[Science Supporter]

Need to Know Stuff
- Qantas uses the Boeing 747-400 aircraft https://www.qantas.com/us/en/about-us/our-company/fleet/qantas-b747-400.html
- The 747-400 maximum fuel capacity is 14,200km for travel
- Distance from Sydney to Johannesburg is 11,060km on the globe
- Flight time is 13h 20m
- Therefore, a plane travels 830km/h

Distance on the Flat Earth
-Longitude of Sydney Airport is 151.1 degrees East
-Longitude of Johannesburg Airport is 28.2 degrees East
Difference of 122.9 degrees
-Sydney Airport is 13764km from North Pole
-Johannesburg Airport is 12887km from North pole

Math
Use Rule of Cosines
d^2 = a^2 + b^2 -2ab cos(C)
d = 189447696 + 166074769 -2(12764)(12887)(-.54)
d= 23,090

Conclusion
The distance from those two points on the Azimuthal Projection is 2.08x greater than the distance on the globe, therefore a plane will have to travel 2.08x faster, or 1726km/h. This is impossible because the maximum speed of the aircraft is only 988km/h.

Furthermore, the maximum fuel capacity of the aircraft can travel a distance of 14,200km. That is only 60% of the fuel needed to cross the distance on the Azimuthal Projection.

[iamcpc]

Need to Know Stuff
- Qantas uses the Boeing 747-400 aircraft https://www.qantas.com/us/en/about-us/our-company/fleet/qantas-b747-400.html
- The 747-400 maximum fuel capacity is 14,200km for travel
- Distance from Sydney to Johannesburg is 11,060km on the globe
- Flight time is 13h 20m
- Therefore, a plane travels 830km/h

Distance on the Flat Earth
-Longitude of Sydney Airport is 151.1 degrees East
-Longitude of Johannesburg Airport is 28.2 degrees East
Difference of 122.9 degrees
-Sydney Airport is 13764km from North Pole
-Johannesburg Airport is 12887km from North pole

Math
Use Rule of Cosines
d^2 = a^2 + b^2 -2ab cos(C)
d = 189447696 + 166074769 -2(12764)(12887)(-.54)
d= 23,090

Conclusion
The distance from those two points on the Azimuthal Projection is 2.08x greater than the distance on the globe, therefore a plane will have to travel 2.08x faster, or 1726km/h. This is impossible because the maximum speed of the aircraft is only 988km/h.

Furthermore, the maximum fuel capacity of the aircraft can travel a distance of 14,200km. That is only 60% of the fuel needed to cross the distance on the Azimuthal Projection.

This has been discussed so many times on here. While I agree with your consensus that these observations severely weaken claims made by the very specific flat earth model presented in the wiki there are dozens of other flat earth models. Several of which are not weakened by these observations. Because these observations severely weaken predictions of claims made in the flat disk model with an ice wall and the north pole in the center there are many other flat earth models for people to follow.





For supporters of the models that are weakened by this evidence and these observations I got all the rebuttals from a flight time superthread. (Pick any one of your rebuttals from the list below) Here's a link:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0




-Because the angles of a triangle drawn between three flight paths = 180 degrees the earth is flat.
-Because the angles of a triangle drawn between three flight paths = 179.99984 degrees the earth is slightly concave.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg121615#msg121615



-Distances between two cities which are far apart is unknown
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg121996#msg121996


-Flight GPS systems are inaccurate
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122030#msg122030
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122441#msg122441


-GPS systems are based on a round earth therefore will give measurements/distances which support a round earth.
-Aircraft are using instruments which assume round earth coordinates which will support a round earth.
-There is no flat earth map.
-The difference in flight time is based off of flight speed which has yet to be proven.
-The airplane speed and range is based off round systems therefore will give speeds and ranges which support a round earth
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122359#msg122359


-plane speed measurements are unreliable
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122364#msg122364

-there are no flat earth flight programs, systems, GPS etc because the flat earth aircraft navigation fund is nonexistent.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122369#msg122369


-Triangulation as a measurement of distance can be inaccurate because the "known" locations used for triangulation are based on a round earth system
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122410#msg122410


-there are almost an infinite number of continental configurations (If a flight disproves flat earth continental configuration 23985729387592873 you then need to test continental configuration 23985729387592874).
-Groundspeed measurement instruments use a round earth coordinate system therefore will give results which support a round earth
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122411#msg122411


-proof is needed that mile measurements on a highway are accurate
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122423#msg122423

-Google maps is based on a round earth coordinate system
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122433#msg122433

-any navigation system based on longitude and latitude is a round earth navigation system (which is most likely used in all navigation systems)
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122655#msg122655

-any map, navigation, or measurement system which uses Latitude and Longitude in any way is inaccurate
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122664#msg122664

-That's not the map of the earth (a variant of there is no map of the earth)
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122672#msg122672

[stack]

Well done on the compilation. It's interesting how each seems more implausible than the next considering the amount of worldwide traffic of goods and humans via land, air & sea occurs 24/7/365.

What are the FE models that do jive with earthly transport as we live and observe it? Like what's a good one for Sydney to Johannesburg Flights and the like?

[iamcpc]

Well done on the compilation. It's interesting how each seems more implausible than the next considering the amount of worldwide traffic of goods and humans via land, air & sea occurs 24/7/365.

What are the FE models that do jive with earthly transport as we live and observe it? Like what's a good one for Sydney to Johannesburg Flights and the like?

https://www.bing.com/maps
https://www.mapquest.com/

both depict the earth as a flat plane.

I'm not sure about other followers of this model because I think i'm the only one. This is the only models that makes any sense to me.

these models are very unpopular because (just to name a few):

-they are too close to the map of earth we are taught from a very young age.
-They don't have a dome
-don't have a firmament
-the earth rotates around the sun
-the moon rotates around the earth
-there is no ice wall
-there is a south pole
-the north pole is not in the center
-there is gravity which keeps the earth and moon in the orbit
-the earth is not the center of the universe with everything orbiting around it
etc. etc. etc.



Here is a southern hemisphere flight mapped on this model:



Here's an interactive website showing the tracking of flights on this model:

https://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/B738


Here's a live tracking of the flight from south Africa to Sidney:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA64

[Science Supporter]

Need to Know Stuff
- Qantas uses the Boeing 747-400 aircraft https://www.qantas.com/us/en/about-us/our-company/fleet/qantas-b747-400.html
- The 747-400 maximum fuel capacity is 14,200km for travel
- Distance from Sydney to Johannesburg is 11,060km on the globe
- Flight time is 13h 20m
- Therefore, a plane travels 830km/h

Distance on the Flat Earth
-Longitude of Sydney Airport is 151.1 degrees East
-Longitude of Johannesburg Airport is 28.2 degrees East
Difference of 122.9 degrees
-Sydney Airport is 13764km from North Pole
-Johannesburg Airport is 12887km from North pole

Math
Use Rule of Cosines
d^2 = a^2 + b^2 -2ab cos(C)
d = 189447696 + 166074769 -2(12764)(12887)(-.54)
d= 23,090

Conclusion
The distance from those two points on the Azimuthal Projection is 2.08x greater than the distance on the globe, therefore a plane will have to travel 2.08x faster, or 1726km/h. This is impossible because the maximum speed of the aircraft is only 988km/h.

Furthermore, the maximum fuel capacity of the aircraft can travel a distance of 14,200km. That is only 60% of the fuel needed to cross the distance on the Azimuthal Projection.

This has been discussed so many times on here. While I agree with your consensus that these observations severely weaken claims made by the very specific flat earth model presented in the wiki there are dozens of other flat earth models. Several of which are not weakened by these observations. Because these observations severely weaken predictions of claims made in the flat disk model with an ice wall and the north pole in the center there are many other flat earth models for people to follow.





For supporters of the models that are weakened by this evidence and these observations I got all the rebuttals from a flight time superthread. (Pick any one of your rebuttals from the list below) Here's a link:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0




-Because the angles of a triangle drawn between three flight paths = 180 degrees the earth is flat.
-Because the angles of a triangle drawn between three flight paths = 179.99984 degrees the earth is slightly concave.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg121615#msg121615



-Distances between two cities which are far apart is unknown
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg121996#msg121996


-Flight GPS systems are inaccurate
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122030#msg122030
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122441#msg122441


-GPS systems are based on a round earth therefore will give measurements/distances which support a round earth.
-Aircraft are using instruments which assume round earth coordinates which will support a round earth.
-There is no flat earth map.
-The difference in flight time is based off of flight speed which has yet to be proven.
-The airplane speed and range is based off round systems therefore will give speeds and ranges which support a round earth
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122359#msg122359


-plane speed measurements are unreliable
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122364#msg122364

-there are no flat earth flight programs, systems, GPS etc because the flat earth aircraft navigation fund is nonexistent.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122369#msg122369


-Triangulation as a measurement of distance can be inaccurate because the "known" locations used for triangulation are based on a round earth system
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122410#msg122410


-there are almost an infinite number of continental configurations (If a flight disproves flat earth continental configuration 23985729387592873 you then need to test continental configuration 23985729387592874).
-Groundspeed measurement instruments use a round earth coordinate system therefore will give results which support a round earth
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122411#msg122411


-proof is needed that mile measurements on a highway are accurate
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122423#msg122423

-Google maps is based on a round earth coordinate system
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122433#msg122433

-any navigation system based on longitude and latitude is a round earth navigation system (which is most likely used in all navigation systems)
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122655#msg122655

-any map, navigation, or measurement system which uses Latitude and Longitude in any way is inaccurate
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122664#msg122664

-That's not the map of the earth (a variant of there is no map of the earth)
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122672#msg122672

What are the other models that aren't contradicted by this evidence? I've heard of the "bi-polar" one but the distances of land masses are still wrong.

Also, my apologizes if this is repeated evidence. Ever since I've joined this forum, I have not seen many people, if any at all, that talk about flights in the southern hemisphere, so I decided to make a thread on it.

[stack]

Well done on the compilation. It's interesting how each seems more implausible than the next considering the amount of worldwide traffic of goods and humans via land, air & sea occurs 24/7/365.

What are the FE models that do jive with earthly transport as we live and observe it? Like what's a good one for Sydney to Johannesburg Flights and the like?

https://www.bing.com/maps
https://www.mapquest.com/

both depict the earth as a flat plane.

I'm not sure about other followers of this model because I think i'm the only one. This is the only models that makes any sense to me.

these models are very unpopular because (just to name a few):

-they are too close to the map of earth we are taught from a very young age.
-They don't have a dome
-don't have a firmament
-the earth rotates around the sun
-the moon rotates around the earth
-there is no ice wall
-there is a south pole
-the north pole is not in the center
-there is gravity which keeps the earth and moon in the orbit
-the earth is not the center of the universe with everything orbiting around it
etc. etc. etc.



Here is a southern hemisphere flight mapped on this model:



Here's an interactive website showing the tracking of flights on this model:

https://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/B738


Here's a live tracking of the flight from south Africa to Sidney:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA64

I agree with everything in your model except for a couple of things not mentioned. But my initial question is why long haul flights such as these follow "great circle" routes as opposed to a rhumb line (in black)?

[iamcpc]

I agree with everything in your model except for a couple of things not mentioned. But my initial question is why long haul flights such as these follow "great circle" routes as opposed to a rhumb line (in black)?

I don't know. I'm not a pilot. All I know is that specific flat earth model does MUCH better at corroborating know flight/travel times, shipping times, etc than the flat circle model with the north pole in the center.

[AATW]

I agree with everything in your model except for a couple of things not mentioned. But my initial question is why long haul flights such as these follow "great circle" routes as opposed to a rhumb line (in black)?

I don't know. I'm not a pilot. All I know is that specific flat earth model does MUCH better at corroborating know flight/travel times, shipping times, etc than the flat circle model with the north pole in the center.

There’s a pretty simple explanation in the globe earth model...

[iamcpc]

There’s a pretty simple explanation in the globe earth model...

Do you have a website or documentation which shows these flight paths on a map of the earth in which the earth is represented either as a sphere or an oblate spheroid? I looked it up on Google maps where the earth is represented as what appears to be a perfect sphere (which differs slightly from the traditional oblate spheroid round earth model). The flight path I saw was MUCH more curved than I had expected.

[stack]

There’s a pretty simple explanation in the globe earth model...

Do you have a website or documentation which shows these flight paths on a map of the earth in which the earth is represented either as a sphere or an oblate spheroid? I looked it up on Google maps where the earth is represented as what appears to be a perfect sphere (which differs slightly from the traditional oblate spheroid round earth model). The flight path I saw was MUCH more curved than I had expected.

https://tinyurl.com/y5vwo34e

[iamcpc]

https://tinyurl.com/y5vwo34e

This map shows distances but not current mapped flight paths. The more I look into this the more that I'm unable to find any sort of flight tracking website or tool in which the earth is represented as a sphere or oblate spheroid.

In addition those lines don't appear as a perfectly straight lines either. They appear curved. Maybe they appear curved on both a sphere/spheroid map and a flat plane map because the planes fly in a curved path for some reason.







all of the sites below show flight paths on the earth show as a flat plane:

https://flightaware.com/live/
https://www.flightradar24.com/
https://planefinder.net/
https://www.radarbox24.com
http://www.planeflighttracker.com/

[stack]

https://tinyurl.com/y5vwo34e

This map shows distances but not current mapped flight paths. The more I look into this the more that I'm unable to find any sort of flight tracking website or tool in which the earth is represented as a sphere or oblate spheroid.

In addition those lines don't appear as a perfectly straight lines either. They appear curved. Maybe they appear curved on both a sphere/spheroid map and a flat plane map because the planes fly in a curved path for some reason.

all of the sites below show flight paths on the earth show as a flat plane:

https://flightaware.com/live/
https://www.flightradar24.com/
https://planefinder.net/
https://www.radarbox24.com
http://www.planeflighttracker.com/

Read more about Great Circle navigation. It's how long haul transport is handled world wide and it will answer your questions.

It's a 'spherical' thing:

[iamcpc]

Read more about Great Circle navigation. It's how long haul transport is handled world wide and it will answer your questions.

It's a 'spherical' thing:

Then that answers the question. If the line is curved or straight on both the flat model and the sphere model depends on where the observer is. If the observer is at the equator then the line appears curved but if the observer is over the flight path the line appears straight.

[stack]

Read more about Great Circle navigation. It's how long haul transport is handled world wide and it will answer your questions.

It's a 'spherical' thing:

Then that answers the question. If the line is curved or straight on both the flat model and the sphere model depends on where the observer is. If the observer is at the equator then the line appears curved but if the observer is over the flight path the line appears straight.

Yes and no.

On a Mercator projection map, like all of the flat maps you like, it's going to be curved. Because it's a Great Circle route.

great circle
noun
noun: great circle; plural noun: great circles

    a circle on the surface of a sphere which lies in a plane passing through the sphere's center. As it represents the shortest distance between any two points on a sphere, a great circle of the earth is the preferred route taken by a ship or aircraft.

The flat maps you cite are globes projected (flattened) on to a plane. So the great circle route shows as curved on these flat maps. In reality, they are straight lines on a globe, the shortest route on a sphere. Literally, the straight line on your flat maps is a longer route than the curved ones. Make sense?

When I fly from SFO to Heathrow, I follow the great circle path as represented on your flat map (red). It is shorter than the straight line, aka 'rhumb line' (blue)

[iamcpc]

Read more about Great Circle navigation. It's how long haul transport is handled world wide and it will answer your questions.

It's a 'spherical' thing:

Then that answers the question. If the line is curved or straight on both the flat model and the sphere model depends on where the observer is. If the observer is at the equator then the line appears curved but if the observer is over the flight path the line appears straight.

Yes and no.

On a Mercator projection map, like all of the flat maps you like, it's going to be curved. Because it's a Great Circle route.

great circle
noun
noun: great circle; plural noun: great circles

    a circle on the surface of a sphere which lies in a plane passing through the sphere's center. As it represents the shortest distance between any two points on a sphere, a great circle of the earth is the preferred route taken by a ship or aircraft.

The flat maps you cite are globes projected (flattened) on to a plane. So the great circle route shows as curved on these flat maps. In reality, they are straight lines on a globe, the shortest route on a sphere. Literally, the straight line on your flat maps is a longer route than the curved ones. Make sense?

When I fly from SFO to Heathrow, I follow the great circle path as represented on your flat map (red). It is shorter than the straight line, aka 'rhumb line' (blue)

That's great.l I'm glad to present you with a flat earth model which not only makes much more sense to you but it also widely used in the aviation community to map flight paths. The problem here is that it's not very popular. I've done a good amount of research into the different flat earth models and i'm the only one who has voiced an opinion that these models make a lot more sense in terms of navigation, shipping, and flight times.

[stack]

That's great.l I'm glad to present you with a flat earth model which not only makes much more sense to you but it also widely used in the aviation community to map flight paths. The problem here is that it's not very popular. I've done a good amount of research into the different flat earth models and i'm the only one who has voiced an opinion that these models make a lot more sense in terms of navigation, shipping, and flight times.

Actually, you're presenting a Globe earth model which not only makes much more sense to you but it also widely used in the aviation community to map flight paths. Which is wildly unpopular here, as to be expected. Your flat maps are globes projected on to a flat plane:

[Tom Bishop]

It's not a globe model. The model takes data from flat maps.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

[iamcpc]

Actually, you're presenting a Globe earth model which not only makes much more sense to you but it also widely used in the aviation community to map flight paths. Which is wildly unpopular here, as to be expected. Your flat maps are globes projected on to a flat plane:

By that logic you can claim that any map of the earth is actually presenting a Globe model. The flat earth model which looks like a flat disk with an ice wall and the north pole in the center is really presenting a globe earth model.

I define A flat earth model as a model of the earth in which the earth is represented as a flat plane instead of a sphere or an oblate spheroid. Clearly you don't share that same view.

Then let me use that Globe earth model, which represents the earth as a flat plane, as the basis for an alternate flat earth model. The model that you are seeing is for viewing and demonstration purposes only and is in no way related to the round earth model that you are speaking about.

There are many flat earth models which have been discussed which don't have any sort of visual aid.

[stack]

Actually, you're presenting a Globe earth model which not only makes much more sense to you but it also widely used in the aviation community to map flight paths. Which is wildly unpopular here, as to be expected. Your flat maps are globes projected on to a flat plane:

By that logic you can claim that any map of the earth is actually presenting a Globe model. The flat earth model which looks like a flat disk with an ice wall and the north pole in the center is really presenting a globe earth model.

No, that is not the logic. Any flat map that is using a globe projection is derived from a globe. The maps you tend to reference are all Mercator Globe projections, projected from a globe onto a flat plane. The FE disk/Gleason/UN types are AE Globe projections that could use any point on earth as their center point - These have been co-opted by FE as "models", not maps.

I define A flat earth model as a model of the earth in which the earth is represented as a flat plane instead of a sphere or an oblate spheroid. Clearly you don't share that same view.

That's fine. It's just that all of the flat plane maps that you refer to as your model are Globe projections. So whether you like your maps flat or any other shape is neither here nor there because they are simply 2D representations of a 3D spherical planet.

Then let me use that Globe earth model, which represents the earth as a flat plane, as the basis for an alternate flat earth model. The model that you are seeing is for viewing and demonstration purposes only and is in no way related to the round earth model that you are speaking about.

You can do what you like. But if you start referencing it as something more than just a model, like for navigation/distances, etc., then it is more than related to a round earth it absolutely is a 2D representation of a 3D spherical planet. There's no getting around that.

There are many flat earth models which have been discussed which don't have any sort of visual aid.

Yep.

[stack]

It's not a globe model. The model takes data from flat maps.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

Absolutely incorrect.

"When you combine these measurements, we arrive at a geodetic datum. Horizontal datums precisely specify each location on Earth’s surface in latitude and longitude or other coordinate systems. For instance, NAD27, NAD83 and WGS84 are examples of geodetic datums.

Using geographic coordinate systems, we can define positions on Earth. For example, we use degrees/minutes/seconds (DMS) and decimal degrees (DD) for spherical coordinates. After we flatten the Earth with map projections, we use projected coordinate systems like the State Plane Coordinate System (SPCS) or UTM grid system."

https://gisgeography.com/wgs84-world-geodetic-system/