The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Inka on March 03, 2016, 11:42:42 PM

Title: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: Inka on March 03, 2016, 11:42:42 PM
Hi,

I just found a direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires which takes 11 hours. It's with New Zealand air flight no anz30. Looking at the flat earth map the distance between NZ and South America is huge, i am no expert but I don't think the plane would cover the distance in 11 hours only and without anyone noticing the flight path. What are your thoughts?
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 04, 2016, 12:30:04 AM
Hi,

I just found a direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires which takes 11 hours. It's with New Zealand air flight no anz30. Looking at the flat earth map the distance between NZ and South America is huge, i am no expert but I don't think the plane would cover the distance in 11 hours only and without anyone noticing the flight path. What are your thoughts?

Can I get a link to the flat earth map?

Does this flight go south over antartica or west?
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: rabinoz on March 04, 2016, 02:27:46 AM
Hi,
I just found a direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires which takes 11 hours. It's with New Zealand air flight no anz30. Looking at the flat earth map the distance between NZ and South America is huge, i am no expert but I don't think the plane would cover the distance in 11 hours only and without anyone noticing the flight path. What are your thoughts?
Can I get a link to the flat earth map?
Does this flight go south over antartica or west?

I have not prepared maps for this route, I did not know it existed till just now. The next flight Auckland to Buenos Aries  (flight ANZ30) is:
Departs Auckland, Friday, 4 March, 7:20 pm, this is 6:20 am Friday, UTC.
Arrives Buenos Aires, Friday, 4 March, 3:00 pm, this is 6:00 pm Thursday, UTC.
These times give a gate to gate time of 11 hrs 40 min - west to east has favourable winds.
Note that the return flight takes 13 hrs 31 min - winds wrong way.
   
I do have maps for the Sydney to Santiago route, which is just a little longer. These flights do not go very close to Antarctica.

Below are the shortest distance routes from Sydney(Australia) to Santiago (Chile) on the Gleason's Map[1] and on Google Earth (for the Globe).
Note that the actual routes used on long distant flights will usually be chosen to fit in with the current winds. The return flight from Chile to Sydney often would be routed further south, possibly within sight of Antarctica.
    Shortest Sydney to Santiago on "Gleason Map"
    about 25,400 km
    (https://www.dropbox.com/s/vzyemzfa4a1xuxs/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%20Gleasons%20Map.png?dl=1)
    Great Circle Sydney to Santiago on "Google Earth"
    about 11,400 km
    (https://www.dropbox.com/s/qpyi22n7tofunwr/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20Great%20Circle%20-%20Google%20Earth.png?dl=1)


[1] Note that while the Gleason's map is often used by Flat Earthers, it is not the "Official Map"!
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 04, 2016, 05:14:41 AM
That's not a projection that has accurate representation of latitude. So no clue why you wasted your time rabinoz.
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: geckothegeek on March 04, 2016, 05:27:09 AM
Hi,
I just found a direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires which takes 11 hours. It's with New Zealand air flight no anz30. Looking at the flat earth map the distance between NZ and South America is huge, i am no expert but I don't think the plane would cover the distance in 11 hours only and without anyone noticing the flight path. What are your thoughts?
Can I get a link to the flat earth map?
Does this flight go south over antartica or west?

I have not prepared maps for this route, I did not know it existed till just now. The next flight Auckland to Buenos Aries  (flight ANZ30) is:
Departs Auckland, Friday, 4 March, 7:20 pm, this is 6:20 am Friday, UTC.
Arrives Buenos Aires, Friday, 4 March, 3:00 pm, this is 6:00 pm Thursday, UTC.
These times give a gate to gate time of 11 hrs 40 min - west to east has favourable winds.
Note that the return flight takes 13 hrs 31 min - winds wrong way.
   
I do have maps for the Sydney to Santiago route, which is just a little longer. These flights do not go very close to Antarctica.

Below are the shortest distance routes from Sydney(Australia) to Santiago (Chile) on the Gleason's Map[1] and on Google Earth (for the Globe).
Note that the actual routes used on long distant flights will usually be chosen to fit in with the current winds. The return flight from Chile to Sydney often would be routed further south, possibly within sight of Antarctica.
    Shortest Sydney to Santiago on "Gleason Map"
    about 25,400 km
    (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%20Gleasons%20Map_zpsfdlirlhm.png)
    Great Circle Sydney to Santiago on "Google Earth"
    about 11,400 km
    (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20Great%20Circle%20-%20Google%20Earth_zpso0htsooh.png)


[1] Note that while the Gleason's map is often used by Flat Earthers, it is not the "Official Map"!

Also note that Gleason's map appears to be just a carbon copy of The Azimuthal Equidistant Projection. He cites it as a projection as that of "J.S. Christopher, Modern College, Blackheath, England" Was that error made on purpose as part of the falsifying as a claim that it was original ?. The college in Blackheath is Morden College. Was Gleason trying to pass the map off as his own personal invention ?

[2] Not also that Gleason's map is not "The world as it is." It is not "scientifically and practically correct." Note also that the flight would pass over parts of The United States.
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: Inka on March 04, 2016, 07:55:21 AM
Sorry i am new to this, i only heard of the flat earth theory yesterday, and i am not even sure what the official flat earth map is. I was looking at this map: https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/קובץ:Flat_Earth.png, but you can look at other flat earth maps i guess, i just think the distance between the two cities on a flat earth map is too big to cover in 11 hours, it would support the round earth theory more. Anyway the flight is in air as i am writing this and its coming up on the flight tracker with detailed flight logs and graphs showing the latitude and longtitude so have a look. What do you think?

Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: Unsure101 on March 04, 2016, 08:38:23 AM
Hi,

I just found a direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires which takes 11 hours. It's with New Zealand air flight no anz30. Looking at the flat earth map the distance between NZ and South America is huge, i am no expert but I don't think the plane would cover the distance in 11 hours only and without anyone noticing the flight path. What are your thoughts?
As I've stated in another thread, my friend has caught the return flight recently and it does only take 11 hours or so.
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: rabinoz on March 04, 2016, 08:48:42 AM
That's not a projection that has accurate representation of latitude. So no clue why you wasted your time rabinoz.
That is almost identical to the map  TFES uses. Have a look in http://wiki.tfes.org/Antarctica (http://wiki.tfes.org/Antarctica). and many Flat Earthers insist that Gleason's is a "Flat Earth map" - it is not.
The Gleason map does have latitude and longitude marked and it does have an "accurate representation of latitude". Mind you it is massively out in east - west distances in the Southern Hemisphere. Don't blame me for that! I have often said that TFES has NO accurate map. Not my problem!
(http://rs1075.pbsrc.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/FE%20Ice%20Wall%20Map%20-%20co-ords_zpssfzmbeef.jpg?w=480&h=480&fit=clip)
So if you have a different map, don't keep it to yourself, please tell us
Just in case you didn't notice!
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 04, 2016, 01:06:19 PM
That's why I asked for a link to the official flat earth map. Because I didn't know there was an official one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection

Here is the information on that projection and, no, latitude distances aren't correct, only distances from the north pole are, "longitude"
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: rabinoz on March 05, 2016, 07:03:59 AM
That's why I asked for a link to the official flat earth map. Because I didn't know there was an official one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection

Here is the information on that projection and, no, latitude distances aren't correct, only distances from the north pole are, "longitude"
As far as I know the only difference between the maps is the orientation.
Both are Azimuthal Equidistant Projections, but the Gleason map has 0° longitude to the right and the TFES map has 0° longitude down.

I used the Gleason's simply because it has lat and long, and some place names.
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: Thork on March 05, 2016, 12:23:46 PM
I'd like a link to that flight.

I can't see any direct flights, and the fastest is almost 18 hours.
http://www.skyscanner.net/transport/flights/buea/akl/160518/160525/airfares-from-buenos-aires-to-auckland-international-in-may-2016.html?adults=1&children=0&infants=0&cabinclass=economy&rtn=1&preferdirects=false&outboundaltsenabled=false&inboundaltsenabled=false&qp_prevProvider=ins_month&qp_prevCurrency=GBP&qp_prevPrice=1053&age=10#results
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: Unsure101 on March 05, 2016, 02:35:57 PM
I'd like a link to that flight.

I can't see any direct flights, and the fastest is almost 18 hours.
http://www.skyscanner.net/transport/flights/buea/akl/160518/160525/airfares-from-buenos-aires-to-auckland-international-in-may-2016.html?adults=1&children=0&infants=0&cabinclass=economy&rtn=1&preferdirects=false&outboundaltsenabled=false&inboundaltsenabled=false&qp_prevProvider=ins_month&qp_prevCurrency=GBP&qp_prevPrice=1053&age=10#results

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ANZ30
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: Ointflytment on March 20, 2016, 03:28:01 PM
I'd like a link to that flight.

You can book it yourself at http://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/flight-search/global/en - just put Sydney and Santiago in. QF27 and QF28 are the direct flights and take (at this time of year) 12hr40min SYD-to-SCL and 14hr15min SCL-to-SYD. The discrepancy eastbound/westbound is due to prevailing winds, but the average is about 13hrs30mins.

Flight aware records for the eastbound leg - https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA27

The flights certainly exist. The aircraft certainly exist. The passengers certainly exist. What's more, after a 3-ish hour layover, the same plane returns to Sydney. So it's absent from its home port for around 31 hours, claims to have done a round trip to South America, is full of hundreds of people telling Australian Customs and Immigration officials that they boarded in Chile, and last I checked Boeing didn't sell Qantas some kind of super-speed but ultra fuel-efficient 747 for the route. And if it's a hoax, it's one they pull off four times a week. Every week.

It's pretty hard to suggest that the distance from Sydney to Santiago is higher than that shown on a round earth.
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 20, 2016, 05:27:30 PM
There needs to be a flight that goes over the south pole for this to be anything worth mentioning.
Title: thanks for breaking my google earth
Post by: nametaken on March 21, 2016, 12:49:07 AM
thanks for breaking my google earth... the line just disappears. Can someone with more knowledge of GEarth try this? Mine is derped (actually it just crashed now). Also you can't trust 2d maps that represent the globe (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Auckland,+New+Zealand/Buenos+Aires,+Autonomous+City+of+Buenos+Aires,+Argentina/@-43.3862449,-133.4964307,3z); the distance can be skewed.

(http://i.imgur.com/RScPSLI.png)

Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: Woody on March 21, 2016, 02:24:03 AM
There needs to be a flight that goes over the south pole for this to be anything worth mentioning.

Not really.  Distance on a FE and RE will not match up somewhere. 

If FE goes with the south pole at the center then flights traveling between North America and Asia would be brought up.

If someone comes up with something else the distance will not match somewhere.

The whole reason there is not an accurate FE map is because known distances can not be used to make the map.
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: rabinoz on March 24, 2016, 02:31:53 AM
There needs to be a flight that goes over the south pole for this to be anything worth mentioning.

Not really.  Distance on a FE and RE will not match up somewhere. 

If FE goes with the south pole at the center then flights traveling between North America and Asia would be brought up.

If someone comes up with something else the distance will not match somewhere.

The whole reason there is not an accurate FE map is because known distances can not be used to make the map.
In the post 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires « Reply #2 » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4735.msg91393#msg91393) (earlier in this thread) I gave the Sydney to Santiago shortest routes on the "Gleason Map" (close to the FE's "Ice Wall Map" and has some place names) and on the Globe (Google Earth Pro). The differences in routes and distances is massive. Here is a reduced size version of the maps:
    Shortest Sydney to Santiago on
    "Gleason Map", about 25,400 km
    (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%20Gleasons%20Map_zpsfdlirlhm.png)
    Great Circle Sydney to Santiago on
    "Google Earth", about 11,400 km
    (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20Great%20Circle%20-%20Google%20Earth_zpso0htsooh.png)
The distance on the Gleason map had to be scaled from the Equator to North Pole distance of 10,000 km.
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 24, 2016, 05:11:07 AM
There needs to be a flight that goes over the south pole for this to be anything worth mentioning.

Not really.  Distance on a FE and RE will not match up somewhere. 

If FE goes with the south pole at the center then flights traveling between North America and Asia would be brought up.

If someone comes up with something else the distance will not match somewhere.

The whole reason there is not an accurate FE map is because known distances can not be used to make the map.
In the post 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires « Reply #2 » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4735.msg91393#msg91393) (earlier in this thread) I gave the Sydney to Santiago shortest routes on the "Gleason Map" (close to the FE's "Ice Wall Map" and has some place names) and on the Globe (Google Earth Pro). The differences in routes and distances is massive. Here is a reduced size version of the maps:
    Shortest Sydney to Santiago on
    "Gleason Map", about 25,400 km
    (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%20Gleasons%20Map_zpsfdlirlhm.png)
    Great Circle Sydney to Santiago on
    "Google Earth", about 11,400 km
    (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20Great%20Circle%20-%20Google%20Earth_zpso0htsooh.png)
The distance on the Gleason map had to be scaled from the Equator to North Pole distance of 10,000 km.

Dude. How many times do you have to be told that the AEP is not accurate for latitude? What is so hard to understand? Distances are accurate from the center asking the longitude ONLY.
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: Rounder on March 24, 2016, 12:16:31 PM
Dude. How many times do you have to be told that the AEP is not accurate for latitude?
How many times?  I'm guessing that number will be exactly the same as the number of times YOU have to be told that the AEP is "one of the two Flat Earth geographic models" as presented by the Wiki (http://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents). 

What is so hard to understand?
Nothing, we completely understand that the AEP is not an accurate representation of the world.  It seems to me that you are misunderstanding something: it appears that you don't know that some FE proponents believe it IS accurate.  We RE proponents did not invent a foolish "flat earth map, ha ha ha!" so as to have a straw man to kick around, the wiki gave it to us. 

Distances are accurate from the center asking the longitude ONLY.
It isn't our fault that the real world doesn't correspond to the AEP, but I am glad to see you acknowledge it.  Nice to find something about which I can agree with you!
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 24, 2016, 03:16:36 PM
Well you do know that it isn't accurate, but you still try to use it to your advantage. At this point, that can only be interpreted as you being intentionally misleading.
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet on March 24, 2016, 06:15:32 PM
Well you do know that it isn't accurate, but you still try to use it to your advantage.
Let's review the OP's question

Looking at the flat earth map the distance between NZ and South America is huge
The OP is referring to AEP, which is commonly used by TFES wiki.

Then rabinoz explained why the AEP is wrong because of the flight path, to those who believe it right.
He wasn't talking to you if you believe it wrong, so anymore unnecessary argument?
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 24, 2016, 07:16:14 PM
Well you do know that it isn't accurate, but you still try to use it to your advantage.
Let's review the OP's question

Looking at the flat earth map the distance between NZ and South America is huge
The OP is referring to AEP, which is commonly used by TFES wiki.

Then rabinoz explained why the AEP is wrong because of the flight path, to those who believe it right.
He wasn't talking to you if you believe it wrong, so anymore unnecessary argument?

No the issue is he was told, by me, several times exactly why the AEP can not represent the Earth accurately, yet he makes a diagram which is supposed to represent some kind of scale (which how he deduced 25,400 km as the distance isn't even explained anywhere) in an attempt to mislead people.

Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: rubberbands on March 24, 2016, 07:24:19 PM
TheTruthIsOnHere --- the point Rabinoz is trying to make is that, as best we can tell, many FE'ers genuinely think that, if you went up in a spaceship or something and looked down on the Earth, what you would see would look like the AEP map. The Earth would be a disk, with the "North Pole" at the center and Antarctica all around the edge (and possibly extending indefinitely outwards in all directions, according to some people). The whole argument here is exactly what you're saying -- that the only distances AEP accurately preserves are those from some point on Earth to the North Pole.

If you believe that the AEP isn't accurate for latitude, then what is? If the Earth is flat, there must be some way to draw a map of it, on a flat piece of paper, which accurately shows all distances between points. And if that's true, then that means globes don't accurately preserve distances between points on Earth (even though everyone acts under the assumption that they do and, under those assumptions, people navigate their way across the planet with perfect accuracy every day).

If you believe that the AEP doesn't accurately preserve latitude, then you believe that, if you were to go really high up in a balloon or spaceship and look down on the Earth, you would see something other than that picture. (In fact, if you believe that "latitude" and "longitude" as they are currently defined are useful and accurate measures, then you believe the world is round.)
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: rabinoz on March 25, 2016, 12:47:58 PM
Well you do know that it isn't accurate, but you still try to use it to your advantage.
Let's review the OP's question

Looking at the flat earth map the distance between NZ and South America is huge
The OP is referring to AEP, which is commonly used by TFES wiki.

Then rabinoz explained why the AEP is wrong because of the flight path, to those who believe it right.
He wasn't talking to you if you believe it wrong, so anymore unnecessary argument?

No the issue is he was told, by me, several times exactly why the AEP can not represent the Earth accurately, yet he makes a diagram which is supposed to represent some kind of scale (which how he deduced 25,400 km as the distance isn't even explained anywhere) in an attempt to mislead people.
I have NOT anywhere tried to deceive anyone. The North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection IS the same shape as TFES claims the Flat Earth is!
Quote from: the Wiki
Earth (http://wiki.tfes.org/Earth)
The earth is the flat astronomical body where live numerous species of plants, animals and other beings. The North Pole is the center of the earth, and South Pole is a circunference(sic) around it.
The sun and the moon are both located circa 3,000 miles above earth's surface. They have a mutual orbit (similar to a binary system orbit), which produces day and night on earth.
The stars are small astronomical bodies located circa 3,100 miles above earth and 100 miles above sun and moon orbit.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png)
The most widely accepted map model of a flat earth.
I do believe that is a (rather crude!) North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection, though rotated 90° compared to the Gleason's map.
Now, I do NOT think that is an accurate map of the earth, and that is the point I was trying to show.
Now I do believe the honorable thing would be for you to apologise for you accusation.
If you has a better map of the "Flat Earth" now would be a good time to show us! But, unless I am mistaken, YOU have never answered any of our questions nor presented anything other that pure negativity!

PS: I would like to have replied earlier, but I have been fighting my computer (it would not let me login!), so I had to teach it a lesson!
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: geckothegeek on March 25, 2016, 09:43:40 PM
Well you do know that it isn't accurate, but you still try to use it to your advantage.
Let's review the OP's question

Looking at the flat earth map the distance between NZ and South America is huge
The OP is referring to AEP, which is commonly used by TFES wiki.

Then rabinoz explained why the AEP is wrong because of the flight path, to those who believe it right.
He wasn't talking to you if you believe it wrong, so anymore unnecessary argument?

No the issue is he was told, by me, several times exactly why the AEP can not represent the Earth accurately, yet he makes a diagram which is supposed to represent some kind of scale (which how he deduced 25,400 km as the distance isn't even explained anywhere) in an attempt to mislead people.
I have NOT anywhere tried to deceive anyone. The North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection IS the same shape as TFES claims the Flat Earth is!
Quote from: the Wiki
Earth (http://wiki.tfes.org/Earth)
The earth is the flat astronomical body where live numerous species of plants, animals and other beings. The North Pole is the center of the earth, and South Pole is a circunference(sic) around it.
The sun and the moon are both located circa 3,000 miles above earth's surface. They have a mutual orbit (similar to a binary system orbit), which produces day and night on earth.
The stars are small astronomical bodies located circa 3,100 miles above earth and 100 miles above sun and moon orbit.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png)
The most widely accepted map model of a flat earth.
I do believe that is a (rather crude!) North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection, though rotated 90° compared to the Gleason's map.
Now, I do NOT think that is an accurate map of the earth, and that is the point I was trying to show.
Now I do believe the honorable thing would be for you to apologise for you accusation.
If you has a better map of the "Flat Earth" now would be a good time to show us! But, unless I am mistaken, YOU have never answered any of our questions nor presented anything other that pure negativity!

PS: I would like to have replied earlier, but I have been fighting my computer (it would not let me login!), so I had to teach it a lesson!

The more you read of the flat earth wiki the more fallacious it becomes. Today, in 2016, the average person with an average education (or indoctrination as the flat earthers like to say) ,and an average intelligence would find the wiki a bit humorous,  almost in its entirety. But you have to realize it was written in the 19th Century for a mostly low intelligence, even possibly illiterate audience who would just assume Rowbotham was some sort of a genius due to his skill in public speaking. Along with his PhD and  MD  degrees....Of course 
 
If maps which are made from projections from the globe and being of a size and design to minimize distortion are so inaccurate, why do they work and why are they used every day ?Assuming the earth is a globe, which it is.

If maps which were made directly from a flat earth map and would need no projection (like making a blue print from a tracing like we did in our old Junior High School Mechanical Drawing Classes) why don't they work and why aren't they used ? Assuming there is such a thing as a flat earth map- which as yet there is none. Assuming the earth is flat - which it is not.

PS-I would  have replied earlier, too......But I have this new Nook and I'm trying to teach myself a lesson, too - how to type on the confounded thing......LOL!
And the shape of Australia looks a bit like that rodent that the flat earthers found on Mars !
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: rabinoz on March 26, 2016, 10:42:36 AM
And the shape of Australia looks a bit like that rodent that the flat earthers found on Mars !
;D I do hope you mean the shape of Australia on the North Polar Equidistant Azimuthal map and not "elegant" real shape.  ;D

(http://rs1075.pbsrc.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/1892-new-standard-map-Australia_zpsbjox1mgg.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip)(http://rs1075.pbsrc.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Australia%20on%20Google%20Earth_zpsy1w9phhs.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip)
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: geckothegeek on March 26, 2016, 01:49:45 PM
Well you do know that it isn't accurate, but you still try to use it to your advantage. At this point, that can only be interpreted as you being intentionally misleading.

No.......It is the flat earthers who are doing the  misleading. They don't even have an accurate map to back up their claim that te earth is flat.
Why ? Because the earth isn't FLAT.  It's a GLOBE, Flat earthers need to do a little research and study on the subject of Cartography. 
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: geckothegeek on March 26, 2016, 01:57:25 PM
And the shape of Australia looks a bit like that rodent that the flat earthers found on Mars !
;D I do hope you mean the shape of Australia on the North Polar Equidistant Azimuthal map and not "elegant" real shape.  ;D

(http://rs1075.pbsrc.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/1892-new-standard-map-Australia_zpsbjox1mgg.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip)(http://rs1075.pbsrc.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Australia%20on%20Google%20Earth_zpsy1w9phhs.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip)
Yes.....I was referring to the AEP. LOL
On second thought Australia looks more like a pig on Gleason' Map.....There's the snout at Brisbane and the ear at the top of the vertical line on the drawing. LOL
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: rabinoz on March 27, 2016, 08:18:39 AM
And the shape of Australia looks a bit like that rodent that the flat earthers found on Mars !
;D I do hope you mean the shape of Australia on the North Polar Equidistant Azimuthal map and not "elegant" real shape.  ;D
(http://rs1075.pbsrc.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/1892-new-standard-map-Australia_zpsbjox1mgg.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip)(http://rs1075.pbsrc.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Australia%20on%20Google%20Earth_zpsy1w9phhs.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip)
Yes.....I was referring to the AEP. LOL
On second thought Australia looks more like a pig on Gleason' Map.....There's the snout at Brisbane and the ear at the top of the vertical line on the drawing. LOL
Yes, I have to admit it does, but watch the Brisbane bit! I live near there and don't know that I like the idea of of living anywhere the pig's snout.
I know the dimensions of Australia - I have driven around it and to most "corners" (certainly East, North, West, South West and Southern corners - Victoria and Tasmania). The dimensions of the Gleason's map DO NOT fit the real Australia, the "Google Earth" dimensions do fit!
;) Lucky for me the Southern Hemisphere definitely is a Hemisphere. I couldn't care less about the Northern HemiSphere/Plane.  ;)
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: totallackey on March 27, 2016, 11:38:29 PM
Hi,
I just found a direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires which takes 11 hours. It's with New Zealand air flight no anz30. Looking at the flat earth map the distance between NZ and South America is huge, i am no expert but I don't think the plane would cover the distance in 11 hours only and without anyone noticing the flight path. What are your thoughts?
Can I get a link to the flat earth map?
Does this flight go south over antartica or west?

I have not prepared maps for this route, I did not know it existed till just now. The next flight Auckland to Buenos Aries  (flight ANZ30) is:
Departs Auckland, Friday, 4 March, 7:20 pm, this is 6:20 am Friday, UTC.
Arrives Buenos Aires, Friday, 4 March, 3:00 pm, this is 6:00 pm Thursday, UTC.
These times give a gate to gate time of 11 hrs 40 min - west to east has favourable winds.
Note that the return flight takes 13 hrs 31 min - winds wrong way.
   
I do have maps for the Sydney to Santiago route, which is just a little longer. These flights do not go very close to Antarctica.

Below are the shortest distance routes from Sydney(Australia) to Santiago (Chile) on the Gleason's Map[1] and on Google Earth (for the Globe).
Note that the actual routes used on long distant flights will usually be chosen to fit in with the current winds. The return flight from Chile to Sydney often would be routed further south, possibly within sight of Antarctica.
    Shortest Sydney to Santiago on "Gleason Map"
    about 25,400 km
    (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%20Gleasons%20Map_zpsfdlirlhm.png)
    Great Circle Sydney to Santiago on "Google Earth"
    about 11,400 km
    (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20Great%20Circle%20-%20Google%20Earth_zpso0htsooh.png)


[1] Note that while the Gleason's map is often used by Flat Earthers, it is not the "Official Map"!

I do not believe either way as of yet.

I believe the word EQUIDISTANT Gleason uses on the projection includes the idea each grid is EQUAL IN SIZE, regardless of appearance...How many grids are between Australia and South America? What is the known breadth and height of Australia?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCWz5na8d1k
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: totallackey on March 27, 2016, 11:44:26 PM
There needs to be a flight that goes over the south pole for this to be anything worth mentioning.

Not really.  Distance on a FE and RE will not match up somewhere. 

If FE goes with the south pole at the center then flights traveling between North America and Asia would be brought up.

If someone comes up with something else the distance will not match somewhere.

The whole reason there is not an accurate FE map is because known distances can not be used to make the map.
In the post 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires « Reply #2 » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4735.msg91393#msg91393) (earlier in this thread) I gave the Sydney to Santiago shortest routes on the "Gleason Map" (close to the FE's "Ice Wall Map" and has some place names) and on the Globe (Google Earth Pro). The differences in routes and distances is massive. Here is a reduced size version of the maps:
    Shortest Sydney to Santiago on
    "Gleason Map", about 25,400 km
    (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%20Gleasons%20Map_zpsfdlirlhm.png)
    Great Circle Sydney to Santiago on
    "Google Earth", about 11,400 km
    (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20Great%20Circle%20-%20Google%20Earth_zpso0htsooh.png)
The distance on the Gleason map had to be scaled from the Equator to North Pole distance of 10,000 km.

Dude. How many times do you have to be told that the AEP is not accurate for latitude? What is so hard to understand? Distances are accurate from the center asking the longitude ONLY.

It is accurate for latitude. You must focus on the word EQUIDISTANT.
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 28, 2016, 03:05:36 AM
Rabinoz knows that, he just likes to doodle numbers and lines on it anyway to prove some non point. Also I'm certain he hasn't driven all around Australia with the expressed purpose of measuring the continent and making sure google maps is correct.
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: geckothegeek on March 28, 2016, 03:23:56 AM
Rabinoz knows that, he just likes to doodle numbers and lines on it anyway to prove some non point. Also I'm certain he hasn't driven all around Australia with the expressed purpose of measuring the continent and making sure google maps is correct.

Rand McNally probably has road maps of Australia. I would feel that if the road mileages were not accurate and proved the true size of Australia as it really is they would be getting a lot of complaints from tourists and business travelers. And if Australia has an organization such as AA-in the UK or the AAA-in the USA they would make certain their maps were accurate. You wouldn't have to drive around the country.

I have driven all over the USA and can vouch for the accuracy of the old "free oil company road maps", the current AAA maps and current Microsoft Streets and Trips software. They all are correct and agree with google maps.

The reason Gleason's Map is so distorted is simply because it's simply a copy of the North  Polar AEP.

I think I have discovered the problem. The automobile manufacturers in Australia  have programmed their odometers.
Count them in on The Great Round Earth Conspiracy.
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 28, 2016, 05:00:26 AM
Rabinoz knows that, he just likes to doodle numbers and lines on it anyway to prove some non point. Also I'm certain he hasn't driven all around Australia with the expressed purpose of measuring the continent and making sure google maps is correct.

Rand McNally probably has road maps of Australia. I would feel that if the road mileages were not accurate and proved the true size of Australia as it really is they would be getting a lot of complaints from tourists and business travelers. And if Australia has an organization such as AA-in the UK or the AAA-in the USA they would make certain their maps were accurate. You wouldn't have to drive around the country.

I have driven all over the USA and can vouch for the accuracy of the old "free oil company road maps", the current AAA maps and current Microsoft Streets and Trips software. They all are correct and agree with google maps.

The reason Gleason's Map is so distorted is simply because it's simply a copy of the North  Polar AEP.

I think I have discovered the problem. The automobile manufacturers in Australia  have programmed their odometers.
Count them in on The Great Round Earth Conspiracy.

Is it always tag team with you guys or what? All I'm said is I doubt he drove corner to corner with debunking a flat earth projection wrong. Seems like it would be a real waste of time and gas if that's what he did. Dont know what youre even going on about in your post.
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: BlueMoon on March 28, 2016, 09:27:06 AM
Rabinoz knows that, he just likes to doodle numbers and lines on it anyway to prove some non point. Also I'm certain he hasn't driven all around Australia with the expressed purpose of measuring the continent and making sure google maps is correct.

Rand McNally probably has road maps of Australia. I would feel that if the road mileages were not accurate and proved the true size of Australia as it really is they would be getting a lot of complaints from tourists and business travelers. And if Australia has an organization such as AA-in the UK or the AAA-in the USA they would make certain their maps were accurate. You wouldn't have to drive around the country.

I have driven all over the USA and can vouch for the accuracy of the old "free oil company road maps", the current AAA maps and current Microsoft Streets and Trips software. They all are correct and agree with google maps.

The reason Gleason's Map is so distorted is simply because it's simply a copy of the North  Polar AEP.

I think I have discovered the problem. The automobile manufacturers in Australia  have programmed their odometers.
Count them in on The Great Round Earth Conspiracy.

Is it always tag team with you guys or what? All I'm said is I doubt he drove corner to corner with debunking a flat earth projection wrong. Seems like it would be a real waste of time and gas if that's what he did. Dont know what youre even going on about in your post.
*tap tap*
Yes, it is all a tag team.  A guy can only take so much idiocy in one sitting. 
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: geckothegeek on March 28, 2016, 07:12:57 PM
Rabinoz knows that, he just likes to doodle numbers and lines on it anyway to prove some non point. Also I'm certain he hasn't driven all around Australia with the expressed purpose of measuring the continent and making sure google maps is correct.

Rand McNally probably has road maps of Australia. I would feel that if the road mileages were not accurate and proved the true size of Australia as it really is they would be getting a lot of complaints from tourists and business travelers. And if Australia has an organization such as AA-in the UK or the AAA-in the USA they would make certain their maps were accurate. You wouldn't have to drive around the country.

I have driven all over the USA and can vouch for the accuracy of the old "free oil company road maps", the current AAA maps and current Microsoft Streets and Trips software. They all are correct and agree with google maps.

The reason Gleason's Map is so distorted is simply because it's simply a copy of the North  Polar AEP.

I think I have discovered the problem. The automobile manufacturers in Australia  have programmed their odometers.
Count them in on The Great Round Earth Conspiracy.

Is it always tag team with you guys or what? All I'm said is I doubt he drove corner to corner with debunking a flat earth projection wrong. Seems like it would be a real waste of time and gas if that's what he did. Dont know what youre even going on about in your post.
*tap tap*
Yes, it is all a tag team.  A guy can only take so much idiocy in one sitting.

I don't know if it's just an act or not but it seems that no matter how long or how hard you try to explain something to a flat  earther they say they don't get it or maybe they just pretend they don't get it or they don't understand it. The explanation of the North Polar AEP and why it is inaccurate for example.
I try to limit my visits to an hour or so on the FES. An hour or so of idiocy or pretended idiocy is enough.
The point of my post was that the earth is not shaped like a flat disc and there is no accurate flat earth map of the earth bcause the earth is a globe  in  case the flat earthers didn't get  the point. Havent any flat earthers ever been  to elementary school ? Maybe not ? That would be against  their religion ?
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 28, 2016, 08:37:13 PM
I don't know if it's just an act or not but it seems that no matter how long or how hard you try to explain something to a flat  earther they say they don't get it or maybe they just pretend they don't get it or they don't understand it. The explanation of the North Polar AEP and why it is inaccurate for example.
I try to limit my visits to an hour or so on the FES. An hour or so of idiocy or pretended idiocy is enough.
The point of my post was that the earth is not shaped like a flat disc and there is no accurate flat earth map of the earth bcause the earth is a globe  in  case the flat earthers didn't get  the point. Havent any flat earthers ever been  to elementary school ? Maybe not ? That would be against  their religion ?

I don't know what you don't understand. I have been telling people all along that the AEP is not to be used as any kind of accurate representation, and that the only thing to scale is the distances from the north pole south along longitude.

When have I said otherwise? When did I seem confused? You are quick to come with lame insults, but your entire argument as far as I've ever seen is "the earth is round because it is." Now before you just devolve into your shell and call me a flat earther as some kind of self defense mechanism, when have I ever indicated I believed the Earth was flat? All I ever said is based on the information we have from observable phenomena that nothing is readily apparent about the shape of the Earth. The fact is, if 99% of people weren't told it was a sphere they wouldn't deduce that on their own.

Now please tell me more about how you think you're dealing with someone who hasn't been to elementary school.
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: Rounder on March 28, 2016, 09:00:19 PM
Let's circle back to the original post, which may be summed up as follows: A flight from Auckland to Buenos Aires exists that lasts eleven hours.  The two flat earth maps presented in the wiki show distances between those two cities which could not be covered in that time by passenger aircraft.  This suggests that neither of the maps presented by the wiki are correct.  The open question: can anyone show us a flat earth map on which the distance between Auckland and Buenos Aires is the correct distance?
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on March 28, 2016, 09:03:18 PM
maybe get Saddam to do us a drawing?
(http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4808.0)
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: totallackey on March 28, 2016, 11:02:28 PM
Let's circle back to the original post, which may be summed up as follows: A flight from Auckland to Buenos Aires exists that lasts eleven hours.  The two flat earth maps presented in the wiki show distances between those two cities which could not be covered in that time by passenger aircraft.  This suggests that neither of the maps presented by the wiki are correct.  The open question: can anyone show us a flat earth map on which the distance between Auckland and Buenos Aires is the correct distance?

Yes, the Gleason Map is accurate. How many squares are taken up by Australia? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCWz5na8d1k
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: rabinoz on March 28, 2016, 11:24:48 PM
I don't know what you don't understand. I have been telling people all along that the AEP is not to be used as any kind of accurate representation, and that the only thing to scale is the distances from the north pole south along longitude.

When have I said otherwise? When did I seem confused? You are quick to come with lame insults, but your entire argument as far as I've ever seen is "the earth is round because it is." Now before you just devolve into your shell and call me a flat earther as some kind of self defense mechanism, when have I ever indicated I believed the Earth was flat? All I ever said is based on the information we have from observable phenomena that nothing is readily apparent about the shape of the Earth. The fact is, if 99% of people weren't told it was a sphere they wouldn't deduce that on their own.

Now please tell me more about how you think you're dealing with someone who hasn't been to elementary school.
I know you were answering "geckothegeek", but I hope this gets my meaning across.

You claim "All I ever said is based on the information we have from observable phenomena that nothing is readily apparent about the shape of the Earth.", but I claim that is rubbish because the earth has been measured (by whom? Yes geodetic surveyors) and those measurements prove that the shape of the real earth will not fit on a plane surface.

The trouble is that every time we say that this flat earth map or that flat earth map cannot be correct TFES (or The Flat Earth Society - different!) says, "no, no that's not the right map!".

So what's the point of bothering about the earth's shape with TFES, no-one really seems to care - all they want is "An old chooks debating society". As soon is any real evidence shows up the thread gets ignored! (probably my fault - tl;dr - blame the old guy!).

I have made numerous posts like:
I have tried to shorten it a bit, but it is still long!
I made a post http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4499.msg88069#msg88069 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4499.msg88069#msg88069)
where I stated that the earth we live on simply cannot be flat.

What I am doing here is essentially repeating the earlier post, with a little different wording.

But, what about the crucial question? Let's look at the accepted dimensions of the earth.
From the TFES Wiki we have:
Quote from: Flat Earth Wiki
From: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall)
The figure of 24,900 miles is the diameter of the known world; the area which the light from the sun affects.
Presumably the distance from the north pole out to the equator can be taken as one quarter of this, 6,225 miles or 10,018 km.

I will use a rounded figure for the north pole to equator distance of 10,000 km, which is closer to the currently accepted value.

Then to get a figure for the equatorial circumference of the earth, we can look at the "definition" of the Nautical Mile:
Quote
A sea mile or nautical mile is, strictly, the length of a minute of arc measured along a meridian. It represents a minute of longitude only at the equator.
  Currently the Nm is defined as exactly 1,852 meters. 
So the circumference of the equator must be (1,852 m) x 60' x 360° = 40,003 km.

Again I will use a rounded figure for the equatorial circumference of 40,000 km.

But, on any flat earth map I have seen the equatorial circle circumference is simply the
circumference of a circle of radius 10,000 km, or 62,830 km.

I do not see any possible way of reconciling the quite accepted equatorial circumference of 40,000 km of the earth
with the flat earth equatorial circle circumference of 62,830 km.

What are your thoughts? Are my distances wrong?

It seems strange to me that so many flat earth supporters send post after post quibble about tiny problems they see in a satellite photo, or some feature of the globe, yet are simply quite unwilling to tackle (what to me are) glaring holes in their own model.
Part of this must be that so many of flat earth supporters simply do not understand the implications of what they claim to support.
The only reply that has ever made any sense has been "Evidence?", so I have a number of times provided evidence such as in:
A refutation of RE that RE-ers will accept (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4798.msg92916#msg92916), then simply ignored!
Also: Geodetic Surveying PROVES a round earth: Why are we wasting time debating? (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66284.msg1770047#msg1770047).

That map shown in that last post was registered in 1855, yet its measurements are in close agreement with modern GPS based figures!
As another check on the old map (or the GPS if you prefer) the distance from Steep Point, Western Australia (the westernmost point) to Cape Byron, NSW (Australia) is Steep Point to Cape Byron (the easternmost point) is
3985 km scaled from the 1855 map and 3994 km on the current Garmin map (based on WGS 84).
In my mind that is enough to show that these dastardly NASA folk haven't been faking our maps.

Essentially I am claiming that until someone can come up with a "Flat Map" that can fit these long established measurements, then just forget the idea of a Flat Earth!
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: rabinoz on March 28, 2016, 11:49:25 PM
I don't know what you don't understand. I have been telling people all along that the AEP is not to be used as any kind of accurate representation, and that the only thing to scale is the distances from the north pole south along longitude.

YOU may not believe the earth is a flat disk, a globe, a square or a dodecahedron, but TFES claims:
Quote
Earth
The earth is the flat astronomical body where live numerous species of plants, animals and other beings. The North Pole is the center of the earth, and South Pole is a circunference around it.
The sun and the moon are both located circa 3,000 miles above earth's surface. They have a mutual orbit (similar to a binary system orbit), which produces day and night on earth.
The stars are small astronomical bodies located circa 3,100 miles above earth and 100 miles above sun and moon orbit.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png)
The most widely accepted map model of a flat earth
Now to me, that looks like the AEP and while it might not be very accurate we are looking at discrepencies of 25,400 km on the AEP (Gleason's) to 11,400 km on the Globe (Google Earth).
You might not believe in the Flat Earth, but you must have some global map that you use - of to you sit at home and "meditate"!
So out with it, or just stop simply trying to tear down everything, with nothing to replace what you have discarded.

So, who cares about a bit of accuracy!

So, what about YOU giving us a map that will agree with what we actually see on the Real Earth - whatever its shape.
But, please remember there are certainly measurements that will not fit on a plane surface!
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: Unsure101 on March 29, 2016, 01:02:12 PM
I don't know what you don't understand. I have been telling people all along that the AEP is not to be used as any kind of accurate representation, and that the only thing to scale is the distances from the north pole south along longitude.

YOU may not believe the earth is a flat disk, a globe, a square or a dodecahedron, but TFES claims:
Quote
Earth
The earth is the flat astronomical body where live numerous species of plants, animals and other beings. The North Pole is the center of the earth, and South Pole is a circunference around it.
The sun and the moon are both located circa 3,000 miles above earth's surface. They have a mutual orbit (similar to a binary system orbit), which produces day and night on earth.
The stars are small astronomical bodies located circa 3,100 miles above earth and 100 miles above sun and moon orbit.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png)
The most widely accepted map model of a flat earth
Now to me, that looks like the AEP and while it might not be very accurate we are looking at discrepencies of 25,400 km on the AEP (Gleason's) to 11,400 km on the Globe (Google Earth).
You might not believe in the Flat Earth, but you must have some global map that you use - of to you sit at home and "meditate"!
So out with it, or just stop simply trying to tear down everything, with nothing to replace what you have discarded.

So, who cares about a bit of accuracy!

So, what about YOU giving us a map that will agree with what we actually see on the Real Earth - whatever its shape.
But, please remember there are certainly measurements that will not fit on a plane surface!
Pretty sure that this one fits all your requests:
(http://www.zonu.com/images/500X0/2009-11-18-11144/South-America-on-the-globe.png)
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: rabinoz on March 29, 2016, 09:16:57 PM
I don't know what you don't understand. I have been telling people all along that the AEP is not to be used as any kind of accurate representation, and that the only thing to scale is the distances from the north pole south along longitude.

YOU may not believe the earth is a flat disk, a globe, a square or a dodecahedron, but TFES claims:
Quote
Earth
The earth is the flat astronomical body where live numerous species of plants, animals and other beings. The North Pole is the center of the earth, and South Pole is a circunference around it.
The sun and the moon are both located circa 3,000 miles above earth's surface. They have a mutual orbit (similar to a binary system orbit), which produces day and night on earth.
The stars are small astronomical bodies located circa 3,100 miles above earth and 100 miles above sun and moon orbit.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png)
The most widely accepted map model of a flat earth
Now to me, that looks like the AEP and while it might not be very accurate we are looking at discrepencies of 25,400 km on the AEP (Gleason's) to 11,400 km on the Globe (Google Earth).
You might not believe in the Flat Earth, but you must have some global map that you use - of to you sit at home and "meditate"!
So out with it, or just stop simply trying to tear down everything, with nothing to replace what you have discarded.

So, who cares about a bit of accuracy!

So, what about YOU giving us a map that will agree with what we actually see on the Real Earth - whatever its shape.
But, please remember there are certainly measurements that will not fit on a plane surface!
Pretty sure that this one fits all your requests:
(http://www.zonu.com/images/500X0/2009-11-18-11144/South-America-on-the-globe.png)
Yes, I can't see any other object fitting the known measurements of the real earth than a GLOBE.
And as yet no Flat Earther, Square Earther or anyone else has suggested one either!
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 29, 2016, 09:54:29 PM
Hey you buffoons, that is not a map. That is an illustration of one side of a globe. Try to navigate with that thing and see how far you get.
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: BlueMoon on March 29, 2016, 10:39:36 PM
Hey you buffoons, that is not a map. That is an illustration of one side of a globe. Try to navigate with that thing and see how far you get.
To quote xkcd (https://xkcd.com/977/), "yes, you're very clever."  The important thing about globes is that you can rotate them to whatever part of the earth you want, and you will have an accurate representation of that portion of the earth.  Can you do that with an AEP map?  No, you cannot.  Especially in the southern hemisphere, as rabinoz will be quick to point out. 


Important note to TheTruthIsOnHere:  You'll probably get defensive and whine that you never said you thought the earth was flat.  I don't care.  Your profile picture shows a flat earth, and your username is TheTruthIsOnHere, referring to the FES website.  As far as I'm concerned, you may as well be a flat earther like the rest, and you will be treated as such. 
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: rabinoz on March 30, 2016, 12:12:30 AM
Hey you buffoons, that is not a map. That is an illustration of one side of a globe. Try to navigate with that thing and see how far you get.
Hey, you buffoon!
Of course we know that is a picture half the globe!
The question was NOT to find a MAP, but to find some object that fits the measured dimensions we have of the real earth[1]. And the answer given was a representation of the globe. We know that fits - so if you have any objections to the globe[2] please
stop being so negative and add something to the debate, instead of ALWAYS trying to pull everything down.


[1] I'll soon be coming up with a lot more of these dimensions, so start racking you brains!
[2] You claim you are not pushing for the flat earth. You seem to be a flat NOTHING!
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: Unsure101 on March 30, 2016, 01:13:37 AM
Hey you buffoons, that is not a map. That is an illustration of one side of a globe. Try to navigate with that thing and see how far you get.
Sorry, I tried to upload a 3D object, but I broke the Internets. This image is simply a 2D representation of an object that meets the specified requirements.
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: rabinoz on March 30, 2016, 01:41:05 AM
Hey you buffoons, that is not a map. That is an illustration of one side of a globe. Try to navigate with that thing and see how far you get.
Sorry, I tried to upload a 3D object, but I broke the Internets. This image is simply a 2D representation of an object that meets the specified requirements.
It's a bit funny that no-one can find any flat object that fits! Possibly:
(1) All the surveyor have been deceiving us about the dimensions of Australia etc, or there is the faint possibility that
(2) The earth is not flat!
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: geckothegeek on March 30, 2016, 01:55:13 AM
Hey you buffoons, that is not a map. That is an illustration of one side of a globe. Try to navigate with that thing and see how far you get.

Ships have Chart Rooms with Sectional Oceanic Charts which cover small areas to minimize the distortions in making projections from the globe for navigation.
They are readily available and of course are used for navigation.
Can  you show us a source for such charts made from a flat earth map - of the entire earth - and tell us who uses them ? (If the earth is flat  ? )
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 30, 2016, 03:29:13 AM
Last time I saw a map it looked flat to me. My Google maps app looks pretty flat to me, in fact they ignored curvature altogether when they made the Web Mercator map it uses.
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: BlueMoon on March 30, 2016, 04:17:57 AM
Last time I saw a map it looked flat to me. My Google maps app looks pretty flat to me, in fact they ignored curvature altogether when they made the Web Mercator map it uses.
And look at the size of Greenland.  Are you saying that the earth is flat because its projections are flat?
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: rabinoz on March 30, 2016, 04:49:14 AM
Last time I saw a map it looked flat to me. My Google maps app looks pretty flat to me, in fact they ignored curvature altogether when they made the Web Mercator map it uses.
What on earth are you talking about? ALL maps on paper or a computer screen ARE FLAT!
But they are all some projection of the Globe!

As you say, Google maps use Web Mercator, but I haven't yet been able to find out for sure what we see in Google Earth!
Clearly the intention is simply to show what we would see looking down from the "eye elevation", so I guess the only variable is our field of view.
Title: Re: 11 hr direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires
Post by: geckothegeek on April 08, 2016, 01:57:00 AM
I don't know what you don't understand. I have been telling people all along that the AEP is not to be used as any kind of accurate representation, and that the only thing to scale is the distances from the north pole south along longitude.

YOU may not believe the earth is a flat disk, a globe, a square or a dodecahedron, but TFES claims:
Quote
Earth
The earth is the flat astronomical body where live numerous species of plants, animals and other beings. The North Pole is the center of the earth, and South Pole is a circunference around it.
The sun and the moon are both located circa 3,000 miles above earth's surface. They have a mutual orbit (similar to a binary system orbit), which produces day and night on earth.
The stars are small astronomical bodies located circa 3,100 miles above earth and 100 miles above sun and moon orbit.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png)
The most widely accepted map model of a flat earth
Now to me, that looks like the AEP and while it might not be very accurate we are looking at discrepencies of 25,400 km on the AEP (Gleason's) to 11,400 km on the Globe (Google Earth).
You might not believe in the Flat Earth, but you must have some global map that you use - of to you sit at home and "meditate"!
So out with it, or just stop simply trying to tear down everything, with nothing to replace what you have discarded.

So, who cares about a bit of accuracy!

So, what about YOU giving us a map that will agree with what we actually see on the Real Earth - whatever its shape.
But, please remember there are certainly measurements that will not fit on a plane surface!

A few comments:

There do not seem to be any comments on where planets and other objects are located - only stars are mentioned.
A true flat earth map would have to show all the continents in their proper size and shape. Projections  of course fail as true flat earth maps.
Flat Earth needs to  come up with something better than the AEP if they want to  convince  anyone  in the matter of  cartography.