The Flat Earth.

[peter]

Recently I came across a representation of the Earth known as the Postel Azithumal Equidistant in which the globe is represented as a flattened disk as viewed from a position high above the North Pole, with the more southerly land masses being shown elongated and stretched, around the perimeter of the disk as it were. Based on a representation first used by cartographer and astronomer Guillaume Postel in 1581, the representation now features on the flag of the United Nations and is more amusingly perhaps, the vision of how the world actually is according to the Flat Earth Society.

So far so good - now here's my question (and I ask it out of pure interest and in no way indicating that I have any leanings toward, or interest in promoting the case of the latter mentioned body).

Given that we are told that space can be, indeed apparently is, bent in our universe - a phenomena caused by the presence of matter within it - is it possible (and I'm not asking if it is likely.....a very different thing..... I stress the word possible) that using such bending, the physical shape of a globe can be converted into the geometry of a flat plain in such a way that either is consistent with the observable universe/space we see around us.

Can I put that better? Think of it like this; if, just suppose, the geometry of space were bent such that the globe was effectively flattened in this way, but we, being part of the same space as the globe, were also stretched/flattened in this way - is there any way that we could know it? Would not the Earth seem as round as a ball to us under such geometry, no matter how flat it be? In fact under such conditions is not the flatness/roundness of the Earth simply a matter of perspective, of relativity if you like, neither one nor the other being the 'true' case, but it simply being a matter of which geometrical prism you look at it through.

I suppose I might ask if the roundness/flatness of the Earth is not analogous to say the 'size' of anything. Size is only comprehensible as a relative thing; nothing is big or small in and of itself, but only in respect of how it stands to something else. (No - I think I see problems with this analogy, but I'll continue) Similarly is not the roundness or flatness simply a by-product of the geometry you are using to view the system with, to depict it as it were, but not having any fundamental truth about it any more than any other geometry?

Can the Flat Earthers use this argument with validity?