941

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun's speed must vary between winter and summer

« on: May 31, 2017, 05:53:12 PM »

The only explanation in RE theory for different day lengths is an elliptical orbit of the Earth around the Sun. However, is this just an example of circle logic (no pun intended) or retrofitting an explanation to fit an observation?

The elliptical orbit is not the explanation for different day lengths.  Who has ever given that explanation?  Can you link to someone who actually gives  that as an explanation?

The explanation is a sphere which is tilted at 23.5°.   That tilt explains the seasons, the planetary ecliptic, the solar ecliptic, the change in length of days, the changes in the azimuth change of sunrise and sunset.  The elliptical orbit explains the subtle changes in angular diameter of the sun throughout the year, the reason why summer and winter are not equal in length, and why the solar analemma isn't symetric.

Yes - exactly.  It's a common misapprehension with the RE-believing general public that the elliptical orbit of the earth is the cause of the seasons - but that's incorrect.  In RET, the distance from Sun to Earth varies from 147 million to 152 million kilometers - a few percent difference.   If that was the cause of the seasons then the northern and southern hemispheres would have their summers at the same time - and they don't.  When it's summer in Europe, it's winter in Australia and vice-versa.

So axial tilt is the correct explanation - and (as you say) it explains many more things that are easy to observe - that the sun rises and sets at a different point on the horizon between seasons - that sundials don't tell good time - that there are months of continuous sunshine and months of continuous darkness at the poles...lots of things depend on that tilt.

So for RE theory - axial tilt is an important property of the world we live in...and the FET motions of the sun and moon must reproduce that effect precisely.

942

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If the Sun is close...

« on: May 31, 2017, 05:35:36 PM »

That doesn't work...if these light ray distortion effects make the sun look bigger than it is, they'd also make the gap between the sun and the horizon look bigger too...or are you telling us that there are different kinds of light rays - those which are magnified by the atmosphere and those which are not?

Be careful how you answer this one because my next question will be about the magnification of the moon, airplanes and clouds close to the horizon...and the slightest mistake in your reply will produce a horrible inconsistency in your theory...and you can be quite sure I'll catch it!

If you read through the sun magnification article closely you will find that it says that only light sources of a certain intensity in the far field can catch onto the atmosphere and magnify. There is a highway scene with headlights that stay consistent in size as they go into the the distance next to red tail lights in the next lane over which are appropriately shrinking into the distance. The headlights are bright enough to catch onto the atmosphere and the tail lights in the adjacent lanes are not.

So the idea here is that dim objects would get smaller as perspective shrinks them towards the horizon - but bright objects remain the same size, no matter the effect of perspective?

This produces two major problems for your theory:

1)  When the sun is at zenith - (and you say that it's 30 miles wide and 3000 miles overhead) - how come it doesn't completely fill the sky?   If it's immune to perspective - then even though it's 3000 miles above us - it should look just like the city of New York parked right over our heads - it should extend all the way from horizon to horizon.  You have to understand that what makes a 30 mile-across sun that's 3000 miles away (at zenith) look like it's the size of a quarter held out at arm's length, is perspective.   But you say that when it's at zenith over the Sahara, but on the horizon in Texas - and it's 6,000 miles away from Texas and perspective is failing to reduce it to something half that size.

2) How dim to objects have to be to be immune from perspective?  The moon has a "visual magnitude" that makes it 400,000 times dimmer than the sun.   Big planets like Jupiter and Saturn can be seen as a disk with even a small backyard telescope but are barely visible to the naked eye - but Jupiter and Saturn appear the same size at the horizon as they do at zenith too.   So clearly VERY dim objects get the benefit of "perspective immunity" - yet things like aircraft in daylight evidently do not.

So the FE rule of perspective is VERY difficult to lay out...it turns off for objects that are "bright" (including Jupiter and Saturn - but not including airplanes) - it doesn't turn off for even the brightest objects unless they are more than 3000 miles but less than 6000 miles away.

But even that doesn't work...but let me give you a chance to respond before I explain the other reasons.

943

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why does the moon appear upside down in the south?

« on: May 30, 2017, 10:16:32 PM »

I don't think this question is very well explained.

Here is my take on it.

I used to live in England - I spent some years as a child in Nairobi (40 miles from the Equator) and now I live in Texas - about halfway between (in terms of latitude).

In the UK, the moon looks like this

The tips of the moon arc are nearly vertical above each other...but not quite.

I was an 11 year old in Africa, it looked like this:


Notice that the tips of that arc of light are almost horizontal.

And in Texas, it's more like this:



The RE explanation for this is very simple.  The moon didn't change - it's just that you're standing on a ball - and if you're on the equator, you're looking at the moon "sideways" - when you're up as far north as England, you're standing nearly "upright" - and here in Texas, it's halfway between.

I always wondered (before I went to life in Africa) why all children's books (mostly written in the UK) show the moon in a vertical orientation - but various people in Africa and Central America have these traditions that the new moon is as "boat" that carries the gods across the skies.   As a kid - seeing the "upright" moon - that made no sense at all.   But the first time I saw the moon in Africa, it all "clicked" and I realised that this rotation explains all of those weird legends.

If you look carefully at photos - you can also see that it's not just where the bright part of the moon is - it's also the pattern of craters, etc.

In Northern Hemisphere countries - people always talk about "The Man In The Moon" because the crater and maria patterns look a bit like a face.   But in most places south of the equator, people see a rabbit or a hare in the pattern.   That's because, in the southern hemisphere, the moon looks completely upside-down compared to what we in the Northern hemisphere see.

So...how does FE explain this?   Simultaneously - the moon looks "the right way up" in the North - "sideways" at the equator and "upside down" in places like Australia and South Africa.

The RE explanation is quite simple.

The FE explanation?

(I'm betting it all goes quiet at this point...anyone want to answer this one?)

944

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the sun get bigger if it's setting because of "laws of perspective"

« on: May 30, 2017, 09:56:28 PM »

You know Tom, it would help your case if you posted something that was actually true. If you followed my suggestion and blew the picture up to 400%, and then measured the lights with a ruler, you would have quickly discovered that the the final 7 or so lights are not similar in size. In fact, they decrease consistently as they get further away.

The shrinking is not consistent, and appears to slow significantly when compared to the closest lights.

You suggestion that the closer lights are somehow angled at the viewer is ridiculous. Why would someone install a series of streetlights at different angles? And why would they angle some of them to effectively blind someone driving down the street?

Is a streetlight directly overhead of you pointing at you with the same angle as a streetlight at the eye level horizon? No, it is not.

As for the closer lights being physically bigger than their "projection", this is also ridiculous. The first light in the series is almost as big as the woman walking beneath it. Have you ever seen a 4 foot diameter lightbulb on a regular streetlight? The reason all of the lights look bigger than their physical bulbs is lens flare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare Again, in one of the earlier pictures, the headlights of a car appear to be about 5 feet in diameter. That is not due to the car having huge headlights. It is due to lens flare, which in that case is increased by the headlights being angled directly at the lens of the camera.

There is your explanation then, you admitted that the light sizes in your image are tainted by lens flare.

There are a couple of reasons why the lights don't appear to get smaller.

1) The "blooming" of the light happens in part due to the atmosphere but in part due to the lens or even our eyelashes.  The "star" shape around each light demonstrates that this is happening.  Because the blooming happens up close - it's not subject to the laws of perspective...it's happening "in our eyes" or "in the camera".    You can prove this to yourself very easily by tilting your head (or the camera) to one side and noticing that all of those starburst effects rotate with your head/camera.  This cannot be due to the propagation of light from the source to your eye/camera because the light source has no way to "know" how you tilted your head.

2) For VERY distant lights, the problem becomes that neither the camera, nor your eye, has infinite resolution.  Your eye has rod and cone cells that are just that big...and the camera has light sensitive diodes that are whatever size.    So anything smaller than that doesn't seem to get smaller - it just gets dimmer...however, at night, when your eyes (or your camera) are adapted to the darkness - even a fairly dim light will seem really bright against the night sky.  So there is indeed a distance beyond which a very SMALL light will get no bigger.

HOWEVER: Neither of these effects could explain a larger sun at the horizon because (a) you're looking at a clean, circular disk with no obvious "starbursting" effects and (b) it's FAR larger than the limits of your eye/cameras's resolution.

So neither of these rather well known effects can explain this.

Either the sun really is at the same distance from the viewer at noon and at sunset...or you're in need of another explanation...and one that works for airplanes, clouds and the moon.

945

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Tides.

« on: May 30, 2017, 09:40:21 PM »

Indeed.

You'd hope that they'd all decided that FE theory was bogus and given up on it - however they are still giving talks at large religious gatherings, writing books, etc.

I've yet to see an FE'er openly admit to having been persuaded that they are wrong.

But it's definitely gone very quiet out there.

Logic is hard to argue with.  Plus the fact that Fe'ers don't agree on many concepts.  Maps, is the moon a sphere or a disk, southern star issues,  etc.

Yeah - that's true - but many of the fundamental FE problems are unrelated to the differences the proponents have.

Tides is a good one.   ANYONE can see that the major oceans of the world produce two high tides and two low tides per day.   This is pretty much undeniable - it's not faked - anyone can spend the day by the seaside and see this happening with their own two eyes.

The tides are undoubtedly tied to the moon - sailors have been using the moon to guide them as to when the high and low tides will be there.

But on a flat earth, you can only explain ONE of the two tides...the other (which in RE happens when the moon is on the opposite side of the planet due to centrifugal force as Earth and Moon co-orbit their barycenter)...cannot be explained here.   It just can't.

Which is why the one answer we had said there was only one tide per day - and when pointed out that there were two, has gone strangely silent on the topic.

946

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Your maps size things wrong

« on: May 30, 2017, 09:35:20 PM »

So this is it?  Re people debating each other about FE theory?

Well, this section of the forum is called "Flat Earth Debate"...what else did you expect to find here?

947

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do we know it's not octagonal?

« on: May 30, 2017, 09:33:35 PM »

Well, first, let's assume you mean "octohedral" and not "octagonal" - because an octagonal earth would be flat - and since the Wiki carefully points out that the Flat Earth Society doesn't know (or at least doesn't agree) on what's past the giant ice wall - "octagonal" works just fine here.

Octohedral would be problematic for reasons that both FE and RE folks might agree upon.

If we're trapped on just one flat face of the octohedron - then on the face of things, this would be a Flat Earth - but all of the fancy ways the sun and moon might work would be broken and things like gravity would cause problems that the normal FE view of things has carefully avoided.

If we're able to roam the entire octohedron - then we're all wondering what happens as we cross over one of the edges - and neither FE nor RE folks very much approve of the idea of "edges" that must be crossed.

So octohedral earth is much MUCH less plausible then FE or RE.

948

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If the Sun is close...

« on: May 30, 2017, 09:28:48 PM »

That doesn't work...if these light ray distortion effects make the sun look bigger than it is, they'd also make the gap between the sun and the horizon look bigger too...or are you telling us that there are different kinds of light rays - those which are magnified by the atmosphere and those which are not?

Be careful how you answer this one because my next question will be about the magnification of the moon, airplanes and clouds close to the horizon...and the slightest mistake in your reply will produce a horrible inconsistency in your theory...and you can be quite sure I'll catch it!

949

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lunar eclipses and the "shadow object"

« on: May 30, 2017, 09:25:21 PM »

Numbers 23:19: “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?”

1 Samuel 15:29: “And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent.”

Psalm 92:15: “To declare that the Lord is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.”

Titus 1:2: “In hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began.”

Hebrews 6:18: “It is impossible for God to lie.”

If the evidence appears to conform to round earth predictions, it cannot be because God has arranged a deception to make a flat earth appear round to the heathens, because God doesn't do deception.
[/quote]

But we're told that God caused those words to be written in the bible (by "inspiration" or some such thing).    So is it impossible for a liar to write "I AM NOT A LIAR" in a book?

God is claimed to be omnipotent - he has NO LIMITS WHATEVER to his powers - so if he chooses to lie - he can...no matter what he previously said.

I don't think religion gets you anywhere in this debate.   It's the same with the "Young Earthers" who will sometimes claim that God made the earth *LOOK* like it was a billion years old in order to test the faithful...if that's the tack someone want to take here - then there is no point in debating anything.   All evidence/science-based claims go out the window when there is an infinitely powerful wizard in control of the universe.

950

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The International Space Station .. too much evidence of a Globed Earth to ignore

« on: May 30, 2017, 09:14:25 PM »

Once again - the FE'ers will just say ANYTHING that came out of the UN, NASA or other space agency (including privately run ones like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic) are inadmissible evidence because there is a giant global conspiracy of some kind.

Quite why all of these organizations would do this - quite why there is never one single "leak" - despite being hacked by WikiLeaks and others - this is not widely discussed.

But the bottom line here is that you can't argue with an unfalsifiable hypothesis.   If we're told that all of this evidence is off-limits - then we're not convincing anyone by trotting it out again.

There are MUCH better ways to poke giant gaping holes in their arguments.

* Sunsets?
* Phases of the moon - and shadows of craters on the moon?
* How a sundial works - and why they aren't 100% accurate?
* Why there are two high tides per day and not just one?
* How does gravity work - and why is gravity different at the equator and the poles - and less at the tops of tall mountains?
* Why does the arc of the new moon appear to be vertical when you're far to the North, horizontal at the equator and backwards in the southern hemisphere?
* How can an airplane cover such vast distances on east/west flights in the Southern hemisphere?
* Why do the stars rotate around the sky in opposite directions in Northern & Southern hemisphere?

They have no convincing arguments for a single one of these things - and such arguments as are presented are easy enough to disprove.

951

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If the Sun is close...

« on: May 30, 2017, 09:03:58 PM »

I can see what the author of this video is saying - but it's not correct at all...and he cheated.  The error is a common rookie mistake that people new to computer graphics make.

Here is the 100% classic railroad track perspective:

The red lines converge at infinity.

But lets draw a line for each railroad tie...which we assume are pretty equally spaced in the real world:


And for clarity - let's just look at those red and green lines:


What you see is that not only do the two red lines get closer together - but so do the green ones.

What this means is that although the distant sun is being converged towards the horizon - each step of equal distance away from the eye takes it smaller and smaller increments towards the horizon.

So even though it's going to get closer to the horizon, it can NEVER get low enough to look like it's setting.   Sorry - no way - that's a horrible misunderstanding of how perspective works.  When we say "Parallel lines converge at infinity"...we truly mean "INFINITY" - not the horizon...and certainly not ~8,000 miles away.

But there is a much more serious problem with the "perspective" argument.

Look at the trees in our picture...don't they seem kinda *SMALLER* at the horizon than up close?   Why!  Yes they do!

So if the compression of size due to perspective can shrink the vertical position of the sun to the horizon - how come it doesn't ALSO make the sun shrink to a teeny-tiny dot when it sets?

You can't have it both ways.   If visual perspective seems to shrink things the further they are from us (which it undoubtedly does) then why is the sun the same exact size on the horizon as it is at noon?

In RE, it's not a problem - the sun is always at the same distance (well, more or less) so it's size is the same no matter where it is in the sky.

So, sorry Flat Earthers - your video is bogus.  BUSTED.

952

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the sun get bigger if it's setting because of "laws of perspective"

« on: May 26, 2017, 03:05:28 PM »

Your results are consistent with the Flat Earth model. The apparent magnification of the Sun is nullified by the real change in distance between the observer and the Sun. The very fact that you can't perceive a difference attests to that.

Yes - as I explained - the results of my "coin-at-arms-length" experiment are identical for FE and RE.  Neither is proved nor disproved.

All I'm saying is that the vociferous debates about "How does the sun get bigger if it's setting" are entirely, 100% incorrect on both sides of the debate here...because the sun doesn't get bigger when it's setting - and you can do the experiment to prove it, yourself, tonight, very easily.

It is however, a very strong optical illusion and nearly everyone believes it's a real effect until they do the experiment for themselves.

953

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the sun get bigger if it's setting because of "laws of perspective"

« on: May 26, 2017, 02:41:01 PM »

The Sun DOES NOT get bigger at the horizon.  This is a variation of the extremely well known and documented "Moon Illusion"...and the answer is precisely the same in RE and FE theories - so nobody need argue about it!

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_illusion

Let me describe a SIMPLE experiment that everyone here can do.   Since it's kinda dangerous to stare at the sun - do the experiment with the moon (the result, the reason and the answer to this question is exactly the same).

When the moon is high in the sky - grab a coin - a US quarter or something similar that's about an inch across.  Stretch out your hand as far as you can reach towards the moon - and compare it's size to the coin...unless you have very short/long arms - you should be able to just about cover up the moon with your coin at full arm stretch.   But get familiar with how big the moon looks compared to that coin.

Now wait until the moon is rising or setting - and repeat the experiment.

Same exact deal with the sun - except I'm not going to tell you to stare at it - but you can do the same experiment with appropriate eye protection and because the apparent size of sun and moon are almost exactly the same (in both FE and RE) - the results are also the same.

AMAZING though it seems - the size of the moon doesn't change.   In both FE and RE theory - it's an optical illusion.  When the moon is far away from other objects who's size you know, our brains assume that it's a long way away (which it is...although more so in RE than FE)...but because daily experience doesn't prepare us for looking at things that are 3000 miles away (FE) or 300,000 miles away (RE) - our subconscious vision system assumes that it must be closer than it really is - and therefore rather small.

When the moon is close to the horizon, we are suddenly able to compare it's apparent size to things like trees and houses out near the horizon...and now it's very clear that this thing is ENORMOUS - because it's so much bigger than a tree or a house.   Our brains adjust accordingly...and the sun/moon looks MUCH larger...some would say twice or even three times larger...but the coin experiment says otherwise.  It's the same exact size.

So in both RE and FE, the "change in size" of sun and moon when they're close to the horizon is an optical illusion - and one that you can check for yourself with two quick observations and no tool fancier than a coin.

We should put this one to bed - it's the same deal in RE and FE - it's explainable and testable by trivial means - it's not even worth further debate.  I beg you to do the experiment yourself before you argue *any* more!

(CAVEATS:

1) There is a TINY amount of atmospheric distortion/mirage that happens over about a 1/4 of the sun's diameter as it rises or sets in some weather conditions - which results in that bulge it seems to have right when it touches the horizon.
2) In RE theory - the sun and moon are about 1.2% SMALLER at the horizon because they are each further away by the radius of the earth than they are at noon...1.2% is too small to measure without instruments...so this isn't a way to easily dismiss FE theory...and in any case, the distance to the FE moon varies too.)

Do the experiment with the coin - and you'll see immediately what I mean - and we can perhaps put this thread to rest.

The Wiki is wrong though - and the coin test proves it.

954

Announcements / Re: Dr Shaquille O' Neal joins the Flat Earth movement!

« on: May 26, 2017, 01:55:56 PM »

It's not that I "dislike" his education - I'm just saying that his doctoral field is nothing to do with the FE/RE debate.  He's not in some way especially qualified to talk about this.

I actually respect his pursuit of education when he could easily have sat back and enjoyed his sports earnings and reputation.

But his endorsement of FE is decided shakey.

955

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctica Moves

« on: May 26, 2017, 01:52:48 PM »

I doubt that FE'ers believe in plate tectonics.

Most of them are in the "Religious right" - and believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

One of their main claims is that the Bible says that the Earth is fixed and unchanging...so tectonic plate motion is completely out of the question.

(Again, I hate to have to speak for them...but they're not talking to us anymore.)

956

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If the Sun is close...

« on: May 26, 2017, 01:50:31 PM »

No - not if it were 30 miles across and 3000 miles away and moving at a speed that made it *look* just like the RE sun.

At a single location - the FE claims for their sun looking convincingly like the RE sun - are plausible.

It's not until you start to look at it from multiple places in the world - the FE sun can't be in multiple places at once - hence their theories start to fall apart.

Debunking FE isn't as easy as it first seems.  FE proponents have been thinking hard about this stuff - and fending off all kinds of *simple* objections - for at least 200 years.

However, as the modern world reveals more and more evidence - and we can actually CHECK what happens in places like Australia in realtime - the FE theories start to get more and more holes.

957

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If the Sun is close...

« on: May 26, 2017, 01:29:27 PM »

If the sun is around 3,000 miles away then why can't we see it moving? It's movement would have to be visible without using time lapses, etc. Not just that but easily seen. You do not state how fast the Sun is moving.

Again - I hate to be an FE "apologist" - but the sun appears to move across the sky in RE theory too...very slowly...but at sunset and sunrise, especially near the equator - you can easily see the sun moving.   The motion of the FE sun is claimed to produce identical motion across the sky as we see in the real world...at identical speeds.

For one specific spot on the Earth's surface, there is indeed a route that both FE Sun and FE Moon might take to mimic the RE experience.

The HUGE problem is that no possible set of FE sun/moon/star/planet motions can explain the positions of those bodies at multiple locations simultaneously.

That may not have been a problem in the 1800's and 1900's - but here in 2017, we have instant communications around the world - with web-cams accessible in many cities.   This makes it MUCH harder for FE'ers to explain the motions of their sun and moon.

At this point, they usually appeal to "refraction" and various other distortions of the path of light from a straight line.

This is clearly needed because without that, there can be no sunrises and sunsets in Europe while it's midday in China or the USA.

If the FE'ers carefully explained how all of this works - you could tear their explanation down instantly - but they remain incredibly vague on the details...so we're back to nailing Jello to the ceiling.

958

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Tides.

« on: May 26, 2017, 01:21:39 PM »

Indeed.

You'd hope that they'd all decided that FE theory was bogus and given up on it - however they are still giving talks at large religious gatherings, writing books, etc.

I've yet to see an FE'er openly admit to having been persuaded that they are wrong.

But it's definitely gone very quiet out there.

959

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lunar eclipses and the "shadow object"

« on: May 26, 2017, 01:19:29 PM »

The standard FE explanation for eclipses (both solar and lunar) is that a mysterious "shadow object" - which is evidently round and opaque (maybe a disk, maybe a sphere) - gets between the observer and the sun or moon respectively.   This is intended to explain why there is a curved shadow on the moon during a partial lunar eclipse.

In RE terms, the shadow of the curved Earth cast onto the moon explains the curved shadow.

My new problem is how FE'ers can explain why this "Shadow object" or "antimoon" doesn't block out the stars - during a partial lunar eclipse or when moving across the sky between eclipses...that's not explained at all.

In RE theory - the stars are luminous and are clearly visible - even when we see them right next to the semi-eclipsed moon...which we clearly do.

In FE theory, during a partial lunar eclipse, the part of the Shadow object that does not overlay the moon should block starlight from stars in that small region of the sky...but it doesn't.  Furthermore, just before and after the eclipse, we ought to see a circular region of blocked-out stars moving towards and then away from the moon.  No such observations have ever been made...I've watched countless lunar eclipses - and I have not seen a blotting out of the stars close to the moon in the time leading up to, and following the eclipse.

I think FE proponents have to rethink their eclipse ideas...what's there right now doesn't fit with simple naked-eye observations.

I can further support this by stating that total solar eclipses would cover more area and why would they change paths?

Perhaps - but I'm guessing the FE'ers would say that the shadow object comes closer to the observer during lunar eclipses than during solar eclipses...this makes little sense - but clearly the complex motions of sun, moon, stars and shadow object are all cunningly designed by "The Creator" to make it look like the world is round.

(I can imagine no other explanations for the astounding series of coincidences that make FE theory produce observations that are so incredibly similar to RE theory).

960

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Your maps size things wrong

« on: May 26, 2017, 01:16:34 PM »

I get that.

It has already been pointed out that the FE map doesn't give us the right distances between (say) Sydney and Perth, Australia.

We might forgive that because FE proponents may not have the time/skills/knowledge to produce an accurate map that would stand up to that degree of accuracy - but we can't easily forgive the fact that the Sydney to Santiago, Chile, Quantas flight 27 (which is flown non-stop by a 747-400 airplane) is a 12 hour flight - which would require the 747-400 to fly more than twice it's maximum speed.

In RE terms, Sydney to Santiago is around 7,000 miles - which is comfortably within the range of a 747-400 - and flying at a fuel-efficient speed of around 600mph, 12 hours is a reasonable flight time.

In FE terms, Sydney to Santiago is more like 18,000 miles - which would require to refuelling stops - and the ability to fly at speed in excess of Concorde to get the trip completed in 12 hours.

This is not the only Quantas airlines flight with problems for FE proponents.  The non-stop Johannesberg, South Africa, to Perth, Australia flight takes 9 hours...and again, that would require a Mach 2 version of the 747 with a refuelling stop someplace in between in the FE world.

The only explanation I've heard so far is "Jet Streams"...which are claimed to be very fast south of the equator...which speed the plane along.  Mmmm'k.

But a wind that strong (far in excess of the speed of sound) would make ALL long distance flights in the West-to-East direction completely impossible...so this doesn't work.

Even more at issue - the shortest distance routes on the Flat Earth take the Sydney-Santiago flight over North America and all down the coast of South America.   The RE "great circle" route takes you over open ocean almost the entire way.   You'd think that pilots would have noticed that they were flying over land for much of the trip...and that the rate of passage of that land beneath the aircraft was indicating ground speeds in excess of Mach II.

This is (I suppose) dismissable as the airline pilots being "in" on the conspiracy - and airline passengers not looking out of the window during much of the flight.

But I used to work making 747 flight simulators to train those pilots...and our simulations were "round earth" (trust me - doing it in flat earth would have been a hell of a lot simpler!)...so wouldn't I have had to be part of the conspiracy too?

Which means...well, I'm not sure what it means...but it doesn't make sense!