that we were all fed Mercator all the time as kids (oftentimes with the addition (implied or explicit) that its purpose is to make the Global South look less important). That was just never my experience and I was always the kind of kid who was overly into maps. I just wonder how many people really remember the projections that they most often see, if my memory is faulty, or my experience was atypical.
EDIT: I just wonder how much of it was fed by that one episode from West Wing.
I mean the same logic could be applied to making Russia look significantly more intimidating than it actually is size wise.
The internet has a habit of bringing us in contact with completely different education systems that put emphasis on different things. For example in my grade schools we were taught about the holocaust, at some point we went on a field trip and showed up to this auditorium where we heard a holocaust survivor speak about their experience, I think her name was Esther. We had a specific holocaust and genocide studies class in high school. You would think other kids got similar experiences, but then I found out there is like 20 states that have no requirements in regards to teaching about the holocaust.
Does that mean it's not covered? Probably not, but it probably leads to a pretty diverse spectrum of education surrounding the subject. Possibly being more influenced by biases.
Then it's just, how much do you really remember from school? Flat earthers prey on these gaps in knowledge and do their best to exploit it. They'd ask simple questions that sound innocent, but turn out to be malicious.
"What percent of the earth is water?"
The stat that might pop up in peoples minds is 70%, but that's not right, less than 1% of the total mass is water, but 70% of the surface is covered in water.
They fish for the 70% answer, and will even praise people who give it, asking similar questions with the goal of making you question your own reality, then feeding you some Youtube playlists, and people to follow that know "the real truth"
But did the teacher actually tell you the earth was 70% water? They might have, they might not feel like there is a meaningful difference, but that simple discrepancy can lead someone down some pretty dark rabbit holes, and dark sides of the internet.
Well, well, well. If it isn't our old friend Mr. Mercator!
First time mercator projection?
Btw in this map Crimea is portrayed as part of Russia, because its measuring most eastern and western points of russia at different longitudes
Mercator you great liar
Mercator really was a fuckass huh
Because in Russia, they take big steps, the distances are shorter.
You're just using the wrong projection.
Mercator projection is also the reason why Trump wants Greenland.
I'm pretty sure the depicted distances are longer. The numbers reflect the shortest distance between the endpoints but nit the "lines" themselves.
Well, these distances are correct but not in the way there are shown here
This is bullshit, the yellow line is about 6500 kilometers, the green is 7000 km and the red is around 7500 km. In order to be the distances in the image it should be an arch, not a straight line.
mercator projection is the reason
I'm confused. Can someone explain what is being shown here?
Longer arrows have smaller distances.
Thanks, I'm dense and didn't even realise the numbers were getting bigger.
To explain why: imagine cutting the globe into slices like an orange. The lines at the top of this map go across more slices, which is why they're longer on the map. But the slices get narrower from the equator to the poles, until eventually their left and right edges meet at the pole. So even though the lines go across more slices, because those slices are narrower near the poles, it's less distance.
tbh thought at first it was one of the many circlejerk map reddits I follow.
Can we just like get rid of marcarter projection somehow?
Why cant you just use a knife to cut the paper map on a globe in half, and then just press it down and lay it out flat?
3d objects don’t like being in 2d representations. We can technically get rid of all projections considering everyone has a computer in their pocket that can represent the globe as it is in reality, but realistically the Mercator projection still has some uses in navigation in the event you were sailing and say GPS went down, but someone relying on the Mercator map and celestial navigation probably won’t have the same disconnect that a child observing the earth as a big ol cylinder might.
After measuring them myself in Google Earth, the distances are ~6500km, ~7700km and ~8300km (quite rough measurements on my part).
Also should've excluded Crimea in the measurements as part of Russia, because now this infographic is unnecessary political
The lines are meant to represent the distance on a great circle route and not the straight line distance on a Mercator, I’m not exactly sure where you are getting the Crimea aspect of it? The title makes no mention of it, and the map itself doesn’t indicate Crimea is part of Russia
The image shows the bottom line going from Crimea (Which is Ukrainian) to Vladivostok.
Russias border would still but up against crimea, considering the lines themselves aren't perfect I won't immediately assume malicious intent, but maybe the OP's username being Vlad and their account being private changes that a bit.
Seems to be a still from a video, but I can't find the source.
This is wrong it should be showrer
Perfect for hatching eggs
I'm not good at geometry but is this irrefutable proof we live on a globe?
yes.... yes it is
Mercatore's projection strikes again 🎯
Russia is overrated
i hate the mercator with a passion
Ive been anti-mercator projection for like 20 years at this point and have seen many good examples of its crazy distortion near the poles but this is surprisingly one the best example ive seen.
Nha, Mercator is the best projection. It makes rumb lines straight (preserving angles) so it's easier for navigation and it also a nice rectangle.
And the fact that we still use a 1569 map proves it's utility.
Why do we even still use macata projection? Something like Robinson projection seems to be much better.
Why use any projection when we literally just have globes. Or computers in our pocket that can represent the earth as it actually is.
Believe it or not the Mercator projection is still slightly superior than the Robinson projection in real use cases like navigation due to latitude and longitude lines, but the Robinson one just looks neater.
Because it literary doesn't matter.
Copium is hard. Russia is still great and undefeatable despite Mercator projection. Draw this shit over Canada!
If it's so "great" why do you need to piss off and make war with all of your neighbours? Grow up and stop being bullies
No politics please
You're the one who brought up how Russia is "undefeatable". Now you suddenly don't want to talk about war?
But he was talking about Israel, right?
Why do randos always need to bring Israel into everything? Fight your own battles.
We do, babe.
Jokes aside: this is scientific method to find out if person against war in general or against Russia in general.
So who is defeated already?
Imagine struggling against a country 1/4 your size for years and then claiming you’re undefeatable. Propaganda must be absolutely insane over there.
Do you think having the most land area makes you the best? That’s a pretty pathetic take in the 21st century. Your economy is a joke.
What happened to the USSR?
Russia got rid of free riders
Братан не позорь нас пж
ok
The map cheats
Just how many people in Russia work full time making pointless Reddit posts, trying to insert themselves into the conversation in the most desperate ways possible.
I swear there must be better projections than Mercator. Why are we still using it?
It's literally the best projection for navigation.
A matter of perspectives
Except if course those lines are misleading, and not the distances they purport to be , but rather significantly longer.
This is proof the earth is flat. Globetards maps make no sense at all compared to real world and distances xd
Please say /s
TAKE THAT, GLOBETARDS!!!1