I certainly wouldn't rely on any speed display in a car. Car speedometers are not 100% precise. Because car manufacturers don't want to be sued in the event that their speedometer reads a little too low and someone gets a speeding ticket when their speedometer said that they were within the speed limit. For this reason almost all cars have speedometers that are DELIBERATELY made to read higher speeds than the car is actually moving...the precise amount varies between cars. BMW say that their speedometers are designed to read "high" by 5mph or 2.5% whichever is less. The same thing happens with GPS units built into cars and those roadside displays that show your speed when you approach them. Cars also go up and down hills - which means that the distance on the odometer doesn't match the distance as drawn on a map. The four wheels of the car rotate at different rates as you go around curves - and if the speedometer takes the speed from just one of them - then it'll either read faster or slower than the true speed of the car itself. So, yeah - car speedometers suck. People don't believe it - so there is a ton of Internet debate on the subject. GPS is remarkably accurate though...within 10 feet if the receiver can pick up 3 satellites - better than that if it can 'see' 4 of them.

But speed isn't the issue here...and neither are cars.

This is about distances between cities...as measured by airlines. Please - let us not let Mr Bishop deflect the conversation away from areas of discomfort and back into his comfort zone.

So forget cars...they are not important to this calculation.

Tom:

In STEP 1 I established that distances quoted by Qantas airline are 100% credible. They match the performance of the aircraft and their stated flight times. Their "on time" record is good enough that their times and distances are 100% trustworthy.

In STEP 2 I demonstrated that the distances produced by the "WorldAtlas" site produces distances that are within 1% of Qantas' distances - and therefore whatever internal math it's using is a very good match for airline distance statements in general.

You used those numbers (without a word of complaint) when you (incorrectly) believed that they supported your Flat Earth Theory and triumphantly quoted them when you THOUGHT they disproved the Round Earth. As it turns out, this is a clever trap that you fell into. I wish I was smart enough to have planned it that way...but I'm not.

In STEP 3 I pointed out that simple Euclidean geometry allows us to calculate the internal angles of a PLANAR quadrilateral in two different ways if you know the length of the sides and the diagonals. If the Earth is flat then those angles will be the same for both calculation methods.

In STEP 4, User "Inquisitive" kindly did the calculations for us - presumably using the (trustworthy) WorldAtlas data for those distances...and discovered that for at least one internal angle of the quadrilateral between New York, Paris, Cape Town & Buenos Aries, there is a HUGE discrepancy...123 degrees versus 162 degrees.

Those four steps are a CLEAR disproof that no possible FLAT Earth map can possibly make the distances between those four cities come out correctly. It is IMPOSSIBLE to make a planar quadrilateral where those four distances come out right.

Now you're flim-flamming about STEP 2...(which you seemed to trust so long as you thought it proved your theory). STEP 2 is that we demonstrate that WorldAtlas's software does indeed come out with the correct distances for every route we tested. I invite you to test it for as many other routes and as many other airlines as you like...the answer will always be the same.

So - what you resort to is the rather pathetic complaint that there are no direct flights between some of those four cities with which we could back up the WorldAtlas distances between them. I would also point out that if you go to Google Maps - and enter those same cities and ask for an route BY AIRPLANE - it comes out with very similar numbers...within 1%.

What that means is that you must either believe that:

1) WorldAtlas, and Google are a part of the global conspiracy and that their software produces distances that match those of Qantas flights - but are deliberately incorrect for the four cities that Inquisitive just happened to pick...OR...

2) WorldAtlas produces incorrect distances by accident but just happens to produce very good distances for all of the Qantas routes.

OK - well, we can test your two theories with some more experiments.

FIRSTLY: We can find a bunch more "quadrilaterals of widespread cities"...and demonstrate that NONE of the distances between them work in FET. This would be good evidence that Inquisitive didn't "cherry pick" four cities that didn't include a route for which WorldAtlas' data is incorrect.

SECONDLY: We can find a "quadrilateral of widespread cities" for which we CAN find direct airline flight distances to confirm the WorldAtlas distances.

These two approaches would inevitably prove that there is no possible Flat Earth map that can match what the airlines tell us are their flight distances. And we already demonstrated in STEP 1 that those distances are a very accurate match for their "On time" flight times and for the range and capabilities of real aircraft.

Do you really believe that this data cannot be found? That WorldAtlas just happens selectively correct for one airline and wildly incorrect for others?

WorldAtlas are not some secret society - there is a list of all of their staff:

http://www.worldatlas.com/about.htm "We're a group of publishers who delight hundreds of thousands of people every day

by providing them with access to information at their fingertips. Our flagship web property

is WorldAtlas.com, the world's oldest and most authoritative geography website."

...don't you think that if their flight distances were HORRIBLY inaccurate for non-Qantas airlines that nobody would have noticed this?

Tom - you

**ARE** going to be boxed in a corner here.

Surely you know that I'll find published airline flight distances that produce the same "quadrilateral problem" that Inquisitive's data produces? Do you really doubt that this information can be found?

You are 100% certain to come out of this knowing in your heart that you're wrong...that the Earth is not flat...you may continue to flim-flam and deflect - but

**YOU** know that you're doing this rather than honestly facing the facts and following a clear line of evidence to a conclusions which you may not like, but you must know is the truth. At that point, you'd be a dishonest man...and I don't think you are.

Intellectual honesty must eventually lead you to believe that you've been wrong all this time.